Unpopular Opinions You Hold

[Benguin]

Just now, murphy said:

I envy you (and others) your faith.  I would prefer to be a believer, but none of that is evidence of God.  You're better off just sticking to the faith angle, science won't help you.

 

Personally, I find it difficult to understand how many people, more intelligent than I, can believe in a God.  It seems to me a form of denial.  An acceptance of an idea while choosing to ignore all logic and scientific evidence.

What scientific evidence disproves God? What is your definition of logic, how do you ground absolute logic without God and what is illogical about belief in God? 

[LiberalFox]

I find the overtly religious to be untrustworthy or bigoted though I do not look for conflict with them. On the other side, a lot of vocal atheists tend to be arseholes. 

[murphy]

2 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I find the overtly religious to be untrustworthy or bigoted though I do not look for conflict with them. On the other side, a lot of vocal atheists tend to be arseholes. 

So you just hate everyone then?   

 

I tend to agree but don't get me started on them liberal democrats!

[The Bear]

You can't prove a negative (that God doesn't exist), just as you can't disprove that the universe wasn't created by some highly advanced toddler with a computer and sim type game. The responsibility is with those making the claim to pony up the proof, i.e. you. 

 

Science only claim things when they have enough evidence to do so with a high enough percentage to factor in errors in the gathering of evidence. There is no belief in science, just ideas and experiment. I wish the same could be said of religion. There is no experiment that can be concocted to assess religious claims. 

[murphy]

7 minutes ago, Benguin said:

What scientific evidence disproves God? What is your definition of logic, how do you ground absolute logic without God and what is illogical about belief in God? 

Well, evolution v creation for starters. 

 

 

[Benguin]

3 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I find the overtly religious to be untrustworthy or bigoted though I do not look for conflict with them. On the other side, a lot of vocal atheists tend to be arseholes. 

In other words there are trustworthy and tolerant people and untrustworthy and bigoted people. I agree 

[The Bear]

Oh and "historical scholars agree" isn't evidence or fact. 

Edited 18 July 2020 by The Bear

[Benguin]

1 minute ago, The Bear said:

You can't prove a negative (that God doesn't exist), just as you can't disprove that the universe wasn't created by some highly advanced toddler with a computer and sim type game. The responsibility is with those making the claim to pony up the proof, i.e. you. 

 

Science only claim things when they have enough evidence to do so with a high enough percentage to factor in errors in the gathering of evidence. There is no belief in science, just ideas and experiment. I wish the same could be said of religion. There is no experiment that can be concocted to assess religious claims. 

IMO the extraordinary claim is that the goes against our intuition. For example, intuitively the earth feels flat, so along time ago it was an extraordinary claim to say the earth is spherical. We now have great evidence that the theory against our intuition is correct. 

 

To believe we all magicked into being without a magician is the extraordinary claim that goes against our intuition in my opinion, so when atheists say an exfrodianry requires extraordinary evidence, I tend to think its them who is making the extraordinary claim. 

[Benguin]

8 minutes ago, murphy said:

Well, evolution v creation for starters. 

 

 

Microevoltion I think can be considered fact, I still think there is more to do to prove macroevoltion. 

 

That said, evolution doesn't disprove God. 

[The Bear]

Intuition isn't science. 

 

And we knew the Earth was spherical millennia ago. The ancient Greeks used basic geometry using the sun, a stick and its shadow to prove it, and also make a basic measure of the Earth's circumference. 

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, Benguin said:

1. Quantum fluctuations occur in space time, there's no evidence they occur outside of it. 

2. Well the evidence is that we exist. The point to this argument is that for us to be here in the circumstances that we are is a probability so unlikely that its easier to believe in a creator. 

3. We have had this debate already and you accepted that objective moral values and duties do not exist in your worldview. Objective means that it is universal and I dependant if thoughts and feelings. Are you now saying you are able to show that murdering babies is objectively immmoral in an atheistic worldview? If so please do many have tried. 

4. In a theistic worldview, one realises this and thus has knowledge and absolute truths via divine revelation. That is to say I justify my living in accordance with logic and absolute truths because of a God, in your worldview there is no justification so you have to conclude you could be in the matrix and don't know anything for certain. 

5. It's not a question of more but rather whether there is any meaning. Without God all meaning is illusory. 

6. The historical facts are that jesus claimed to be the son of God, he was crucified, he was buried in the tomb of Joseph of arimethea, this tomb was found empty and several individuals and groups of people saw jesus alive and well. All of these are considered facts by the vast majority of scholars and are more attested than any historical figure of antiquity. 

7. Because if God exists and he wanted us to know him he wouldnt reveal a false God. 

 

1. That's right, and there is no evidence a creator was involved either - ergo both are equally likely. Neither should be stated as fact.

2. We don't know if that probability is big or not, seeing as we haven't found life in places other than Earth to reference. And again, big odds do not necessarily equal a divine hand - why would it?

3. Nope, I'm still where I was before because the discussion was a reducto ad absurdum before and it still is now. Whether there is such a thing as objective morality is going to be difficult to prove, either way, so as 1 and 2 cannot be stated as fact.

4. Agreed - and there's no evidence for those "divine revelations" to be anything other than out of the head of a human being so I'm sticking, once again, with the null hypothesis.

5. Says who?

6. I'm interested to see where these facts are and if they can be independently corroborated to be true.

7. You can't be certain of that, and isn't it a mark of the sin of pride to claim to know the will of your deity? Or are there special passes in certain circumstances - dogmatic loopholes, perhaps?

 

 

5 minutes ago, Benguin said:

What scientific evidence disproves God? What is your definition of logic, how do you ground absolute logic without God and what is illogical about belief in God? 

Burden of proof lies on the extraordinary claim that has no evidence, not the other way round.

 

And to answer the most recent post, any theory regarding cosmic inflation is extraordinary by virtue of lack of proof so all of them must supply extraordinary evidence - creationists included.

 

1 minute ago, murphy said:

Well, evolution v creation for starters. 

 

 

Thing is, the answer to that is normally givenis some Intelligent Design spiel regarding a deity guiding such evolution. No evidence, of course.

[the fox]

10 minutes ago, The Bear said:

You can't prove a negative (that God doesn't exist), just as you can't disprove that the universe wasn't created by some highly advanced toddler with a computer and sim type game. The responsibility is with those making the claim to pony up the proof, i.e. you. 

 

Science only claim things when they have enough evidence to do so with a high enough percentage to factor in errors in the gathering of evidence. There is no belief in science, just ideas and experiment. I wish the same could be said of religion. There is no experiment that can be concocted to assess religious claims. 

You were the one who brought it up first (that God doesn't exist) so the burden of proof is on you. Don't push it on Benguin.

 

And there is "belief" in science. There is no such thing as scientific fact. It's based on the belief that something will react the same way in the same circumstances based on past experience.

 

 

 

Edited 18 July 2020 by the fox

[Benguin]

6 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Oh and "historical scholars agree" isn't evidence or fact. 

Yes it is a historical fact. We get our information from people who are experts in said feild. 

[The Bear]

1 minute ago, the fox said:

You were the one who brought it up first (that God doesn't exist) so the burden of proof is on you. Don't push it on Benguin.

 

And there is "belief" in science. There is no such thing as scientific fact. It's based on the belief that something will react the same way in the same circumstances based in past experience.

That is confusing probability with belief. If I throw something up in the air, there is an infinitessimally tiny chance that it spontaneously floats in mid-air or disappears altogether. Usually it just comes back down again. 

[the fox]

A belief can be true without the existence of evidence. But it has to be backed with a logical explanation or it becomes delusion.

 

 

 

[leicsmac]

Just now, the fox said:

You were the one who brought it up first (that God doesn't exist) so the burden of proof is on you. Don't push it on Benguin.

 

And there is "belief" in science. There is no such thing as scientific fact. It's based on the belief that something will react the same way in the same circumstances based in past experience.

I'm sorry man, it really isn't. A claim without evidence is extraordinary, regardless of who raised it first. The null hypothesis is that an interventionist deity (to say nothing of other types of deity) doesn't exist, because of the lack of verified evidence. The burden of proof is always on those going against the aforementioned null hypothesis.

 

Empiricism is a big part of science and yes, there likely is no such thing as scientific fact - merely what we have observed in the past that may well change in the future. I understand that means nothing is certain and that causes some people to feel very uncomfortable, but I would much rather take a system of knowing about the world that is fluid and self-correcting rather than one that is a rock and seeks to correct people instead.

[The Bear]

1 minute ago, Benguin said:

Yes it is a historical fact. We get our information from people who are experts in said feild. 

Again, a consensus on what might have happened isn't a fact. 

 

We all agree that the dinosaurs were wiped out by an asteroid strike because that is what the vast majority of  evidence suggests. It's still not an absolute fact but it's as close as we're probably going to get. 

 

I'm yet to hear of any one tiny piece evidence in human history that anybody came back to life after being dead for days. 

[leicsmac]

In any case, this is an interesting discussion - such discussions often are but have to be handled pretty carefully because they become flame-bait very easily.

 

Perhaps a new thread for discussing this further might be a good idea?

[the fox]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm sorry man, it really isn't. A claim without evidence is extraordinary, regardless of who raised it first. The null hypothesis is that an interventionist deity (to say nothing of other types of deity) doesn't exist, because of the lack of verified evidence. The burden of proof is always on those going against the aforementioned null hypothesis.

 

Empiricism is a big part of science and yes, there likely is no such thing as scientific fact - merely what we have observed in the past that may well change in the future. I understand that means nothing is certain and that causes some people to feel very uncomfortable, but I would much rather take a system of knowing about the world that is fluid and self-correcting rather than one that is a rock and seeks to correct people instead.

"Burden of proof is a legal standard that requires parties to demonstrate that a claim is valid or invalid based on facts and evidence. Burden of proof is typically required of one party in a claim, and in many cases the party that is filing a claim is the party that must demonstrate that the claim is valid"

 

that's from the quick Google search. So I stand on my point.

 

i know this is a tired example, but gravity is an interesting subject. We can't see it but we can observe its effect to determine its validity based on its effect on the world. Just because we can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

but that system is flawed. Basing it on "explaining everything through natural causes" disregards the supernatural. So you can't have 100% credibility when you are explaining something when a big factor is blatantly disregarded.

Edited 18 July 2020 by the fox

[The Bear]

By every highest scientific standard of proof, gravity has been 'proven' to exist by prediction and observation. 

 

You can't regard supernatural considerations until you can show that is even a factor. Even the word supernatural is vague enough to mean anything you decide to shoehorn into a debate. 

Edited 18 July 2020 by The Bear

[Benguin]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

1. That's right, and there is no evidence a creator was involved either - ergo both are equally likely. Neither should be stated as fact.

2. We don't know if that probability is big or not, seeing as we haven't found life in places other than Earth to reference. And again, big odds do not necessarily equal a divine hand - why would it?

3. Nope, I'm still where I was before because the discussion was a reducto ad absurdum before and it still is now. Whether there is such a thing as objective morality is going to be difficult to prove, either way, so as 1 and 2 cannot be stated as fact.

4. Agreed - and there's no evidence for those "divine revelations" to be anything other than out of the head of a human being so I'm sticking, once again, with the null hypothesis.

5. Says who?

6. I'm interested to see where these facts are and if they can be independently corroborated to be true.

7. You can't be certain of that, and isn't it a mark of the sin of pride to claim to know the will of your deity? Or are there special passes in certain circumstances - dogmatic loopholes, perhaps?

 

 

Burden of proof lies on the extraordinary claim that has no evidence, not the other way round.

 

And to answer the most recent post, any theory regarding cosmic inflation is extraordinary by virtue of lack of proof so all of them must supply extraordinary evidence - creationists included.

 

Thing is, the answer to that is normally givenis some Intelligent Design spiel regarding a deity guiding such evolution. No evidence, of course.

1. The evidence is the original post. Granted its a philosophical argument rether than a scientific argument. 

2. We know the probability to be high based on the scientific fact that incredibly small changes in variables results in us not being here. 

3. I'm not sure you're following my point here. I'm saying onjective morals can't exist in your worldview, I'm yet to hear any compelling reason from you that murder is objectively wrong in an atheistic worldview. 

4.  Again think we are on different roads here. I'm saying a theistic worldview justifies absolute knowledge but an atheistic one does.not.you are applying the conditions in an atheistic world view to my own to make this point. 

5. Are you saying you know there is meaning in your worldview that is not illusory? If so how do you justify this? 

6. Feel free to Google "historicty of Jesus and you'll find a wealth of Scholars both religious and atheists who attest these facts. Bart Erhman the great sceptic is a good place to start given he shares your worldview. The sources are of course the gospels and Pauline epistles, Josephus the 1st century historian, tacitus and many more.

7. Its not claiming to know God's will but rather following the logic.

[fuchsntf]

13 hours ago, Aus Fox said:

I don’t think it’s a case of being pissed off, it’s more it’s meaning has now been lost and it seems like going through the motions for the look, rather than a meaningful protest. 
Now it’s time to move past symbolisms and work on some actual actions.

The actions have to come not only from the streets,but from the Authority Organisations & governments....So now ( and I Don t Really know) the press,The pressure ,needs to be held,so it doesn't wither...!!

If pressure wasnt put then  that UK Police Officers action yesterday would,carry on & on & on,without authorital,society demanding rebuke..!!!

White Society sown the seeds, and still insist...ok enough is enough,but the quality of the Harvest  ......well Its still ok for us....!!!

The rest is boring...I mean. Ffs.!!

[Benguin]

17 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Again, a consensus on what might have happened isn't a fact. 

 

We all agree that the dinosaurs were wiped out by an asteroid strike because that is what the vast majority of  evidence suggests. It's still not an absolute fact but it's as close as we're probably going to get. 

 

I'm yet to hear of any one tiny piece evidence in human history that anybody came back to life after being dead for days. 

Why would you choose to not follow what the evidence says? The historical evidence is overwhelming that the points I made about Jesus are true. Whether you choose to believe those facts point to the resurrection story is another issue but desscenting those basic points is going against the evidence. 

 

Your last point is just simply a misconception in what Christians believe. We don't believe people come back from the dead, it is that fact that people can't come back from the dead that divine intervention is believed in the case Jesus, if people regularly came back from the dead then we couldn't attribute divinity to Jesus. 

[murphy]

23 minutes ago, Benguin said:

Microevoltion I think can be considered fact, I still think there is more to do to prove macroevoltion. 

 

That said, evolution doesn't disprove God. 

You also asked why belief in God was illogical, well there is a good example.  If God created life from amoeba and the whole grand design was to end up with humans 4bn years later by way of evolution is that logical?  Why not just create man and the animals in the first place?

 

And what role did dinosaurs play in this grand scheme?

 

And what about the early humans?  The neanderthals and others.  Where do they fit in?   At what point does God reveal himself and then why go into hiding after that?

 

Why even create a physical world in the first place with all of it's pain and disease when you already have a much nicer one in the spiritual world?

 

Do you see what I mean about it all being illogical?

 

I am not trying to mock religion or have a go at you, but as soon as you start to look at it with any kind of logic the thing just unravels.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Izzy said:

Speaking as a Christian (I can't talk for other religions), just short of 1 million Christians in the UK go to church every week and the latest census identified that approximately 1/3 of the UK population identified as being Christian.

 

Although these numbers are clearly on the decline, I disagree that most of us use our religion to hide behind prejudice, mockery, hate or violence.

 

As an atheist, I endorse this message.

 

I believe that only a tiny minority of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists or Atheists are implicated in harmful prejudice, mockery, hate or violence.

(Though such undesirable traits can mushroom among the followers of any cause - religious, political, racial or whatever - if circumstances fuel it and leaders provoke it).

 

I also believe that only a tiny minority of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists or Atheists are consistently or massively saintly in their conduct.

 

I believe that the vast majority of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Atheists are decent if mildly flawed people who do no harm most of the time, do some good some of the time and occasionally behave badly.

 

It's mods, prog rockers, hippies and Tories that we need to kill.