Total Posts:273|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Believing without seeing is gullibility

Silly_Billy
Posts: 655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 5:32:26 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

You can be justified in believing in something without seeing it if it has a justified logical inference. If you believe something based on lack of evidence then this is a rationally unjustifiable position.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 5:40:50 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 5:32:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

You can be justified in believing in something without seeing it if it has a justified logical inference. If you believe something based on lack of evidence then this is a rationally unjustifiable position.

Then in your opinion, would the belief in existence of the soul be rationally unjustifiable? Or is there enough logical inference to justify such a belief? At any rate, i do belief in evolution and i definetely do not believe in any religon.
Emgaol
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 5:44:59 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

I think if someone came to me and said their dog had just died, I'd be inclined to believe them because the information is something that one commonly encounters.
If however they said that the dog came back to life, then I'd be skeptical. If I just believed that, then I would be gullible.
Remember the adage about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence?
Theists want us to believe their extraordinary claims.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 5:49:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 5:40:50 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:32:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

You can be justified in believing in something without seeing it if it has a justified logical inference. If you believe something based on lack of evidence then this is a rationally unjustifiable position.

Then in your opinion, would the belief in existence of the soul be rationally unjustifiable? Or is there enough logical inference to justify such a belief? At any rate, i do belief in evolution and i definetely do not believe in any religon.

How do you define the soul? It's intuitive that we are more than just our brains, if that's what you mean. What distinction is there between the mind, brain, and soul?
Silly_Billy
Posts: 655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 5:54:23 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 5:44:59 PM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

I think if someone came to me and said their dog had just died, I'd be inclined to believe them because the information is something that one commonly encounters.
If however they said that the dog came back to life, then I'd be skeptical. If I just believed that, then I would be gullible.
Remember the adage about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence?
Theists want us to believe their extraordinary claims.

I agree with you that the idea of God is an extraordinary claim, atleast from my and your point of view that is. But to anyone who is religious, the belief in the existence of God is as ordinary as the truth of Science is to us and considering that there are more people in the world who do follow a religion and as such believe in God, is their claim as extraordinary as we would like it to be?

I once heard the phrase, "In an insane society the sane must appear insane" and that unfortunately seems to be a very good phrase to describe those of us who do not believe in God for we are the sane minority that must appear insane to those who do belief.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 6:00:15 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 5:49:05 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:40:50 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:32:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

You can be justified in believing in something without seeing it if it has a justified logical inference. If you believe something based on lack of evidence then this is a rationally unjustifiable position.

Then in your opinion, would the belief in existence of the soul be rationally unjustifiable? Or is there enough logical inference to justify such a belief? At any rate, I do belief in evolution and I definitely do not believe in any religion.

How do you define the soul? It's intuitive that we are more than just our brains, if that's what you mean. What distinction is there between the mind, brain, and soul?

The problem with definitions is that they can be extremely hard to put into words and often the attempt will lead to misunderstandings as it does not convey the true meaning of the word. Language is more than just the letters of the word just as the soul is supposed to be more than the sum of the brain. For instance, can you accurately define a chair without people sitting down on what is supposed to be a table?

Anyways, to me the soul is the part of us that transcends the physical world as we know it today. I do not believe in the God from the Bible or any other religion, but I do wishfully think that there is perhaps more to live then simply death at the end of the road.
Emgaol
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 6:10:06 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 5:54:23 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:44:59 PM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

I think if someone came to me and said their dog had just died, I'd be inclined to believe them because the information is something that one commonly encounters.
If however they said that the dog came back to life, then I'd be skeptical. If I just believed that, then I would be gullible.
Remember the adage about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence?
Theists want us to believe their extraordinary claims.

I agree with you that the idea of God is an extraordinary claim, atleast from my and your point of view that is. But to anyone who is religious, the belief in the existence of God is as ordinary as the truth of Science is to us and considering that there are more people in the world who do follow a religion and as such believe in God, is their claim as extraordinary as we would like it to be?

I once heard the phrase, "In an insane society the sane must appear insane" and that unfortunately seems to be a very good phrase to describe those of us who do not believe in God for we are the sane minority that must appear insane to those who do belief.
Two quotes came to my mind. I'll give them here because they say it far more eloquently than I ever could.
"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd." - Bertrand Russell
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." - Marcus Aurelius
Emgaol
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 6:32:13 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 5:54:23 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:44:59 PM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

I think if someone came to me and said their dog had just died, I'd be inclined to believe them because the information is something that one commonly encounters.
If however they said that the dog came back to life, then I'd be skeptical. If I just believed that, then I would be gullible.
Remember the adage about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence?
Theists want us to believe their extraordinary claims.

I agree with you that the idea of God is an extraordinary claim, atleast from my and your point of view that is. But to anyone who is religious, the belief in the existence of God is as ordinary as the truth of Science is to us and considering that there are more people in the world who do follow a religion and as such believe in God, is their claim as extraordinary as we would like it to be?
According to theists, did not God simply open his mouth and say "Let there be light" and there was light. Isn't that something extraordinary? Or does God do it on a regular basis?
I'd like to hear theists argue that God is not extraordinary.
I once heard the phrase, "In an insane society the sane must appear insane" and that unfortunately seems to be a very good phrase to describe those of us who do not believe in God for we are the sane minority that must appear insane to those who do belief.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 6:44:13 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 6:32:13 PM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:54:23 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:44:59 PM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

I think if someone came to me and said their dog had just died, I'd be inclined to believe them because the information is something that one commonly encounters.
If however they said that the dog came back to life, then I'd be skeptical. If I just believed that, then I would be gullible.
Remember the adage about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence?
Theists want us to believe their extraordinary claims.

I agree with you that the idea of God is an extraordinary claim, atleast from my and your point of view that is. But to anyone who is religious, the belief in the existence of God is as ordinary as the truth of Science is to us and considering that there are more people in the world who do follow a religion and as such believe in God, is their claim as extraordinary as we would like it to be?
According to theists, did not God simply open his mouth and say "Let there be light" and there was light. Isn't that something extraordinary? Or does God do it on a regular basis?
I'd like to hear theists argue that God is not extraordinary.
I once heard the phrase, "In an insane society the sane must appear insane" and that unfortunately seems to be a very good phrase to describe those of us who do not believe in God for we are the sane minority that must appear insane to those who do belief.

Extraordinary yes but it can be said that the existence of the universe is the evidence that something extraordinary happened. Let's face it, a universe doesn't come into existence every day either and though I do not believe it myself, theists can claim that this extraordinary event proofs that therefor an extraordinary God must exists.

Personally I rather go for a classic time-paradox in which mankind (or another species) eventually causes a disaster that ripples back through time to become the big bang and therefore causes our existence.
Emgaol
Posts: 166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 7:05:43 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 6:44:13 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/24/2016 6:32:13 PM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:54:23 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:44:59 PM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

I think if someone came to me and said their dog had just died, I'd be inclined to believe them because the information is something that one commonly encounters.
If however they said that the dog came back to life, then I'd be skeptical. If I just believed that, then I would be gullible.
Remember the adage about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence?
Theists want us to believe their extraordinary claims.

I agree with you that the idea of God is an extraordinary claim, atleast from my and your point of view that is. But to anyone who is religious, the belief in the existence of God is as ordinary as the truth of Science is to us and considering that there are more people in the world who do follow a religion and as such believe in God, is their claim as extraordinary as we would like it to be?
According to theists, did not God simply open his mouth and say "Let there be light" and there was light. Isn't that something extraordinary? Or does God do it on a regular basis?
I'd like to hear theists argue that God is not extraordinary.
I once heard the phrase, "In an insane society the sane must appear insane" and that unfortunately seems to be a very good phrase to describe those of us who do not believe in God for we are the sane minority that must appear insane to those who do belief.

Extraordinary yes but it can be said that the existence of the universe is the evidence that something extraordinary happened. Let's face it, a universe doesn't come into existence every day either and though I do not believe it myself, theists can claim that this extraordinary event proofs that therefor an extraordinary God must exists.
Sure, I agree, but if theists claim that an extraordinary event (one which both theists and atheists agree was extraordinary) was created by an extraordinary entity then they need extraordinary evidence to support their claim of an extraordinary entity.
Otherwise, they are arguing fallaciously: Obscurum per Obscurius
Explaining something obscure or mysterious by something that is even more obscure or more mysterious.


Personally I rather go for a classic time-paradox in which mankind (or another species) eventually causes a disaster that ripples back through time to become the big bang and therefore causes our existence.
Hmm, I've not heard that before, I'll have to research it. I'm wondering if we haven't wandered off topic a bit though.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 7:11:47 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

it all goes back to what the individual chooses to believe..
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 7:20:24 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

There is a big difference.

What Darwin saw in the origin of species was the product of evolution. What we see in God is the product of human imagination. So we are seeing evidence of both evolution and God. But one is a product of human imagination or as you would like to call it self gullibility and the other is a product of evolution.
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 7:29:07 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 7:20:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

There is a big difference.

What Darwin saw in the origin of species was the product of evolution. What we see in God is the product of human imagination. So we are seeing evidence of both evolution and God. But one is a product of human imagination or as you would like to call it self gullibility and the other is a product of evolution.

Are you an atheist Hari?
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 7:30:19 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 7:11:47 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

it all goes back to what the individual chooses to believe..

Do people choose what they believe?
Silly_Billy
Posts: 655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 7:35:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 7:20:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

There is a big difference.

What Darwin saw in the origin of species was the product of evolution. What we see in God is the product of human imagination. So we are seeing evidence of both evolution and God. But one is a product of human imagination or as you would like to call it self gullibility and the other is a product of evolution.

I can imagine unicorns but that will not make the unicorns real though... with the technology we one day may have, we may be able to make unicorns real. It is too easy to dismiss something just because it is not possible today (which is more a remark to myself than towards you). My first impression of your response was "there we go again", but that would have been unfair. The human imagination is boundless and without it, we would still have been living in caves today.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 7:39:17 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 7:29:07 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:20:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

There is a big difference.

What Darwin saw in the origin of species was the product of evolution. What we see in God is the product of human imagination. So we are seeing evidence of both evolution and God. But one is a product of human imagination or as you would like to call it self gullibility and the other is a product of evolution.

Are you an atheist Hari?

I declared it many times. I am a Vedantist raised in the Vedantic tradition I belong to the Adviatist. Advaita Vedanta is a school of Hinduism with its roots in the Vedas and Upanishads which recognizes one reality and one God.I am both a theist and a spiritualist.
Atheism is an abomination and so is Christian ignorance of their scriptures.
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 7:44:29 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 7:39:17 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:29:07 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:20:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

There is a big difference.

What Darwin saw in the origin of species was the product of evolution. What we see in God is the product of human imagination. So we are seeing evidence of both evolution and God. But one is a product of human imagination or as you would like to call it self gullibility and the other is a product of evolution.

Are you an atheist Hari?


I declared it many times. I am a Vedantist raised in the Vedantic tradition I belong to the Adviatist. Advaita Vedanta is a school of Hinduism with its roots in the Vedas and Upanishads which recognizes one reality and one God.I am both a theist and a spiritualist.
Atheism is an abomination and so is Christian ignorance of their scriptures.

You said God was the product of the human imagination. What did you mean by that then?
graceofgod
Posts: 5,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 7:48:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 7:30:19 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:11:47 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

it all goes back to what the individual chooses to believe..

Do people choose what they believe?

Yes I believe they do, we simply don't have time to research every topic we come across so we chose what to accept as evidence and we chose what to believe...
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 7:50:28 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 7:48:42 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:30:19 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:11:47 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

it all goes back to what the individual chooses to believe..

Do people choose what they believe?

Yes I believe they do, we simply don't have time to research every topic we come across so we chose what to accept as evidence and we chose what to believe...

Try not believing in God for the next hour. Can you do it?
graceofgod
Posts: 5,101
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 7:52:03 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 7:50:28 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:48:42 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:30:19 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:11:47 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

it all goes back to what the individual chooses to believe..

Do people choose what they believe?

Yes I believe they do, we simply don't have time to research every topic we come across so we chose what to accept as evidence and we chose what to believe...

Try not believing in God for the next hour. Can you do it?

nope, because I have gone beyond the process of making that decision...
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 7:56:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 7:35:49 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:20:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

There is a big difference.

What Darwin saw in the origin of species was the product of evolution. What we see in God is the product of human imagination. So we are seeing evidence of both evolution and God. But one is a product of human imagination or as you would like to call it self gullibility and the other is a product of evolution.

I can imagine unicorns but that will not make the unicorns real though... with the technology we one day may have, we may be able to make unicorns real. It is too easy to dismiss something just because it is not possible today (which is more a remark to myself than towards you). My first impression of your response was "there we go again", but that would have been unfair. The human imagination is boundless and without it, we would still have been living in caves today.

But we don't see unicorns as a product of evolution. We see them as a product of our imagination just like we see God as a product of human imagination. True the human imagination is boundless and we haven't spared any to describe the God of our imagination. Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and unequalled to any other imagination. God does live in the small recesses in our brain buried in our frontal lobes. It is the seat of all our spiritual experiences. In Paul it was triggered by his epileptic seizures. In others an explanation can be found in the DSM-5 manual. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM"5)
Silly_Billy
Posts: 655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 7:58:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 7:48:42 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:30:19 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:11:47 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

it all goes back to what the individual chooses to believe..

Do people choose what they believe?

Yes I believe they do, we simply don't have time to research every topic we come across so we chose what to accept as evidence and we chose what to believe...

I think the point is that there isn't really all that much choice. When you are brought up to believe something, you will believe in that something as a default position without having been given a choice about whether you want to believe it or not. As you said yourself, we simply don't have time to research every topic we come across and once a certain belief has nested itself into your psyche, it becomes very hard to get out again. For example, children who are raised to belief that Afro-Americans are some sort of subspecies will end up as adults who belief that Afro-Americans are some sort of subspecies.
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 8:00:58 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 7:52:03 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:50:28 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:48:42 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:30:19 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:11:47 PM, graceofgod wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

it all goes back to what the individual chooses to believe..

Do people choose what they believe?

Yes I believe they do, we simply don't have time to research every topic we come across so we chose what to accept as evidence and we chose what to believe...

Try not believing in God for the next hour. Can you do it?

nope, because I have gone beyond the process of making that decision...

Sure you can, if you can choose your beliefs.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 8:01:37 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 7:56:05 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:35:49 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:20:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

There is a big difference.

What Darwin saw in the origin of species was the product of evolution. What we see in God is the product of human imagination. So we are seeing evidence of both evolution and God. But one is a product of human imagination or as you would like to call it self gullibility and the other is a product of evolution.

I can imagine unicorns but that will not make the unicorns real though... with the technology we one day may have, we may be able to make unicorns real. It is too easy to dismiss something just because it is not possible today (which is more a remark to myself than towards you). My first impression of your response was "there we go again", but that would have been unfair. The human imagination is boundless and without it, we would still have been living in caves today.

But we don't see unicorns as a product of evolution. We see them as a product of our imagination just like we see God as a product of human imagination. True the human imagination is boundless and we haven't spared any to describe the God of our imagination. Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and unequalled to any other imagination. God does live in the small recesses in our brain buried in our frontal lobes. It is the seat of all our spiritual experiences. In Paul it was triggered by his epileptic seizures. In others an explanation can be found in the DSM-5 manual. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM"5)

What i was trying to say is that even though something may today be a part of our imagination, it may well end up as reality as we humans not only have the capacity to imagine, but also the capacity to make that imagination become real.

If we can dare to imagine God, what is there to say that God can not be made real because we can imagine him.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 8:02:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 7:44:29 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:39:17 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:29:07 PM, janesix wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:20:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

There is a big difference.

What Darwin saw in the origin of species was the product of evolution. What we see in God is the product of human imagination. So we are seeing evidence of both evolution and God. But one is a product of human imagination or as you would like to call it self gullibility and the other is a product of evolution.

Are you an atheist Hari?


I declared it many times. I am a Vedantist raised in the Vedantic tradition I belong to the Adviatist. Advaita Vedanta is a school of Hinduism with its roots in the Vedas and Upanishads which recognizes one reality and one God.I am both a theist and a spiritualist.
Atheism is an abomination and so is Christian ignorance of their scriptures.

You said God was the product of the human imagination. What did you mean by that then?
God is part of our larger consciousness. Our consciousness shapes our reality. Small minds see the hole in the doughnut. Big minds see the entire doughnut.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 8:09:02 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 8:01:37 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:56:05 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:35:49 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:20:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

There is a big difference.

What Darwin saw in the origin of species was the product of evolution. What we see in God is the product of human imagination. So we are seeing evidence of both evolution and God. But one is a product of human imagination or as you would like to call it self gullibility and the other is a product of evolution.

I can imagine unicorns but that will not make the unicorns real though... with the technology we one day may have, we may be able to make unicorns real. It is too easy to dismiss something just because it is not possible today (which is more a remark to myself than towards you). My first impression of your response was "there we go again", but that would have been unfair. The human imagination is boundless and without it, we would still have been living in caves today.

But we don't see unicorns as a product of evolution. We see them as a product of our imagination just like we see God as a product of human imagination. True the human imagination is boundless and we haven't spared any to describe the God of our imagination. Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and unequalled to any other imagination. God does live in the small recesses in our brain buried in our frontal lobes. It is the seat of all our spiritual experiences. In Paul it was triggered by his epileptic seizures. In others an explanation can be found in the DSM-5 manual. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM"5)

What i was trying to say is that even though something may today be a part of our imagination, it may well end up as reality as we humans not only have the capacity to imagine, but also the capacity to make that imagination become real.

If we can dare to imagine God, what is there to say that God can not be made real because we can imagine him.

But that has already been proven. Our consciousness shapes our reality. It is called the observer effect.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 8:13:49 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 8:09:02 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 10/24/2016 8:01:37 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:56:05 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:35:49 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:20:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

There is a big difference.

What Darwin saw in the origin of species was the product of evolution. What we see in God is the product of human imagination. So we are seeing evidence of both evolution and God. But one is a product of human imagination or as you would like to call it self gullibility and the other is a product of evolution.

I can imagine unicorns but that will not make the unicorns real though... with the technology we one day may have, we may be able to make unicorns real. It is too easy to dismiss something just because it is not possible today (which is more a remark to myself than towards you). My first impression of your response was "there we go again", but that would have been unfair. The human imagination is boundless and without it, we would still have been living in caves today.

But we don't see unicorns as a product of evolution. We see them as a product of our imagination just like we see God as a product of human imagination. True the human imagination is boundless and we haven't spared any to describe the God of our imagination. Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and unequalled to any other imagination. God does live in the small recesses in our brain buried in our frontal lobes. It is the seat of all our spiritual experiences. In Paul it was triggered by his epileptic seizures. In others an explanation can be found in the DSM-5 manual. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM"5)

What i was trying to say is that even though something may today be a part of our imagination, it may well end up as reality as we humans not only have the capacity to imagine, but also the capacity to make that imagination become real.

If we can dare to imagine God, what is there to say that God can not be made real because we can imagine him.

But that has already been proven. Our consciousness shapes our reality. It is called the observer effect.

In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics and can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques.

In quantum mechanics, there is a common misconception (which has acquired a life of its own, giving rise to endless speculations) that it is the mind of a conscious observer that causes the observer effect in quantum processes. It is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the quantum wave function `8; and the quantum measurement process.[1][2]

According to standard quantum mechanics, however, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus, instead, which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic[3] measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process.[4] The measured state is not interfering with the states excluded by the measurement. As Richard Feynman put it: "Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not."[5]

Historically, the observer effect has also been confused with the uncertainty principle.[

https://en.wikipedia.org...(physics)
Harikrish
Posts: 11,014
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 8:42:47 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 8:13:49 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/24/2016 8:09:02 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 10/24/2016 8:01:37 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:56:05 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:35:49 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/24/2016 7:20:24 PM, Harikrish wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

There is a big difference.

What Darwin saw in the origin of species was the product of evolution. What we see in God is the product of human imagination. So we are seeing evidence of both evolution and God. But one is a product of human imagination or as you would like to call it self gullibility and the other is a product of evolution.

I can imagine unicorns but that will not make the unicorns real though... with the technology we one day may have, we may be able to make unicorns real. It is too easy to dismiss something just because it is not possible today (which is more a remark to myself than towards you). My first impression of your response was "there we go again", but that would have been unfair. The human imagination is boundless and without it, we would still have been living in caves today.

But we don't see unicorns as a product of evolution. We see them as a product of our imagination just like we see God as a product of human imagination. True the human imagination is boundless and we haven't spared any to describe the God of our imagination. Omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and unequalled to any other imagination. God does live in the small recesses in our brain buried in our frontal lobes. It is the seat of all our spiritual experiences. In Paul it was triggered by his epileptic seizures. In others an explanation can be found in the DSM-5 manual. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM"5)

What i was trying to say is that even though something may today be a part of our imagination, it may well end up as reality as we humans not only have the capacity to imagine, but also the capacity to make that imagination become real.

If we can dare to imagine God, what is there to say that God can not be made real because we can imagine him.

But that has already been proven. Our consciousness shapes our reality. It is called the observer effect.

In physics, the term observer effect refers to changes that the act of observation will make on a phenomenon being observed. This is often the result of instruments that, by necessity, alter the state of what they measure in some manner. A commonplace example is checking the pressure in an automobile tire; this is difficult to do without letting out some of the air, thus changing the pressure. This effect can be observed in many domains of physics and can often be reduced to insignificance by using better instruments or observation techniques.

In quantum mechanics, there is a common misconception (which has acquired a life of its own, giving rise to endless speculations) that it is the mind of a conscious observer that causes the observer effect in quantum processes. It is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of the quantum wave function `8; and the quantum measurement process.[1][2]

According to standard quantum mechanics, however, it is a matter of complete indifference whether the experimenters stay around to watch their experiment, or leave the room and delegate observing to an inanimate apparatus, instead, which amplifies the microscopic events to macroscopic[3] measurements and records them by a time-irreversible process.[4] The measured state is not interfering with the states excluded by the measurement. As Richard Feynman put it: "Nature does not know what you are looking at, and she behaves the way she is going to behave whether you bother to take down the data or not."[5]

Historically, the observer effect has also been confused with the uncertainty principle.[

https://en.wikipedia.org...(physics)
You have to understand the duality of reality (dualism) . There exists the physical reality and our subjective reality. QM has shown this duality exists by the discovery of observer effect. The ultimate reality is therefore possible only when there is no separation between what is observed and the observer. This is only possible by rejecting the duality of reality which includes the observer effect and the uncertainty principle and pursuing non dualistic Advaita Vedanta.
MasonicSlayer
Posts: 2,395
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2016 8:49:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/24/2016 5:54:23 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:44:59 PM, Emgaol wrote:
At 10/24/2016 5:27:59 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
This was posted in another thread and I thought it interesting enough to make a new topic about it. Atheists often use the argument that there is no evidence of God because we can not see God with our own eyes. Theists on the other hand often use the argument that there is no evidence of Evolution because we can not see Evolution with our own eyes. Is believing without seeing a type of gullibility and if not, when does believing something because it is what we have been told become a type of gullibility?

I think if someone came to me and said their dog had just died, I'd be inclined to believe them because the information is something that one commonly encounters.
If however they said that the dog came back to life, then I'd be skeptical. If I just believed that, then I would be gullible.
Remember the adage about extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence?
Theists want us to believe their extraordinary claims.

I agree with you that the idea of God is an extraordinary claim, atleast from my and your point of view that is. But to anyone who is religious, the belief in the existence of God is as ordinary as the truth of Science is to us and considering that there are more people in the world who do follow a religion and as such believe in God, is their claim as extraordinary as we would like it to be?

I once heard the phrase, "In an insane society the sane must appear insane" and that unfortunately seems to be a very good phrase to describe those of us who do not believe in God for we are the sane minority that must appear insane to those who do belief.

Nice flip. Let me flip it both ways, and I'll still be on top. What is sanity, is any ways when what's insane becomes as insane as what's not. It just depends if your thinking, thinks it's correct in thought. Nice talking you some thunder, but without the lightning it's empty noise. The simple difference, the separation of superiority, from them, that's you, from me, is I can see it both ways while you stay comfortably numb to the static of the one channel that is your own mind.