RAF asked: "Now again : Can any SCIENTIST prove that God (again the kind I'm thinking and talking about - and not JW like) Does not existe?"
If you go to my post at the top of page 3, RAF, this is what I wrote: "NO one can say for sure whether god does or does not exist, we all agree to that at the moment - it's just that the TOTAL LACK of evidence makes it reasonable to assume there is no god. At some point a god may decide to reveal itsself. Until then it's a moot point."
Did you not read that before you posted?
How much clearer can I answer your question?? Let me try here, once again as clearly as I possibly can: No one, including scientists, can prove that god does not exist. You can't prove a negative! That's one of the very basic, given concepts of logic.
Acsot: Thanks for trying! I like RAF and her feistiness, but I think there is a huge communication problem. I'm uncertain as to how much is intentional. If you've directed her to accurate information about the definition of these terms in her native language, I find it hard to understand why they continue to be a matter of debate.
S4
I REALLY DON'T CARE...............................
by Warlock 111 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
Seeker4
-
Mary
Look into Near Death Experiences. Survivors of NDE typically report experiences in line with their beliefs.
What about atheists who have had NDEs? http://www.near-death.com/atheists.html
-
RAF
S4
If you go to my post at the top of page 3, RAF, this is what I wrote: "NO one can say for sure whether god does or does not exist, we all agree to that at the moment - it's just that the TOTAL LACK of evidence makes it reasonable to assume there is no god. At some point a god may decide to reveal itsself. Until then it's a moot point."
Did you not read that before you posted?
So why the need to state anything like we know better, we are smarter or watever alike can't you see the inconsistency here ... (or you have to tell what you are against : religions or the idea that people thinks that there is a kind of God? ...
You can't prove a negative! That's one of the very basic, given concepts of logic.
That's a fallicious argument (maybe inconcious because that's what convince you) but read my answer to FunkyDereck
Acsot: Thanks for trying! I like RAF and her feistiness, but I think there is a huge communication problem. I'm uncertain as to how much is intentional. If you've directed her to accurate information about the definition of these terms in her native language, I find it hard to understand why they continue to be a matter of debate.
Again why the need to make anyone think that I don't know anything about the matter (how presomptious is that ... I mean think about it) ... is this an argument? that's fallacious .... Again what do you know about what I know? ...
And about wondering how intentional is my communication skill .. well (isn't that fallacious either ?)But you've used too much fallacious arguments against me for me to considere that your's were not intentional (I'll still give you the benefit of the doubt tho - since I'm not in your head).
-
funkyderek
Warlock:
As for what FD points out, I didn't realize he had been with everyone through all of their life experiences since the beginning of man.
Of course I haven't, my claim was merely that in all that time, all those billions of experiences there has never been convincing evidence of an afterlife, a spirit world or a god. If you know of some evidence, provide it. That is all that I require. I am at a loss as to why you won't provide it if you have it. It seems the best you can do is declare that there might be evidence somewhere I haven't looked. That is true of any proposition and I don't see how it could be a compelling argument.
Finally, you and FD are J.W.'s at heart and that is what is plain to see.
That seems like a rather petty statement, but I am still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. In what way are we like JWs? I don't see the similarities at all. Certainly, unlike most JWs, we are willing to debate our beliefs. If you can produce an argument for your beliefs, we will consider it, test it and accept or reject it according to our best interpretation of its worth.
Perhaps you could begin by explaining why you think your beliefs are so deserving of respect that you throw a hissy fit when anyone even suggests that they are unlikely and unfounded. If you think our standards of evidence are too high, then please explain why we should accept a lower standard. And if you're really curious, why don't you consider our responses in more detail? Your flippant responses and personal insults show a real lack of respect.
If you're unwilling or unable to raise your game, then you won't learn anything, you certainly won't teach anything and you will only further alienate those whose beliefs differ from yours. If none of that matters to you, fine but then what's your purpose in discussing such issues in the first place?
-
ButtLight
Hi Warlock! (thats all I have to say)
-
funkyderek
RAF:
Now while you think it's a fallacy I just thinks it's reasonable to not push anything further as fact but just claming an opinion...
Nevertheless, it is a fallacy to think that just because there are two possibilities, both are equally likely. They may be, as in the coin-flipping example, or they may not as in the lottery-ticket example.
I guess you are talking for your own experience, what do you know about mine?
Yes, I am talking about my own experience and deliberate attempts to find evidence. I have found none. Other people often claim to have evidence but either it doesn't satisfy my standards or they simply refuse to share it.
Why do you think I do believe? Why do you think I'm not even going to get into details about that (I'll answer this one) because you won't believe me (and I can understand why) to what looks like reaching virtually zero evidence to you ... is closed 99 % for me (it's just that I don't know about the details and I won't push any possible answer as THE ANSWER on anybody).
It seems that you are claiming you do have evidence but you are unwilling to share it. I don't know why you think I wouldn't believe you. I'm a rational person and believe what the available evidence compels me to believe. If your evidence is truly compelling, I will believe. Perhaps our standards of evidence differ. If so, is mine too high, or is yours too low? How could we find out?
It's similar to the proposition that the lottery ticket I am holding is a jackpot winner. Now it may be that my estimation of the probabilities is way off, and that's certainly something we can debate, but my point is that it's wrong to automatically give equal weight to the two propositions.
That's when this comparision becomes fallacious (contextually) it stand but without taking everything in consideration
I don't see the fallacy here. Perhaps we could add to it that our individual view of the probabilities would depend on whether we had seen the results of the lottery draw. If you have seen the draw and I have not, you will know for certain whether the ticket is a winner. Without the same knowledge, all I can do is calculate the probabilities (which will be in the order of 1 in 10^7). You, however, will put the odds at either 1 (if it's a winner) or 0 (if it's not). Neither of us would be wrong. You would just be working from more information than me. But until you tell me the results of the draw (and I may want more than just your word for it) the most rational thing for me to do is to believe that there is about a one in ten million chance that my ticket is a winner. If you have such information about the existence of God, then please share it with me.
Off course it's maybe the way you deal with it and wich persuade yourself (so it doesn't seems fallaciou to you) but if you get a closer look at the question itsefl it doesn't change my experience (my 1+1) wich is not the same as yours obviously.
No, our experiences are different but there can be only one correct answer. If you believe you have information relevant to the debate, then please present it. Claiming to have evidence but not sharing it is functionally equivalent to having no evidence at all.
-
Twitch
you will only further alienate those whose beliefs differ from yours.
Ironic
-
eclipse
Mary, that link on atheist NDE was really interesting!
Thank you for sharing it
-
Warlock
I believe in God, but I also realize he may not exist.
If you DON'T believe in God, I REALLY DON'T CARE, I'm just curious.
I don't have this need to start threads like "Why you MUST believe in God", or other such nonsense, but some of you still have this "control" issue that you thought you left in the Org. It seems like you must still try to control what others think. "Think like me, or you are an idiot." "Think like me, or you are being deceived". Sounds like a JW.
Why do some of you non-believers have this starving need to tell others why they should not believe in God?
Are you trying to convince yourselves?
Why do you STILL have this need to preach?
Do you miss the door-to-door work?
How can you honestly say you left a group of "close-minded" people, and now YOU have an "open-mind"?
You may have left the Org., but has it TRULY left you?
Like I said, I'm just curious.
Warlock
Perhaps you could begin by explaining why you think your beliefs are so deserving of respect that you throw a hissy fit when anyone even suggests that they are unlikely and unfounded. If you think our standards of evidence are too high, then please explain why we should accept a lower standard. And if you're really curious, why don't you consider our responses in more detail? Your flippant responses and personal insults show a real lack of respect.
If you're unwilling or unable to raise your game, then you won't learn anything, you certainly won't teach anything and you will only further alienate those whose beliefs differ from yours. If none of that matters to you, fine but then what's your purpose in discussing such issues in the first place?
F/D What I highlighted in my original post is the problem that you and Abaddon have. CONTROL. You hide it under the guise of "we just need to correct foolish belief and thought", just like a J.W. "Sir, your religion is misleading you. See.....right here...........read this scripture along with me". Insofar as my thinking my beliefs deserve respect, when did I say that? I don't care whether you respect them or not. Those who do, do. Those who don't, don't. Either way, I don't care. The thought has NEVER entered my head. I guess you have failed at what you seem to think you can do. Read minds and interpret peoples life experiences. Concerning alienating people, just so you know, I'm not an ass kisser. Lastly, you and Abaddon have answered my questions..................perfectly. You two always do. Warlock
-
White Dove
I find it very easy to discuss religion with athiests and pagans because they aren't trying to convert me to their ways of thinking. I love discussing religion in an objective way. People set in their ways are mostly impossible to discuss it with.