Here's one for the religious..

[janie48]

As much as I like Carl Sagan, I always cringe when I hear the quote that has been attributed to him; " absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

 

I think it is and in that sense Obelix is correct, it's just not proof of absence which makes RootsBooster correct.

 

We can't have proof of absence, although it is useful to think that we can and to live our lives with David Hume's words (below) in mind.

 

Which brings us back to what RootsBooster said on Page 5 ...

 

"What reason is there to even consider that any of the gods may exist?"

I like that quote and may use is as my signature later if you don't mind.

 

People with strong faith don't need the compelling evidence that you require, a feeling of awareness is enough.

 

What Roots said didn't register with me earlier, but reflecting on it further, my answer is that a great many people are just naturally curious to know whether there is an unseen divine higher power even if they have never been introduced to any religion

For some the question may never enter their mind unless at some period in their life something occurs that precipitates a need to wonder, it may pass or may lead them to study the idea on a more deeper level.

[RootsBooster]

As much as I like Carl Sagan, I always cringe when I hear the quote that has been attributed to him; "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

 

I think it is and in that sense Obelix is correct, it's just not proof of absence which makes RootsBooster correct.

I totally agree it's evidence, evidence so strong that's the closest we can get to absolute proof. It's just not absolute proof.

 

We can't have proof of absence, although it is useful to think that we can and to live our lives with David Hume's words (below) in mind.

exactly

 

Which brings us back to what RootsBooster said on Page 5 ...

 

"What reason is there to even consider that any of the gods may exist?"

Indeed

 

---------- Post added 16-05-2013 at 15:30 ----------

 

I do have an interesting question relating to the god topic though...

 

Does it really matter?

 

I mean, the truth of the matter, is the truth of the matter; whatever that may be. There isn't much we can do about that, one way or the other. All we can do is live our lives as best we can, within the context of the reality that we experience.

 

So, why even spend time, worrying or speculating over the existence of god?

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter if any gods exist (I've said plenty of times before that I'm an apatheist).

 

I think that the reason(s) why people believe can matter though

[SnailyBoy]

I like that quote and may use is as my signature later if you don't mind.

 

People with strong faith don't need the compelling evidence that you require, a feeling of awareness is enough.

 

What Roots said didn't register with me earlier, but reflecting on it further, my answer is that a great many people are just naturally curious to know whether there is an unseen divine higher power even if they have never been introduced to any religion

For some the question may never enter their mind unless at some period in their life something occurs that precipitates a need to wonder, it may pass or may lead them to study the idea on a more deeper level.

 

I feel that people with a strong faith are lacking in curiosity by definition. If they are naturally curious and seek knowledge of the world around them, any reliance on faith will fall by the wayside.

 

Faith could really be summed up as wishful thinking.

[quisquose]

Does it really matter?

 

I mean, the truth of the matter, is the truth of the matter; whatever that may be. There isn't much we can do about that, one way or the other. All we can do is live our lives as best we can, within the context of the reality that we experience.

 

So, why even spend time, worrying or speculating over the existence of god?

 

It doesn't matter, at all, one bit, except ...

 

If people want to believe in gods they should be free to do so, except ...

 

Except, some people claim to know the mind of their god, and that their god tells them how me and you can live our lives.

 

This is a totally unreasonable position I think you will agree, so how do we argue with that position. We can't simply say their position is wrong, because they have their god on their side.

 

Unfortunately we have to consider god, even if we don't think they exist, because it is the only argument we have against theocracy.

 

I see faith schools, I see bishops in the House of Lords, I see priests abusing their power, I see cruel religious slaughter, I see godly people criticising sex-education and contraception, I see fanatics strapping explosives to their bodies and killing randomly, I see the genital mutilation of children, I see godly men saying women should be subservient, I see people trying to subvert science education. When I see people do these things in the name of their god I am forced to consider their god, even though I don't think for a moment that it might exist.

[flamingjimmy]

I can make something up and prove it doesn't exist right now.

 

They're called jimelals, and we all have one, its a bright green ball that follows all of us around and is completely visible at all times, floating right before our eyes.

 

Seeing as I can't see one right now, and neither can any of you, it cannot possibly exist because by definition it can be seen at all times.

 

I have proved, beyond all doubt 100% that Jimelals, as I have defined them, do not exist.

[janie48]

I feel that people with a strong faith are lacking in curiosity by definition. If they are naturally curious and seek knowledge of the world around them, any reliance on faith will fall by the wayside.

 

Faith could really be summed up as wishful thinking.

What patronising narrow minded comments, it just shows how little you know ,you seem to possess a very narrow view in your assumptions of people with religious faith. Have you been reading a Richard Dawkins book or something?

 

So no one with strong faith has ever been curious? If it wasn't for curiosity and research done by many people with strong religious faith in the past, I doubt that scientific knowledge would ever have ever have reached the advanced stage it is at now.

[SnailyBoy]

What patronising narrow minded comments, it just shows how little you know ,you seem to possess a very narrow view in your assumptions of people with religious faith. Have you been reading a Richard Dawkins book or something?

 

So no one with strong faith has ever been curious? If it wasn't for curiosity and research done by many people with strong religious faith in the past, I doubt that scientific knowledge would ever have ever have reached the advanced stage it is at now.

 

If anything research in the past may have been discouraged for fear of reprisals, Galileo 'the father of science' was forced to recant his discoveries and kept under house arrest for the rest of his life.

 

So why do you have faith, if not for wishful thinking?

[Obelix]

As much as I like Carl Sagan, I always cringe when I hear the quote that has been attributed to him; "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

 

I think it is and in that sense Obelix is correct, it's just not proof of absence which makes RootsBooster correct.

 

We can't have proof of absence, although it is useful to think that we can and to live our lives with David Hume's words (below) in mind.

 

Which brings us back to what RootsBooster said on Page 5 ...

 

"What reason is there to even consider that any of the gods may exist?"

 

The point is there is a difference between proof of absences, and proof of impossibility.

 

---------- Post added 16-05-2013 at 17:32 ----------

 

I totally agree it's evidence, evidence so strong that's the closest we can get to absolute proof. It's just not absolute proof.

 

There is no absolute proof in science though, only in mathematics. That's a given. When you do a MM or similar expt and find there is no anisotropy down to one part in 10^18 that's about as absolute as you can get.

 

---------- Post added 16-05-2013 at 17:35 ----------

 

What patronising narrow minded comments, it just shows how little you know ,you seem to possess a very narrow view in your assumptions of people with religious faith. Have you been reading a Richard Dawkins book or something?

 

So no one with strong faith has ever been curious? If it wasn't for curiosity and research done by many people with strong religious faith in the past, I doubt that scientific knowledge would ever have ever have reached the advanced stage it is at now.

 

And you go using Dawkins as a perjorative Janie.... why....?

[quisquose]

The point is there is a difference between proof of absences, and proof of impossibility.

 

I agree, as flamingjimmy has just demonstrated. As believers in an omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolent god also demonstrate.

 

Problem comes when a "thing" is not logically impossible to start with, or if people disagree on the properties of that "thing".

 

Flamingjimmy is wrong about jimelals. They are invisible to people that don't believe in them.

 

[Ryedo40]

What patronising narrow minded comments, it just shows how little you know ,you seem to possess a very narrow view in your assumptions of people with religious faith. Have you been reading a Richard Dawkins book or something?

 

Janie, if I recall, you once told me you haven't even read Richard Dawkins' books. Where's your curiosity?

 

So no one with strong faith has ever been curious?

 

He didn't say that those who hold faith have never been curious. He is correct though: Evidence-based knowledge of how the real world operates is a damn sight more reliable than faith-based beliefs(beliefs without evidence) of how the real world operates.

 

If it wasn't for curiosity and research done by many people with strong religious faith in the past, I doubt that scientific knowledge would ever have ever have reached the advanced stage it is at now.

 

Obviously, their faith-based beliefs couldn't cut the mustard in the real world. No wonder they resorted to science.

 

IME, most who tout the their faith-based views as though they hold some sort of virtuous position usually, when they aren't completely ignorant due to lack of curiosity, switch-off to or brush aside the arguments and evidence stacked against their non-evidence based beliefs. In fact, most haven't even got the curiosity to look into the history of the religion behind their faith-based views(something even you've admitted to Janie).

 

Sorry Janie, but the guy is right. You've proved it yourself.