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

[Alter]

This is a perpetually unanswerable problem.

As far as I know this is still an unknown in science. Since there is no evidence that anything was "before" (time started with the big bang) the default position is to believe nothing was before.

Which would led to the possible that something created it. I am not saying this is right but just giving us something to have a discussion about.

Also there is no way to say that "time" started with the big bang because the material needed be created by something and that creates a paradox because something can not be created if "time" has not happened yet. So, Cookiecutter, your paradox lies in the fact that you happen to think that big bang is just there why is the belief in a god that we dont have physical proof so terrible?

Spiritually is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a false thing, and I personally feel believing false things is not good.

So its not bad but it is false which makes it bad? Another paradox.

 

[Mort Divine]

Mort, I've explained time and time again why science is the definition of rationality.

Spiritually is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is a false thing, and I personally feel believing false things is not good.

Something isn't FALSE because there is no proof of it in regards to things that can not be proven.

 

[cookiecutter]

Pray tell, what besides science is rational? And don't say ghosts

 

[skeptik]

Well, I don't have some kind of rigorous argument for it. I just find it psychologically unsatisfying. It's like if I took a rock I found lying on the ground and said "The meaning of this rock's existence is for it to be thrown at an emo kid's head by me." It might affect how I act; I might throw the rock at an emo kid's head. But none of that really changed anything about the true nature of the world. It's still a meaningless rock. The only difference is that I said it had a meaning and then proceeded to throw it at somebody. It feels like I'd just be deluding myself if I actually thought I was doing something significant by proclaiming the rock had this or that meaning. Does that make any sense at all?

Of course, it makes perfect sense, but maybe you're missing something, namely that when people talk about giving 'meaning' to things, it is meant to be tangible and arbitrary; it doesn't have any real 'meaning,' I guess it's just kind of more of a guiding principle: 'this is what I am going to do with my life, this is my prerogative, my 'meaning''.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

That is actually the very definition of rationality (well, that your scientifically-backed ideas about faith/lack thereof are correct and "truthful" as far as logic can deduce). Please learn something before posting stupid things.

There's a difference between this:

"2 + 2 = 4"

And this:

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

You're essentially saying those two are equally valid. I find that pretty ridiculous.

 

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

Something isn't FALSE because there is no proof of it in regards to things that can not be proven.

Once it becomes proven, it becomes not false, or TRUE. I know, really really advanced theory here but I feel like you're ready for it.

There's a difference between this:

"2 + 2 = 4"

And this:

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

You're essentially saying those two are equally valid. I find that pretty ridiculous.

Please don't put words into my mouth.

 

[Cythraul]

Pray tell, what besides science is rational? And don't say ghosts

Mathematics, logic, the supposition that my hand will be burned if I touch a hot stove, etc.

edit: and ethical reasoning if you want to get really unscientific.

 

[Mort Divine]

Pray tell, what besides science is rational? And don't say ghosts

Acknowledging that you are NOT infallible is the first step to even understanding why I argue what I argue.

Once it becomes proven, it becomes not false, or TRUE. I know, really really advanced theory here but I feel like you're ready for it.

Yes, but I'm speaking of things that CAN NOT be proven either way.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Of course, it makes perfect sense, but maybe you're missing something, namely that when people talk about giving 'meaning' to things, it is meant to be tangible and arbitrary; it doesn't have any real 'meaning,' I guess it's just kind of more of a guiding principle: 'this is what I am going to do with my life, this is my prerogative, my 'meaning''.

And most of the time, it's impossible for someone to come up with a 'prerogative' that satisfies them for their entire lives. It's a constant struggle. And that's probably due to the fact that it requires some level of self-deception to convince yourself that you have a meaning.

 

[cookiecutter]

Perhaps if you would take into account that there is ALWAYS a chance that you are wrong you would realize that parading around with this high and mighty attitude that you and a few others here do when it comes to discussion of this nature makes you look like an ass.

This is totally irrelevant. Because there is a chance that what we say might be wrong shouldn't stop us from saying what is the most reasonable idea.

Which would led to the possible that something created it. I am not saying this is right but just giving us something to have a discussion about.

Also there is no way to say that "time" started with the big bang because the material needed be created by something and that creates a paradox because something can not be created if "time" has not happened yet. So, Cookiecutter, your paradox lies in the fact that you happen to think that big bang is just there why is the belief in a god that we dont have physical proof so terrible?

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=First_cause
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

Your argument has been refuted.

Something isn't FALSE because there is no proof of it in regards to things that can not be proven.

Fine. Spirits don't exist, which makes spirituality false. Is that clear enough?

 

[cookiecutter]

Mathematics, logic, the supposition that my hand will be burned if I touch a hot stove, etc.

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.

 

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

Mathematics, logic, the supposition that my hand will be burned if I touch a hot stove, etc.

edit: and ethical reasoning if you want to get really unscientific.

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."

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

I just love it when people simplify cosmology and think they actually have a fucking clue about what they are talking about.

 

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

edit: nm Nick pointed out that you're probably talking to Alter who oversimplifies everything anyway

 

[Alter]

edit: nm Nick pointed out that you're probably talking to Alter who oversimplifies everything anyway

Well how do you want me to present my questions than?

 

[Mort Divine]

Fine. Spirits don't exist, which makes spirituality false. Is that clear enough?

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

That doesn't hold up. Try again.

 

[cookiecutter]

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.

 

[Alter]

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

That doesn't hold up. Try again.

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?

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

Well how do you want me to present my questions than?

 

[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?