Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
There is a huge difference between those two statements. The fact that there is no evidence for something does not automatically mean that said thing does not exist.

I would say there is not. The probability of there being something given a lack of evidence for its existance makes the assumption of there being nothing fairly reasonable. Besides, the default assumption of any dicussion is that there is nothing. Any claim otherwise must present evidence to support itself. There is no evidence to suggest a teapot in space that controls the universe - that does not mean it is unreasonable to conisder such a thing not to exist... anyone suggesting it does would have to provide evidence to back up their claim. Why is religion excepted from this?

Stating that there is no god purely because you have never seen any evidence for his existance is pure ignorance.

I say there is no god as described by any of the main religions because it is quite easy to show just from looking at their texts that the utterly contradictory nature and activities of the god(s) they describe demonstrate it before you even get to any lack of evidence for said gods. However, even with that aside, the probability of gods existing is cose enough to nil that I can discount it.

And the reason for that is as I said - the default position in any investigation is to assume there is nothing. That is not ignorance, that is scientific method. When you have sufficient evidence to prove (or even indicate) otherwise, that is when you start to confirm your hypothesis.

Since nothing can ever be 100% proven, claiming to know 'for sure' whether something does or does not exists is always ignorant, no matter the 'evidence'. Everything we humans perceive always is subjective. The 'truth' if something like that even exists, is unknowable. Everything must always be doubted, no matter how sure it may seem. That is one of the basic principles of philosophy.
For all we know, a teapot in space may actually be controlling the universe. For all we know, I may not even exist, and you are just reading this in a dream.
For all we know, the universe just exists in a giant snowglobe on some being's shelf. We don't know, and we shall never know. Truth is unknowable and therefore making definite statements in regards to such uncertain, abstract ideas as 'god' should be refrained from. "The only thing I know is that I know nothing"

Which is why existentialism is so much better.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Well? Why get up? Probably to go to my school which may in fact be completely imaginary. But I am unable to know whether it is or not, so best go there anyways right?

So, you ascribe to the belief that it is best to go along with the reality of the delusion?

for the full 100% We can not know what is real and what not, so best go along with what 'seems' to be the most real, right?

Given that, would you say that you could then accept scientific reasoning, investigation and reporting about the "reality" being observed?

And so would it not stand to reason then that one should then subscribe to the reality of no belief without proof and where absence of proof does not prove that something can exist?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Well? Why get up? Probably to go to my school which may in fact be completely imaginary. But I am unable to know whether it is or not, so best go there anyways right?

So, you ascribe to the belief that it is best to go along with the reality of the delusion?

for the full 100% We can not know what is real and what not, so best go along with what 'seems' to be the most real, right?

Given that, would you say that you could then accept scientific reasoning, investigation and reporting about the "reality" being observed?

And so would it not stand to reason then that one should then subscribe to the reality of no belief without proof and where absence of proof does not prove that something can exist?

Most certainly, as long as one never forgets that in the end it is all relative and that the absolute truth is unknowable.
It is a philosophical rather than a practical difference, but a very important one nonetheless.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Most certainly, as long as one never forgets that in the end it is all relative and that the absolute truth is unknowable.
It is a philosophical rather than a practical difference, but a very important one nonetheless.

So, essentially immaterial?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Most certainly, as long as one never forgets that in the end it is all relative and that the absolute truth is unknowable.
It is a philosophical rather than a practical difference, but a very important one nonetheless.

So, essentially immaterial?

Yes, in the sense of being not made of touchable matter.
No, in the sense of being of no consequence or irrelevant.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Yes, in the sense of being not made of touchable matter.
No, in the sense of being of no consequence or irrelevant.

An unknowable absolute truth is of no real consequence to any practical or even theoretical science. It underpins our understanding of how evidence is analysed and interpreted in order to provide support or "proof", but as a simple mathematical tool rather than as some profound revelation. It is only of philisophical importance.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
For all we know, the universe just exists in a giant snowglobe on some being's shelf. We don't know, and we shall never know. Truth is unknowable and therefore making definite statements in regards to such uncertain, abstract ideas as 'god' should be refrained from. "The only thing I know is that I know nothing"

Sorry, but that's just wrong. Yes, we all know that knowledge can never be 100%, but that doesn't mean we have to keep adding a "but I'm not absolutely 100% sure beyond any conceivable doubt" to everything we say. What did I have for breakfast? Cereal, but I'm not 100% sure. What 40k army do I play? IG, but I'm not 100% sure. What's my forum name? Peregrine, but I'm not 100% sure. See how absurd that sounds? God is no different. The argument for the existence of any kind of god is so incredibly weak that when we talk about it we just say "no god" without any disclaimer and leave the "but there is a tiny chance that we're wrong" implied. Nitpicking the absence of that disclaimer is just having a blatant double standard where claims about god are put in their own special category away from every other kind of claim so that religious people don't have to hear too much criticism.

Why teach only about evolution or creationism? Teach evolution in science classes and teach creationism in religion classes.

Because the vast majority of the time "teach creationism" means "teach Christian doctrine as truth" not "teach a variety of creation myths from different religions, without presenting any of them as more valid than any others". And that is a textbook violation of separation of church and state.

So, the only reason that these kind of threads constantly spring up is because evolutionists are pissed that some schools only teach creationism? An interesting topic for discussion, but I still fail to see why it should get repeated 1000 times over.

You could say the same about ANY thread on politics or religion, and probably most of the other topics as well. Why talk about Zimmerman/Obamacare/Benghazi/etc every week?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
No, in the sense of being of no consequence or irrelevant.

But that's exactly what it is: irrelevant and of no consequence. If you by definition can never know the absolute truth then absolute truth has no practical value and we redefine "truth" to mean "overwhelming confidence that it is correct". What you're talking about is the bad kind of philosophy, where a bunch of academics sit around speculating about things that have no connection to the real world and no final answer to discover. It's the kind of thing that seems like "deep thought" when you're young and sitting around getting high with your friends, but it really doesn't impress anyone.

Honestly there is nothing wrong in believing stupid stuff but what really puzzles me with religilous people is that don't don't even believe in their own stuff.

How many cristians follow the entire teachings of the bible? How many popes do that? What would God think when you cherry pick his holy texts?

Whats up with the cherry picking?

I dont even pay attention to the bible ad its teachings. I long ago ddecided to live by one phrase "Do unto others as you would do unto yourself" Do I want people mocking me for my pursuits in earnest? No. Do I want people mocking my sexual desires? No. Do I want to be treated like gak when working? No.

 illuknisaa wrote:
Honestly there is nothing wrong in believing stupid stuff but what really puzzles me with religilous people is that don't don't even believe in their own stuff.

How many cristians follow the entire teachings of the bible? How many popes do that? What would God think when you cherry pick his holy texts?

Whats up with the cherry picking?

I suppose it is about the same as non-Christians or atheists telling Christians what they should or shouldn't believe, or saying if a person is actually a Christian.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Why is it that on every forum I go to, there is a discussion between evolutionists and creationists going on? Why do people always feel the need to bring this topic up again?

Excellent question. So why did you feel the need to bring this topic up again?

 illuknisaa wrote:
Honestly there is nothing wrong in believing stupid stuff but what really puzzles me with religilous people is that don't don't even believe in their own stuff.

How many cristians follow the entire teachings of the bible? How many popes do that? What would God think when you cherry pick his holy texts?

Whats up with the cherry picking?

It's not that Christians neccesarily are cherry picking as much as all the different interpretations there are of the Bible, and the laws outlined in the Bible have changed, depending on what time frame and set of circumstances itdeals with. Look at the Bible as a series of road signs that change depending on the condition of the road a motorist happens to be on. An 85 mile an hour speed limit isn'tgoing to cut it on a mountanous, curvy road like it would on a straight out road.
In the same vein, since the crucifixion, there is no need for animal sacrifice as there was before. This applies to many different things talked of in the Bible.

Unfortunatly, you do have those people that try to use the bible as an object to control and degrade others. They are the ones spoken of in the Bible who say (paraphrased) Lord, Lord, have we not done all of this in your name? At which point the Lord will say, Depart from me, I know you not.

As a similar thread was recently closed due to the...nature of the conversation this usually results in, I think we can all take a break from this subject.