6000 years of history

[RonE]

6000 years of recorded history, it seems to me that if there were gods (or God), by now we would all know. Science has found no place for god in any hypothesis explaining the laws of nature.

We are presented with two alternatives, either there are no gods or they are hiding, playing tricks on us trying to test us, but really why would such powerful beings need or want to do that. Occam’s razor points us to the obvious answer, simple… no one is there.

Let’s move out of kindergarten and make believe, let’s feed the poor and starving, let’s put hate and war out of business.

What say you?

[RonE]

[Replying to post 8 by dianaiad]

So why after all those attempts do you think the theists have not figured it out? Just curious.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 7 by ttruscott]

If faith is not credible then what is the proof it is not credible

Faith is the assumption of truth when evidence is absent (sometimes in contradiction to evidence).

No.

Faith is the willingness to trust in one's beliefs.

One may have faith in the love of one's spouse, or the integrity of one's bank, or the word of one's employer when he says he will pay you. One may also have faith that THIS time the experiment will work, even though it follows several hundred versions that did not. One may have faith that the interstate bridge one is driving over will hold one up for the next twenty years of commuting, even though it's predecessors have failed...twice...in earthquakes that hit the area regularly.

One may also, of course, have faith in one's religious beliefs, or faith that no religious belief has any substance.

One may quarrel with the evidence that promotes belief, of course, but faith is not belief, and there is no such thing as belief without any evidence. There's always evidence.

It may not be evidence in which anybody else would put any stock in, but there's always a reason...and that reason is also called 'evidence.'

The question is...does the preponderance of evidence convince one in one direction over another? Some go one way...some go another. Even well respected scientists disagree with each other about things for which they can provide empirical evidence.

Right this moment there are many different studies about the efficacy of bone marrow transplants vs heavy doses of novel agents (chemotherapy) as the best way to deal with the cancer I have. It's quite a fight, actually. Now *I* had to make a decision as to whether to do the transplant, or go a different route; I had to choose the evidence in which I had the most faith.

I chose, and so far it seems to have been a pretty good choice. I'm in 'complete remission,' and it looks as if I'll get to stay that way for quite awhile.

Yet there are those who think I made the wrong choice, and are quite vocal about it.

And this is SCIENCE, with all sorts of studies and empirical data and trials. It all still came down to: what did I have faith in? Who did I trust? I was, quite literally, betting my life on it.

What evidence did I believe?

..............and does my choice mean that all the evidence for the other path suddenly is no longer 'evidence,' because I chose what I chose?

To me, it seems pretty clear; evidence is that which causes belief. It doesn't need to cause belief in everybody. As long as it inspires belief in someone, it's evidence.

Whether it's 'good enough,'....well, that's up to the person looking at it, isn't it? I chose; it doesn't mean that the evidence for the other path isn't evidence; it is. I just put more stock in the evidence for the choice I made.

Other people made different decisions.

So, your statement is false. Which of course makes the rest of your position false, but I'll address it anyway.

This absence of evidence is evidence of absence of truth.

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence, of truth or of anything else. Absence of evidence is simply absence of evidence.

In this case, absence of evidence means only that your definition of 'evidence' is 'anything that supports what I already believe."

I've been around the block a time or three, and if there is one thing I've found to be true, it is this: it doesn't matter how strong the evidence may be to anybody else; no matter how strong, empirical or anything else; if one is determined not to accept what that evidence says, then that evidence won't be accepted.

Yes, this is often used to indict theists. However, non-believers, especially atheists, are even worse. I am convinced that some of them wouldn't believe that God existed if He came down personally and told them so. In fact, I know this, because there was a thread and quite a conversation about just that not all that long ago.

I believe that Ebeneezer Scrooge quotes regarding graves and gravy were involved.

So faith in itself is evidence of falseness. Therefore, faith is not a road to truth, but instead a road to falseness.

So....faith in your spouse's integrity and faithfulness to his or her wedding vows is, what...a guarantee that he or she will lie to you and cheat on you at the fist chance available?

With all due respect, I don't think I've ever heard quite such a mishmash of sophist nonsense in quite awhile. Reminds me of that story (a true one, actually) of a college student who found himself trapped in a room with his friend during a final exam on a book he'd never read (he wasn't in the class, either). He took the title and ran with it on the essay, writing a page and a half of convoluted inanities.

....and while he flunked the multiple choice portion (he had not, after all, taken the class or read the text) he got an A+ for his essay, which was a bit of embarrassment for the grader, who finally admitted that he figured that anybody who could use that much jargon, grammatically, and incomprehensibly, had to know what he was talking about better than the humble grader....he wrote like a published professor.

Hence the A.

Perhaps...if you had continued on for another page or three?

[RonE]

[Replying to post 12 by dianaiad]

Faith is belief that is not based on proof.[1] It can also be defined as confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant.[2][3] The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope,[4] trust,[5] or belief.[6]

[RonE]

[Replying to post 12 by dianaiad]

I won't try to out do you page for page, pretty sure I cannot keep up. I don't agree however, and I believe that somewhere in that page + of yours the meaning got twisted a bit.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 12 by dianaiad]

I won't try to out do you page for page, pretty sure I cannot keep up. I don't agree however, and I believe that somewhere in that page + of yours the meaning got twisted a bit.

Indeed.

Care to clarify? Because, in my rather long winded fashion, what I was really saying was....

....huh?...

[RonE]

[Replying to post 12 by dianaiad]

Faith is belief that is not based on proof.[1] It can also be defined as confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant.[2][3] The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope,[4] trust,[5] or belief.[6] Wikipedia

Personally I go with the first definition as it is more directly related to the issue at hand.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 12 by dianaiad]

Faith is belief that is not based on proof.[1] It can also be defined as confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, as well as confidence based on some degree of warrant.[2][3] The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope,[4] trust,[5] or belief.[6] Wikipedia

Personally I go with the first definition as it is more directly related to the issue at hand.

Well, except that I would say that faith is TRUST not based upon proof, I don't have much of a problem with it.

The problem lies in what 'proof' means.

'cause I have a suspicion that I don't think it means what you think it means.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to RonE]

The word "kindergarten" was yours, if I misunderstood your usage, I apologize. But if you are clariflying your usage of this word to mean conditioning, and are admitting that Theism and Theists do not necessarily have a kindergarten mentality when it comes to matters of religion, then I consider that a welcome admission on your part.

Regarding the conditioning thing, I rejected the Jesus worshiping conditioning of my upbringing, and discovered that Deism, Christian Deism makes more sense to me.

Seeing God as the First Cause who uses the laws of physics and evolution is not an unreasonable position to take. And there are (I admit) even reasoned arguments to favor Trinitarianism too, though I do not agree with them.

[Wordleymaster1]

6000 years of recorded history, it seems to me that if there were gods (or God), by now we would all know. Science has found no place for god in any hypothesis explaining the laws of nature.

We are presented with two alternatives, either there are no gods or they are hiding, playing tricks on us trying to test us, but really why would such powerful beings need or want to do that. Occam’s razor points us to the obvious answer, simple… no one is there.

Let’s move out of kindergarten and make believe, let’s feed the poor and starving, let’s put hate and war out of business.

What say you?

Excellent idea. But there's a problem: PEOPLE.
Some people have the need to control others and some people have the need to be controlled. When these two types of people mix, problems such as religions follow. Until everyone becomes ultimately enlightened so that they don't need an imaginary friend in the clouds, multi-armed deities or whatever, what you propose - no matter how great it sounds - will never happen.

[myth-one.com]

6000 years of recorded history, it seems to me that if there were gods (or God), by now we would all know. Science has found no place for god in any hypothesis explaining the laws of nature.

6000 years, and yet many people still claim a belief in God.

If you look to science to disprove God's existence, science will disappoint you.

Science makes discoveries. Discoveries make unknown things known.

Science will become unnecessary will all things become known.

Religions also

We are presented with two alternatives, either there are no gods or they are hiding, playing tricks on us trying to test us, but really why would such powerful beings need or want to do that. Occam’s razor points us to the obvious answer, simple… no one is there.

Let’s move out of kindergarten and make believe, let’s feed the poor and starving, let’s put hate and war out of business.

What say you?[/quote]