BlueSkyKing · M
Evidence is detectable, measurable, testable and falsified. Our five senses are not reliable data collectors, which is why we invented machines that can collect data accurately and without prejudice. These instruments are far more sensitive and reliable than any senses of human and animal. Reality hasn’t had an additional increase.
What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
What can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
DLight · 31-35, F
@BlueSkyKing By "evidence" you no doubt mean "scientific evidence", but where is the scientific evidence for the claim that we should only ever accept such evidence? Upon what evidence is it based? None. And the reason for this is because it's actually a philosophical position, a stance that can't be justified because it's self-refuting.
Richard65 · M
It's understandable to wish for something more, something beyond our ordinary existence. Science and modernity have offered answers to many things our ancestors couldn't understand so turned their minds to supernatural causes or spiritual influences. Anyone who says they have seen spirits or experienced supernatural phenomenon are talking purely subjectively. They might actually believe they saw or sensed something extraordinary, and, yes, there are real elements of the spectrum that exist but cannot be seen by humans (such as infrared). But to imagine there are supernatural spirits is just that - imagination. We crave something akin to a fairytale or a ghost story, just to make life seem more profound, more interesting - more MORE.
I'd suggest you might be denying yourself the myriad fascinating aspects of your life that ARE there and DO exist. You're just looking in the wrong places. You're seeking out one imaginary colour within an entire rainbow of real possibilities. I went for a walk in a local forest yesterday after reading that trees do actually communicate with one another through chemical interactions. That's not supernatural, that's scientific discovery. If a tree is infested with insects that threaten it, other trees transmit chemicals through their roots in order to help that tree rid itself of the infestation. Fungi effectively build entire communication networks right under your feet. This is extraordinary revelation, yet it's real and science exposed it and explained it. Look for the real, because real life is truly extraordinary if you can just see it. It's that reality that remains just out of sight for you. Not the supernatural.
I'd suggest you might be denying yourself the myriad fascinating aspects of your life that ARE there and DO exist. You're just looking in the wrong places. You're seeking out one imaginary colour within an entire rainbow of real possibilities. I went for a walk in a local forest yesterday after reading that trees do actually communicate with one another through chemical interactions. That's not supernatural, that's scientific discovery. If a tree is infested with insects that threaten it, other trees transmit chemicals through their roots in order to help that tree rid itself of the infestation. Fungi effectively build entire communication networks right under your feet. This is extraordinary revelation, yet it's real and science exposed it and explained it. Look for the real, because real life is truly extraordinary if you can just see it. It's that reality that remains just out of sight for you. Not the supernatural.
View 8 more replies »
DLight · 31-35, F
@newjaninev2 What smug nonsense. This is how it goes.
When a person makes a claim, whether that be a positive one (ex. "God exists") or a negative one (ex. "God doesn't exist") it's incumbent upon that person to present his or her reasons for why that particular claim was made. Evidence is always helpful, because you're trying to convince another person, and so recounting a personal experience, for example, won't be enough.
However, when it comes to personal beliefs, and you're not really concerned with winning someone over to your point of view, just living the best life you can in the only way you know how, an event that affected you personally is usually far more convincing than any evidence that some self-proclaimed sceptic may come up with.
Whether you like it or not, that's the way most people (like around 96.7%) on Earth construct their worldview; i.e. they rely upon their intuition, past experiences, and what makes sense to them, and not any "evidence" that some smug atheist thinks will win them over. They don't care about that crap.
When a person makes a claim, whether that be a positive one (ex. "God exists") or a negative one (ex. "God doesn't exist") it's incumbent upon that person to present his or her reasons for why that particular claim was made. Evidence is always helpful, because you're trying to convince another person, and so recounting a personal experience, for example, won't be enough.
However, when it comes to personal beliefs, and you're not really concerned with winning someone over to your point of view, just living the best life you can in the only way you know how, an event that affected you personally is usually far more convincing than any evidence that some self-proclaimed sceptic may come up with.
Whether you like it or not, that's the way most people (like around 96.7%) on Earth construct their worldview; i.e. they rely upon their intuition, past experiences, and what makes sense to them, and not any "evidence" that some smug atheist thinks will win them over. They don't care about that crap.
newjaninev2 · 56-60, F
@DLight
Why be concerned with convincing if you're not trying to win them over?
The motto of the Royal Society is Nullius in verba (Latin for 'take nobody's word for it')
...you're not really concerned with winning someone over to your point of view ... an event that affected you personally is usually far more convincing...
Why be concerned with convincing if you're not trying to win them over?
The motto of the Royal Society is Nullius in verba (Latin for 'take nobody's word for it')
DLight · 31-35, F
@newjaninev2 I'm not. I don't care if we don't agree on whatever it is we do not agree on.
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
In any case, I now believe that there is just so much more to reality than most of us will ever realise, and to simply dismiss that likelihood is nothing short of stupid and arrogant.
Just let me know, when you have evidence of these things that I dismiss so you can proof not only that those things excist but also that I'm stupid and arrogant. I'll appreciate it when that ever happens... but I won't hold my breath.
turtle777rescuer · 36-40, M
@Kwek00 I don't think it's just believing for believing sake... if God exists and he created us, He is (whatever word u want to use here that conveys ownership). Some people say Lord others say Master, He is above us and in if we appreciate life and living, He deserves our attention and gratitude. If u believe than He will receive that gratitude from us and reward us for it but only those who acknowledge that he is our creator/owner.
Now if He really is our creator and he owns us it's crazy that He lets us make our own decisions at all if you think about. He gave freewill to choose and thats what this whole life and trial is all about... there is a test of faith for every man. The spirit of evil is constantly at work to hinder the faith of man in God. Which will pass and which will fail?
Now if He really is our creator and he owns us it's crazy that He lets us make our own decisions at all if you think about. He gave freewill to choose and thats what this whole life and trial is all about... there is a test of faith for every man. The spirit of evil is constantly at work to hinder the faith of man in God. Which will pass and which will fail?
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@turtle777rescuer Well, that's an outlook... but my hunger ain't satisfied. Because this outlook, but also other outlooks (sometimes not even far apart from eachother), excist in diffrent societies organised under diffrent interpretations OR entirely diffrent religions. And they all flow, from a religious text OR a person OR an object, around which a culture bloome(d/s) and ... espescially if it becomes prevalent, start rooting itself in all aspects of culture. Like architecture, heroes and even language on a local level, get changed through prevalent believes.
To validate that believe and root it in reality however, there needs to be something that is more then just familiarity/socialisation and/or emotionality. Because as human beings, emotions are deceptive. And I don't want to generalise this, because I believe all human beings have a need for emotional attachments and learning how to deal with the emotional aspect of being human... and this produces horror and incredible beauty... but there needs to be more for me to subjugate myself to an idea that is this big, has so many consequences and is so all encompassing. At least a lot more, then good piece of prose.
Therefore, I think if you want to root in reality... this person/text/object that is the source of the believe system... needs to stand up against scrutiny. Why for is a Kuran less valid then a Bible? Or why wouldn't we start reading and attaching ourselves to the Bahagavat Ghita?
... The issue with most things of which religion flows, is that the mechanisms to push criticism into the margins. And there are at least two lines in the bible that come up regularly, one is the one you mentioned. Where "believe" instead of critical thinking, is elevated to a virtue... I'm not sure if it's smart to make ignorance virtues.
I'm not sure if you read the Kuran... I never got passed the 3th Surah. But in the second one, that book is really good at creating that virtue as well and to weapon it's followers by just telling that the critic is wrong because "God". Here ignorance is something that needs to be "blessed".
And religious texts... are just really good at playing that game.
To validate that believe and root it in reality however, there needs to be something that is more then just familiarity/socialisation and/or emotionality. Because as human beings, emotions are deceptive. And I don't want to generalise this, because I believe all human beings have a need for emotional attachments and learning how to deal with the emotional aspect of being human... and this produces horror and incredible beauty... but there needs to be more for me to subjugate myself to an idea that is this big, has so many consequences and is so all encompassing. At least a lot more, then good piece of prose.
Therefore, I think if you want to root in reality... this person/text/object that is the source of the believe system... needs to stand up against scrutiny. Why for is a Kuran less valid then a Bible? Or why wouldn't we start reading and attaching ourselves to the Bahagavat Ghita?
... The issue with most things of which religion flows, is that the mechanisms to push criticism into the margins. And there are at least two lines in the bible that come up regularly, one is the one you mentioned. Where "believe" instead of critical thinking, is elevated to a virtue... I'm not sure if it's smart to make ignorance virtues.
I'm not sure if you read the Kuran... I never got passed the 3th Surah. But in the second one, that book is really good at creating that virtue as well and to weapon it's followers by just telling that the critic is wrong because "God". Here ignorance is something that needs to be "blessed".
And religious texts... are just really good at playing that game.
turtle777rescuer · 36-40, M
@Kwek00 the answer to all your questions kwek are in these 2 simple things:
Do you have enough courage and humility to sincerly direct your heart towards the heavens and say " God I don't know if you exist and I have know clue which book is the truth but if you are really there can you please reveal yourself to me?"
I can guarantee you that if you do this with a humble and contrite spirit, God will reveal himself to you using various vehicles. He is a living God who interacts with those who seek Him.
Do you have enough courage and humility to sincerly direct your heart towards the heavens and say " God I don't know if you exist and I have know clue which book is the truth but if you are really there can you please reveal yourself to me?"
I can guarantee you that if you do this with a humble and contrite spirit, God will reveal himself to you using various vehicles. He is a living God who interacts with those who seek Him.
Beetlejuice68 · 56-60, M
turtle777rescuer · 36-40, M
It makes sense to feel left out when others report experiences you haven’t had. Openness like this is healthy, it lets you stay curious without pretending to know everything. Thanks for sharing such a vulnerable realization.
Also as for genuine unexplained experience, some people interpret these occurrences as non-ordinary or spiritual events, that interpretation is valid for many. The few I experienced, I’ll toss up to (Emotional/psychological coping) the mind can generate comforting apparitions as a way to process loss.
Also as for genuine unexplained experience, some people interpret these occurrences as non-ordinary or spiritual events, that interpretation is valid for many. The few I experienced, I’ll toss up to (Emotional/psychological coping) the mind can generate comforting apparitions as a way to process loss.
BlueSkyKing · M
DLight · 31-35, F
@BlueSkyKing Do you have any thoughts of your own? I've noticed atheists just love to quote the people they apparently admire, but rarely do they come up with something original, or at least an argument that is interesting.
Anyway, do you really need evidence before you'll believe anything at all? I don't. For example, I believe in and accept the, purely philosophical, concept of objective reality. And the reality of the past, and the existence of other minds, and so I'm not a solipsist or dogmatic materialist. There's a name for the attitude expressed in the "meme" you've posted above, and it's called Logical Positivism, and it has gone out of fashion because it can't be justified.
Anyway, do you really need evidence before you'll believe anything at all? I don't. For example, I believe in and accept the, purely philosophical, concept of objective reality. And the reality of the past, and the existence of other minds, and so I'm not a solipsist or dogmatic materialist. There's a name for the attitude expressed in the "meme" you've posted above, and it's called Logical Positivism, and it has gone out of fashion because it can't be justified.