Have your religious/spiritual beliefs changed in the past year?

[zabu of nΩd]

There's a difference between this:

"2 + 2 = 4"

And this:

"Gravity has existed for as long as I know, therefore it is true."

Pending response from V5 or cookie, I'll assume for now that they agree with the above so that I can move on with my argument:

Since the word "rational" seems to have confusion connotations, I'm going to substitute it with "logical".

A) "2 + 2 = 4" is a logical statement.

B) "Gravity exists because I have experienced it my whole life" is an observational statement.

C) For all we know, observational facts may change at any moment. Logical facts cannot. Therefore, logic is a more rigorous standard of truth than observation is.

D) The existence (or nonexistence) of god cannot be justified logically - only observationally.

E) In order for an atheist to be correct, he must believe that observational evidence can constitute truth, since there is no logical proof concerning the existence of God.


How does that sound?

 

[cookiecutter]

Sense spirits are not of a physical word they can not be proven than how can to argue that any Catholic or any theistic religion is wrong?

Burden of proof is on the person suggesting the idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

 

[Cythraul]

But these can all be observed and tested by science (which I include within my umbrella term of science). Math and logic are human concepts and so can be observed. You can test the hot stove hypothesis etc.

Observation only plays a role here in a very trivial way. Mathematics and logic are purely conceptual, a priori domains of inquiry. You do not have to go out into the world and run empirical tests to decide whether a mathematical or logical theorem is true. And no, human concepts are not observable. Their representations are observable. Concepts are not physical things. The hot stove example of course employs a basic form of reasoning that's found in science, but it's not properly a part of science, but whatever it doesn't really matter anyway.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

You have no evidence against spirits existing aside from there being no evidence of their existing.

I have something wonderful for you to read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

 

[Mort Divine]

By not using an argument that has already been answered

EDIT: I loled at your post Mort. By your logic, there is a possibility I am a highly intelligent lobster, or that the moon is actually a Swedish grandmother named Helga. think about this scientifically. If you propose a hypothesis, say spirits exist, and you can find no supporting evidence, your hypothesis fails.

You're just being facetious now. You know damned well that your examples don't hold up compared to the possible (non)existence of spirits.

Stop being a childish twat.

 

[Cythraul]

All of the above things fall under the category of science, which is a great umbrella term for "things we know based on millenia of observation, data analysis, theorizing, and concluding."

Whatever man, you can go ahead and warp the definition of science all you want but you're only going to needlessly confuse people.

 

[cookiecutter]

Pending response from V5 or cookie, I'll assume for now that they agree with the above so that I can move on with my argument:

Since the word "rational" seems to have confusion connotations, I'm going to substitute it with "logical".

A) "2 + 2 = 4" is a logical statement.

B) "Gravity exists because I have experienced it my whole life" is an observational statement.

C) For all we know, observational facts may change at any moment. Logical facts cannot. Therefore, logic is a more rigorous standard of truth than observation is.

D) The existence of god cannot be justified logically - only observationally.

E) In order for an atheist to be correct, he must believe that observational evidence can constitute truth, since there is no logical proof concerning the existence of God.


How does that sound?

An atheist is correct for as long as his observation is correct. God could appear tomorrow and say "fooled ya!" and we'd all have to be believers. Until that happens we are correct.

 

[cookiecutter]

You're just being facetious now. You know damned well that your examples don't hold up compared to the possible (non)existence of spirits.

Stop being a childish twat.

Both ghosts and my examples have no supporting evidence. Why do you not believe I am lobster. You can't prove me wrong.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

An atheist is correct for as long as his observation is correct. God could appear tomorrow and say "fooled ya!" and we'd all have to be believers. Until that happens we are correct.

So you're saying truth can change? I'm pretty sure that goes against the definition of truth.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Whatever man, you can go ahead and warp the definition of science all you want but you're only going to needlessly confuse people.

OK, thanks for the permission there, sport.

VG, nothing is intrinsically truthful outside of death. Everything can be argued, and people can have opposing definitions on everything, even if one person in an argument is OBJECTIVELY incorrect (you were doing this earlier if you remember ). Death is TECHNICALLY the only true thing, because you can't avoid it or refute it (and when it happens, you can't interact with the living anyway). However, science is THE closest thing to intrinsic truth that humanity has. It's something WE created to explain how everything works. It's not intrinsically the truth. In this sense, "truth" can change, as logic is the only "truth" which is common to all humans (unless you can fly or otherwise disprove every logical/scientific theory).

 

[cookiecutter]

So you're saying truth can change? I'm pretty sure that goes against the definition of truth.

The truth would not have changed. What I believe to be the truth will have changed. Since it is impossible to find absolute truth, believing in what is the most reasonable based on the current evidence is best.

 

[Cythraul]

Pending response from V5 or cookie, I'll assume for now that they agree with the above so that I can move on with my argument:

Since the word "rational" seems to have confusion connotations, I'm going to substitute it with "logical".

A) "2 + 2 = 4" is a logical statement.

B) "Gravity exists because I have experienced it my whole life" is an observational statement.

C) For all we know, observational facts may change at any moment. Logical facts cannot. Therefore, logic is a more rigorous standard of truth than observation is.

D) The existence (or nonexistence) of god cannot be justified logically - only observationally.

E) In order for an atheist to be correct, he must believe that observational evidence can constitute truth, since there is no logical proof concerning the existence of God.


How does that sound?

I don't really get what you're trying to say here but not everything needs to be an absolutely certain logical truth for us to be justified in believing it's true. In fact, no scientific theory has deductive logical certainty. Some things are just so well-confirmed/disconfirmed that we may as well hold them to be true/false.

 

[skeptik]

You're just being facetious now. You know damned well that your examples don't hold up compared to the possible (non)existence of spirits.

Stop being a childish twat.

lol

 

[cookiecutter]

I don't really get what you're trying to say here but not everything needs to be an absolutely certain logical truth for us to be justified in believing it's true. In fact, no scientific theory has deductive logical certainty. Some things are just so well-confirmed/disconfirmed that we may as well hold them to be true/false.

 

[Cythraul]

OK, thanks for the permission there, sport.

Cut it out with the condescension, fuckstick. You're not as smart as you think you are.

 

[Mort Divine]

Both ghosts and my examples have no supporting evidence. Why do you not believe I am lobster. You can't prove me wrong.

I could actually. I could track you down via your IP address and then find out your living address and waltz into your home and look at you - noticing that you are NOT a lobster.

 

[CAIRATH]

I have always been an atheist/skeptic and moreso for the past five years or so of my life when I have taken a much more active interest in the whole concept of organized religion and the fact that a huge part of the world's population still rejects rational thinking on a daily basis in favour of all kinds of superstition and pseudo-science.

Don't really have time to actually join the discussion at the moment because it is nearly 4 AM here and I'll be up all morning if I do that. Also, impressive that this thread got to 4 pages in only a few hours.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

The truth would not have changed. What I believe to be the truth will have changed. Since it is impossible to find absolute truth, believing in what is the most reasonable based on the current evidence is best.

It's not impossible to find absolute truth. It's just confined to a very narrow set of logical and mathematical propositions.

Right now, I believe that validity for any claims regarding the existence of a god should have absolute truth. Can you tell me why I shouldn't believe this?

 

[cookiecutter]

I could actually. I could track you down via your IP address and then find out your living address and waltz into your home and look at you - noticing that you are NOT a lobster.

Well you couldn't disprove that my invisible lobster friend Balthazar existed.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Cut it out with the condescension, fuckstick. You're not as smart as you think you are.

V5 has become disturbingly Necuratul-like all of the sudden...