The fact that you have not found evidence of the supernatural isn't conclusive proof that it does not exist. — Elric
This misunderstanding – caricature – is "assinine". :roll:My understanding of the term atheist is the point of view that nothing supernatural exists, most particularly a deity, and this is expressed as an absolute. — Elric
Strawman.The fact that you have not found evidence of the supernatural isn't conclusive proof that it does not exist.
"Feelings" are not sufficient. (Moot.)If feelings are a valid tool to perceive factual reality.
My understanding of the term atheist is the point of view that nothing supernatural exists, most particularly a deity, and this is expressed as an absolute. — Elric
My perspective is that both points of view are asinine, as neither can be proved. The fact that you have not found evidence of the supernatural isn't conclusive proof that it does not exist.
If feelings are a valid tool to perceive factual reality, and you FEEL that the supernatural exists, then it would be equally true that it does NOT exist, because someone else FEELS that it does not.
We could make this argument for any imagined thing, including elves, leprechauns, and dragons.The fact that you have not found evidence of the supernatural isn't conclusive proof that it does not exist. — Elric
We could make this argument for any imagined thing, including elves, leprechauns, and dragons. — Harry Hindu
I think the issue most people have with such statements is that ‘this domain’ is ‘existence’ and that there is no ‘outside’. — I like sushi
Because I haven't found any use in believing that the supernatural or gods exist, then I don't. — Harry Hindu
What are the two points of view? I only see one here ...My perspective is that both points of view are asinine, as neither can be proved. — Elric
You cannot feel something that does not exist neither you can feel that something does not exist. For example, you cannot feel a wind that isn't blowing.someone else FEELS that it does not. — Elric
Outside what domain, and "outside" in what way? It certainly can't be outside causality because events outside this domain affect what is in this domain and vice versa, so we should be able to prove their existence just like we can prove the identity of a criminal given the effects they leave at the crime scene (fingerprints, DNA, etc). It doesn't make any sense to say that it is outside this domain while at the same time asserting that there is a causal relationship between the outside and inside yet the outside can't be proven.God(s) exist outside of this domain, so their existence can't be proved. — Haglund
Sure. I was once a believer. When I question my former fellow believers most ask, "well what happens after we die?", so it seems like believing is more of a delusion to aleviate the suffering of knowing you will die and that your friends and family no longer exist for you to meet after death.What could be the use, apart from moral or closing gaps? Do you understand why people believe? — Haglund
People make believe – tell themselves consoling stories (myths) – when they do not know; it is cognitively easier to pretend to know (à la placebo-effect) than to accept the unknown (or unknowable). In other words, "belief" seems a developmental and atavistic vestige of childhood magical thinking in adults. People also believe because they are socialized to believe that "belief" is more "socially acceptable" and more "moral" than to not believe. Raised and educated Roman Catholic, this is how I understand (in a nutshell) "why people believe" after four-plus decades as an unbeliever, freethinker and reader of comparative religion.Do you understand why people believe? — Haglund
What could be the use, apart from moral or closing gaps? Do you understand why people believe?
— Haglund
Sure. I was once a believer. When I question my former fellow believers most ask, "well what happens after we die?", so it seems like believing is more of a delusion to aleviate the suffering of knowing you will die and that your friends and family no longer exist for you to meet after death — Harry Hindu
It is claimed that god created the universe and that our actions influence his final judgement. Those are causal relationships. As such, there should be evidence that was left for use to be able to show that god exists and created the universe. Where is that evidence?Being outside the secular domain by definition means a domain with no causal contact, unless they can influence the chances of quantum mechanics. That's the only acausal way to interfere. — Haglund
You asked if I understand why people believe. I told you that I once was a believer and that I have spoken to other believers and what they have said. Are you then saying that none of us are, or were, actually believers - as in only you have true sight into what god wants us to believe?You think an afterlife is the reason for believing? Then you don't understand the reason at all. — Haglund
It is claimed that god created the universe and that our actions influence his final judgement — Harry Hindu
Are you then saying that none of us are, or were, actually believers — Harry Hindu
Dawkins claims to be 99.9% certain that no gods exist. Then what about the 0.01%? To be certain that if they exist he didn't say he was sure 100%? So he can always say "You see? I told you! I was right! I said there was a chance!" — Haglund
I'm still waiting on you to define "god". — Harry Hindu
In other words, there is a causal relation, therefore there should be evidence of your claim. Where is the evidence for your claim? — Harry Hindu
Telling me that I am wrong doesn't answer the questions I have posed. Unless you have something with more substance then I'm done here. — Harry Hindu
People make believe – tell themselves consoling stories (myths) – when they do not know; it is cognitively easier to pretend to know (à la placebo-effect) than to accept the unknown (or unknowable). In other words, "belief" seems a developmental and atavistic vestige of childhood magical thinking in adults. People also believe because they are socialized to believe that "belief" is more "socially acceptable" and more "moral" than to not believe. Raise and educated a Roman Catholic, this is how I understand (in a nutshell) "why people believe" after four-plus decades as an unbeliever, freethinker and reader of comparative religion. — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.