Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: I will bite
Now if I wanted to prove religion is true to you, then yes, the burden of proof is on me to prove it and I can't so I won't. If you wanted to prove religion is false to me, the burden of proof is on you to prove it and you can't so you shouldn't try.
There is a preponderence of "extinct religions." There are of course, more than this. And if you assume religions that were once large and now quite small in following (Native American relgions, etc) you can see where I am going. People have evolved in their understanding of the world around them past the purposes of these faiths.
- Sumerians
- Babylonians
- Assyrians
- Egyptian Sun Worship
- Greek Gods
- Roman Mithraism
- Mayans
Now I am not going to contend (at this moment) that there is no god. But religious following is a creation of man, fraught with the emotion of man and riddled with the errors and powerlust of man. So you say the burden of proof is on the non-believer to prove religion is false. I say the history of man has proven that already all by itself. As time progresses (and I'm talking centuries), many of today's contemporary religions will be looked at with amusement in history books - wondering how such an advanced society could be so gullible.
So here's a question I ask (again, ignoring the existence of god and merely looking at the religion itself). What would it take - for a modern religion to fade from existence? What fundamental realizations would shatter everything that founds Christianity? Buddhists? Hindus?
RE: I will bite
What I really want you to understand is that your lack of faith in a deity is in itself a faith in something else. Something which can be considered just as valid as any religion because it also lacks any kind of scientific basis or logical proof.
For example, if we go back to the big bang example. If I claim a god put the matter there, this is my opinion and you can certainly reject that. If you claim any of the following alternatives:
I claim none of the above. My most fundamental claim regarding the ultimate nature of the universe is: "I don't know." I know no method to investigate the fundamental nature of matter, so I will remain silent on the truth value of claims about such.
Moreover, if I chose to assert that matter is eternal, I would be doing so in the presence of at least some data which supports it. I have no evidence whatsoever of any 'higher beings'. To assert the existence of such would be entirely arbitrary on my part; to assert that matter is eternal is at least in keeping with my limited context of experience to date. However, it is important to note that any universal claims will have to remain hypothetical unless they are tautologies or statements about syntax.
That is your opinion, and I can, in sound logic, reject that. Either way, we both present arguments that have no evidence, no proof, no valid premise from which to start.
Untrue. That matter is not currently being created or destroyed within the context of my experience, and apparently within the context of any currently publishing physicist's experience, happens to be true. A good start for a hypothesis at least. What true premise starts you on the road to theism?
Now if I wanted to prove religion is true to you, then yes, the burden of proof is on me to prove it and I can't so I won't. If you wanted to prove religion is false to me, the burden of proof is on you to prove it and you can't so you shouldn't try. Only a leap of faith would pull me away, and a leap of faith will pull you in.
You have equivocated on the nature of knowledge here. I need evidence of how the world functions to even begin to formulate beliefs about the world. Atheism is a default position in the absence of some proof of the existence of a deity. No leap of faith is required to believe not X if you have no reason to believe X in the first place. There is no reason to hold belief in a deity. If you think otherwise, please present the reason[s].
I am disheartened by the fact you feel your worldview is automatically superior to the religious because your belief system is itself full of contradictions which you cannot satisfy either.
Such as?
As such, I do not recommend attempting turn this into an argument of "I believe this so let me see if you can agree." You and I both know full well that we aren't going to be swayed towards either argument.
I would not claim to know any such thing. Hope springs eternal.
Instead, I hope that we can reach a mutual understanding that we are both sitting on premises, that while we personally hold them to be true, are just as valid as the next and will not necessarily convince the next person. I have entered this discussion knowing full well that my view can be wrong. I hope that you will leave this discussion with the same idea. I also certainly hope I can help you find some new found respect, or at least understanding, of religion, but I do not demand it :).
I would be very interested to know what conflicting premises you would say we were seated upon.
I think another poster said it well that logic doesn't always produce a correct answer.
I think what that poster wrote was that logic is founded upon premises which are not provable within the system of logic itself. This presents no problem for my worldview.
As long as we are missing key premises, the conclusion will never be met and we are both stuck with contradictions.
Are you conflating ignorance and contradiction?
RSS
RE: I will bite
(Original poster again):
I present those two points as my personal reasoning and are in no way intended to sway you either way.
What I really want you to understand is that your lack of faith in a deity is in itself a faith in something else. Something which can be considered just as valid as any religion because it also lacks any kind of scientific basis or logical proof.
For example, if we go back to the big bang example. If I claim a god put the matter there, this is my opinion and you can certainly reject that. If you claim any of the following alternatives:
That is your opinion, and I can, in sound logic, reject that. Either way, we both present arguments that have no evidence, no proof, no valid premise from which to start.
Now if I wanted to prove religion is true to you, then yes, the burden of proof is on me to prove it and I can't so I won't. If you wanted to prove religion is false to me, the burden of proof is on you to prove it and you can't so you shouldn't try. Only a leap of faith would pull me away, and a leap of faith will pull you in.
I am disheartened by the fact you feel your worldview is automatically superior to the religious because your belief system is itself full of contradictions which you cannot satisfy either.
As such, I do not recommend attempting turn this into an argument of "I believe this so let me see if you can agree." You and I both know full well that we aren't going to be swayed towards either argument. Instead, I hope that we can reach a mutual understanding that we are both sitting on premises, that while we personally hold them to be true, are just as valid as the next and will not necessarily convince the next person. I have entered this discussion knowing full well that my view can be wrong. I hope that you will leave this discussion with the same idea. I also certainly hope I can help you find some new found respect, or at least understanding, of religion, but I do not demand it :) .
I think another poster said it well that logic doesn't always produce a correct answer. As long as we are missing key premises, the conclusion will never be met and we are both stuck with contradictions.
View Full Discussion