Religion Forum should be renamed "Athiest Forum"

What aspects of religion are currently being scrutinized by science?

 

This is why folks say (*)(*)(*)(*).
If you want to debate, then debate. If not, see above and go troll your close friends.

 

IOW, you're not concerned with thinking rational, since your not concerned with socially acceptable?

 

And you aren't required to substantiate anything. But one can't converse with one if there is no background to base where one's thoughts are derived from.

 

I have never heard anyone pronounce " (*)(*)(*)(*) " Can you make a recording of it, then post it here so that all of us can hear what it sounds like?

I am discussing what you stated,,, it seems that you are the one not desiring to continue the dialogue.

 

Thinking 'rational' is rationalizing and rationalizing is making excuses for ones behavior. I don't need to make any excuses. My behavior is my behavior.
"Rationalization (making excuses), the process of constructing a logical justification for a decision that was originally arrived at through a different mental process"

 

I like the way you think.

 

Here you go again saying that popularity of a view should alter the standards of evidence for that view... That view is known as an "appeal to popularity", and is a logical fallacy.

Turning down valid evidence is not a tactic used by non-theists, it's just that you can't present any that meets the same standard you'd expect for any non-religious belief. As for your implication that "tit for tat" mentality is appropriate, this is known as a "fallacy of relevance", and is a logical fallacy.

Science regularly deals with intangibles, so you're obviously wrong in that assertion. I believe you might have meant "Science cannot deal with the supernatural", which would actually be accurate.
Of course, the supernatural would have to exist in order to be "dealt with" by science - a claim that remains unproven...

Wrong again. When claiming that a condition or object exists, the burden of proof is on the person supporting the existence. Otherwise I could make claims like "rainbows have feelings", "my pen wishes it could be a crayon", or "my dog is the reincarnation of Jesus Christ", and it would be up to non-believers in these claims to prove me wrong.

Similarly, if a person makes an assertion regarding a universal truth based on their limited perspective, it is up to them to prove that perspective is universal.

My point about the UFO sightings is that testimony of eye witnesses cannot be accepted as sufficient evidence for existence of the paranormal or supernatural, even if it is later written down.
This point is magnified if the eye witness is a superstitious peasant in the stone age.

You started babbling about the fact that the word "unicorn" can be found in the Bible... Not that it was relevant to anything being said.

 

No. It is not an appeal to popularity. It is a recognition of a set of social standards. Not necessarily popular, as demonstrated by the objection you and others have toward those standards.

So in turn now you appeal to the popularity of degree of evidence. Calling something valid means that it had to be approved by someone or some group... thereby making it a popularity thing.

Why should I expect anything less than what you expect. You expect tangible evidence. So do I. Now show the tangible evidence that can prove my beliefs to be in error. Show the tangible evidence showing where my belief has been examined scientifically and has been irrefutably proven to be wrong.

So what? Who ever said that I was logical in the sense that you and others would like to lean upon? I admit that I am illogical, as faith does not require logic. Faith only needs acceptance of God and Jesus as His Son.

Yeppir you already pointed out that science deals with theory... imaginative things.

Well thank you.. now is the supernatural a tangible thing? No? Then the supernatural must be an intangible thing.

You just did provide the proof when attempting to categorize supernatural to be something that is not tangible. Something that is not tangible is intangible. You admitted that science does deal with intangible things, so deal with that intangible thing called supernatural.

Where in that paragraph did I say anything about the existence of an object? Uh Oh. There you go, trying to add something to my writing that is not evident. Shame on you.

No! It would be up to the non-believers to either accept the claim as true, else reject the claim. Of course, the very nature of being a non-believer automatically shows a rejection of the claim. If the non-believer rejects the claim... so what... no harm done.

Wrong. Even the scientists admit to not having PROOF... example. Show me a photograph of a single, stand alone, solitary, electron. Show proof of the existence of multiverse (supposed to be something akin to a universe).

However scientists entertaining a multiverse is acceptable when there is no evidence of the existence of such a thing. OK... double standards..

No! You or another poster within this thread brought up the subject of unicorns and I responded to that comment.

 

Unfortunately, the way he spells indicates a slavish adherence to rules, even though the "I" before "E" one has proven to have many exceptions, including "atheist"

 

Dude, you might want to look up "appeal to popularity" before you make any other silly comments. The fact that social standards once had no issue with burning people as witches didn't factually prove that there were witches.

1+1=2. That is valid because it can be proven to be true, whether people like it or not. 1+1 will always equal two, no matter who looks at it - regardless of their perspective.
Do you get it now?

Do you believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible?

And faith is based on nothing more than your decision to believe in something you cannot provide evidence for to the degree that you would normally require evidence in support of a belief.

The computer and monitor you are currently using were "imaginative things" before they were built. There is a significant difference between scientific theory (like gravity) and religious belief.

The study of Quantum Mechanics is intangible and studied by science.
The supernatural is not dealt with by science, because the supernatural does not actually exist.

If you like bananas, it does not mean you like apples - despite the fact that they are both fruits. Do you understand the analogy, or should I draw you a picture?

Dude, I'm not asking for physical evidence, I'd be happy with any intangible evidence (philosophy) that supports the existence of god and isn't easily contradicted by evidence that's just as strong.

 

Dude, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

 

Are you aware that this basically relates to the use of philosophy to explain that which we cannot explain in any other way - in short, figuring out the most reasonable explanation for phenomena we observe in the real world?
How does this relate to the support of religion over science?

 

It is "intangible evidence (philosophy) that supports the existence of god" in that it posits proof of non-phenomenological reality. Ergo...the "most reasonable explanation for phenomena we observe in the real world" which suggests that phenomenological evidence is necessary (and the most "reasonable"--quite the subjective word choice), is moot.


It is not religion over science--it is Philosophy.

religion and science are not mutually exclusive.



BTW--it is what you asked for and said you would accept.

.

 

I totally understand what you're saying, but you have only introduced a field of philosophy, rather than actually providing an example of a philosophical position that supports the existence of a deity, much less a specific religious dogma.

As for religion and science not being mutually exclusive, I agree. That being said, where there is a conflict, the "truth" should be determined by weight of evidence (using the same standard of evidence to evaluate each claim) rather than on tradition or popularity.

 

Sort of...it's not a "field"--it's an idea.

That's not what you asked for; you asked for "evidence"...don't move your goalpost.

Why is "phenomenological evidence" considered "superior" evidence to philosophical evidence? Let's use philosophical logic as the standard.

This adherence to "matter" is a relatively new fad in the pursuit of knowledge. Not everything new is better--a toaster will tell you that!

 

I think we're deviating somewhat from the point. Despite an impressive level of verbosity that makes a tempting red herring, you still haven't provided anything resembling an argument (philosophical or otherwise) supporting the existence of a deity or - more specifically - a particular religious belief.

 

I'm sorry that I edited twice after posting, which is why you probably missed it, but recognize you are moving the goalpost. You asked for evidence--NOT an "argument," nor a "philosophical position." You asked for "evidence." It was provided, and you are changing what you asked for. Now you want an "argument" or "position" that "determine by weight of evidence" " the existence of a deity or - more specifically - a particular religious belief."


That's not how you discuss issues and hope to reach understanding. That's just arguing for the sake of bickering. I'm too busy buttering my 4 year old's toast to mess with that wind spitting.

 

I asked for evidence of the matter at hand, which is the existence of a deity - more specifically a specific deity.
The existence of philosophy as a field of study was never in question, so raising its existence is not relevant to the discussion without presenting a philosophical argument relating to the existence of "God".

 

I'm not sure I agree that "philosophy" is an idea. I believe it is a system of thought that can include thoughts on any range of topics.

As mentioned, simply saying "Philosophy" does not provide evidence supporting the existence of a specific deity, or act as supporting evidence for belief in a particular "flavor" of religion. That's what was asked for, not a new request.

 

You did not ask for evidence of a "specific deity" and the idea of noumenon is philosophical evidence for god--it's not "proof" but it is evidence as light and warmth are evidence of the sun.

You didn't ask for a system of thought--you asked for "evidence." Maybe you were imprecise in your request...That's not really my problem, that's yours. I wouldn't have bothered if I thought you were leaping to a whole system of thought when you will reject the underpinnings. That's what I find a waste of time. You crawl before you walk--too many "half-wise" on these forums don't get that concept.

And where did you say that precise thing? I missed that post. I do tend to skim over the poo throwing Incorporeal engages in.


This post of yours suggests you ARE simply discussing evidence of god and NOT discussing all these additional details and parameters you now want to throw in...

My emphasis.

 

Prior to you bringing up the subject of an appeal to popularity fallacy, please show where I stated anything about 'popularity'. Social standards are not necessarily 'popular'. As pointed out by your analogy of the burning of what was presumed to be 'witches'.

I understand the concepts of mathematics quite well thank you. Now show the relevance.

Believe? "Yes", in part and "no" in part. Now show the relevance.

I "would normally require evidence in support of a belief"? Dude I have been saying all along that beliefs do not have to be justified, rationalized, proven to be true.... Besides that, you should know that beliefs belong to that arena you refer to as the supernatural... they are not tangible but instead are intangible... If intangible, then they cannot be a 'normal requirement'.

Good point. Then why do folks such as yourself attempt to draw a conclusion about the existence of God when there is such a "significant difference between scientific theory and religious belief"?

Prove that the supernatural does not exist. You have made the affirmative declaration amounting to an absolutism, so now PROVE THE CLAIM. Where is the evidence? Where is the proof?

You better draw that picture, because I like apples and bananas.... along with other choices of fruit.

Ahhhh... are you now suggesting that I provide "irrefutable intangible evidence" such as philosophy that supports the existence of "god"? What particular philosophy has gained recognition as being intangible? Philosophy is a form of knowledge... all knowledge is intangible ... Your question seems to be of the type designed to obfuscate the issue. Evidence? "intangible evidence"? Knowledge is intangible.

 

Wow... At the time, the burning of witches was a social standard that was accepted by the "popular majority"... Anything widely accepted enough to be considered a social standard is, by definition, popular.

You regularly insist that your belief and/or perspective makes you belief, and that your belief makes "fact". This is ridiculous. Facts are absolute, as 1+1=2 is not dependant on perspective or faith.
If you believe 1+1=3, does this make it "fact"? Obviously not.
Similarly, if someone else believes that 1+1=1, their belief does not alter what is real.

And yet you refuse to present any rational justification for your beliefs... Only demand them for the beliefs of others.

Probably because religious thought consistently contradicts scientific progress.

As previously discussed, one does not disprove a negative. Assuming that something exists until it is disproven is just moronic, tantamount to assuming Thor exists because nobody has disproven his existence.

Is there a "tangible philosophy"? Given that philosophy pertains strictly to ideas, wouldn't it ALL be intangible?

 

In the section you so kindly emphasized, I clearly outlined that there should be discussion of whether God exists, before discussing specific religious dogma.
As such, I think it's clear that both should be discussed - just in the right order.

That being said, if you asked for evidence that young earth creationism is faulty, and I replied with "geology", you would not be 'moving the goalposts' to ask me for specifics.
Similarly, saying "philosophy" in response to a request for evidence supporting the existence of God, I am not 'moving the goalposts' by asking you to be more specific.

 

This is where the problem is: "noumenon" is NOT philosophy. It is an idea within philosophy. Did you read the article? Apparently not. In short, it is a reality that can be inferred through the nature of experience, but which is not perceived by the senses. There are two worlds of perception--one we see, feel, taste, touch, hear: the world of phenomena, .......and there is another of thought, emotion, intention, conception, imagination, idea, etc...which we "sense" but which is not a material reality--not matter, not tangable. That is noumenal reality.

It is an idea from Emmanuel Kant, but the idea is not fully developed in Kant's philosophy.

It is evidence from philosophy that supports the existence of a god (what you asked for). God is noumenal in that the material perception of God is not in our experience, but "it" (god) is perceived in the noumenal sense in many different ways in the human experience.