Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Belief in God is not Irrational

Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 7:52:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This was originally a mini-debate started in a poll's comment sections (http://www.debate.org...). I'm moving it here for convenience's sake.

My opponent's (Yoshi's) words are in bold.

"You stated "there is NO evidence against the existence of God, so it is perfectly rational to believe in God" So by your logic, it's perfectly rational to believe in Allah, Zeus, Thor, Spaghetti Monster, every other god people have believed to be real that has no evidence what so ever."

There is only one God. Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Waheguru, and Brahma are all just names for him.
Most ancient religions were barely even "religions". They started out as simple and animistic (aka uneducated atheism), before slowly evolving into the complex mythology we know today.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster was a joke started by atheists. It's not a religion.

"NO!, It's not "perfectly rational" to believe in anything without evidence moron."

Resorting to petty insults, eh? Nice. Shows how capable you are of intelligent discussion.
It is not "perfectly rational" to tell someone that their personal experiences are false, when you haven't even met them before.

"Just because there's no evidence for things you believe doesn't mean you can still assert it's true"

I don't ASSERT that it is true. I BELIEVE that it is true and ASSERT that it is not irrational to do so.

"the sad part about this is that there's in depth explanations for how we've asserted the idea of a god, there's studies that show us that we tend to do this all the time in nature as humans."

Yes. In depth explanations based completely on SPECULATION.

"There's also evidence to show there's a less likelihood of a deity being the answer towards the cause of the universe compared to a more natural answer we've yet to discover."

I've read books on cosmology before, my favorite being "How it Began" by Carl Impey. Those books really do have compelling theories on how the universe (or multiverse) came into existence. And you know what? Most of them are actually perfectly compatible with God's existence.

"I can go through all these theories and evidence that does go against the claim"

Huh. I hope you do a better job than Dawkins did.

"but by seeing how long my comment is so far, we can discuss it out of here."

A good idea which has been put into action.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 8:04:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
While I know this was directed generally at a specific user, I'd just like to poke my nose in and say:

At 1/26/2014 7:52:14 PM, Romanii wrote:
This was originally a mini-debate started in a poll's comment sections (http://www.debate.org...). I'm moving it here for convenience's sake.

My opponent's (Yoshi's) words are in bold.


"You stated "there is NO evidence against the existence of God, so it is perfectly rational to believe in God" So by your logic, it's perfectly rational to believe in Allah, Zeus, Thor, Spaghetti Monster, every other god people have believed to be real that has no evidence what so ever."

There is only one God. Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Waheguru, and Brahma are all just names for him.

That is an assertion. Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

Most ancient religions were barely even "religions". They started out as simple and animistic (aka uneducated atheism), before slowly evolving into the complex mythology we know today.

Now, what would you say is the difference in the justification between those "ancient"beliefs and today's?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster was a joke started by atheists. It's not a religion.

That's awfully judgmental of you. Isn't the FSM just a name for the one God?

"NO!, It's not "perfectly rational" to believe in anything without evidence moron."

Resorting to petty insults, eh? Nice. Shows how capable you are of intelligent discussion.
It is not "perfectly rational" to tell someone that their personal experiences are false, when you haven't even met them before.

Experiences are different than justification.

While the rhetoric was caustic, at the same time, an actual EXPERIENCe would be evidence.

"Just because there's no evidence for things you believe doesn't mean you can still assert it's true"

I don't ASSERT that it is true. I BELIEVE that it is true and ASSERT that it is not irrational to do so.

You'd have to give the grounds for that belief before its rationality could be assessed.

"the sad part about this is that there's in depth explanations for how we've asserted the idea of a god, there's studies that show us that we tend to do this all the time in nature as humans."

Yes. In depth explanations based completely on SPECULATION.

Can you give a specific reason that's different than what I would consider the speculation regarding God? I would say it's better-founded than the God speculation, because it's based on things we actually know, however, I would grant it's speculation, though I'm not super familiar with that subject.

"There's also evidence to show there's a less likelihood of a deity being the answer towards the cause of the universe compared to a more natural answer we've yet to discover."

I've read books on cosmology before, my favorite being "How it Began" by Carl Impey. Those books really do have compelling theories on how the universe (or multiverse) came into existence. And you know what? Most of them are actually perfectly compatible with God's existence.

Compatible with =/= support for.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 8:29:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 8:04:17 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
While I know this was directed generally at a specific user, I'd just like to poke my nose in and say:

That's fine... I doubt Yoshi's contentions would be much different than your's

At 1/26/2014 7:52:14 PM, Romanii wrote:
My opponent's (Yoshi's) words are in bold.


"You stated "there is NO evidence against the existence of God, so it is perfectly rational to believe in God" So by your logic, it's perfectly rational to believe in Allah, Zeus, Thor, Spaghetti Monster, every other god people have believed to be real that has no evidence what so ever."

There is only one God. Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Waheguru, and Brahma are all just names for him.

That is an assertion. Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

Yes. However, Universal Religion is an entire debate topic on its own. If you really want a detailed discussion of this, I can start another forum.


Most ancient religions were barely even "religions". They started out as simple and animistic (aka uneducated atheism), before slowly evolving into the complex mythology we know today.

Now, what would you say is the difference in the justification between those "ancient"beliefs and today's?

Ancient beliefs were animistic. Most cultures that practice animism don't even have a WORD for "God". Animism is pretty much unscientific atheism.


The Flying Spaghetti Monster was a joke started by atheists. It's not a religion.

That's awfully judgmental of you. Isn't the FSM just a name for the one God?

No. Read up on it. The satire is evident.


"NO!, It's not "perfectly rational" to believe in anything without evidence moron."

Resorting to petty insults, eh? Nice. Shows how capable you are of intelligent discussion.
It is not "perfectly rational" to tell someone that their personal experiences are false, when you haven't even met them before.

Experiences are different than justification.

Except it's NOT justification. I've had spiritual experiences which proved to me that God exists, and dismissing them as false is not rational on your part, especially since you don't even know me...


"Just because there's no evidence for things you believe doesn't mean you can still assert it's true"

I don't ASSERT that it is true. I BELIEVE that it is true and ASSERT that it is not irrational to do so.

You'd have to give the grounds for that belief before its rationality could be assessed.

I have. SPIRITUAL. EXPERIENCES.

If 3/4 of the world's population began reporting sightings of unicorns, then those who have not seen the unicorns have every right not to believe in unicorns. However, they have no right to say that anyone who believes in unicorns is delusional.
To do so is closed-minded and irrational.


"the sad part about this is that there's in depth explanations for how we've asserted the idea of a god, there's studies that show us that we tend to do this all the time in nature as humans."

Yes. In depth explanations based completely on SPECULATION.

Can you give a specific reason that's different than what I would consider the speculation regarding God? I would say it's better-founded than the God speculation, because it's based on things we actually know, however, I would grant it's speculation, though I'm not super familiar with that subject.

That's your opinion. You are an atheist so you prefer the form of speculation that supports your views, obviously.

"There's also evidence to show there's a less likelihood of a deity being the answer towards the cause of the universe compared to a more natural answer we've yet to discover."

I've read books on cosmology before, my favorite being "How it Began" by Carl Impey. Those books really do have compelling theories on how the universe (or multiverse) came into existence. And you know what? Most of them are actually perfectly compatible with God's existence.

Compatible with =/= support for.

I realize that. Except much of Cosmology is also unsupported. It's just hypotheses.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 8:57:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 8:29:58 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 1/26/2014 8:04:17 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
While I know this was directed generally at a specific user, I'd just like to poke my nose in and say:

That's fine... I doubt Yoshi's contentions would be much different than your's
There is only one God. Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Waheguru, and Brahma are all just names for him.

That is an assertion. Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

Yes. However, Universal Religion is an entire debate topic on its own. If you really want a detailed discussion of this, I can start another forum.

Why would that be necessary?

Most ancient religions were barely even "religions". They started out as simple and animistic (aka uneducated atheism), before slowly evolving into the complex mythology we know today.

Now, what would you say is the difference in the justification between those "ancient"beliefs and today's?

Ancient beliefs were animistic. Most cultures that practice animism don't even have a WORD for "God". Animism is pretty much unscientific atheism.

I'm well familiar with animism. That's not what I asked.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster was a joke started by atheists. It's not a religion.

That's awfully judgmental of you. Isn't the FSM just a name for the one God?

No. Read up on it. The satire is evident.

I could say the same thing about Christianity.

Now, I am being a skosh sarcastic. But the issue is that you can't actually point to any kind of qualitative difference.

Maybe it was started as satire...so? Does that invalidate it? Why? What's less valid about it than other religious conceptions?

"NO!, It's not "perfectly rational" to believe in anything without evidence moron."

Resorting to petty insults, eh? Nice. Shows how capable you are of intelligent discussion.
It is not "perfectly rational" to tell someone that their personal experiences are false, when you haven't even met them before.

Experiences are different than justification.

Except it's NOT justification. I've had spiritual experiences which proved to me that God exists, and dismissing them as false is not rational on your part, especially since you don't even know me...

Ah!

I didn't dismiss them.

My point was that experiences are different than justification. They may be USED for justification, but they're 2 different things. Granted, your other opponent probably would have continued to be harsh, but I have NOT dismissed your personal experiences. I have merely pointed (or tried to) out that the quoted passage didn't dismiss them either...perhaps there was context upthread on wherever you were talking where he dismissed them, but you can't NOT provide evidence, have somoen call you out for that, and then complain they're rejecting an experience you haven't provided.

"Just because there's no evidence for things you believe doesn't mean you can still assert it's true"

I don't ASSERT that it is true. I BELIEVE that it is true and ASSERT that it is not irrational to do so.

You'd have to give the grounds for that belief before its rationality could be assessed.

I have. SPIRITUAL. EXPERIENCES.

You didn't. SPECIFY. THAT.

Seriously. We can discuss these spiritual experiences, and determine whether they're rational or not, but experience most certainly is a form of evidence.

If 3/4 of the world's population began reporting sightings of unicorns, then those who have not seen the unicorns have every right not to believe in unicorns. However, they have no right to say that anyone who believes in unicorns is delusional.

They might, actually. If every time anyone points to a unicorn, they're actually pointing at a bush, it might start to seem crazy to the "a-unicornists". And while SOMEONE'S personal experienec might actually BE of a unicorn, at a certain point you just might start assuming they're all looking at bushes.

To do so is closed-minded and irrational.

To assert something and believe it based on insufficient evidence is closed-minded and irrational.


"the sad part about this is that there's in depth explanations for how we've asserted the idea of a god, there's studies that show us that we tend to do this all the time in nature as humans."

Yes. In depth explanations based completely on SPECULATION.

Can you give a specific reason that's different than what I would consider the speculation regarding God? I would say it's better-founded than the God speculation, because it's based on things we actually know, however, I would grant it's speculation, though I'm not super familiar with that subject.

That's your opinion. You are an atheist so you prefer the form of speculation that supports your views, obviously.

That's not what I asked for. I asked for a specific reason the speculation is any different.

"There's also evidence to show there's a less likelihood of a deity being the answer towards the cause of the universe compared to a more natural answer we've yet to discover."

I've read books on cosmology before, my favorite being "How it Began" by Carl Impey. Those books really do have compelling theories on how the universe (or multiverse) came into existence. And you know what? Most of them are actually perfectly compatible with God's existence.

Compatible with =/= support for.

I realize that. Except much of Cosmology is also unsupported. It's just hypotheses.

Wow. Umm, I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you there. First, all of science is composed of hypotheses. Second, a hypothesis which is actively being tested, and has thus far proved correct based on evidence, is far from "unsupported". You're creating a false equivalence.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Yoshi
Posts: 71
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 9:13:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hello Romanii, this discussion is based on personal experience being evidence, you argued my post in the poll by saying that "Trusting personal experience is NOT ignorance." in your words. I replied with the following statement:

@Romanii Personal Experience is real to you, but it doesn't hold credibility itself, if you don't take the time to test if your experiences are real then it's not evidence. Evidence is verifiable, personal experience is not verifiable, even you can't verify it. If you believe something to be true because it's your personal experience and anything that goes against it that actually does have evidence for the opposing claim, then you are choosing to be ignorant.

You agreed then that "personal experience doesn't count as empirical evidence. However, there is NO evidence against the existence of God, so it is perfectly rational to believe in God based on personal experience."

Then I followed up in the current quotes you're addressing.

I'll address what you've stated here:

"There is only one God. Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Waheguru, and Brahma are all just names for him."

Understand that this discussion is based on personal experience being some sort of evidence. I don't care what claims you follow, asserting that it's true because you believe in it due to personal experience is the fallacy of assertion because you can't assert that your personal experience is the excuse for your belief.

Anyone else can do the same with any other claim if it's based on their personal experience, in this case a parody religion made up by a student in university.

"Resorting to petty insults, eh? Nice. Shows how capable you are of intelligent discussion. It is not "perfectly rational" to tell someone that their personal experiences are false, when you haven't even met them before."

Using an insult at the end of telling you that you've used fallacies as your base argument when it comes to personal experience was kind of mean, but it's honestly true, you're a moron to think that you can use your personal experience to argue that the claim is true. However you assume I'm claiming your personal experience is false which is not the case, I'm only telling you that you can't tell me it's true based on personal experience.

"I don't ASSERT that it is true. I BELIEVE that it is true and ASSERT that it is not irrational to do so."

Exactly, You believe it's true therefore it's true to you, I don't care about that and you can believe whatever you want but for argument's sake, you are on debates.org arguing that one thing is true because you believe it. I'm telling you that believing in things without evidence based on your belief is either gullibility or irrational. Believing something to be true is the same as asserting it's true, if you want to argue that your position is justifiable by telling me that you just believe it makes no sense, if someone used that argument for anything else I would argue against it.

"Yes. In depth explanations based completely on SPECULATION."

"I've read books on cosmology before, my favorite being "How it Began" by Carl Impey. Those books really do have compelling theories on how the universe (or multiverse) came into existence. And you know what? Most of them are actually perfectly compatible with God's existence."

"Huh. I hope you do a better job than Dawkins did."

We are now discussing the current scientific theories that support a natural explanation we've yet to discover for the cause of the universe.

Science has mapped out our understandings of how our universe came to be through it's complex formation over time. From a billionth of a second after the expansion of the universe to now the Big Bang theory has showed us how our universe has expanded and how the formation of planets, stars and galaxies came to be.

However the Big Bang Theory does not discuss what actually caused the universe to occur and that is an answer we've yet to discover. However it is more probable that a natural cause was the reason for our universe, in regards to religion we've seen that people have assumed it to be a god or gods to have been the reason behind the cause of the universe. People have followed this idea for thousands of years and many have believe it to be true based on a few reasons:

1. The universe is so complex and big, there must of been a creator behind it with enough power to have caused this universe.

Science has shown us that if we were to calculate the total net energy of the universe (including energy, spin, anti-matter and matter) we've discovered that the total adds up to exactly zero. It means the universe is a free lunch, it takes no energy to cause the universe. While this is one part, the concept of "Nothing" doesn't actually exist in science, what science defines as nothing is a singularity of no space, no time and no energy or radiation.

We've observed that nothing is more unstable then something and that it takes no energy to cause the universe, we then can assume that there does not need a great power to have caused the universe and also as the Big Bang Theory has already shown, there is no to assume that because the universe is complex, there needs to be a creator behind it because the explanation is already there.

2. They've experienced it personally.

As we've already discussed in this discussion, personal experience does not count as evidence, but why?

We've shown that things can be real to the mind psychologically, you're mind can do wonderful things. The science of Psychologically has shown we can even create personal relationships to imaginary friends and in religions case, a god or gods.

However your mind can't perform experiments in order to figure out what's actually true, we instead use the tools of science and if we can't then we simply say it's fiction until there's evidence, stating something is fiction is not the proof it's false, it's just a lack of evidence and a lack of evidence should come with a lack of belief, in this case I'm and Atheist.

3. Intelligence can only come from a god or gods

Evolution shows us that life does in fact change over time

The Theory of Evolution shows us two things, Common Decent and Natural Selection with a large range of variables that effect the outcome of both these things such as the environment, genetic mutation and predators.

With all this in mind, we can understand how we've become intelligent over time.

Conclusion

Personal Experience is an irrational answer to the beliefs you hold, believing it to be true is an assertion and an assertion based on belief is a fallacy. There's evidence to show that there's a much much more probable chance there's a natural explanation for the cause of our universe compared to the widely held claims of a deity being the cause.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:08:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 9:13:28 PM, Yoshi wrote:


Personal Experience is an irrational answer to the beliefs you hold, believing it to be true is an assertion and an assertion based on belief is a fallacy. There's evidence to show that there's a much much more probable chance there's a natural explanation for the cause of our universe compared to the widely held claims of a deity being the cause.
As far as the question of whether or not belief in God is rational, that may depend on what one means by God. I believe in the God of the Bible, and personal experience certainly plays a large part in my belief. But I don't expect anyone to believe in the God of the Bible because I make the claim. But raising the question of the existence of a creator (Or at the risk of political incorrectness: an intelligent designer) is a bit different, since we don't initially have to assume any name or religious attachment.

That being said, does your reference to the evidence of probability of a natural cause of our universe rate against the concept of a higher intelligent being putting our universe into place, or aimed at the concept of a religion oriented deity?
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:16:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It is a rational concept to believe that as yet ' unknown something ' other than ourselves, provided the Universe(s) we live in and are surrounded by.
Yoshi
Posts: 71
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 10:59:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 10:08:08 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:13:28 PM, Yoshi wrote:


Personal Experience is an irrational answer to the beliefs you hold, believing it to be true is an assertion and an assertion based on belief is a fallacy. There's evidence to show that there's a much much more probable chance there's a natural explanation for the cause of our universe compared to the widely held claims of a deity being the cause.
As far as the question of whether or not belief in God is rational, that may depend on what one means by God. I believe in the God of the Bible, and personal experience certainly plays a large part in my belief. But I don't expect anyone to believe in the God of the Bible because I make the claim. But raising the question of the existence of a creator (Or at the risk of political incorrectness: an intelligent designer) is a bit different, since we don't initially have to assume any name or religious attachment.

That being said, does your reference to the evidence of probability of a natural cause of our universe rate against the concept of a higher intelligent being putting our universe into place, or aimed at the concept of a religion oriented deity?

The title of this forum thread sways from my initial discussion, a Personal Experience cannot be used to justify a belief, a belief is the assertion that a claim is true and an assertion that is based on a belief is a fallacy. I don't care if people believe in things as long as they don't assert that what they believe is true even if the claim is unprovable. However I have addressed the title of this thread clearly in my previous post.
Yoshi
Posts: 71
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2014 11:11:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
@RoderickSpode

"That being said, does your reference to the evidence of probability of a natural cause of our universe rate against the concept of a higher intelligent being putting our universe into place, or aimed at the concept of a religion oriented deity?"

I addressed three arguments a theist tends to make in order to justify a belief in a god or gods, understand I do not have a problem with the belief itself however I do have problems with what is used to justify the claims.

My discussion regarding the probability of a natural cause compared to a deity would be based on any or all of the three argument's I've used. If you have any problems with the theistic argument's I used, please respond.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 7:53:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 10:59:29 PM, Yoshi wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:08:08 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:13:28 PM, Yoshi wrote:


Personal Experience is an irrational answer to the beliefs you hold, believing it to be true is an assertion and an assertion based on belief is a fallacy. There's evidence to show that there's a much much more probable chance there's a natural explanation for the cause of our universe compared to the widely held claims of a deity being the cause.
As far as the question of whether or not belief in God is rational, that may depend on what one means by God. I believe in the God of the Bible, and personal experience certainly plays a large part in my belief. But I don't expect anyone to believe in the God of the Bible because I make the claim. But raising the question of the existence of a creator (Or at the risk of political incorrectness: an intelligent designer) is a bit different, since we don't initially have to assume any name or religious attachment.

That being said, does your reference to the evidence of probability of a natural cause of our universe rate against the concept of a higher intelligent being putting our universe into place, or aimed at the concept of a religion oriented deity?

The title of this forum thread sways from my initial discussion, a Personal Experience cannot be used to justify a belief, a belief is the assertion that a claim is true and an assertion that is based on a belief is a fallacy. I don't care if people believe in things as long as they don't assert that what they believe is true even if the claim is unprovable. However I have addressed the title of this thread clearly in my previous post.

Let me ask you this. If you began seeing fairies in the wild on a regular basis, and you got medical confirmation that you are in perfectly fine mental health, would you believe that fairies exist?

And furthermore, would it be reasonable of your friends to tell you that you are delusional for believing in something which you have seen for yourself?

What if it wasn't just you, but much of the world's population that was seeing and interacting with fairies? The people who have not seen them have every right not to believe in something they haven't seen, but they have no right to call people stupid for believing something which they have seen to be true.
Yoshi
Posts: 71
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 6:37:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 7:53:00 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:59:29 PM, Yoshi wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:08:08 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:13:28 PM, Yoshi wrote:


Personal Experience is an irrational answer to the beliefs you hold, believing it to be true is an assertion and an assertion based on belief is a fallacy. There's evidence to show that there's a much much more probable chance there's a natural explanation for the cause of our universe compared to the widely held claims of a deity being the cause.
As far as the question of whether or not belief in God is rational, that may depend on what one means by God. I believe in the God of the Bible, and personal experience certainly plays a large part in my belief. But I don't expect anyone to believe in the God of the Bible because I make the claim. But raising the question of the existence of a creator (Or at the risk of political incorrectness: an intelligent designer) is a bit different, since we don't initially have to assume any name or religious attachment.

That being said, does your reference to the evidence of probability of a natural cause of our universe rate against the concept of a higher intelligent being putting our universe into place, or aimed at the concept of a religion oriented deity?

The title of this forum thread sways from my initial discussion, a Personal Experience cannot be used to justify a belief, a belief is the assertion that a claim is true and an assertion that is based on a belief is a fallacy. I don't care if people believe in things as long as they don't assert that what they believe is true even if the claim is unprovable. However I have addressed the title of this thread clearly in my previous post.

Let me ask you this. If you began seeing fairies in the wild on a regular basis, and you got medical confirmation that you are in perfectly fine mental health, would you believe that fairies exist?

And furthermore, would it be reasonable of your friends to tell you that you are delusional for believing in something which you have seen for yourself?

What if it wasn't just you, but much of the world's population that was seeing and interacting with fairies? The people who have not seen them have every right not to believe in something they haven't seen, but they have no right to call people stupid for believing something which they have seen to be true.

That analogy was a bad one for you, first of all there has actually been real people who have literally seen fairies to them, they honestly and truly believe it.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

There's been many sightings and claims of fairies and elves being seen and real, so how does this differ from your analogy because this time people are seeing them.

However fairies can be subject to our scientific tools, we can test if these claims are true and so far there's been no evidence that prove's the existence of fairies and as much I want the claims to be true, they're not. So this is the same with your analogy and just because lots and lots of people around the world have seen fairies doesn't make it true, You are appealing to popularity which doesn't make it true.

So to answer your question, if I was to see fairies myself and I'm in perfect condition, I should be able to experiment in order to believe what I'm seeing because I know that the mind is capable of doing these things. The mind can be subject to hallucinations for hundreds of reasons such as stress, depression, medication and things we yet to fully understand.

If I was to be told I'm delusional for seeing fairies then I probably am because I've failed to test the claim, you stated that "your friends to tell you that you are delusional for believing in something which you have seen for yourself?" However I wouldn't believe in something I have no evidence for, you assumed I would believe it automatically because I saw it, however no that isn't the case.

"The people who have not seen them have every right not to believe in something they haven't seen, but they have no right to call people stupid for believing something which they have seen to be true."

It is wrong to call someone stupid for believing in things without evidence, however no atheist I know would call someone stupid just for the belief itself. Like I said to you many times before, I DON'T CARE about your beliefs, I care about what you use to justify your beliefs, I care about what your doctrine teaches you, not the beliefs in god.

You will never see me call someone an idiot just because they believe in something without evidence, however you will see me call people morons for using a fallacy to justify what they are believing such as you did when you used an assertion fallacy based on "Personal Experience".

Just because you believe it or have seen it doesn't make it true, same goes for every other claim.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/27/2014 7:42:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 6:37:43 PM, Yoshi wrote:
At 1/27/2014 7:53:00 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:59:29 PM, Yoshi wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:08:08 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:13:28 PM, Yoshi wrote:


Personal Experience is an irrational answer to the beliefs you hold, believing it to be true is an assertion and an assertion based on belief is a fallacy. There's evidence to show that there's a much much more probable chance there's a natural explanation for the cause of our universe compared to the widely held claims of a deity being the cause.

Let me ask you this. If you began seeing fairies in the wild on a regular basis, and you got medical confirmation that you are in perfectly fine mental health, would you believe that fairies exist?

And furthermore, would it be reasonable of your friends to tell you that you are delusional for believing in something which you have seen for yourself?

What if it wasn't just you, but much of the world's population that was seeing and interacting with fairies? The people who have not seen them have every right not to believe in something they haven't seen, but they have no right to call people stupid for believing something which they have seen to be true.


That analogy was a bad one for you, first of all there has actually been real people who have literally seen fairies to them, they honestly and truly believe it.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

There's an entire section of that article called "Confessions" where the makers of the photographs admitted that they were fake.


There's been many sightings and claims of fairies and elves being seen and real, so how does this differ from your analogy because this time people are seeing them.

It doesn't differ...
Other than that the population of people who have legitimate claims to seeing fairies is minuscule and consists mostly of children and mental patients, whereas the population of people who have claims to spiritual experiences is huge and consists mostly of people in perfect mental health.


However fairies can be subject to our scientific tools, we can test if these claims are true and so far there's been no evidence that prove's the existence of fairies and as much I want the claims to be true, they're not. So this is the same with your analogy and just because lots and lots of people around the world have seen fairies doesn't make it true, You are appealing to popularity which doesn't make it true.

You're right. It doesn't make it true. However, it does add to the LIKELIHOOD of those experiences being true, rather than mere hallucinations.


So to answer your question, if I was to see fairies myself and I'm in perfect condition, I should be able to experiment in order to believe what I'm seeing because I know that the mind is capable of doing these things. The mind can be subject to hallucinations for hundreds of reasons such as stress, depression, medication and things we yet to fully understand.

What if you were having full-on interactions with fairies, rather than simple sightings? And what if they refused to appear in photographs or in front of other people?

The point I'm trying to convey here is that spiritual experiences are plenty to convince someone that God exists.
God doesn't care to be "tested". His sense of personal security doesn't depend on puny humans believing in him.


If I was to be told I'm delusional for seeing fairies then I probably am because I've failed to test the claim, you stated that "your friends to tell you that you are delusional for believing in something which you have seen for yourself?" However I wouldn't believe in something I have no evidence for, you assumed I would believe it automatically because I saw it, however no that isn't the case.

"The people who have not seen them have every right not to believe in something they haven't seen, but they have no right to call people stupid for believing something which they have seen to be true."

It is wrong to call someone stupid for believing in things without evidence, however no atheist I know would call someone stupid just for the belief itself. Like I said to you many times before, I DON'T CARE about your beliefs, I care about what you use to justify your beliefs, I care about what your doctrine teaches you, not the beliefs in god.

You will never see me call someone an idiot just because they believe in something without evidence, however you will see me call people morons for using a fallacy to justify what they are believing such as you did when you used an assertion fallacy based on "Personal Experience".

I'm not trying to use my personal experiences to convince you or anything....
I'm just pointing out that I have experienced something, so I believe it's real, and there is no logical fallacy in that.

If you have seen something happen that I have never seen before, then it's natural that I won't believe you. But it would be irrational for me to totally dismiss your claims based on just the grounds that I've never seen it before.


Just because you believe it or have seen it doesn't make it true, same goes for every other claim.

Agreed. But it does make it very possible, especially when many people can affirm to it, and as such, you have no right to ridicule.
Yoshi
Posts: 71
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 3:18:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
"There's an entire section of that article called "Confessions" where the makers of the photographs admitted that they were fake."

Here's the exact first sentence in that "Confessions" section:

"In 1983, the cousins admitted in an article published in the magazine The Unexplained that the photographs had been faked, although both maintained that they really had seen fairies"

They told us they "really had seen fairies" However even if they were completely faking it all and didn't see any fairies, This still works against your analogy either way so telling me "they were fake" is wrong and irreverent.

"whereas the population of people who have claims to spiritual experiences is huge and consists mostly of people in perfect mental health."

I've told you twice now, it doesn't matter if everyone believed in anything supernatural or have seen supernatural things, it doesn't make it true.

Many good healthy people think they see ghosts as well, when you asked me about fairies, you debunked your own analogy when you stated "consists mostly of children and mental patients" afterwards.

"You're right. It doesn't make it true. However, it does add to the LIKELIHOOD of those experiences being true, rather than mere hallucinations."

They only time the "Likelihood" changes is when we've tested the claim and there's positive evidence for it, or when the theories that fairies existed was based on a ground of evidence beforehand. God claims are absurd, much bigger then discussing the existence of fairies and the thing about the god debate is that there's things we can say against the claim such as "why do kids starve if god is omnipresent and all powerful" and then "if god isn't omnipresent and all powerful then why is it a answer to the cause of the universe?" and so on.

The likelihood is against the claim but more over that, there's evidence that shows us the attributes that theists add to the concept of god such as "omnipresence, all loving and all powerful" does not add together.

"What if you were having full-on interactions with fairies, rather than simple sightings? And what if they refused to appear in photographs or in front of other people?"

Now you're finding cheap excuses to continue this bad analogy that you failed to actually build an argument on.

"The point I'm trying to convey here is that spiritual experiences are plenty to convince someone that God exists."

Like I just said, even if you feel it, if you can't test it then it might be real to you, but not to everyone else who understands there's an explanation for those "experiences" and including the "full-on interactions with fairies".

What's the difference between someone who's high and sees hallucinations that interact with them and someone who's in good health and not high at all?

The answer is that one person is actually insane, joke intended, I'm saying that it doesn't matter on your condition, your mind is subject to these experiences in many way's when drunk or not, high or not and insane or not.

"God doesn't care to be "tested". His sense of personal security doesn't depend on puny humans believing in him."

When you say "God doesn't care to be "tested"" that tells me you somehow know the mind of a deity, how do we know you are right? was it just your "experience" or from a book according to some religions, made 2000 years ago by anonymous authors with no kind of evidence to show it was actually from a divine being.

But to answer you, if your god thought that it would of been easy for everyone to hear his message without any evidence and be able to accept it without faith and then be able to live freely, then your god is an idiot.

"His sense of personal security doesn't depend on puny humans believing in him."

Then why does this god even care about how people live their lives if they are believing in them or not? However you can't answer this. By your logic, if I am a good person and live my life following evidence, I'll end up the exact same way as you, then by your logic, why do you even think a god exists if it's your own personal experience. There's no evidence as well, so I'd probably suggest reviewing your strategy and stop wasting my time with pointless debates.

"I'm not trying to use my personal experiences to convince you or anything....
I'm just pointing out that I have experienced something, so I believe it's real, and there is no logical fallacy in that."


Yes, yes you are trying to convince me there's a god, you are telling me you believe in something because you experienced it, you can't test it, but you believe it's true anyway and because you believe in it you are debating me and by debating me you are asserting that your personal experience has a credible value, THAT'S AN ASSERTION FALLACY, thank you for wasting my time.

"If you have seen something happen that I have never seen before, then it's natural that I won't believe you. But it would be irrational for me to totally dismiss your claims based on just the grounds that I've never seen it before."

Sure, it is irrational, that;s why I care about WHAT YOU USE TO JUSTIFY YOUR CLAIMS, if you use personal experience to justify what you believe to be true then that's irrational. And in this entire discussion I've clearly shown you how it is irrational to use personal experience as a credible value to assert what is true or not.

"Agreed. But it does make it very possible, especially when many people can affirm to it, and as such, you have no right to ridicule."

If you are brought up to believe that we serve a giant flying spaghetti monster, just because many people agree doesn't mean it's more likely to be true.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 6:51:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 10:59:29 PM, Yoshi wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:08:08 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:13:28 PM, Yoshi wrote:


Personal Experience is an irrational answer to the beliefs you hold, believing it to be true is an assertion and an assertion based on belief is a fallacy. There's evidence to show that there's a much much more probable chance there's a natural explanation for the cause of our universe compared to the widely held claims of a deity being the cause.
As far as the question of whether or not belief in God is rational, that may depend on what one means by God. I believe in the God of the Bible, and personal experience certainly plays a large part in my belief. But I don't expect anyone to believe in the God of the Bible because I make the claim. But raising the question of the existence of a creator (Or at the risk of political incorrectness: an intelligent designer) is a bit different, since we don't initially have to assume any name or religious attachment.

That being said, does your reference to the evidence of probability of a natural cause of our universe rate against the concept of a higher intelligent being putting our universe into place, or aimed at the concept of a religion oriented deity?

The title of this forum thread sways from my initial discussion, a Personal Experience cannot be used to justify a belief, a belief is the assertion that a claim is true and an assertion that is based on a belief is a fallacy. I don't care if people believe in things as long as they don't assert that what they believe is true even if the claim is unprovable. However I have addressed the title of this thread clearly in my previous post.
For one, don't you believe certain things to be true because of personal experience?

It also appears that you are implying that you don't mind if someone believes in, say, God, just so long as they don't say that what they believe is true. I know that's a bit of a mess, but that's all I can make out of your statement at the moment.

It would seem to me that if you have a problem with someone claiming they believe in God, you should also take issue with what they believe as well. I'm not going to tell you that I only think that the God of the Bible might be real, without any sense of conviction.

In other words, it appears that you're suggesting a keep it to yourself approach to (for lack of a better word) religious belief.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,373
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/28/2014 7:21:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/26/2014 9:13:28 PM, Yoshi wrote:

At 1/26/2014 11:11:30 PM, Yoshi wrote:
@RoderickSpode

"That being said, does your reference to the evidence of probability of a natural cause of our universe rate against the concept of a higher intelligent being putting our universe into place, or aimed at the concept of a religion oriented deity?"

I addressed three arguments a theist tends to make in order to justify a belief in a god or gods, understand I do not have a problem with the belief itself however I do have problems with what is used to justify the claims.

My discussion regarding the probability of a natural cause compared to a deity would be based on any or all of the three argument's I've used. If you have any problems with the theistic argument's I used, please respond.


1. The universe is so complex and big, there must of been a creator behind it with enough power to have caused this universe.

Science has shown us that if we were to calculate the total net energy of the universe (including energy, spin, anti-matter and matter) we've discovered that the total adds up to exactly zero. It means the universe is a free lunch, it takes no energy to cause the universe. While this is one part, the concept of "Nothing" doesn't actually exist in science, what science defines as nothing is a singularity of no space, no time and no energy or radiation.

We've observed that nothing is more unstable then something and that it takes no energy to cause the universe, we then can assume that there does not need a great power to have caused the universe and also as the Big Bang Theory has already shown, there is no to assume that because the universe is complex, there needs to be a creator behind it because the explanation is already there.

2. They've experienced it personally.

As we've already discussed in this discussion, personal experience does not count as evidence, but why?

We've shown that things can be real to the mind psychologically, you're mind can do wonderful things. The science of Psychologically has shown we can even create personal relationships to imaginary friends and in religions case, a god or gods.

However your mind can't perform experiments in order to figure out what's actually true, we instead use the tools of science and if we can't then we simply say it's fiction until there's evidence, stating something is fiction is not the proof it's false, it's just a lack of evidence and a lack of evidence should come with a lack of belief, in this case I'm and Atheist.

3. Intelligence can only come from a god or gods

Evolution shows us that life does in fact change over time

The Theory of Evolution shows us two things, Common Decent and Natural Selection with a large range of variables that effect the outcome of both these things such as the environment, genetic mutation and predators.

With all this in mind, we can understand how we've become intelligent over time.



1. These answers are only an alternative to a grand designer. They are not answers that eliminate a grand designer. There is no natural definite answer to the question of what happened before an alleged Big Bang. There are only alternative theories.

2. I personally don't need evidence for what I believe.

Do people have imaginary friends? Yes! Could that include a deity? I suppose so. Does that mean that every personal interaction with a deity is imaginary? No. Is that what you believe?

3. Again, you're merely presenting an alternative theory. I know the arguments made for a grand designer, and I know the counter-arguments. Are you claiming that the counter arguments embraced by atheists is the only valid view?

Conclusion

Personal Experience is an irrational answer to the beliefs you hold, believing it to be true is an assertion and an assertion based on belief is a fallacy. There's evidence to show that there's a much much more probable chance there's a natural explanation for the cause of our universe compared to the widely held claims of a deity being the cause.

But again, since you're using the word deity; are you referring to the idea of (at the risk of sound politically incorrect) an intelligent designer creating the Universe, or a God/gods associated with basic religion?
janetsanders733
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 6:27:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The atheist needs to give some positive reasons for the non-existence of God. They don't get off the hook and avoid the burden of proof.
superflymegastallion
Posts: 370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 6:43:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/27/2014 7:53:00 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:59:29 PM, Yoshi wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:08:08 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:13:28 PM, Yoshi wrote:


Personal Experience is an irrational answer to the beliefs you hold, believing it to be true is an assertion and an assertion based on belief is a fallacy. There's evidence to show that there's a much much more probable chance there's a natural explanation for the cause of our universe compared to the widely held claims of a deity being the cause.
As far as the question of whether or not belief in God is rational, that may depend on what one means by God. I believe in the God of the Bible, and personal experience certainly plays a large part in my belief. But I don't expect anyone to believe in the God of the Bible because I make the claim. But raising the question of the existence of a creator (Or at the risk of political incorrectness: an intelligent designer) is a bit different, since we don't initially have to assume any name or religious attachment.

That being said, does your reference to the evidence of probability of a natural cause of our universe rate against the concept of a higher intelligent being putting our universe into place, or aimed at the concept of a religion oriented deity?

The title of this forum thread sways from my initial discussion, a Personal Experience cannot be used to justify a belief, a belief is the assertion that a claim is true and an assertion that is based on a belief is a fallacy. I don't care if people believe in things as long as they don't assert that what they believe is true even if the claim is unprovable. However I have addressed the title of this thread clearly in my previous post.

Let me ask you this. If you began seeing fairies in the wild on a regular basis, and you got medical confirmation that you are in perfectly fine mental health, would you believe that fairies exist?

And furthermore, would it be reasonable of your friends to tell you that you are delusional for believing in something which you have seen for yourself?

What if it wasn't just you, but much of the world's population that was seeing and interacting with fairies? The people who have not seen them have every right not to believe in something they haven't seen, but they have no right to call people stupid for believing something which they have seen to be true.
I completely understand your point. And it does make sense. It really does.
Please look up people who did unspeakable things because god told them to do it.
These people were seeing and interacting with god. People who did not see them have no right to convict them of murder, torture, etc... right? This is the argument that you are making. Now, I'm not saying that your crazy. You just may be misinterpreting things for who knows what reason. Hallucinations may be signs of ... ask a shrink. Brain tumors, who knows. I think I saw a.... You know what I mean. It doesn't make it any less real for you, but there may be a better explanation.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 6:53:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 6:43:04 PM, superflymegastallion wrote:
At 1/27/2014 7:53:00 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:59:29 PM, Yoshi wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:08:08 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:13:28 PM, Yoshi wrote:


Personal Experience is an irrational answer to the beliefs you hold, believing it to be true is an assertion and an assertion based on belief is a fallacy. There's evidence to show that there's a much much more probable chance there's a natural explanation for the cause of our universe compared to the widely held claims of a deity being the cause.
As far as the question of whether or not belief in God is rational, that may depend on what one means by God. I believe in the God of the Bible, and personal experience certainly plays a large part in my belief. But I don't expect anyone to believe in the God of the Bible because I make the claim. But raising the question of the existence of a creator (Or at the risk of political incorrectness: an intelligent designer) is a bit different, since we don't initially have to assume any name or religious attachment.

That being said, does your reference to the evidence of probability of a natural cause of our universe rate against the concept of a higher intelligent being putting our universe into place, or aimed at the concept of a religion oriented deity?

The title of this forum thread sways from my initial discussion, a Personal Experience cannot be used to justify a belief, a belief is the assertion that a claim is true and an assertion that is based on a belief is a fallacy. I don't care if people believe in things as long as they don't assert that what they believe is true even if the claim is unprovable. However I have addressed the title of this thread clearly in my previous post.

Let me ask you this. If you began seeing fairies in the wild on a regular basis, and you got medical confirmation that you are in perfectly fine mental health, would you believe that fairies exist?

And furthermore, would it be reasonable of your friends to tell you that you are delusional for believing in something which you have seen for yourself?

What if it wasn't just you, but much of the world's population that was seeing and interacting with fairies? The people who have not seen them have every right not to believe in something they haven't seen, but they have no right to call people stupid for believing something which they have seen to be true.
I completely understand your point. And it does make sense. It really does.
Please look up people who did unspeakable things because god told them to do it.
These people were seeing and interacting with god. People who did not see them have no right to convict them of murder, torture, etc... right? This is the argument that you are making. Now, I'm not saying that your crazy. You just may be misinterpreting things for who knows what reason. Hallucinations may be signs of ... ask a shrink. Brain tumors, who knows. I think I saw a.... You know what I mean. It doesn't make it any less real for you, but there may be a better explanation.

I've read up on the possible scientific explanations for "religious ecstasy" as they call it.

They seemed to have simulated something similar to a spiritual experience using electromagnetism.

But I simply don't find any of these neurological explanations very compelling because

1) I've felt the electrical effect that they describe before from things as simple as good music, and it is much weaker than a real spiritual experience.

2) The concept of God makes perfect sense and explains much in my own life.
superflymegastallion
Posts: 370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 6:56:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 6:53:56 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 1/30/2014 6:43:04 PM, superflymegastallion wrote:
At 1/27/2014 7:53:00 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:59:29 PM, Yoshi wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:08:08 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:13:28 PM, Yoshi wrote:


Personal Experience is an irrational answer to the beliefs you hold, believing it to be true is an assertion and an assertion based on belief is a fallacy. There's evidence to show that there's a much much more probable chance there's a natural explanation for the cause of our universe compared to the widely held claims of a deity being the cause.
As far as the question of whether or not belief in God is rational, that may depend on what one means by God. I believe in the God of the Bible, and personal experience certainly plays a large part in my belief. But I don't expect anyone to believe in the God of the Bible because I make the claim. But raising the question of the existence of a creator (Or at the risk of political incorrectness: an intelligent designer) is a bit different, since we don't initially have to assume any name or religious attachment.

That being said, does your reference to the evidence of probability of a natural cause of our universe rate against the concept of a higher intelligent being putting our universe into place, or aimed at the concept of a religion oriented deity?

The title of this forum thread sways from my initial discussion, a Personal Experience cannot be used to justify a belief, a belief is the assertion that a claim is true and an assertion that is based on a belief is a fallacy. I don't care if people believe in things as long as they don't assert that what they believe is true even if the claim is unprovable. However I have addressed the title of this thread clearly in my previous post.

Let me ask you this. If you began seeing fairies in the wild on a regular basis, and you got medical confirmation that you are in perfectly fine mental health, would you believe that fairies exist?

And furthermore, would it be reasonable of your friends to tell you that you are delusional for believing in something which you have seen for yourself?

What if it wasn't just you, but much of the world's population that was seeing and interacting with fairies? The people who have not seen them have every right not to believe in something they haven't seen, but they have no right to call people stupid for believing something which they have seen to be true.
I completely understand your point. And it does make sense. It really does.
Please look up people who did unspeakable things because god told them to do it.
These people were seeing and interacting with god. People who did not see them have no right to convict them of murder, torture, etc... right? This is the argument that you are making. Now, I'm not saying that your crazy. You just may be misinterpreting things for who knows what reason. Hallucinations may be signs of ... ask a shrink. Brain tumors, who knows. I think I saw a.... You know what I mean. It doesn't make it any less real for you, but there may be a better explanation.

I've read up on the possible scientific explanations for "religious ecstasy" as they call it.

They seemed to have simulated something similar to a spiritual experience using electromagnetism.

But I simply don't find any of these neurological explanations very compelling because

1) I've felt the electrical effect that they describe before from things as simple as good music, and it is much weaker than a real spiritual experience.

2) The concept of God makes perfect sense and explains much in my own life.
Well, If it works for you and is what you need, who am I to dismiss your happiness? If it makes you happy that is.
Romanii
Posts: 4,851
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2014 7:01:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 6:56:45 PM, superflymegastallion wrote:
At 1/30/2014 6:53:56 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 1/30/2014 6:43:04 PM, superflymegastallion wrote:
At 1/27/2014 7:53:00 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:59:29 PM, Yoshi wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:08:08 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:13:28 PM, Yoshi wrote:


Personal Experience is an irrational answer to the beliefs you hold, believing it to be true is an assertion and an assertion based on belief is a fallacy. There's evidence to show that there's a much much more probable chance there's a natural explanation for the cause of our universe compared to the widely held claims of a deity being the cause.
As far as the question of whether or not belief in God is rational, that may depend on what one means by God. I believe in the God of the Bible, and personal experience certainly plays a large part in my belief. But I don't expect anyone to believe in the God of the Bible because I make the claim. But raising the question of the existence of a creator (Or at the risk of political incorrectness: an intelligent designer) is a bit different, since we don't initially have to assume any name or religious attachment.

That being said, does your reference to the evidence of probability of a natural cause of our universe rate against the concept of a higher intelligent being putting our universe into place, or aimed at the concept of a religion oriented deity?

The title of this forum thread sways from my initial discussion, a Personal Experience cannot be used to justify a belief, a belief is the assertion that a claim is true and an assertion that is based on a belief is a fallacy. I don't care if people believe in things as long as they don't assert that what they believe is true even if the claim is unprovable. However I have addressed the title of this thread clearly in my previous post.

Let me ask you this. If you began seeing fairies in the wild on a regular basis, and you got medical confirmation that you are in perfectly fine mental health, would you believe that fairies exist?

And furthermore, would it be reasonable of your friends to tell you that you are delusional for believing in something which you have seen for yourself?

What if it wasn't just you, but much of the world's population that was seeing and interacting with fairies? The people who have not seen them have every right not to believe in something they haven't seen, but they have no right to call people stupid for believing something which they have seen to be true.
I completely understand your point. And it does make sense. It really does.
Please look up people who did unspeakable things because god told them to do it.
These people were seeing and interacting with god. People who did not see them have no right to convict them of murder, torture, etc... right? This is the argument that you are making. Now, I'm not saying that your crazy. You just may be misinterpreting things for who knows what reason. Hallucinations may be signs of ... ask a shrink. Brain tumors, who knows. I think I saw a.... You know what I mean. It doesn't make it any less real for you, but there may be a better explanation.

I've read up on the possible scientific explanations for "religious ecstasy" as they call it.

They seemed to have simulated something similar to a spiritual experience using electromagnetism.

But I simply don't find any of these neurological explanations very compelling because

1) I've felt the electrical effect that they describe before from things as simple as good music, and it is much weaker than a real spiritual experience.

2) The concept of God makes perfect sense and explains much in my own life.

Well, If it works for you and is what you need, who am I to dismiss your happiness? If it makes you happy that is.

Wow, I've never heard a skeptic say anything so agreeable!
superflymegastallion
Posts: 370
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2014 1:20:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/30/2014 7:01:17 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 1/30/2014 6:56:45 PM, superflymegastallion wrote:
At 1/30/2014 6:53:56 PM, Romanii wrote:
At 1/30/2014 6:43:04 PM, superflymegastallion wrote:
At 1/27/2014 7:53:00 AM, Romanii wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:59:29 PM, Yoshi wrote:
At 1/26/2014 10:08:08 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 1/26/2014 9:13:28 PM, Yoshi wrote:


Personal Experience is an irrational answer to the beliefs you hold, believing it to be true is an assertion and an assertion based on belief is a fallacy. There's evidence to show that there's a much much more probable chance there's a natural explanation for the cause of our universe compared to the widely held claims of a deity being the cause.
As far as the question of whether or not belief in God is rational, that may depend on what one means by God. I believe in the God of the Bible, and personal experience certainly plays a large part in my belief. But I don't expect anyone to believe in the God of the Bible because I make the claim. But raising the question of the existence of a creator (Or at the risk of political incorrectness: an intelligent designer) is a bit different, since we don't initially have to assume any name or religious attachment.

That being said, does your reference to the evidence of probability of a natural cause of our universe rate against the concept of a higher intelligent being putting our universe into place, or aimed at the concept of a religion oriented deity?

The title of this forum thread sways from my initial discussion, a Personal Experience cannot be used to justify a belief, a belief is the assertion that a claim is true and an assertion that is based on a belief is a fallacy. I don't care if people believe in things as long as they don't assert that what they believe is true even if the claim is unprovable. However I have addressed the title of this thread clearly in my previous post.

Let me ask you this. If you began seeing fairies in the wild on a regular basis, and you got medical confirmation that you are in perfectly fine mental health, would you believe that fairies exist?

And furthermore, would it be reasonable of your friends to tell you that you are delusional for believing in something which you have seen for yourself?

What if it wasn't just you, but much of the world's population that was seeing and interacting with fairies? The people who have not seen them have every right not to believe in something they haven't seen, but they have no right to call people stupid for believing something which they have seen to be true.
I completely understand your point. And it does make sense. It really does.
Please look up people who did unspeakable things because god told them to do it.
These people were seeing and interacting with god. People who did not see them have no right to convict them of murder, torture, etc... right? This is the argument that you are making. Now, I'm not saying that your crazy. You just may be misinterpreting things for who knows what reason. Hallucinations may be signs of ... ask a shrink. Brain tumors, who knows. I think I saw a.... You know what I mean. It doesn't make it any less real for you, but there may be a better explanation.

I've read up on the possible scientific explanations for "religious ecstasy" as they call it.

They seemed to have simulated something similar to a spiritual experience using electromagnetism.

But I simply don't find any of these neurological explanations very compelling because

1) I've felt the electrical effect that they describe before from things as simple as good music, and it is much weaker than a real spiritual experience.

2) The concept of God makes perfect sense and explains much in my own life.

Well, If it works for you and is what you need, who am I to dismiss your happiness? If it makes you happy that is.

Wow, I've never heard a skeptic say anything so agreeable!
Well, thanks. I'm not your typical atheist.