My question was, how can you tell you had a personal experience with god. Is your answer "by having a personal experience with god"?By having a personal experience with God.
Now that you know how it is possible, thank you for your admission that it is a good reason.
No, but it's disrespectful for you to tell me what my worldview is, which is what you did.Is it disrespectful to talk about worldviews now?
Then please do.Yes, of course I can.
What about secular humanism requires more faith than a theistic religion?Sure it is a religion. You can get into semantics based on the definition you choose, but I can easily argue that it is a religion.
Religion can be defined (My Merriam-Webster) as "4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"
Secular humanism is nothing more than a system of beliefs, and there is plenty of faith involved in holding many of the beliefs that lie therein. I would argue that it requires more blind faith than Theism by far.
Never said it wasn't a system of beliefs. It's just not a religious one, because it doesn't require faith in anything supernatural.Please prove to me how secular humanism is not a system of beliefs. Anyone rational would immediately recognize that it is indeed a system of beliefs.
There is one very big difference. "Love" is, by definition, a label we put on something we observe and experience in reality. We may not be fully able to explain the mechanics of it to every last detail, but we never posit that it has a supernatural component. Whereas theists do one of three things:You yourself have admitted that you believe in the existence of love, and yet you cannot prove its existence through the scientific method. You have faith that it exists based on evidence, personal experience, and observation, which is identical to religion. People that believe in God, do so because of evidence, personal experience, and observation. There is no difference.
And again I ask, what is the relevance of this?Many religious people throughout history have moved science forward by leaps and bounds.
Good thing I never claimed that then. I'm beginning to see a pattern of you, how did you put it? Arguing against someone that is not in the room?Claiming that religion has never done anything for science is just wrong. So wrong that it makes me believe that you have not studied history even a little bit.
It depends entirely on what the claim is. If my best friend makes an outlandish claim, I would not believe him just because he's my friend, even if he never told me a lie before.Oh really? And yet you do not prescribe to this, because you would believe your best friend over a complete stranger, would you not?
But credibility must be weighed against the particular claim being made. Just because someone made a thousand mundane true statements doesn't give them a pass to make one outlandish claim and expect to be believed.It's not a fallacy to trust something credible over something that is not. It's common sense.
The notion of consistent credibility is not a fallacy. It is a fact of life that you yourself adhere to on a daily basis and use as a tool for survival.
You go to work for your boss knowing that he/she will pay you, because they have proven themselves to be credible. Society is built upon the foundational stone of credibility.
Honest people can still be wrong. I'm perfectly prepared to believe that ancient peoples genuinely believed that a god existed. That doesn't mean I should accept that assertion as true without any evidence just because it's next to other, mundane claims which we have verified.I agree with that completely.
And yet, catching someone in 9 different lies serves as evidence that they are dishonest.
Likewise, confirming someone telling 9 different truths serves as evidence that they are honest.
The reason historical accuracy matters is because it serves as evidence towards honesty.
My question was, how can you tell you had a personal experience with god. Is your answer "by having a personal experience with god"?
So, how can it be achieved?
No, but it's disrespectful for you to tell me what my worldview is, which is what you did.
Then please do.
What about secular humanism requires more faith than a theistic religion?
Never said it wasn't a system of beliefs. It's just not a religious one, because it doesn't require faith in anything supernatural.
And again I ask, what is the relevance of this?
Many of those same people also had syphilis. So what?
Good thing I never claimed that then. I'm beginning to see a pattern of you, how did you put it? Arguing against someone that is not in the room?
And yet, science has already achieved immeasurably more than religious belief ever did. None of the technological advancement of the last 10k years was a result of prayer.
It depends entirely on what the claim is. If my best friend makes an outlandish claim, I would not believe him just because he's my friend, even if he never told me a lie before.
But credibility must be weighed against the particular claim being made. Just because someone made a thousand mundane true statements doesn't give them a pass to make one outlandish claim and expect to be believed.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and credibility does not count as extraordinary evidence. That is why the scientific process, our most reliable tool for determining truth, includes independent verification as one of its cornerstones.
And so it doesn't matter how many cities and kings and other historical details a text mentions, when it starts talking about supernatural entities, I'm just as justified to call bullshit on that as a future historian would be justified to stand in the middle of the ruins of NYC and call bullshit on the existence of Spiderman. It's a different kind of claim, one with zero confirmed historical examples of its kind.
Honest people can still be wrong. I'm perfectly prepared to believe that ancient peoples genuinely believed that a god existed. That doesn't mean I should accept that assertion as true without any evidence just because it's next to other, mundane claims which we have verified.
Just because something has survived for thousands of years doesn't mean it should be kept around. See: slavery.
Which brings me back to my earlier question: if we're not in charge of our own moral compass, then how come slavery went from morally acceptable to unacceptable in the span of a couple centuries?
I asked you for a good reason to be a theist. You said "having a direct experience with god". I said that "having a direct experience with god" doesn't qualify as a god reason until you can explain how it can be achieved. So, how can one achieve a direct experience with god?Actually, that was not your question. Your question was:
Which I answered very accurately.
I asked you several times to tell us what you believe and why. You never did, so I'm forced to assume. Am I wrong?Ok, so if it is disrespectful to state what someone's worldview is... Does that mean it was equally disrespectful when you stated that I believed in God?
No, because I'm not telling any particular person what their religion is. You'll also note that I haven't referred to anyone as "christians" or "muslims". Different room etc etc.Does that also mean that you are being disrespectful when you refer to people as "Christians" or "Muslims" or "Theists"?
I am both an agnostic and an atheist, but I do not believe that "God does not exist". I'm just not convinced of the existence of any of the gods I've been presented with thus far. Always keen to hear more though.If I was in fact, incorrect that you are an Atheist/Agnostic that believes that God does not exist, please let me know.
What is your physical evidence of god's existence?Sure. I will use your exact formatting.
I can tell God exists, because I experience it directly, AND there is physical evidence of it, AND because I can observe others acting in a way that is consistent with my experience.
Neither of these are intrinsic to secular humanism. What you posted are questions of cosmology, which is completely divorced from secular humanism.1) "Nothing" exploding into "something". (The Big Bang)
2) The fine tuning of the universe happened by chance
Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, “This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!”
See above. You're wrong, basically.Supernatural - "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."
"Nothingness" exploding into an unfathomably fascinating complex universe full of unique and complex structures is obviously a supernatural event.
From everything we know within science, "nothing" cannot create "something". Therefore the Big Bang is supernatural.
Therefore every secular humanist (not saying you are one to avoid disrespecting) believing in the big bang believes in a supernatural event.
Sure, everyone makes some assumptions by necessity. Hard solipsism is the classic example. We all assume we're actually living in a shared reality, when in fact we could be in the Matrix or I could just be dreaming all this. No way to know.There are many supernatural beliefs that secular humanists have. They are just keenly unaware of them because they do not self analyze themselves and realize that they are no different than people of any other worldview. They have been conditioned to believe that their worldview is the "absence of beliefs" when it is quite the opposite. It is just as loaded with beliefs, if not more so than the other worldviews. It makes a long list of wild assertions that simply can't be proven by evidence, scientific theory, or observation. They accept these assertions as truths despite not being able to prove any of them, and simultaneously ridicule other worldviews for doing the exact same thing.
Exactly. It's silly to attribute the accomplishments of anyone to anything but the fact that they were good at what they were doing. That means it's silly to try to legitimize religion by saying that the top scientists in history were religious.I see your point, however this argument can be used equally to dismiss the accomplishments of anyone from any worldview.
It kind of reduces the discussion to silliness.
As a matter of fact I don't have a car, so I would definitely not believe him in this case. But I'll run with the example for the sake of argument.Sure you would.
If your best friend came running into your home right now with an authentic panicked look and said "Your car outside is on fire!"
More than likely you would believe that his/her outlandish claim would have high level credibility and go running outside, possibly with a fire extinguisher in hand.
You'll also note that spectral evidence has not been allowed in court for a long time. The courts will not take supernatural claims at face value either.The power of credible personal testimony is indeed a force to be reckoned with.
It is why we use it in courts of law.
If he was hallucinating, then he did not in fact see an alien. Yes, I might believe that he thought he saw something, but whether or not that thing was really there would again depend on what he claims he saw. If he said he saw a raccoon, I'd believe him, because I know racoons exist and that they sometimes get close to humans. If he said he saw an alien, I would not believe him on his word alone, because I have no other reason to believe that aliens are visiting earth.If my best friend told me with an authentic look and voice tone that he saw an alien, I would be very likely to believe that he was sharing truth with me. I would likely believe he was hallucinating, but I would more than likely believe that he saw what he saw.
Again, depends on what the claim is. You would not be wrong to believe someone when they have a history of making similar, accurate claims. But that does not mean you should believe any other claim they make, especially wildly outlandish ones that challenge all you know about reality.If you would not believe your friend that has never lied to you, that's fine, but to claim that anyone believing a highly trusted source is doing so without "good reason" seems wrong to me.
It was Carl Sagan.No, they really don't.
Not sure who told you this, but it is wrong.
I didn't say that though. I said that the reason for religious debates being a waste of time is because people who have no good reason to hold their beliefs won't admit to it. I have heard conversations where someone realized they have no good reason to hold their beliefs, and consequently dropped them: those conversations weren't a waste of time.Where I think you are wrong is that you claim that others "do not have one single good reason" to believe in their worldview. I feel that is a very close-minded uninformed statement.
Well then you're wrong. I fully know that theists will look for evidence for their deity. It's just that as far as I've seen, (and I've seen a lot), nothing they come up with actually qualifies as good enough evidence to justify their religious beliefs.Anyone expecting you to believe something without any evidence is an idiot.
One of the main points I'm trying to make is that you more than likely believe that Theists are people that do not look at the evidence when it is quite the contrary.
If that were true, then the field of cosmology would include intelligent design. Which it doesn't. So you're wrong.All of the scientific evidence that the universe presents to us overwhelmingly points to the existence of an intelligent designer.
Antony Flew was a philosopher, not a physicist, and stories like his are very much the exception, not the rule. Also, refer to my earlier point about different types of claims. I don't care how brilliant someone is when it comes to topics other than gods. If they make claims of a god's existence, those claims will have to stand on their own.That is why Antony Flew, the great Atheist gave up his stance and began believing in God, much to the disappointment of all secular humanists that held him on a pedestal.
You absolutely got it wrong.Another point I am making is that testimony serves as evidence in many cases, such as a court of law.
I'm not suggesting that you should go on testimony alone at all, which is what you may assume.
I'm assuming that you look at all the evidence and make up your own mind, which you have.
At this point, your brain has fully solidified on its conclusions and has hardened into a complete state, which was easily identified from your first post. You are beyond swaying or influencing in any other direction. Nobody will ever convince you to prescribe to any other worldview. Hence why this discussion is mostly a waste of time.
More than likely you have dismissed every single point that I have ever made.
More than likely you will walk away saying "Wow, that guy didn't even give me one good reason that he believes in God".
"He is just a blind idiot that refuses to look at the obvious evidence. Why are people so dumb?"
Did I get it right?
Will you condemn child molesters?
You asked the wrong question. You're supposed to ask if he'll condemn pedophiles.
I asked you for a good reason to be a theist. You said "having a direct experience with god". I said that "having a direct experience with god" doesn't qualify as a god reason until you can explain how it can be achieved. So, how can one achieve a direct experience with god?
I asked you several times to tell us what you believe and why. You never did, so I'm forced to assume. Am I wrong?
What is your physical evidence of god's existence?
I am both an agnostic and an atheist, but I do not believe that "God does not exist". I'm just not convinced of the existence of any of the gods I've been presented with thus far. Always keen to hear more though.
Neither of these are intrinsic to secular humanism. What you posted are questions of cosmology, which is completely divorced from secular humanism.
It's not that the universe is fine-tuned for us. We're fine tuned for this universe.
See above. You're wrong, basically.
Sure, everyone makes some assumptions by necessity. Hard solipsism is the classic example. We all assume we're actually living in a shared reality, when in fact we could be in the Matrix or I could just be dreaming all this. No way to know.
But that doesn't give us license to just make up stuff and believe it willy-nilly. Because if we do in fact live in a shared reality where the laws of the universe work independently of what we believe, then our false beliefs inherently carry the risk of harming us or those around us. So if you care about the well-being of your peers, then you have an onus to also care about truth and not make unnecessary assumptions.
Exactly. It's silly to attribute the accomplishments of anyone to anything but the fact that they were good at what they were doing. That means it's silly to try to legitimize religion by saying that the top scientists in history were religious.
As a matter of fact I don't have a car, so I would definitely not believe him in this case. But I'll run with the example for the sake of argument.
Their claim that my car is on fire is not extraordinary in the sense that it is well within the realm of possibility as I understand it. I know I have a car, I know that cars can catch fire, and so it is entirely plausible that my friend is telling the truth.
But nothing about my experience with the universe gives me reason to believe that deities exist, and so someone's word alone is not going to be good enough to make me believe it.
You'll also note that spectral evidence has not been allowed in court for a long time. The courts will not take supernatural claims at face value either.
If he was hallucinating, then he did not in fact see an alien. Yes, I might believe that he thought he saw something, but whether or not that thing was really there would again depend on what he claims he saw. If he said he saw a raccoon, I'd believe him, because I know racoons exist and that they sometimes get close to humans. If he said he saw an alien, I would not believe him on his word alone, because I have no other reason to believe that aliens are visiting earth.
Again, depends on what the claim is. You would not be wrong to believe someone when they have a history of making similar, accurate claims. But that does not mean you should believe any other claim they make, especially wildly outlandish ones that challenge all you know about reality.
It was Carl Sagan.
Sagan standard - Wikipedia
And he's not wrong. I'll hazard a guess that you believe mundane things every day without evidence, but every now and then someone will tell you something extraordinary that prompts you to investigate. Again, it depends on the claim: you're inclined to believe things that line up with your current understanding of reality, because the universe tends to remain largely the same from one day to the next. But as soon someone says something that goes contrary to how you think things are, you want to hear more before you believe it.
I didn't say that though. I said that the reason for religious debates being a waste of time is because people who have no good reason to hold their beliefs won't admit to it. I have heard conversations where someone realized they have no good reason to hold their beliefs, and consequently dropped them: those conversations weren't a waste of time.
Well then you're wrong. I fully know that theists will look for evidence for their deity. It's just that as far as I've seen, (and I've seen a lot), nothing they come up with actually qualifies as good enough evidence to justify their religious beliefs.
If that were true, then the field of cosmology would include intelligent design. Which it doesn't. So you're wrong.
Antony Flew was a philosopher, not a physicist, and stories like his are very much the exception, not the rule. Also, refer to my earlier point about different types of claims. I don't care how brilliant someone is when it comes to topics other than gods. If they make claims of a god's existence, those claims will have to stand on their own.
You absolutely got it wrong.
I'm always open to new reasons, new evidence, etc. But if you're wrong, you're wrong, and me refusing to be swayed by bad evidence is not an indictment of my open-mindedness, but an indictment of the quality of your evidence.
Just as if you keep asking the hut-dwelling tribes to bring you evidence of their spirits that cause illness, and they keep bringing you albino children and shaved monkeys or whatever the fuck else, you'd be entirely correct to stay unconvinced. Lots of bad evidence does not add up to good evidence.
TrueI heard amadeus likes little kids t/f
fI heard amadeus likes little kids t/f
Tell me about it. Same thing happens to me each and every time I am talking to a male that believes it is a female and is demanding that I refer to it as what it believes itself to be.
"But I feel this way!"
So, I try to get them to explain why they believe they are a woman and not one of them had a good reason for it.
BREAKING NEWS: 12 year old girl tells lie
the end times are fucking near
-SS- said:p sure you dont like the idea of kids droppin truth bombs on you
fucking bitches be lying all the time
telling me stuff like "i don't want this" or "it hurts"