People that profess a god of any kind have to JUMP to a conclusion.
They attribute many things to their god, but never make a real connection between that god and reality.
It's always like a ghost story.
" I saw a ghost." Even though what the person claimed what they saw and what they really saw are two very different things. They may have seen light refraction or any number of things (optical illusions). What they do however is claim they saw a ghost, instead of really finding out what they really saw. Even if one never finds out what they really saw, you still CANNOT claim it was a ghost. One has to be able to state that they just don't have any proof, and or enough information to actually explain things.
Until a god is proven....there is no god. Until supernatural events are proven there is always a logical answer, one being that there is no answer due to lack of information.
And by the way, I am sick and tired of christians asking me why I don't believe in their god. It's obvious! What they should do is make a case based on facts that their god exist.
But NOOOOO! They have been institutionally brainwashed for centuries and can't believe that people would reject such an obvious fraud.
"Faith" is just an excuse for not having any proof! That is all it is and all it has ever been. Their rebuttal is of course is that we have faith in science. What they don't understand is that science has been scrutinized, questioned, peer reviewed, put to the test, where as the god theory has not!
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
So John's advice is Not to be ''endlessly skeptical.'' As far as I am concerned the time to believe that something is real is when there is proof that it exists or at least good evidence to believe it exists. For your god claim, there is No proof and No good evidence.
John Breezy is justifying and ignoring true ethical means of discrimination. Like I stated in the Op, to believe in ghost or gods you have to make a "leap of faith", jump to a conclusion that isn't supported by evidence. It's not about being "skeptical". It's about having proof, and in the case of lack of proof being able to say the one doesn't know. Take John's smug little scenario. In it he doesn't stop to investigate, but yet he claims that he is being endlessly skeptical. "Skepticism" is either an attitude or a reaction. In John's case, it's an attitude which makes no sense. When someone tells me that they have seen a ghost my REACTION is to ask them to prove it. If they can't ( and they never do or will) I am skeptical of their claim. I am not skeptical that they saw something. I do not take a leap of faith and come to a conclusion that has NO evidence to support it.
I live in Slovakia, but when I was six around October we went to visit family in New York. At this time, my cousins were getting ready for Halloween, and they were hanging up spooky looking dolls around the house. While I was there, I totally remember dreaming that I went outside of my cousin's house, and saw a ghost. This ghost was a small blonde girl who was floating in the air and was transparent. She looked like she was dead. I remember the girl turned into a scarecrow looking thing. I was totally freaked out. Suddenly, I opened my eyes and in my cousin's guest room with me was the same transparent scarecrow and the scarecrow was glowing. I was so freaked out that I got up, and left the room. When I looked into the room, I could still see the glowing light. I ran to my parents who were in another room. After waking everyone up with my fear, my family began to explain to me that I was likely half dreaming and potentially sleep walking. My father walked me back to my room. Surprise surprise, no ghost. The next day I was thinking about it, and I realized that this scarecrow that I had "seen" looked exactly like the scarecrow that my cousins had put up. I also saw this scarecrow right before I went to bed, so it is likely that I had it in the back of my mind while I was sleeping. There was no reason to think that I actually saw a ghost.
yes a leap pf faith as kieragard put it is just a leap to the unknown, What I would like to inject here is can you explain the cell, the molecules the amino acids the protein of dna and Rna.do you know how the first cell came into being? I don`t think that science has provided an answer. That's why I would say as an agnostic there seems to be a intelligence behind it all.i really leaning to intelligent design over just chance.You have to have more faith then a religious person to believe that things got here by mere chance.life from non life it seems a very big thing to accept.i guess that's why atheism and agnosticism are the minorityview point world wide.
@ agnostic engineer
Bullshit! Science doesn't try an make a definite conclusion of where the first cell came from. You are making a LEAP OF FAITH to conclude that something of intelligence created it!
you don`t have to use that kind of profanity in addressing me, how else can you explain the first cell? I think that some form of intelligence is responsible, how else can you explain it?you need to have your mouth washed out with soap.
@ agnostic enlighterner
I always use that language with everyone don't feel that you are special.
I don't have to explain the first cell. No one does until there is enough credible evidence to do so. Jumping to a conclusion to explain something is just stupid. Instead of washing my mouth out with soap, maybe you should unbrainwash your brain.
@agnostic engineer
Are you saying that science should have (by now) come up with an answer as to how life arose on Earth?
No. I also don't know the nitty-gritty details of how caves get formed, pencils get made; or how they get the jelly in the jelly doughnuts. But I sure as fuck don't think it was magic; and that is essentially what you are telling us.
you should have your mouth washed out with soap a big bar of soap.As for your argument you have no substance you are naïve about this subject, that`s why you use profanity.i know its a stretch of the mind for you to consider such questions, i understand fully.
I use language that dullards like you can understand. Calling my argument unsubstantial is again absolute bullshit, especially considering how you and no one has ever proven this intelligence that you refer!
My "argument" as you put it is that YOU and all believers never make a connection between your god and actually ....wait for it.... ANYTHING! Oh yeah sure you always attribute things to your god, but never and I mean NEVER actually prove your god or any action by said god. Hence "the leap of faith." I would say that my "argument" is very substantial!
There's an intelligence behind existence? Cool. I didn't know that. Please provide proof or at least good evidence that this claim is true.
There's an intelligence behind existence? Cool. I didn't know that. Please provide proof or at least good evidence that this claim is true.
@mykcob4
'Until a god is proven....there is no god. Until supernatural events are proven there is always a logical answer, one being that there is no answer due to lack of information." --mykcob4
My own version is: No evidence for a god, no reality attached to that god . (Put him in with the Easter Bunny.) Common solutions must be eliminated first, because exotic solutions are far more improbable. (Put your money where the odds are, just like the pro poker players!)
Absolutely greensnake!!!!!!!
You know what is really funny:
I smell a rat as well. I think agnostic enlightener is lying about their status.
If I was driving, heard a thump and a scream I would stop. If finding no trace of a body, blood, dent in my car I would have some choices. Assume I hit someone and look even harder or assume I was mistaken. Perhaps the thump was a cardboard box and the scream was actually a scraping sound under the car. Assume I am crazy and get help. There is no reason to jump to a conclusion that I struck a ghost.
There is no reason to assume gods or ghosts are involved in anything we encounter. The supernatural is not the default position when confronted with the unknown. Keep seeking and eventually a natural explanation will be revealed.
Why would I not get out of my car?
Ok! Seems a bit of a stretch equating believing you may have injured a fellow being and believing you have seen a ghost. If your investigating a ghost to see if it something explainable that is one thing. A spectre appears in my window and I am going to find out what or who it is. I once saw this terrible impish goblin looking in my window. Evil, leering face grinning at me. It was Simon the Siamese cat soaked to the gills begging to get inside. So, I let him in.
I proved that a supposed goblin was really a wet cat. That is all.
No. It is because I know injured people are real and ghosts are not. Your trying real hard to get me to agree with you. LOL with a two fingered peace sign!
How exactly would someone go about "disproving" a ghost? Please be explicit.
John's fallacy is asking,....no demanding that something be disproven. Illogical, impractical, probably impossible, and totally unnecessary. To equate a god with what is natural is also a fallacy as a god has never been proven. The fact is to believe in a ghost or a god, one must ignore following facts and make a "leap of faith."
I am tired of all this justifying, all this supposition. Crazy scenarios. "I hit something with my car....etc....!"
How about NOT taking a leap of faith and just accept what IS proven, or at least PROVING what you propose. All this conjecture with pseudo-science and subjective psychological experiments. Attributing answers to things NOT proven. Making speculative statements and THEN calling them facts.....based on what? Based on "FAITH"! That is this thread in a nutshell. Every god or ghost or supernatural thing requires ignoring reality and taking a leap of faith.
Science is by definition not faith based, however many common "scientific" beliefs are based on nothing more than absdurd theories with no relation to reality, the Big Bang, for example, states that the entire universe came from a spec of matter, infiniterly small, a single point, and hhat this consisted of all the matter in the Universe. The problem is that, firstly, there is no evidence for this, and secondly, there's this thing called the Pauli exclusion principle, which States that no 2 (or more) objects can occupy the same space at the same time, let zone all the objects occupying zero space at the same time.
I don't believe in any particular God, and don't believe in the idea of the creator as a "God," as this implied supreme moral authority, and involves the idea of a megalomaniac cult leader. All I have to prove is that the universe is organized (duh), and thus organization requires an organizer.
"What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason."" - Voltaire
False
False
False
False.
The big bang theory is a theory about the expansion of a homogeneous, isotropic gas/plasma. It is supported by a ton of evidence, and it does not include any of that stuff you mentioned.
False. The Pauli exclusion principle only applies to fermions (in fact bosons 'prefer' to be in the same state), and only to fermions of the same type.