To believe or not to believe, that is my question

Remove all ads!

This is actually one statement that anyone can agree, no matter what they believe.

There are still people, who believe that they were someone super-important in their previous lives.

Which brings me to the question of what to believe.

How do you know there's no Way, like depicted in Tao Te Ching?

How do you know that Buddha never experienced enlightenment?

How do you know that the world is not the dance of Shiva?

Do you believe these to be untrue?

Prove that they are.

If this is true (and why not?), just believing that they're untrue is not nearly adequate to debunk other religions or other ways of thinking either...

 

The most recent miracles I can recall are the Virgin Mary's image seen in an underpass here in Chicago (the salt effluorescence) and in a grilled cheese sandwich. I'm not very impressed with those miracles. Change the water in my well to wine -- a Gewürztraminer would be nice -- than I'd say that was a miracle.

There are still people who claim to see Elvis in a convenience store and UFO's were recently sited over New Mexico and Arizona.

...And what Aldeth said (you actually said it much better than I could have).

 

Good one. If I'm ever in your neck of the woods, I owe you a beer.

Absolutely, but it isn't a proof derived through scientific research. The proof would rely on logic, which falls under the field of philosophy, not science. As far as lack of anthropological studies and other such testing that has failed to prove God or, in many cases, poked very large and insurmountable holes in most of our modern religions is very valid when applied to religion, since religions have detailed belief systems and points of view on our history and the way the world works that can be observed and tested.

When the bible talks about Moses leading the people of Israel away from Egyptian bondage, the lack of evidence that Moses, auspiciously the adopted son of the Pharaoh's wife or daughter (the Quran and Torah disagree on this), ever existed or that the Jews were ever Egyptian slaves to begin with is a really big deal...as is the fact that the first born son of Ramses II died as an adult of blunt trauma to the back of the head. The simple idea that a possibly sentient being or beings of unknown nature and with unspecified attributes created the universe is, however, not even remotely testable.

Christianity? Islam? Judaism? Hinduism? Observable and testable.

The very idea that a "God" of some sort exists? Not so much.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6320891.ece News from today. Seems like someone has found the Missing Link, now. I wonder how bible-thumpers will react if its proven without any shed of doubt, that Darwin was right.

 

Rawgrim,
Are you kidding? There are too many 'thumpers' out there who are more intelligent and more clever than either of us (me for sure, you, I would guess if just for statistical probablility.) Bible thumpers will certainly come up with some specious argument against any solid, or even certain, evidence of Darwinism for far longer than either of of us will be extant. They will create enough static to continue the "debate".

Doubt of evolution will be something that we, as humans, will laugh about eventually.

A possible creator is so unknowable that we, as humans, will never laugh about it.

 

True Drew -- but without religion, there is no God. If you can disprove individual religion(s), eventually you disprove God.

 

Religions need much more than disproving to make them go.

 

They all fail to prove that Occam's Razor is at all reliable (even occasionally), too. Why? Such a thing is not within their perview. It's like saying Art never proved to you that Pluto was smaller than Charon, therefore it must not be true.

To put it another way, how would you even go about examining claims of God in a scientific manner? What evidence would you look for? What would you expect to find that you didn't?

Personal experience. My experience of God tells me He is trustworthy and true, and He says Tao Te Ching, Buddhism, and Hinduism are false. Is that enough proof for you? No. Because it's my personal experience and I can't give it to you to experience. This is why the subject lies outside of science. The only evidence science could possibly ever examine does not happen in a regular or predictable manner.

Actually, there is some evidence to suggest teh Israelites were in Egypt. Carvings in rocks have been found in the desert that the Israelites supposedly traveled through which distinctly resemble a very early form of Hebrew writing. Is it conclusive proof? Not at all. Does it mean the story is demonstrably false? Again, no.

As to Ramses II, the whole issue of timing of the exodus is a huge question mark. There are some who would place it anywhere from 1600 BC to 1200BC. On top of all that, the Pharoahs were notorious for re-writing history to suit their needs. If you want to "disprove" the story of Exodus, you'll have to do better than that.


Rawgrim, I will once again make mention of a wonderful book called Genesis and the Big Bang by Dr. Gerald Schroeder. Basically, I pretty much believe evolution to be more-or-less true (in so much as any particular scientific theory is 'true'). I also don't see any contradiction with the Bible.

 

Forget the fact that Egypt was meticulous in it's record keeping.
Forget that the only place where we have some record the Egyptians changed their history is the very book being called to question.
Forget the fact that a worldwide flood never occured.
Forget the fact that it is physically impossible to populate the earth in timeframe listed in the Bible.
Forget the fact that there is no reference to Jesus in Roman historical records (which were very meticulous and often damning of the government).
Forget the fact that we find human remains that are 30,000 years old.
Forget the fact that dinosaurs existed.

In fact, ensure you conveniently forget anything that is not in the Bible -- because the Bible is the only true historical record ever written*.

* - Unless you're a Mormon.

 

I don't get the Occam's Razor analysis at all. You're saying that because we see no evidence in science for God's existence the simplest explanation is that science lacks the ability to show God exists? Is not an even simpler explanation that the reason science sees no evidence for God's existence is that God does not exist? Or are you saying that the simplest explanation is that God does not exist and this proves Occam's Razor isn't reliable?

It goes back to the point made waaaaay back (it actually may be in the atheism thread). When I see no evidence for the existence of something, I view non-existence as more likely than existence. I don't believe we can definitively prove it either way - that there is no way in practice (or even in principle) to test for God's existence. That does not mean I should accept God's existence as the simplest explanation - or any explanation at all - or even view that existence and non-existence are equally likely scenarios.

 

And there we have it. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

 

Why?

 

Yes, because the numerous places where every trace of the name of previous pharoahs were chipped out of engravings are evidence of a culture that preserved evidence.

see above

Ok, that's a whole other arguement, which we could (and I think have) had whole threads about.

You assume a certain timeline in the Bible. I don't assume that timeline.

Actually, there are records of the execution. Jesus is a historical fact. Whether he rose from the dead or not is less certain (from a historical standpoint).

Again, I disagree with your assumed timeline of the Bible.


Aldeth, my point was that science cannot prove everything. Occam's Razor is a general principle which is frequently accurate. Not always, but frequently. Science cannot prove squat about it, though, because it isn't a matter of science. It is outside of that field. God is the same way. The lack of scientific evidence of God is not because God does not exist, but rather becase (whether He exists or not) it is not within the field of science.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Wait, what'd I win?

In all seriousness, though, you sound like you are willing to completely discount my reliance on personal experience as ridiculous. If this is the case, I would like to point out that your belief that your parents ever existed (and I hope still do) is based on personal experience. Your memories of high school are a matter of personal experience. Hell, the only reason science is considered reliable is the repeatability of personal experience (so multiple people can experience the same thing at different times). Utlimately, all human life and society is based on personal experience, and all our attempts to 'nail down' something, or to 'prove' something, are really just attempts to re-inforce personal experience.

 

With so many to choose from you should be able to provide references for at least one. Preferably from an appropriate time period -- for example, the Ptolemic period would obviously be unacceptable in this.

... and claiming they scratched the name "Moses" from all records would not be a good example either.

Please. Again a reference would be good here.

 

I think that Genisis was a metaphor for the big bang theory and for evolution and I'm a Christian. Anyway, this isn't a thread to argue over the existance of God, it's a thread to argue whether saying that an athiest has a belief in a lack of God is true or not

So there na na na

 

I think the point was that personal experience is a very convincing form of evidence from the person experiencing it, but it is among the least convincing forms of evidence for those who have not experienced it.

I certainly don't consider myself a practicing Christian, but I think most scholars agree that Jesus was a real person. Hardly indisputable, but for what it's worth from wiki:

Emphasis mine. Wiki Linky.

 

Ah, in that case, we have no arguement. As I said, I don't expect any of you to be converted because of my claims of experience, but I do expect you to accept it as explanation of my own beliefs.

As to Silvery: stop spoiling our fun!!

Seriously, though, I think it comes down to what kind of atheist they are. If they just don't believe in gods, as opposed to believing in the non-existence of gods, then it is a false statement, and I can see how it could be construed as insulting. If they specifically believe there are NO gods, then it is an accurate statement. I still bet many will be insulted, but at that point its simply because you are (accurately) labelling them with a term they have made perjorative and insulting.

 

Aldeth: I believe the evidence is more circumstantial that Jesus existed. I think scholars accept that a person named Jesus existed, but the link between "a person named Jesus" and "Jesus Christ" is missing -- in this case, theologists are unable to find "the missing link."

 

Isnt that the thing always though? A guy named Jesus may very well have existed and even preached and been crucified but the leap from the existance of a man to that man being the son of god is quite big.

 

This is exactly what I meant. I wasn't trying ot say that there is historical evidence of Jesus being of divine origin. I'm saying that there was historical evidence of a rabbi named Jesus who preached a new religion and was essentially crucified for sedition against the Roman empire.