Reply to Life after church & not believing in God

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Life after church & not believing in God"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Science can't affirmatively know or assert something until it’s empirically proven it; absent any such affirmative data, the true and proper scientific stance should be one that echoes Socrates' credo of "I know that I don't know.”

Without any affirmative scientific proof that God does not exist, the default position should be one of agnosticism--of [b]"I don't know since I don't have enough data one way or another."[/b][/quote]

Why cant every reasonable person see this?  I think secretly they do, but the religion gives them comfort (which is fine) and they belive becaue they want to believe.[/quote]

For many, the data are the scriptures of whatever religion they follow. You may not think it’s enough, but [b]billions of people find their scriptures, and the stories behind the scriptures, perfectly credible.[/b] [/quote]

And billions don't and still believe in God or that there's "something" out there.   They can feel it, but they can't prove it, but they don't care.  The idea of a force watching over them and possibly offering them an eternal life after this one is very compelling, albeit unreasonable.[/quote]

You’re double counting the same religious people to argue that scripture plays no role. With a sprinkling of how belief (aka “feelings” in your lexicon) is invalid because instead it’s merely about the comfort of an eternal life. Neither of your arguments is valid. [/quote]

It's also quite likely that pp actually meant what was said and not your interpretation.  Immediate pp sounds like someone who believes that religious belief is only valid if it comes through a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. All other forms of religious belief  - and certainly non-belief - are tainted.[/quote]

No, I’m not a fundamentalist. And there was a recent thread on whether the proximity of Paul and the gospel writers to Jesus was “good enough” and most religious people rejected your demand for apostolic tweets and[b] thought the scriptures were pretty good evidence for something 2000 years old. [/b]I don’t want to rehash that thread. Just to make the point that your demand for at-the-moment evidence isn’t shared by many believers. [/quote]

"Good evidence" for what?  Be specific and stop ducking the question.[/quote]

PP here and I have less than zero interest in rehashing that earlier thread with you, as I already mentioned. My only point is that there was plenty of disagreement with the historical standard you(?) tried to set. Go  back and re-read that thread if it’s so important to you. [/quote]

No, there was no substantive disagreement.  Maybe someone (you?) raised some objections without merit, but basically you never answer the question. Not important to me; a waste of time in fact. :roll: [/quote]

Trill fail. Nobody is going to get sucked in by your abusive demands to rehash a recent thread here. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics