The way I look at it humans are naturally spiritual and looking for answers.

Some people through out history have taken advantage of the spirituality seeking nature of humanity into that they ought to follow the guidance provided by that said person. An organization is that formed around those people.

When people come here debating Atheists, I think they don't care as much as to the particular point of view they follow, but for spirituality and God in general and they want to discuss that debate.

They talk about science because they might feel there is an intellectual scientific reason to believing a Creator.

At the end, this is more important to them, then believing their particular religion.

But when asked to prove how they know their religion is true, they draw on another argument level, that assumes spirituality and God are proven, and the perhaps arguments used to support it are true. They get more desperate however as proving a religion is true will not have very much philosophical arguments or scientific arguments. Or if it does, they aren't properly equipped to defend it as they have believed for reasons other then it being proven to them.

I think there is however this two layered thing going on.

(November 1, 2014 at 4:58 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The way I look at it humans are naturally spiritual and looking for answers.

People tend to look for answers, that's right. But looking for that answer in a spiritual way is the "god of the gaps" argument. I don't understand something or science fails to come up with all the answers, so it has to be god, some god, any god, having a hand in it.

The less we knew, the more we were craving for answers. That's how religions came into existence. Early civilizations looked at the sun, the moon and the nature surrounding them for their gods. Later on religion took up the shape of some celestial government with every god having a certain agenda.

Fact is, we don't know all the answers, but looking at a god for explanation adds nothing to our knowledge.

(November 1, 2014 at 4:58 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The way I look at it humans are naturally spiritual and looking for answers.

Some people through out history have taken advantage of the spirituality seeking nature of humanity into that they ought to follow the guidance provided by that said person. An organization is that formed around those people.

When people come here debating Atheists, I think they don't care as much as to the particular point of view they follow, but for spirituality and God in general and they want to discuss that debate.

They talk about science because they might feel there is an intellectual scientific reason to believing a Creator.

At the end, this is more important to them, then believing their particular religion.

But when asked to prove how they know their religion is true, they draw on another argument level, that assumes spirituality and God are proven, and the perhaps arguments used to support it are true. They get more desperate however as proving a religion is true will not have very much philosophical arguments or scientific arguments. Or if it does, they aren't properly equipped to defend it as they have believed for reasons other then it being proven to them.

I think there is however this two layered thing going on.

The way you look at it is the way you look at it, so what. 7 billion humans of course humans are going to view the world differently. Still not the same thing as testing and falsifying claims to insure quality of data.

The best tool humans have that is universal to settle disputes on competing claims is scientific method. Everything outside that is your own personal opinion.

---

And yes they talk about science now because science is leaving them in the dust. They try to co opt it in order to stay relevant.

And there IS a very real evolutionary psychology as to why god belief exists. FLAWED PERCEPTIONS.

The scientific method can't say if we know souls exist or not for example. Nor can it talk about moral issues and dilemmas we have. Nor is it going to solve our political disputes. Minimum wage won't be raised due to it. It won't tell you how to treat your kids. Or if you found the right person to marry.

There is a lot more to humanity and the human experience then the scientific method.

(November 1, 2014 at 5:45 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The scientific method can't say if we know souls exist or not for example.

You can not justify that assertion. If it exists then either it or its effects are detectable.

(November 1, 2014 at 5:45 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The scientific method can't say if we know souls exist or not for example. Nor can it talk about moral issues and dilemmas we have. Nor is it going to solve our political disputes. Minimum wage won't be raised due to it. It won't tell you how to treat your kids. Or if you found the right person to marry.

Gee, do some reading or watch some youtube videos. Even animals have morals according to newer scientific discoveries. That might hurt your "humans are special" feelings, but it's for real.

Moral codes aren't something some skygod installs like some sort of operating system.

(November 1, 2014 at 5:47 pm)Chas Wrote: You can not justify that assertion. If it exists then either it or its effects are detectable.

Indeed. We have no way at present to detect gravity (afaik), yet we infer the force by its effects and label it gravity. Do the same for gods of any flavour and we will never have these sorts of discussions again, while someone will walk away with the biggest Nobel Prize in history.

(November 1, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Indeed. We have no way at present to detect gravity (afaik), yet we infer the force by its effects and label it gravity. Do the same for gods of any flavour and we will never have these sorts of discussions again, while someone will walk away with the biggest Nobel Prize in history.

Why? Jumping from a high building proves gravity like a charm.

Absolutely, but as I said it's the effect that we can detect, not the actual force itself. At least to my vodka-soaked brain - I'm thinking of Star Trek style graviton detector things.

(November 1, 2014 at 5:47 pm)Chas Wrote:

(November 1, 2014 at 5:45 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: The scientific method can't say if we know souls exist or not for example.

You can not justify that assertion. If it exists then either it or its effects are detectable.

If we know the soul exists, then it's effects are detectable, but it's effects would be us. We are the Soul. We can see ourselves. Seeing your a soul or not seeing your a soul is not up to scientific debate. If we don't have knowledge we are a soul, scientific method says nothing about it. And if we do have knowledge, it says nothing about that.

---

(November 1, 2014 at 5:51 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(November 1, 2014 at 5:47 pm)Chas Wrote: You can not justify that assertion. If it exists then either it or its effects are detectable.

Indeed. We have no way at present to detect gravity (afaik), yet we infer the force by its effects and label it gravity. Do the same for gods of any flavour and we will never have these sorts of discussions again, while someone will walk away with the biggest Nobel Prize in history.

You're non-existence (creation) showing existence (God). You are the effect of God emitting his own existence to being. If you can't witness yourself being a spiritual emission, then it's not the fault of God. This something a lot people become aware of through reflection. Mystics of all type of faiths talk about it. And it's a witnessed effect of God.