Maybe being a believer takes more brains than being an atheist. :lol:
Not nit picking, it's a crucial distinction that has to be understood in reasoned argument, and it's a common source of error. Your faith that your vehicle will stop is an inductive conclusion based on evidence. I assume you understand at least to some degree how brakes work and that you maintain the vehicle properly, and that every other time you've attempted to stop by stepping on the brake pedal, it's worked. It's therefore reasonable to conclude, based on the evidence you have, that it'll stop the next time too. You cannot, I agree, be 100% certain of that, that's just the nature of inductive reasoning, and sometimes machinery fails. In other words, you've tested the proposition a huge number of times that stepping on the brake pedal will stop your vehicle, and it's always worked, so you're justified in concluding there's a very high probability it'll continue to work. Similar logic cannot be applied to religious faith, that kind of evidence just isn't available. The distinction is between an evidence-based and an evidence-free belief, and it's not logically valid to equate the truth content of the former to the latter.Scuse me dex,how do you figure it'a a different definition,I have faith that it's going to stop,I have no way of knowing for sure,meby you'd loke to take a minute and explane the difference to poor old ignorant me,or are you just nit picking?
Not nit picking, it's a crucial distinction that has to be understood in reasoned argument, and it's a common source of error. Your faith that your vehicle will stop is an inductive conclusion based on evidence. I assume you understand at least to some degree how brakes work and that you maintain the vehicle properly, and that every other time you've attempted to stop by stepping on the brake pedal, it's worked. It's therefore reasonable to conclude, based on the evidence you have, that it'll stop the next time too. You cannot, I agree, be 100% certain of that, that's just the nature of inductive reasoning, and sometimes machinery fails. In other words, you've tested the proposition a huge number of times that stepping on the brake pedal will stop your vehicle, and it's always worked, so you're justified in concluding there's a very high probability it'll continue to work. Similar logic cannot be applied to religious faith, that kind of evidence just isn't available. The distinction is between an evidence-based and an evidence-free belief, and it's not logically valid to equate the truth content of the former to the latter.
Religion isn't quite as cut & dried as that. From experience I'm pretty sure that "someone" is looking after me. I haven't always had things my way and I have had a fair share of adversity (but I don't have to look far at all to find people who've had worse), but I've very seldom been a victim of the worst case scenario either, so I guess I've been given about the number of challenges that I can handle. That pretty well is my feeling of religion in a nutshell.
I agree religion isn't that cut and dried, though it often claims to be. For instance: Jesus Christ was the son of god, born of virgin, took all the sins of the world onto himself to free humanity from original sin and provide the path to eternal redemption and salvation, died horribly and painfully in that cause, was buried, rose from the dead after three days, promised he'd return, and ascended bodily into heaven. That's the central message of Christianity, and quite apart from the moral revulsion I feel at the claim that my failings can be redeemed by punishing somebody else for them, it strains credulity to the breaking point. It may be true that "someone" is looking after you, though I strongly doubt it, but it raises an impossibly difficult question no religion has ever satisfactorily answered: why doesn't that "someone" take care of everybody as well as it does you?Religion isn't quite as cut & dried as that. From experience I'm pretty sure that "someone" is looking after me.
Having been a part time ambulance attendant at one time, I've seen it once....and the guy survived and couldn't realy look me in the eye afterwards...so I call bullsh*t to those who say it never happens..... To me atheists are just as hypocrites as those "mangeux de ballustre".Anyone got any proof of that?
Having been a part time ambulance attendant at one time, I've seen it once....and the guy survived and couldn't realy look me in the eye afterwards...so I call bullsh*t to those who say it never happens..... To me atheists are just as hypocrites as those "mangeux de ballustre".
Man....you can think what you will if it makes you feel superior and above it all, ....I realy couldn't care....I'm just relating what I saw first hand!Why would anyone believe in God just because they survived a near death experience? And more importantly, what does God have to do with death? It's not the death itself that matters - it's the pain and suffering that comes with it. And regardless if you believe in God or not, you will be suffering the same.
And so it should be. It's not just the scientific mind, it's any skeptical, critically thinking mind. Subjective personal impressions don't cut it as evidence of god's reality, neuroscience offers too many other possible explanations to justify that conclusion.Subjective personal impressions on the matter don't qualify to a scientific mind though. No matter how much one might 'feel' the presence of God, for someone who either doesn't, or who has rejected that feeling as something else, it is negated.
And assuming your interpretation of it is correct....I'm just relating what I saw first hand!
Spade my Friend then you would ave to look at the countries where these religions dominate or are substantial in numbers. That would give a fair idea of my point. I can only go on what i see and news reports from other countries where religious minorities are actively murdered or persecuted and treated as 2nd or low class citizens of that country all because of their beliefs are in the minority- And those are generally but not always Muslim or Hindu nations.I included Jewish, Christian, Islamic, and Hindu references for fair play. We seem to criticize Muslims and Hindus for absurd views held by minorities abroad. Should other religions be exempt simply because they are "ours"? What percentage of Americans and Canadians believe in creationism or lakes of fire or support foreign policies to hasten Armageddon?
Having been a part time ambulance attendant at one time, I've seen it once....and the guy survived and couldn't realy look me in the eye afterwards...so I call bullsh*t to those who say it never happens..... To me atheists are just as hypocrites as those "mangeux de ballustre".
And as i have stated - To follow logic you must also accept the unexplainable. the mystery - Otherwise you are not being logical as my friend Spock would sayYea, it's a bit of a dodgy line and would appear insulting at first, but you are right. Faith is only strengthened by the level of absurdity in making that leap. The more impossible or absurd it appears to believe in something, the greater one's faith is if they believe in it. This flies in the face of both inductive and deductive reasoning. Kierkegaard (religious philosopher) made this observation to explain why Abraham was ready to basically murder his son in devotion to God.
Why would anyone believe in God just because they survived a near death experience? And more importantly, what does God have to do with death? It's not the death itself that matters - it's the pain and suffering that comes with it. And regardless if you believe in God or not, you will be suffering the same.
I agree religion isn't that cut and dried, though it often claims to be. For instance: Jesus Christ was the son of god, born of virgin, took all the sins of the world onto himself to free humanity from original sin and provide the path to eternal redemption and salvation, died horribly and painfully in that cause, was buried, rose from the dead after three days, promised he'd return, and ascended bodily into heaven. That's the central message of Christianity, and quite apart from the moral revulsion I feel at the claim that my failings can be redeemed by punishing somebody else for them, it strains credulity to the breaking point. It may be true that "someone" is looking after you, though I strongly doubt it, but it raises an impossibly difficult question no religion has ever satisfactorily answered: why doesn't that "someone" take care of everybody as well as it does you?[/QUOTE]
Maybe it does and the recipient just doesn't realize it. We don't really know what good and bad mean as far as events go. This existence is very short and perhaps quite inconsequential as far as the big picture goes- maybe like one day on the bus on a trip around the world. I also believe the "someone" can be helped by object of the help, just from having a positive mind. If that makes any sense? :smile:
I call bull**** to anyone who uses the terms 'never' or 'always' in anything relating to human behaviour. Liberalman said they always turn to God. As if.
Spade my Friend then you would ave to look at the countries where these religions dominate or are substantial in numbers. That would give a fair idea of my point. I can only go on what i see and news reports from other countries where religious minorities are actively murdered or persecuted and treated as 2nd or low class citizens of that country all because of their beliefs are in the minority- And those are generally but not always Muslim or Hindu nations.
Walk through a children's cancer ward some time, then try to come up with a satisfactory religious explanation for such suffering of the innocent."why doesn't that "someone" take care of everybody as well as it does you?
Maybe it does and the recipient just doesn't realize it.