Ricky Gervais And Stephen Go Head-To-Head On Religion
… so this is atheism in a nutshell. You say, "there's a god.". I say,
"you can prove that?" You say, "no." I say, "I don't believe you then.
"you can prove that?" You say, "no." I say, "I don't believe you then.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Ricky in his usual soft-delivery of brutal candor offers a clear description of agnostic atheism (i.e. the position of most every atheist) and demonstrates why he is an agnostic atheist.
Here is the operative part of the short video:
- Stephen: Talking about hell before, about this tweet about you going to hell. And I know that you're an atheist, correct?
- Ricky: Yeah. ( applause ).
- Stephen: People have been debating-- that's the devil waiting for you in hell, by the way. Did you want to debate this? So Ricky Gervais, why is there something instead of nothing?
- Ricky: That's-- that's-- that makes no sense at all.
- Stephen: You have to answer my question.
- Ricky: That's not the two choices.
- Stephen: Those are the choices I'm giving you. I'm the host. ( laughter ).
- Ricky: Well, I don't --
- Stephen: Do you want to concede the debate. Why is there something rather than nothing?
- Ricky: What do you mean out of nothing?
- Stephen: Why is there something instead of why is there nothing? Why does the universe exist at all? Why is there something?
- Ricky: But surely the question is not why but how? Why is irrelevant.
- Stephen: Another fine, how is there something? If you think of god as the prime mover.
- Ricky: I don't.
- Stephen: Is there a prime mover. Is there a demi-urge that started everything.
- Ricky: Outside of science and nature I don't believe so. So the interesting thing is-- that's the thing I'm an agnostic atheist. Agnostic means no one knows if there's a god. Everyone is technically an agnostic because we don't know. An agnostic atheist is someone who doesn't know there is a god--
- Stephen: You're not convinced of your atheism.
- Ricky: I am. Atheism isn't a belief system. Atheism-- so this is atheism in a nutshell. You say, "there's a god.". I say, "you can prove that?". You say, "no." I say, "I don't believe you then." So you believe in one god, I assume.
- Stephen: Uhhh, in three persons, but go ahead. ( laughter ).
- Ricky: Okay, so you believe-- okay. But there are 3,000 to choose from, you know, of people --
- Stephen: I've done some reading, yeah.
- Ricky: So basically, you believe in-- you deny one less god than I do. You don't believe in 2,999 gods. And I don't believe in just one more.
- Stephen: Right. ( laughter ) ( applause )
- Stephen: Do you do you do you ever have a feeling of great gratitude for existence?
- Ricky: Of course,.
- Stephen: Do you ever have--
- Ricky: I know the chances are billions to one that I am on this planet as me and never will be again.
- Stephen: I know I can't convince you that there is a god, nor do I really want to convince you that there is a god. I can only explain my experience which is I have a strong desire to direct that gratitude towards something or someone.
- Ricky: Of course,
- Stephen: Ask that thing is god.
- Ricky: We want to-- we want to make sense of nature and science. It is too unfathomable-- everything in the universe was once crunched in some small atom--
- Stephen: But you don't know that. You're just believing Stephen Hawking and that's a matter of faith in his abilities. You don't know it yourself. You're accepting that because someone told you.
- Ricky: Well, yeah, but science is constantly proved over time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, and any holy book and any other fiction, and destroyed it, okay. In 1,000 years’ time, that wouldn't come back just as it was. Whereas if we took every science book and every fact and destroyed them all, in 1,000 years they'd all be back because all the same tests would be the same result.
- Stephen: That's good. That's really good. ( applause ) that's really good.
- Ricky: So don't need-- I don't need-- I don't need faith in science. I don't need faith to know probably if I jump out of a window, every other time someone jumped out of a window they smashed to the ground because of this thing called gravity.
- Stephen: And then Satan would be raping you.
- Ricky: This is why I'm a good boy.
Tags
Who is online
406 visitors
Not likely, but point well made.
I suppose on late night tv this passes as an intellectual conversation. Can't say either one of them got the better of the other though.
Given the time they had I thought they accomplished plenty — and they were civil. Ricky nailed the concept of atheism (oft misunderstood) and made a very good point for why science is a better source for approximate truth than holy books.
Belief in God is really about faith, not proof, but you know that.
Therefore what is the point of asking for proof of God?
People should ask for evidence rather than proof.
That said, our existence is probably the single most significant question posed by human beings. Answering that question with 'I believe the claims of ancient men … that God did it' does nothing to further understanding. Faith sans justification can be used to answer any question. If we go back to pre-Christian times, faith in the Greek, Roman, Nordic, Hindu, etc. gods served as the answer for this most significant question. Very few would today find that ancient faith to be well-placed.
Because faith can be used to answer any question, it ends up answering no questions. It does nothing to bring us closer to truth. I think this is where Ricky was heading with the quote I provided @1.
I agree with you TiG. Faith is not an explanation for anything. It is a failure to explain.
Eventually, we human beings may reach a point where we accept that our knowledge is limited by what we can evidence. At that point we may give up the pretense that we can legitimately fill our gaps of knowledge with posits taken merely on faith.
I personally find it to be a security blanket for the hope of something beyond this. In my case I believe the beyond this, will be the nothingness of nothing.
It can be and often is a crutch and an emotional comfort mechanism.
Many people, it would seem, need to believe. I can certainly understand that. Facing the harsh realities (best we can tell) of life is not easy. Nobody wants their existence to end at death. We all would like the opportunity to again see departed friends and family. It is disconcerting being in an environment that is entirely unconcerned with life ... where a natural disaster can occur and there is no grand entity who has our back. Truly appreciating that the universe, terrestrial nature and indeed life itself (e.g. microorganisms, cancer, murderers) is hostile to life is not pleasant.
But that is reality. IMO best to look at the cards dealt, accept them for what they are and make the very best play.
I know what you mean TiG. But religion amounts to little more than pulling the blankets over your head to avoid the boogeyman that is reality.
That definition of heaven doesn't make much sense to me. What if you're relaxing in heaven, looking down at your loved ones, only to watch them horribly burn to death in a wildfire, or be abducted and tortured? I can't imagine why anyone in heaven would want to be stuck with thinking about all the crap that goes on down here. And the idea of meeting your departed friends and family in heaven ... hmm. What about divorced people or widows or all kinds of messy situations that humans get into with relationships? Of course, then there's the whole idea about being corporeal after death ...
I find it far more disconcerting to think that there is some supreme being who is concerned with life and apparently chooses to either make bad things happen, or lets them happen.
Good point. In addition, I think it would be hellish to be floating on clouds, listening to harp music and perpetually praising the creator.
Maybe this is something of a Twilight Zone twist: Heaven is actually Hell and Hell is actually Heaven.
I know it's terrible, I don't understand why they creators of the modern religions didn't go for a more Valhalla afterlife. Now that's a forever to aspire to.
Eventually, we human beings may reach a point where we accept that our knowledge is limited by what we or our trusted sources can evidence. At that point we may accept that we can legitimately fill our gaps of knowledge with posits taken on faith.
You misunderstand faith.
Faith is knowing without evidence. I know God exists. I know.
At the same time, because that knowledge is faith-based, I have no proof to show you (or anyone else). I don't expect you to accept my belief as true.
An agnostic atheist says, "I don't believe god exists, but I cannot be certain because it is impossible to prove a negative."
That is an act of faith. The more vehement the statement, the more "faith-y" it is.
A truly logical position would be a shrug of the shoulders: "Dunno. Don't care."
This is interesting:
- I believe in God, but I don't expect anyone else to.
- You don't believe in god... but you proselytize.
That's diluting the definition of the word "knowledge". Unfounded belief is not knowledge, and no gaps in knowledge are "legitimately filled" by unevidenced faith.
I prefer this simple but accurate expression of the agnostic atheist: ' I am not convinced any god exists .' To me, that says it all.
Here you are using 'know' (in its various forms) as a synonym for 'believe'; that is a misuse of the word. Religious faith accepts as true the proposition ' my God exists ' without a supporting argument. It is a mere presupposition which underlies the entire belief system. Any argument which uses ' my God exists ' as a premise is unsound † and thus cannot be considered knowledge or serve as justification for knowledge.
Knowledge is substantially more than opinion. To be knowledge, a fact must be justifiably true. That is, there needs to be underlying facts and logic which show that is it almost certainly true and not simply held to be true.
† Unless, of course, 'God' is defined as something that is commonly known to exist. For example, if one defines nature to be 'God' (as in pantheism) then the claim 'my God exists' will be accepted as a true premise.
Check the dictionary.
Knowledge does not require proof.
Think about the consequences if you say, "There is no knowledge without proof." That would be redefining the word.
Where do you see Sandy stating a requirement for proof? She was talking about evidence and the lack of knowledge in unfounded belief.
A gap of knowledge is never going to be legitimately filled with mere speculation (faith) no matter how deeply held the belief.
Equating speculation and faith is an abuse of language.
(And insulting.)
I recognize that it is difficult for someone who does not have faith to understand what it is.
Perhaps it would be wise for someone who knows they do not have faith to be too affirmative on what faith is or is not.
Believing something without sufficient evidence = speculation.
It is what it is.
Playing semantics?
Nope. It's just the truth.
The rest is ad hom.
Quite the contrary, actually.
No, it's just an assumption and/or feeling. One cannot actually know.
How do you know? Where's your evidence for a god to back that assertion up?
Belief is neither knowledge nor fact! Therefore, you cannot actually know, especially with any certainty. You only think you know.
Not quite. The agnostic atheists says: "I am not convinced god exists, but I am willing to reconsider that position should evidence for a god be forthcoming.
Wrong again! It is a logical conclusion. Not a declaration of certainty.
No, an logical person looks at the evidence and doesn't go be mere feeling, belief, or emotion. An intellectually honest person says, "I don't know for certain, as there is no evidence."
"Knowledge" of something does not make that something real or true. I have "knowledge" of Greek myths. That doesn't mean Zeus is real or a true story.
Believing something is true or real without any real evidence is speculation. And an irrationally derived one too.
We're already at that point with many things, especially where science is concerned.
That's a "god of the gaps" fallacy. It's also intellectually lazy and dishonest!
You do not have faith, but you know what it is.
I have faith, but I do not know what it is.
The logic is... strange...
I agree John. It all comes down to the definition of faith. Which is to say believing something for which there is no proof.
A failure to grasp the accepted definition of "faith" is not an explanation for anything.
Yes, faith = believing something without sufficient evidence (proof is too high of a bar). Or, per Oxford (using the religious usage of course):
Everyone here (including Ricky Gervais) seems to be following this usage of 'faith'. So if it comes down to the definition of faith, it would appear that we all agree on that aspect.
Where do you see a failure to grasp the simple notion of believing something without sufficient supporting evidence (or proof if you prefer)?
The failure to grasp a definition is certainly not an explanation so that cannot be what you mean. Thus you must be stating that faith is not an explanation for anything. If so, I agree, that is the point I made @ 3.1 .
The reason that the existence of God must be taken on faith is because it cannot be proven. Just as it cannot be disproven. God is a supernatural being whose existence cannot be proven or disproven through natural means. Thats just the way it is. Only atheists seem to be particularly upset by that fact.
Well there is faith and then there is blind faith.
I have faith that the sun shall rise tomorrow morning, I do not possess the blind faith that would allow me to believe the unprovable.
I agree. In fact, the existence of God is not even evidenced, much less proven.
True. It is not possible to prove that something does not exist unless that something is defined as a logical contradiction. The biblical God, as defined, is a logical contradiction.
How does anyone know that God is a supernatural being; how can such a claim be stated with certainty? God is deemed supernatural to (sort of) escape the fact that there is no evidence for God. But there is no basis for deeming God supernatural either. Better to simply state that God (as in creator of the known universe) is a human invention that might exist but nobody knows.
'Upset' misses the point. Some of us hold that it is better to pursue truth (even if it is unpleasant) about our existence rather than invent a comforting 'truth' and then behave as though it was real.
It seems that the key aspect of "faith" is a strong desire for something unproven to be true. Otherwise there is no reason for faith.
Without a strong desire for something to be true, or perhaps untrue, faith serves no purpose.
Much like the point made by Gervais about how even if you got rid of all the science and research we've done, they would all eventually be rediscovered, because science isn't based on our strong desire for the sun to rise or gravity to keep us from floating into space. But wipe out all memory of religion, and you'll have a slew of new Gods with new descriptions, names and traits because they are based solely on humans desires for something to be true. Humans don't like the fact that every human so far on the planet dies and decays, so they desire to live on after death, thus they create a narrative that allows them to believe they do, and the only thing they have to support their belief is "faith" aka a strong desire for something to be true.
And because human desires vary greatly depending on where you were born and to whom, religions, Gods and Goddesses have varied aspects and traits based on those disparate desires.
And all the religious wars we've had through the centuries have all basically come down to one groups "desires" overpowering a different group with disparate desires. "Our God gave us this land"... "No, OUR God gave US this land!"... and you have the last two thousands years of Middle east history.
Yes. I suspect faith is more a result of needing to believe (e.g. provides comfort).
"I need a hug. I have faith a hug will make me feel better."
"I need a God. I have faith a God will make me feel better."
Just like a hug does have a physical benefit as our bodies produce chemicals in response to human touch, primarily oxytocin, which plays a major part in human procreation since it's a peptide hormone and neuropeptide that rewards our brains with good feelings when we snuggle, hug or have sex, I think a belief in God may be similar.
I believe our brains may have some chemical reaction to a belief in God. Humans are inherently afraid of what's in the dark, what we can't see. It's why some kids need their parents to look in the closet or under the bed to reassure them there are no monsters there. A sense of relief for not having to worry about whether there is a monster or not makes humans feel better physically and reduces stress.
Believing there is a Giant God in the closet that loves you and wants the best for you and will take care of you where not even death can harm you is a HUGE sense of relief for some who continue to be the scared children fearing the dark. It does not require the God to exist to give this sense of comfort. It's why so many of the metaphorical snake oil salesmen selling faith are so successful.
I believe many authors of the bible were knowingly creating a fiction for their less enlightened fellow man to follow and feel safe and a sense of relief from the harsh realities of this world.
"Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly--mere infants in Christ. I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? " 1 Corinthians 3:1-3
I think Paul may have been making this point, how as babes you don't give them solid food, you don't give them facts, you feed them easily digestible milk, fictions to make them feel safe, because they are not ready for the truth. They are not ready to learn about the real nature of the universe which is far more fantastic and amazing, but also cold and impersonal than humans wish it to be.
I don't think we do agree. Use whatever dictionary you want but I prefer Merriam-Webster. The Merriams is my people ....
Definitions of Faith:
2b fits what i'm talking about rather nicely. Faith, by definition is a belief in something for which there is no proof. No proof.
The failure to accept the definition of "faith," to help explain ones belief in God, is most definitely a failure to grasp the meaning of the word "faith."
This is not a "that depends on what the definition of is, is" moment.
Then there is no reason to believe any god exists, or accept any claims of a god's existence. There isn't even a shred of evidence for god.
There is no evidence of a supernatural either. But some theists believe god acts or intervenes in the natural world. If that were the case, then god by definition would be a natural phenomenon and therefore potentially detectable or evidence might be available. But if god is purely supernatural and unable to interact with the natural world, then god is essentially useless and irrelevant to the natural world.
The confusion comes when we have evidence of an effect in our universe, but are unsure of its origin. For example, we have an effect protecting the earth from the suns radiation called the magnetosphere that isn't visible with the naked eye (other than perhaps the auroras). The magnetosphere is the region of space surrounding our earth in which charged particles are manipulated or affected by the earths magnetic field. It is created by our planet having an active interior dynamo. But for a long time, it was a mystery as to how the earth was kept safe from the suns radiation.
My point is, what most people define as evidence of their God have often been things we couldn't explain at the time, actual effects we could measure, but had no scientific explanation due to a lack of tools able to look deeper. That's why once hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of humans, once believed the sun was drawn across the sky by a God in a fiery chariot.
So we have mountains of "super natural" phenomenon, we just have yet to find anything "supernatural". And I believe that is where much of the problem exists, that humans that have never been exposed to the scientific explanations of natural phenomenon tend to attribute those phenomenon to the invisible spirit being they were told to believe in as children. It's the default position for anything they can't explain, and eventually, the "mountain" of things they can't explain that they attribute to their God provides a foundation for their faith.
Works for me.
Faith is the means by which belief in God is sustained; it does not explain anything. For example, Young Earth Creationists believe that the Earth (indeed the universe) is less than 10,000 years old based on their faith in the Bible (a literal interpretation). Also, those who believed in the ancient Gods of mythology did so based on faith. These folks have very different beliefs and both are clearly wrong, thus illustrating that faith alone enables one to believe anything. Faith is thus not an explanation for anything.
Those who claim they believe in God by faith are not explaining anything, they are simply stating that they believe in God even though they have no proof (or evidence even) that the belief is justified.
What it boils down to is "god did it" because they have no other explanation and they can't stand not having one. So what is needed is an "explanation" that answers the questions and preferably in an emotionally appealing way. What some people fail to realize is, that is not an explanation. But rather a failure to explain camouflaged as an explanation.
Faith is faith. You might get hit by a brick truck today .... no sun rise for you tomorrow. You just have faith that isn't going to happen among many other things that could kill you today and make .... no sun rise for you tomorrow.
That you think you will be alive tomorrow to empirically prove that the sun actually does rise, is a form of the blind faith you are talking about. You have it, just apparently not for belief in something unprovable like God.
We disagree on that and in all likelihood, never the twain shall meet.
Almost like someone with an obsessive compulsive disorder can't leave a napkin unfolded or something unorganized, humans in general dislike leaving something unexplained. They "greatly desire" to know the answer so they can move on to something else, thus, when the problem seems unsolvable they will accept an answer on faith if it comes from the next most trusted source they can access. This usually begins with parents and peers and eventually pastors and priests for believers, professors and scientists for atheists.
With the professors and scientist, they explain what we know so far, then, when they hit something they can't prove they say so, while also explaining the best scientific understanding of the observations made, aka "scientific theory".
With priests and pastors, they explain their religious doctrine and then attempt to bend facts to fit their narrative, and when they hit something science has proven that appears to conflict with their religious doctrine, they often try to hide it or come up with bizarre explanations for how the incongruity could exist while their doctrine could also remain true. Things like "Satan manufactured aged fossils to try and trick us!" and "God could make radiation age bones fast, then change the speed at which it degrades wildly throwing off the accuracy of any radiocarbon dating".
Very true, it is just a placebo. A fantasy answer to fill in for the gap in their understanding which allows them to move on and stop worrying about things they can't wrap their minds around.
If we go by that argument, we can say definitively that Santa Claus exists, as do Big Foot, the Tooth Fairy and three foot tall pink elephants that can fly, (they're invisible).
This reminds me of the Star Trek: TNG episode, "clues," when Picard tells the Paxans that clues were left behind which suggested a mystery, and to humans, a mystery is irresistible. It must be solved. Religion is just a means to make stuff up that "solves" mysteries. Fortunately, science tends to dig deeper.
Howe does faith explain anything? At least, anything that can factually demonstrated or observed?
Indeed, this is, (in my opinion), one of the two biggest reasons religion was created in the first place.
The other being control. Easiest way in the world to control a group of people? Tell them they will burn in a lake of fire for all eternity if you don't live exactly the way the church tells you to live.
That is how God is defined within our culture. One presumes it is based on an accumulated wisdom. If God controls this nature (this existence , and that is one of the claims made on God's behalf), it does make some sense to assume God does so from without rather than from within.
Certainly not if you are only going to repeat your claim that faith has explanatory power.
I have provided reasons for my position. You have stated that faith explains one's belief in God and offered several claims that I am in some way failing to understand basic concepts.
If faith had explanatory power then it could offer the reasons why it can be held as truth that God (by some definition) exists. The reasons would be sufficient to distinguish the God in question and, similarly, rule out the other 2,500 (or so) gods that mankind has invented. 'My God exists as the true God' supported only by faith is simply an opinion. An assertion that cannot be validated because it offers no underlying justification (facts and logic) for review. It is no more explanatory than the assertion 'Exolife is currently on Earth and interbreeding with human beings' being offered on faith alone.
And it solves them from the comfort of your own couch, how convenient. What's that old saying about something too good to be true?
Heliocentric theory is a scientific theory. No faith is required to expect the sun to "rise" tomorrow. Of course, we know that at some point the sun will destroy the earth, and eventually will itself be destroyed. We know there's no guarantee that we'll be alive to see the sun "rise" tomorrow even if it does. I can say there's a good probability that I'll see the sun come up tomorrow, but I don't have faith that I will. You're talking about a scientific theory vs. religious faith, and there's no comparison.
Just like flat-Earthers define the Earth to be a domed circle. To them it is true because they define it as such. But clearly defining a term is not the same as knowledge. Defining the Earth to be flat does not mean it is actually so. Defining God as supernatural does not mean it is so. 'We do not know' is the sound, honest assertion.
I agree, it makes sense to assume that God is not dependent upon the nature that God has ostensibly created. So a conditional statement such as: 'if God (creator of the known universe) exists then God's existence does not depend upon the known universe' is sensible.
In contrast, the assertion: 'God is a supernatural being' appears to make a certain claim that a sentient creator God exists. This presupposes God as a sentient entity and also that God is that which created the known universe (nature). The universe is not necessarily the result of a sentient entity. Further, what we consider natural may not be unique to our known universe. That is, our universe (known universe) could simply be yet another universe that emerged from a greater nature.
We do not know. We do not know if a sentient creator of the known universe exists. We do not know if our nature is unique to our known universe. Thus nobody can justifiably claim that God is a supernatural being.
Gordy Howe was a great hockey player. Played a round of golf with him once. Great guy!
Not that this will matter with you but i'll answer your question. Then you can hack it apart with your scientific, faithless view of life. SOSDD as it were.
Faith, by definition does explain how one can believe in God or something greater than themselves that is not empirically provable. You don't accept the definition of "faith" in that its related to believing in something that is not provable. It's the core of faith in this regard. That is belief in something that is not provable. It takes no faith to believe in something provable because one ostensibly already proved it. Faith is largely a meaningless concept for that which is already proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Not true for the unproven.
That about sums it up.
Ok.
I analyze things rationally and critically.
Where are you going with this? I know the definition of faith.
Yes, that is the definition of faith. And...?
Isn't having something proven or verified preferable to simply believing in something?
See previous statement. I would think anyone who is intellectually curious, rational, or honest enough would prefer proof or evidence for something rather than a mere belief in it. Proof would actually validate faith in something. Otherwise, faith is little more than wishful thinking.
Still waiting for you to answer my question. Here is my question again: How does faith explain anything? At least, anything that can factually demonstrated or observed? Your post answers nothing except provides a definition of faith, which I already know and has been established. As far as I can tell, all you're saying is faith "explains" things based on nothing more than a feeling. Is that correct? So I'm not sure how my "scientific, faithless view of life" as you put it, is an issue. That is perhaps the best way to arrive at and validate an explanation for things. It's an explanation based on empirical evidence and facts. Not because of personal feelings or wishful thinking.
Indeed. No additional thought required or accepted.
It's probably intellectually lazy. Is that it?
The scientific method doesn’t explain faith Gordy. Not everything is definable by derivation and equation. Lots of folks a lot smarter than you or I have accepted this reality.
You don’t, that is well established and why I started my answer in this thread saying you wouldn’t.
We don’t agree. No problem.
Faith and belief are emotionally driven. People do not make sound decisions based on emotions.
The scientific method explains natural reality. It provides logical explanations based on empirical evidence. Faith does not. It is just wishful thinking based on emotional appeals and feelings (or delusion).
Faith, by definition, doesn't need to but you will never get that.
Too bad.
And yet the majority of the world is "emotionally driven" as you put it. Most of which make many sound decisions each and every day while still embracing their faith.
How does that square up with your theory?
Yes, I think we've already established the definition of faith, as well as the difference between faith and science.
Which is a problem it seems.
And how many decisions are not so sound?
No more than the poor decisions made by those of no faith.
A lot less than the sound ones for most people.
You just described a popularity fallacy. Just because something is popular with many people doesn't mean that it is true.
Considering there are far more people of faith than those of none, I'd say it's mathematical that those of faith make far more poor decisions.
That seems rather subjective.
Nope.
Its a fact that the majority of the world follows a faith of some sort. Its also a simple fact that most of those folks make sound decision every day. Many of them
But i understand. When in doubt or disagreement assign something the title of "fallacy" and all is well in your world.
Got it.
So you're saying that people, who for example tend to follow a set moral rules something like the ten commandments, make more poor decisions than those who do not?
I disagree and remind me not to hire you to design my bridge if those are your math skills.
How are the 10 commandments moral? Half of them are about appeasing god's ego. And morality is subjective too. If someone needs a rule book to be a "moral" person, I have to question their character.
That is your prerogative.
I'm not an engineer. But I see you have nothing of value and have to make things personal now.
You do understand what an ad populum fallacy is, right?
Conjecture.
I am and you took my comment personal. It wasn't intended to be. My apologies if i offended
That said and once again, i disagree with you completely. No point in taking this any further. We will agree on little.
Have a good one.
The fact that they believe in what cannot be supported in a rational way is illogical.
The fact that the majority of people are religious does not mean that it is rational to be religious because the majority of people are religious. That argument is a popularity fallacy.
Buddhists do not believe in god because Siddharthama Gautama didn't teach that he was a god. He is a guide to achieve enlightenment.
I disagree.
If a supplier tries to sell you a component that you cannot verify that works or the specs cannot be verified, and then deny customer support/warranty when it malfunctions, is that logical to buy it?
The fact that they might tell you that others have bought it does that change your mind?
Faith does not come into play much when it comes to good engineering. Conversely, engineering does not come into play much when it comes to faith.
I don't use faith when i design/install things nor do i use engineering in my faith. A time and a place for everything epistte.
If you admit that you do not use faith on the job because it doesn't work then why would you use it when it comes to matters of religious belief?
If it doesn't work on the job then why would you use an unreliable method to determine fact anywhere else? Did you ever consider that it may not lead to yo make good decisions there either?
I have a feeling that you view unbelievers as wrong or immoral, so you want to believe. If you are an engineer then you are intelligent and rational. Do flashy paint, long sales presentations, and corporate trinkets encourage you to buy something that you can use 5 minutes of math and physics to prove doesn't work? What would be the downside of not believing in god/s?
You apparently don't have the desire or capacity to understand why. It's been explained to you ad-nauseam here by several people, numerous times, in numerous threads and you refuse to accept all the explanations. You are entitled to your opinion but make no mistake. That is all it is. Your opinion.
Suffice it to say i disagree with you on this topic totally and absolutely and since i'm getting near retirement from a very successful Engineering career and still have a very strong faith, i guess i've found a way to make it all work somehow.
That said, the chip on shoulders on this topic is clearly immense. You say you have a feeling i look down on nonbelievers when i could care less what you believe. All the while you are looking down your nose at those of us of faith. The irony there is as thick as it gets. Snarky comments and all.
I am always open to new ideas that can be supported. I have very strong emotions but I also know that it is best to compartmentalize them until they are relevant to the job, idea or the activity at hand. I dislike sloppy thinking.
I'm happy that it works for you.
I am a person who is driven by logic. If an idea doesnt work or cannot be proven then it immediately gets discarded.
And the rest of them predate the Israelite's by nearly 2000 years. And the sad fact is most Christians can't even name half of them. I think what Christians like most about the 10 commandments is that there are only 10 of them.
Little known fact: there used to be 15 Commandments .
It came across as such.
Accepted.
As I said previously, that is your progative.
Thank you and you too.
Explanations are welcome, as long as they are supported with evidence. However, without evidence, there is no reason to accept any explanation.
One last time ..... faith by definition can not be supported evidence. It is belief in something for which there is no specific scientific or otherwise empirical evidence
Not sure what your disconnect with that concept is but there you go.
That's something I've always found interesting - many people consider Buddhism to be a religion. But the Buddhists I know seem to consider it a philosophy, not a religion. Can something be called a religion if there are no gods involved?
Which means it is not a valid explanation for anything!
So, it has exactly the same foundation as a lie. The only difference appears to be intent. If I intend to tell you a lie, for example I don't believe but tell you that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, I'd be lying. But If I convinced myself that I didn't know for sure that the FSM didn't create the universe, then it changes from a lie and becomes faith.
Only with the most generous usages of the word. Oxford, for example, has a secondary usage of " A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion " and Merriam has a usage of " a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith ". These could apply to Buddhism.
English is so imprecise.
Wrong
Nope
Not even a little. Without evidence, any "explanation" made on faith lacks any credibility. It's little more than wishful thinking. Belief does not equal fact.
Yup!
I see you've been backed into the corner of single word refutations. It's okay, at some point you have to either show your hand or fold.
Pretty sure we have all agreed on this all along. I certainly have. So now let's go back to where you and I were discussing the explanatory power of faith:
Faith in itself does not explain one's belief in God. It simply admits that the belief is not based on evidence; it tacitly admits 'I just believe'. Faith offers no explanation for the belief; faith has no explanatory power.
Here is some of what I last wrote on this containing more detail and examples:
Ultimately the point I was trying to make earlier is that faith, unlike a scientific theory based on logic and solid evidence, offers no knowledge because it carries no explanatory power. So if someone asks 'how do you know God exists?' the answer 'by faith' is actually a non-answer. Faith is not evidence, faith is not knowledge, faith is simply acceptance sans sufficient evidence.
There are many parts of Buddhism that I agree with.
I disagree. Faith is the bedrock of an explanation of why one might believe in God. No other way to put it.
Nothing is scientifically derivable with faith. Asking for proof of the unprovable is a non sequitur. No other way to put that either.
My position on this has been clearly and laboriously offered in this thread. Nothing more than one word answers are warranted at this point. Short and sweet works.
You don’t like it? Too bad.
Let me try to paraphrase what you wrote. If this is wrong, I ask that you explain why it is wrong:
When asked why you believe in God, your answer is faith. You hold that the reason you believe in God is because of your faith. In other words, you believe God exists because you accept the proposition that God exists (on faith).
Alternatively, someone could make an argument and offer as premise 1: 'God exists' and you would accept premise 1 on faith without the need for supporting facts or reason.
Agreed. Not sure why you wrote that, but I think you are correct on this point.
I never ask for proof, but I agree that asking for evidence of that which cannot be evidenced is an unanswerable question. But that question (challenge) is made only because someone has claimed something is true yet failed to provide supporting evidence for the claim. If people never claimed that God exists, they would not be challenged to show the reason and facts (evidence) which lead to that conclusion.
Lol .... sorry but you can have it both ways. Either you really believe answering a question that has no proof is possible or you think that it is not. If you believe it isn’t possible then I would expect you to find the “challenge” question in this case (providing proof of God’s existence) to be unreasonable.
which is it?
That said, I stated that faith is the bedrock of the belief. Not that is was the only reason. I’m hesitant to share this here because of the inevitable poo flinging that will come from some folks but you make the challenge respectfully so I shall share. I will not respond to any nastiness or attempts at redirects that may come from it, nor will I report them. I believe in leaving comments like that up so everyone can take their true measure of the person responding.
I feel the Holy Ghost in my soul/heart most days. I have faith that’s God
I refuse to believe love is only some chemical reaction in the body. I have faith it’s a gift from God.
i regularly see random acts of kindness coming from complete strangers. I have faith that comes from God.
I could go on but you get the point. None of this is provable, I choose to take it on faith.
As TiG points out, proof is too high a bar. Although, proof would be nice to have. But objective, empirical evidence works too.
That's just your own feeling and state of mind. But it's also subjective and anecdotal.
But it is. Medical science has even identified the hormones and parts of the brain responsible for the feeling of "love." There is nothing mystical or supernatural about it. That's simple fact and reality. I'm not sure why that is difficult to accept. As Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson once stated: “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
People are capable of kindness without divine intervention. It's called empathy and compassion. It also has evolutionary advantages for a society.
Actually, I just demonstrated how your examples are proven or scientifically supported. Taking something on faith, even when scientifically explained (or when such explanation is rejected) is just an emotional reaction/preference.
It is what I stated. If someone claims something to be true, they should expect to be challenged to deliver evidence to back up the claim. If they made an unfalsifiable claim (one that cannot be evidenced) then their claim cannot be substantiated. Making an unfalsifiable claim does not grant one immunity from being challenged. In other words, the mere fact that you cannot back up your claim does not mean it should simply be accepted without challenge.
Faith can be the bedrock of a belief, but the bedrock for the belief is then nothing more than a mere claim. As an engineer, you would never create a design based on unevidenced, unproven principles, structures or materials. A civil engineer, for example, would not base a new bridge design on a new unevidenced peer technology just because the peer technology sales rep claims it will meet your design needs.
It just goes to show some people think more emotionally than logically, especially if they think their claims are immune to the same challenge that any other claim would get.
Apples and atom bombs. I’ve already clarified the different between the two very clearly here.
Again, I wouldn’t try to apply say the laws of Thermodynamics to define my faith in God. Conversely, I wouldn’t use faith to solve a problem that calls for using those three laws.
Apples and Atom bombs .... another non-sequitur
That should be a very strong hint that something based on faith is not true/real.
What is the downside of not believing in god, especially if there is nothing to support that God is any more than just an idea?
No it is not. Not for me. I’ve been very clear here in that regard.
None afaic. I’m not the one with a problem here. You are free to believe what you want. I’m not questioning your views
It is very clear that I am not seeking your approval.
TiG and I, among others, are asking you why if you are such a rational and intelligent person do you want to believe in what you cannot support in an objective manner? What is it about religious belief that you find appealing? Is it the tradition, the belonging to a social group or is it just a family responsibility?
Nah, what is clear though is I wasn’t asking for it. How you got that from what I posted is beyond me.
I’ve been very clear here in this thread regarding that. You don’t accept my explanations. Your prerogative but not my problem. What works for you, clearly doesn't work for me.
No biggie. I’ve got zero desire to “evangelize” you or anyone else for that matter. I hope you are happy with your choices. I am. Very much so. And in the end,, that’s all that matters.
Sparty On's answer is essentially 'I just believe'. I doubt he will offer anything more than 'I just believe' since that common presupposition is expected to be taken as a given and not questioned.
That about sums it up.
That's a strawman.
You (personally) don't believe - you don't even imagine - that Biblical God. It's nonsensically easy to argue against His existence.
In reality, you aren't arguing God's inexistence. You are underscoring the fact that defining one's own relationship with God according to a millennia-old Book from a pastoral society... is probably not going to be a great intellectual success...
Not just "sums it up".
"That's all there is to be said."
That's the nature of "faith".
I believe. Period.
We'll never argue, because I'll never try to convince you.
OTOH, if you meet someone who tries to "prove" using Biblical citations - lfod, for example - you have my blessing to demolish his arguments.
On Sunday morning, I often watch a few videos to remind me of why childhood religious indoctrination and scientific illiteracy are two of the most dangerous obstacles to overcome if our species is going to quit oppressing and murdering one another in the name of honoring some supernatural being and His/Her/Its guidebook.
If you don't want to watch the entire video, around the 15 minute mark there is a short segment on "evidence of God" that demonstrates how little "evidence" is required for the faithful in today's world.
No, that was an assertion. You could challenge my assertion and I would be obliged to back it up with an argument. But an assertion is not itself a strawman argument.
Actually I am, but only for the biblical God. God (i.e. sentient creator of the known universe) might exist; I never argue that such a god cannot exist. My assertion about the biblical God is based on how the biblical God is defined. The biblical God is defined as a self-refuting character — a logical contradiction. That is a profound problem because if something is defined as a logical contradiction then that something does not exist. A God by a different definition might exist, but the God defined as a self-refuting contradiction certainly does not.
Okay, so you answered one of my questions in round about way. You do believe one can prove the unprovable. Got it.
It also appears your answer is to make irrational comparisons that don’t apply in the least. Got that as well.
I have been quite direct in my comments. Since your reference is vague there is no way to know to what you consider an answer in a 'round about way'.
Where did you get that from what I wrote? Again, you are being vague. If you have a legit complaint use the quote tool. That capability exists for people to make direct, clear assertions rather than mere claims. Show me where you got this entirely wrong idea.
Your post is nothing but invented complaints. That usually signals one has no argument to make. It has been my opinion that you have no argument to make and I noted that in my prior comment. Instead of posting vague complaints, if you have an argument to make then do so. I figured you were done since you have been largely doing nothing more than stating in paraphrase 'I just believe' for several posts. That usually means one has nothing else to offer.
No you haven’t. You’ve been dancing around the prove the unprovable debate this entire conversation. You’ve been all over the place. In once instance you agree that one can’t prove the unprovable. Then you ask for evidence of the unprovable. So which is it? Can you or can’t you prove the unprovable? Yes or no answer please.
Vague? Hardly. You asked why I wouldn’t use faith in an engineering problem. The proposition of which I destroyed since it’s a wholly and totally irrational comparison.
Wrong, as noted above. I thought you might want to have a genuine debate. I guess not. No problem, I can proceed accordingly.
Pretending to not understand what I wrote is a dishonest tactic. Worse given this has already been explained to you. Here is what I wrote:
I establish that asking for proof is too high a bar and agree that there are claims that cannot be evidenced (e.g. 'God exists'). Now, I then note that if someone makes such a claim the fact that the claim cannot be evidenced does not grant them immunity from challenge. I could claim that I was abducted by aliens who told me that they were the ones who build the Egyptian pyramids. That claim cannot be evidenced. Does that mean it is wrong to challenge the claim?
See? Not that difficult.
Here is how I first explained this to you when you first pretended to not understand what I wrote @3.2.65:
Again, the fact that the claim cannot be evidenced does not mean it will not (or should not) be challenged. You do not get a free pass simply because it is impossible for you to provide evidence for your claim.
So, finally, in super simple terms:
Yet another invention. Read what I actually wrote:
Here I stipulate that engineers (at least competent engineers) do not base their designs on unevidenced, unproven principles. That is a fact. A civil engineer, for example, would not take on faith the word of a sales rep who merely claims the peer technology s/he is trying to sell will support a particular bridge design. Faith is not a bedrock for belief - it is accepting as truth that which has not been established as such.
Do that in the real world and you might find that your belief based on your 'bedrock' of faith results in an unsafe bridge.
You can believe whatever you want. But belief doesn't equal fact. Belief in a god doesn't mean a god actually exists. It's just wishful thinking and/or an emotional comfort mechanism.
Please consider the following information on personality changes after brain injury.
If emotions are a gift from your God, then why does your God make loving, rational people into unpredictable, irrational, violent people after brain injury?
Ah finally the thinly veiled insults .... took you awhile to get there but you finally did. Good job!
Just so there is no misunderstanding I stand by every word I’ve written in this seed. Hope you have a wonderful day.
Later.
Like that insult? Granted, it's not so thinly veiled, but it was an insult, so I'm not sure you should be complaining about insults.
Where did TiG insult you at 3.2.84?
Can psychiatry explain all actions? No? Then it must be flawed right? How can you trust it? Faith perhaps?
That said I can explain how people sometimes do bad things with two words. Free will.
We are allowed the free will to make our own choices and I will submit to you. Infinitely more good choices are made by people each day than bad choices. Infinitely more. Like air travel. You rarely hear about a successful flights. Which most flights are successful but you hear about the crashes every time. Every time.
This is like that.
Nobody is saying that you cannot believe as you want to. We are only asking why you believe as you do because you previously stated that you are a rational and educated person, but you often seem to be driven by emotions. Do you see the conundrum of claiming to be rational but instead being driven by emotions.
Unlike others here, at least you are reading what’s written.
Always nice having you around Sandy to check my work. Much appreciated!
Everybody here is reading what you've written. They just disagree with it, which, BTW, is not the same thing as not understanding it.
Translation: Damn, he is right, I really did mangle what he wrote. Since he quoted his original words and quoted his prior explanation of those words as proof I have no wiggle room. Guess I will play the victim card as a deflection. I wish he was not so damn civil. Maybe I can make a claim on fumes ... sure, he implied that I was playing fast and loose with the interpretations ... there is my play, I will complain that calling me out is a thinly veiled insult. I will then make a grand assertion that everything I wrote is correct and leave.
Not the first time I have witnessed this tactic. My advice is usually that it would be much better to not reply at all rather than deliver such a weak response.
You need a better translator. But don't feel bad. You aren't alone in that regard here.
Projection. You insult, deny that your insult was meant to be personal, then accuse others of insulting. You don't understand what disagreement is (and is not), and accuse others of lack of understanding.
I don't understand what disagreement is? Hilarious! Your shtick is getting old Sandy. Give it up.
That said, I denied nothing and have clearly stated i stand by everything i have posted. If you think there is an insult there you are free to report it. Otherwise stop wasting bandwidth here with your whining.
This is going nowhere fast. Cease perpetuating personal exchanges. If you have something topical or subtopical to offer then do so. If not, best to move on.
Yes i agree.
Feel free to jump off the dogpile and move on
Do you believe that soldiers have PTSD from combat experience or are they just exercising their free will when their mind can't handle the reality of war?
How about Alzheimer's disease that wrecks havoc on the functions of the human brain? Is Alzheimer's a gift from your God or are the afflicted just exercising their free will?
Does your God have a plan or is your God surprised when people do bad things?
You have hit on one of the critical flaws in the definition of the biblical God. God is omniscient (knows everything) yet God is surprised and/or disappointed by the decisions of His creations. How is it possible for a God who knows all (and thus knows what everyone will do) to be surprised?
One of many contradictions in the definition of the biblical God.
This is one of the few ways one can actually determine if a defined god does not exist. If the god —as defined— is a contradiction then that god —as defined— absolutely does not exist. A god (i.e. sentient creator of the known universe) might exist, but the biblical God —given how the character is defined— most certainly does not exist.
So many people believing in a God that was inadvertently defined by ancient men as a contradiction.
There can be no surprises when it comes to the god, Yahweh because the Bible plainly states that Yahweh has a plan with a timeline to end man's reign on Earth because it is detailed in Revelation.
If Yahweh did not know the future, then the future could not have been shown to John and included in the New Testament.
In the Old Testament, Yahweh did not allow Pharaoh to exercise free will when Pharaoh wanted to allow the Israelites to leave Egypt. Yahweh "hardened" Pharaoh's heart (more than once as I recall). I suppose if Pharaoh had just granted the Israelites their freedom then Moses would not have parted the Red Sea so they could escape the army. It must have been part of Yahweh's "plan" to have Moses part the Red Sea so everyone had a predestined role to play.
Judeo Christian predestination means there is zero free will.
I recently watched "Good Omens" on Amazon Prime. I highly recommend it to anyone who is a fan of Terry Pratchett and/or enjoys Biblical satire.
This is what I do not understand. Why do you believe in what you cannot support in a rational or objective manner? Is it a comfort mechanism? If you admit that it is faith and belief then how are you different from people who believed had faith in Ra, Horus, Zeus and Jupiter more than 2000 years ago?
I can understand that many people were indoctrinated by their parent's religion in the home as a child and it is very difficult to change, especially when you have strong family ties and in a country such as the US where the Christian religion plays a huge role in society but it can be done because many atheists/agnostics in the US and otherwise were brought up in a religious home. I still have situations of religious guilt and times when I don't think but instead act on memory. I immediately catch myself and it shocks me just how much power religion can have over someone even 30 years after I rejected it as illogical.
There are many of us who question what we are told when we do not see support for a claim. If God exists then it can be objectively supported in some way.