Well thats’s up yo personal belief more so than anything. We can’t really prove nor disprove deities, so we can’t really argue either side of that debate fully.
There is a huge different between “god doesn’t exist” and “proven there is no need for a god.”
Depending who you ask, there is plenty of evidence. And you don’t even need to ask the Ken Ham’s of the world—there’s literally dedicated fields of study in philosophy arguing this.
The whole “one bad apple spoils the bunch” comes from a series Descartes’ essays trying to figure out if God can be real.
Plus, everyday people have experiences that they interpret as religious events. Coincidence, whatever, that could apply—you can’t, with 100% certainty prove them wrong. You can only assume based off the information you have and your preconceived notions of the world.
Religion is complicated. People’s faith makes it even moreso.
Yes it does. That’s why eyewitness testimony is rocky at best and is rarely counted as hard evidence. This is especially true the further back the witness has to recall to get the memory.
You also have to ask multiple experts to agree on something before anything with evidence gains weight, but evidence looks different to experts too. That’s why almost everything has some form of division.
Yes it does. That’s why eyewitness testimony is rocky at best and usually not considered completely sound—especially after any duration of time has passed.
Well I honestly see no reason to try and disprove religions. Some of them do have fucked traditions, yes, but trying to invalidated one’s faith is just sad.
As for the Santa part, I can’t really argue against that. But for my own sake I’m going to keep pretending he’s real, as that’s more comforting that the thought of a crackhead breaking into my house and stealing nothing but cookies.
Financial gain? We’re speaking of religion, not vanity churches. If people want to believe in something above themselves, you have no right to say otherwise just because you yourself believe against it. And the fact you believe all religion is directly tied to money really speaks numbers to how you see things you don’t like.
There would be no religions if there wasn’t churches pushing them. People can believe in the tooth fairy for all i care. Doesn’t make it true or possible.
Me: “There is a big pile of gold buried under my house.”
Real Estate Agent: “That sounds… unlikely?”
Me: “Well thats’s up yo personal belief more so than anything. We can’t really prove nor disprove deities, so we can’t really argue either side of that debate fully.”
this, is a bit sad that it always comes down to this… its really not how logic works we determine if things are possible based on evidence. Not the lack of evidence… you can never prove something that doesnt exist, doesnt…
Logic is used in the court of law and it’s completely reliant on evidence missing to prove innocence.
Hence, “there is zero evidence that the defendant was in the location at the time of the crime which proves their innocence.”
Adding: I mean, the biggest evidence some people have is that something can’t come from nothing. We have no proof of where our something started or came from (for all we know it’s a game of marbles), so their theory is just as valid as anyone else’s until proven otherwise.
I’m confused about whether you argue for missing evidence not standing against gods existence or against it.
As you say, a court rules innocence when there is no proof of violation.
The equivalence to innocence is not gods existence. The equivalence to gods existence is the violation.
With a lack of evidence, the court would rule against gods existence.
(But a court ruling does not necessarily mean factual truth anyway. So I think it’s a bad equivalence / analogy. But following it would mean dismissing gods existence because no proof exists.)
The claim was that “lack of evidence doesn’t count” and “facts are facts” essentially. Neither of which are true. I’m assuming most people aren’t reading real philosophical arguments for or against god, and the court equivalence is purely an analogy meant to make the idea more relatable.
At the end of the day—the argument that evidence is needed to prove or deny the existence of a god, is fallible. Purely because it changes based on: the evidence people have, evidence against it people lack, and how people interpret events.
Anything in the realm of religion and reality comes down to this: it’ll always end as an opinion because it can not be confirmed or denied in any quantifiable way.
Well thats’s up yo personal belief more so than anything. We can’t really prove nor disprove deities, so we can’t really argue either side of that debate fully.
well no, its not an equal position. we have 0 evidence of the existence of a god. we have a lot of evidence that there is no need for a god.
otherwise somebody could claim that santa claus is possible ebcause it wasnt disproven. you cant disprove things that dont exist.
There is a huge different between “god doesn’t exist” and “proven there is no need for a god.”
Depending who you ask, there is plenty of evidence. And you don’t even need to ask the Ken Ham’s of the world—there’s literally dedicated fields of study in philosophy arguing this.
The whole “one bad apple spoils the bunch” comes from a series Descartes’ essays trying to figure out if God can be real.
Plus, everyday people have experiences that they interpret as religious events. Coincidence, whatever, that could apply—you can’t, with 100% certainty prove them wrong. You can only assume based off the information you have and your preconceived notions of the world.
Religion is complicated. People’s faith makes it even moreso.
Evidence don’t change based on “who you ask”.
Yes it does. That’s why eyewitness testimony is rocky at best and is rarely counted as hard evidence. This is especially true the further back the witness has to recall to get the memory.
You also have to ask multiple experts to agree on something before anything with evidence gains weight, but evidence looks different to experts too. That’s why almost everything has some form of division.
thats not called evidence.
Yes it does. That’s why eyewitness testimony is rocky at best and usually not considered completely sound—especially after any duration of time has passed.
thats not evidence
Well I honestly see no reason to try and disprove religions. Some of them do have fucked traditions, yes, but trying to invalidated one’s faith is just sad.
As for the Santa part, I can’t really argue against that. But for my own sake I’m going to keep pretending he’s real, as that’s more comforting that the thought of a crackhead breaking into my house and stealing nothing but cookies.
i think its sad to want to convince people of things that are not real for financial gain :)
Financial gain? We’re speaking of religion, not vanity churches. If people want to believe in something above themselves, you have no right to say otherwise just because you yourself believe against it. And the fact you believe all religion is directly tied to money really speaks numbers to how you see things you don’t like.
There would be no religions if there wasn’t churches pushing them. People can believe in the tooth fairy for all i care. Doesn’t make it true or possible.
Damn, sounds like somebody was forced to attend Sunday school. My condolences.
I was not. I take it from this empty jab that you do not have any arguments.
I just don’t see a point in arguing with someone like you. Better to just toss some dumb insults and have a laugh that waste my time.
Me: “There is a big pile of gold buried under my house.”
Real Estate Agent: “That sounds… unlikely?”
Me: “Well thats’s up yo personal belief more so than anything. We can’t really prove nor disprove deities, so we can’t really argue either side of that debate fully.”
this, is a bit sad that it always comes down to this… its really not how logic works we determine if things are possible based on evidence. Not the lack of evidence… you can never prove something that doesnt exist, doesnt…
Logic is used in the court of law and it’s completely reliant on evidence missing to prove innocence.
Hence, “there is zero evidence that the defendant was in the location at the time of the crime which proves their innocence.”
Adding: I mean, the biggest evidence some people have is that something can’t come from nothing. We have no proof of where our something started or came from (for all we know it’s a game of marbles), so their theory is just as valid as anyone else’s until proven otherwise.
I’m confused about whether you argue for missing evidence not standing against gods existence or against it.
As you say, a court rules innocence when there is no proof of violation.
The equivalence to innocence is not gods existence. The equivalence to gods existence is the violation.
With a lack of evidence, the court would rule against gods existence.
(But a court ruling does not necessarily mean factual truth anyway. So I think it’s a bad equivalence / analogy. But following it would mean dismissing gods existence because no proof exists.)
The claim was that “lack of evidence doesn’t count” and “facts are facts” essentially. Neither of which are true. I’m assuming most people aren’t reading real philosophical arguments for or against god, and the court equivalence is purely an analogy meant to make the idea more relatable.
At the end of the day—the argument that evidence is needed to prove or deny the existence of a god, is fallible. Purely because it changes based on: the evidence people have, evidence against it people lack, and how people interpret events.
Anything in the realm of religion and reality comes down to this: it’ll always end as an opinion because it can not be confirmed or denied in any quantifiable way.