Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(March 16, 2010 at 12:39 am)tackattack Wrote: Ok question for you then ace. Using your first example of the softball. Is the default assertion you make based off of your original visual observance of the softball that it's real and you seek another sense to confirm it? Or could it be that you are assuming it is a delusion and seek further proof? I've found this is the basic differences between some theists and atheists is the skeptical view point of assuming that null is non-existant and first observation is assumed delusional until seconded by another source. Where as my standpoint is to assume it's real and if (for instance it's too far away) no other sensory input is possible to leave it at that.
Quote:Ok question for you then ace. Using your first example of the softball. Is the default assertion you make based off of your original visual observance of the softball that it's real and you seek another sense to confirm it? Or could it be that you are assuming it is a delusion and seek further proof?
The more sources pointing to the same conclusion increases the probablility of it. More sources the greater the likely hood.
Say I heard a sound in an old house. The conclusion I'd reach would be that there is something making that noise. However I could be imagining it so I go to investigate. Once I've located the source of the noise through vision then delusion becomes far less likely. Two sources of incoming data that points to the same conclusion. It's not knowing but a conclusion based on evidence.
Religion which is devoid of evidence means I come to one conclusion for it. Dismissal/rejection.
Quote:Where as my standpoint is to assume it's real and if (for instance it's too far away) no other sensory input is possible to leave it at that.
I have always been curious how theists conclude the existance of something without evidence to do so. I wouldn't assume anything is real unless there is some kind of evidence for it. Even a little.
For all I know you are probably a computer AI responding to my post. But I don't conclude that because I have never incountered an AI computer as advanced as this that is able to respond to such a degree. So with reason I conclude you are a real person.
The question I'm faced with is, how do you conclude god exists?
Ty for your response. I agree. To answer your question I conclude God exists based off faith. I believe I can discern God's effects through revelations in my life, thus justifing my faith. A lot of Christians accept God's existence on blind faith, I don't believe I do.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
(March 16, 2010 at 3:13 pm)tackattack Wrote: Ty for your response. I agree. To answer your question I conclude God exists based off faith. I believe I can discern God's effects through revelations in my life, thus justifing my faith. A lot of Christians accept God's existence on blind faith, I don't believe I do.
That's pretty much it. I do understand. That is actually why I cannot believe in god. I can't do faith.
I guess it boils down to the question - Do you really believe? Honest answer - No.
I need evidence and with it lots of data to analise.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - Carl Sagan
Mankind's intelligence walks hand in hand with it's stupidity.
Being an atheist says nothing about your overall intelligence, it just means you don't believe in god. Atheists can be as bright as any scientist and as stupid as any creationist.
You never really know just how stupid someone is, until you've argued with them.
(March 16, 2010 at 2:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Science can prove a positive, though. For example, it can demonstrate through all available evidence that the earth is not the center of the universe.
If religious bullshit has to be jettisoned as a result of such a demonstration so much the better.
No, I wouldn't say so. It just so happens that by demonstrating the movement of the planets an idiotic bit of ancient folklore gets tossed in the trash.
(March 16, 2010 at 2:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Science ... can demonstrate through all available evidence that the earth is not the center of the universe.
And how does science demonstrate that? Isn't the distance to the edge of the observable universe roughly the same in every direction from our frame of reference?
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
No a negetive would be trying to prove that A giant undetectable invisible hand holds the earth in its orbit dose not exsist... And it duz x-sist cuz I wuz fitt'n ta dig me a new fangled swimm'n jakuzzies and found me a stone that say so. (that was attempt at redneck)
Did I make a good point? thumbs up I cant help it I'm a Kudos whore. P.S. Jesus is a MYTH.
(March 16, 2010 at 2:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Science ... can demonstrate through all available evidence that the earth is not the center of the universe.
And how does science demonstrate that? Isn't the distance to the edge of the observable universe roughly the same in every direction from our frame of reference?
(March 16, 2010 at 2:45 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Science ... can demonstrate through all available evidence that the earth is not the center of the universe.
And how does science demonstrate that? Isn't the distance to the edge of the observable universe roughly the same in every direction from our frame of reference?
I think he meant solar system.
If the Earth isn't the center of the solar system how can it be the center of the universe if the solar system is within the universe?
@ Ace- I agree, and to each their own. I wouldn't want you to get a lesser image of my convictions though. I might not "really believe" by the strictest definition of faith. Do I think God exists, yes. Can I commit my life to something I can't be sure of, yup.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
I cant help it I'm a Kudos whore. P.S. Jesus is a MYTH.
