Answer for: Why DON'T you believe in a religious deity?
#1 No Evidence
| 
21 Comments
To me, this is like asking why I don't believe that the Loch Ness Monster lives in my bathtub... The burden of proof rests upon those who make the claim.
Answer Details
Total votes: 6Subscribe
Please login or register to see notification options.Feedback
(Log in or register to see feedback options)
Help Report a Bug About Grupthink Contact Us Blog/Press
© 2008 by Grupthink, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
No claim of copyright or trademark is made to any material submitted by individual users. Any user-submitted material subject to copyright or trademark protection by third-parties is used solely for comment, criticism and discussion ("fair use").
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Report alleged copyright infringement
Powered by grūpthink
Revision: 2059
Comments
The Loch Ness Monster is merely "one more thing."? God, however, is not merely "one more thing." The person who believes in God and the person who does not believe in God do not merely disagree about God. They disagree about the very character of the universe.
That text was ripped directly from here...
http://www.rzim.org/resources/jttran.php?seqid=97
Ok then; I'll sub the Flying Spaghetti Monster into my analogy in place of the Loch Ness Monster.
"The person who believes in The Flying Spaghetti Monster and the person who does not believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster do not merely disagree about God. They disagree about the very character of the universe."
The point still stands - There is no more proof of God than there is proof of an omnipotent potato in the sky.
yes there is :P
Then by all means, please share!
If anyone here were really looking for evidence, simply reading that article would suffice. I'm fairly busy this week and don't have time to pick fights.
Apparently we have vastly differing definitions of the word "evidence".
In fact, if there WERE evidence of a religious deity, wouldn't that render the whole notion of "faith" moot? If you see evidence of God, does it not also logically by definition follow that you no longer have FAITH in God?
Not at all. Evidence doesn't make it absolutely certain, it only increases the probability -- "beyond reasonable doubt" like the article title says.
Absolute certainty doesn't exist (except for God himself) -- only varying levels of probability. Grupthink has been onlne for a while. For the time that I've been a member, it's been fully operational every time I've logged on. Does this previously mentioned evidence mean that it will be online tommorrow? No, and saying this might even decrease the probability somewhat, but still the chances are high enough that I'll probably demonstrate faith by making the effort to direct my browser to the site.
Then I suppose using this logic, _everything_ is taken on faith? If this is the case, then, why does the bible highlight the need for it so clearly?
The bible's point of view is that logic is a lie of the devil, so when they tell you that you have to have faith in god's plan, anything that follows can be attributed to that plan. This allows the church to carry out practically anything it wants in the name of god and get away with it by saying, "you must simply have faith. This is part of god's plan."
Cases in point: The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition (expect it!), Fred Phelps.
@ holotone - The way I understand it, the Bible doesn't simply highlight the need for faith. Faith is nothing unless it is placed in something. If I have faith in public transportation, I will ride the bus. If I have faith in a company, I will use its product. If I have faith in a political candidate, I will vote for that person. The Bible highlights the need for faith in Jesus Christ.
@ Savage:
That may be true, but your analogy breaks down in the details; It's one thing for me to have faith that a politician will represent my best interest - It's a whole new game of quackery for me to not even have the smallest shred of evidence that he even exists... And still campaign for him.
@ chromigula - I realize that some religious leaders do that, and I'm not trying to defend them. They take advantage of the blindly devoted. They say, "the bible says this" and don't bother to back it up -- or do so with faulty logic. However, you really have no basis for the statement, "the bible's point of view is that logic is a lie of the devil". That's as closed-minded as the people you're accusing.
@ holotone - Well, as I've said, I think there's enough evidence to be adequately confident of God's existence. I haven't listed any yet though. I'll work on that.
http://www.grupthink.com/topic/8687
@Savage
The downfall of man was that they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Knowledge (and inherently, logic) is what led to the expulsion from Eden, then, isn't it?
Careful, chromigula. You'll be accused of interpreting the bible *literally*.
Isn't that what they say it was supposed to be, *literally* the word of god.?
Or is that the Koran?
@ chromigula - Does knowledge = logic? Regardless, I think you're basing this upon the fact that the tree was called, "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil", which is just a label. It could have been called "the naughty tree", and the effect would have been the same.
Sigh. My attempt at irony fails again. (usually, the fundamentalists are criticized for taking the bible literally).
@MDAdams - It's okay, I got it! :)
@ chromigula - Who is 'they'? I think there are vastly differing views on this. I believe that the original intended meaning is what is important, and that's not always what comes across when read literally because of time/geographical/cultural/audience difference.
http://dictionary.re...=hermeneutics
oops... http://dictionary.re...=hermeneutics