Reality vs Religion

[WebersHome]

.
ATHEIST: There is no fiery afterlife.

JUDGE: You have attested to a fact. Therefore the burden of proof is upon you.

CHRISTIAN: There is too a fiery afterlife.

JUDGE: You have attested to a fact. Therefore the burden of proof is upon you.

AGNOSTIC: I neither affirm nor deny the existence of a fiery afterlife.

JUDGE: You have not attested to a fact. Therefore you have nothing to prove.

Now, the thing is: the Christian and the Atheist would be thrown out of court because neither has the slightest empirical and/or scientific evidence to substantiate their statements. One would likely refer to their religion's holy book, which of course is inadmissible. The other would likely refer to reason, logic, and common sense; which are also inadmissible.

It disturbs me sometimes that I believe things that are illogical, unreasonable, contrary to common sense, and impossible to prove true. And on top of that; my religion's holy book tells me, in so many words, it is what it is.

"Your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men" (1Cor 2:5)
_

[Eloi]

When I was older, and gradually introduced to the sciences (a.k.a. the disciplines), I became more and more personally convinced it's all just too complex, and too well-oiled, not to be the work of intelligent design.[/size]

One has to wonder if you ever considered how complex this suggested intelligent designer would have to be to design the complexity we see. And if your conclusion is correct that the complexity points to a designer, then which designer designed the complex designer. Then of course we'd have to wonder about the designer who designed the designer who designed the designer. We'd end up with an endless stream of designers. It's an approach that resolves nothing.


Tcg

The nature of the created is obviously very different from that of the Creator; you can't apply the same rules to Him.

[brunumb]

It is, for me, the weakest position to take in life. It can never be proven wrong because saying “I neither confirm nor deny…” is true just by the act of not confirming or denying anything.

Of course it can be proven wrong. As soon as someone can demonstrate the actual existence of their deity of choice, any reason for an absence of belief evaporates. It is the only honest position to hold in the absence of evidence that would compel one to believe. To reject tales of gods, angels, demons, heaven, hell, salvation, and so on, when no one can substantiate any of the associated claims seems perfectly reasonable and rational to me. Christians don't like that because the burden of proof remains squarely on them and they have nothing to fall back on.

[brunumb]

The nature of the created is obviously very different from that of the Creator; you can't apply the same rules to Him.

The nature of the creator, including its very existence, is completely unknown so any claims relating to rules that apply to it are unjustified.

[benchwarmer]

The advantage of saying, “I neither confirm nor deny…” or “I lack belief…” or “I don’t know” or whatever phrase we want to use is that it is always the most defendable position in any debate. That position risks nothing because it says nothing. It is the strongest position to take in debate.

I disagree that is says nothing. It generally says "I see no compelling evidence one way or the other, so there is no need to make a claim one way or the other".

Take your own words:

After all, ever person will live in practice as if there is a God of some kind or as if there is not. I would rather take the risk of living my life by conscious choice then falling into a lifestyle just by a lack of belief one way or the other.

and then substitute ANY other thing which we have no compelling evidence for.

After all, every person will live in practice as if there is an invisible, 3 eyed, wish granting band of pixies of some kind or as if there is not.

After all, every person will live in practice as if there is a fire breathing dragon that will steal your gold of some kind or as if there is not.

Etc.

Do you really make a conscious choice about every possible unobserved thing humans can and/or have ever come up with? Somehow I doubt it. I certainly don't as I don't spend my time first dreaming up all possible things and then choosing whether to believe it or not.

If someone makes a claim, I ask for evidence. If the evidence supports the claim to my satisfaction, only then would I make a claim one way or the other.

The method seemingly proposed is that we should consciously take a stand on all possible issues, regardless of absence of evidence. Sounds tiring and pointless.

[WebersHome]

Does this mean you are a general theist (i.e. believe in a creator, but not sure what it is) or a more specific type, perhaps a Christian?

Christian.

Just wondering if you found some solid reasons to go in any particular theistic direction.

My choice was initially motivated by charisma; while still a growing boy.

You know how sports fans idolize their favorite athletes, and idolize their favorite movie stars, and idolize their favorite singers and musicians? Well; I became an admirer of Jesus Christ sort of like that. In other words; my choice can be explained by neither rhyme nor reason, rather, it was just plain old hero worship.
_

[WebersHome]

.

To reject tales of gods, angels, demons, heaven, hell, salvation, and so on, when no one can substantiate any of the associated claims seems perfectly reasonable and rational to me.

I fully agree.

Christians don't like that because the burden of proof remains squarely on them and they have nothing to fall back on.

Ironically Christians are told by their own religion's holy book that their faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, yet some of them become reactive and defensive when challenged to substantiate their religion's claims without resorting to their holy book for proof.
_

[bjs1]

[Replying to WebersHome in post #1]

The advantage of saying, “I neither confirm nor deny…” or “I lack belief…” or “I don’t know” or whatever phrase we want to use is that it is always the most defendable position in any debate. That position risks nothing because it says nothing. It is the strongest position to take in debate.

It also has the advantage of being the most honest position one can take when it comes to the question of the existence of god/gods. Honesty is always a positive.

You will have to explain this in more detail. If it is an issue of honesty, that would mean that a classical atheist who says, “There is no God,” is intentionally trying to mislead people. Is that your claim?

[bjs1]

It is, for me, the weakest position to take in life. It can never be proven wrong because saying “I neither confirm nor deny…” is true just by the act of not confirming or denying anything.

Of course it can be proven wrong. As soon as someone can demonstrate the actual existence of their deity of choice, any reason for an absence of belief evaporates. It is the only honest position to hold in the absence of evidence that would compel one to believe. To reject tales of gods, angels, demons, heaven, hell, salvation, and so on, when no one can substantiate any of the associated claims seems perfectly reasonable and rational to me. Christians don't like that because the burden of proof remains squarely on them and they have nothing to fall back on.

You are simply mistaken here. When a person says, “I neither confirm nor deny X,” that statement can only be proven false by the person confirming or denying X. The burden of proof, or lack thereof, does not come into play. You or I may feel that there is ample evidence to confirm or deny X. That also does not matter. As long as that hypothetical person does not confirm or deny X, then his statement is true. It cannot be proven wrong because it is not wrong.

It is the strongest position to take in debate and, to me, the worst position to take in life.

[bjs1]

The advantage of saying, “I neither confirm nor deny…” or “I lack belief…” or “I don’t know” or whatever phrase we want to use is that it is always the most defendable position in any debate. That position risks nothing because it says nothing. It is the strongest position to take in debate.

I disagree that is says nothing. It generally says "I see no compelling evidence one way or the other, so there is no need to make a claim one way or the other".

Indeed, it says something about what the person believes. It says nothing else. In terms of a statement of truth, it says roughly as much as saying, “I like strawberries.” That tells us that the person favors strawberries, but does not tell us anything about strawberries.

Saying “I neither confirm nor deny…” can tell us what a person thinks about a topic, but nothing about the actual topic. It does not even say that there is or is not compelling evidence one way or the other. It only tells us that the person, judging by whatever arbitrary standard he has chosen, has not personally seen evidence to meet that standard.

Take your own words:

After all, ever person will live in practice as if there is a God of some kind or as if there is not. I would rather take the risk of living my life by conscious choice then falling into a lifestyle just by a lack of belief one way or the other.

and then substitute ANY other thing which we have no compelling evidence for.

After all, every person will live in practice as if there is an invisible, 3 eyed, wish granting band of pixies of some kind or as if there is not.

After all, every person will live in practice as if there is a fire breathing dragon that will steal your gold of some kind or as if there is not.

We can apply the same standard. A person can neither confirm nor deny that there is a fire breathing dragon that will steal your gold. Or a person can actually take a stand. A person could claim that there is no such creature, or claim that such a creature exists. We will indeed live one way or the other. In debate, the stronger position is to make no claim at all. In life, for me, the better position is to make a claim and live it out.

Do you really make a conscious choice about every possible unobserved thing humans can and/or have ever come up with? Somehow I doubt it. I certainly don't as I don't spend my time first dreaming up all possible things and then choosing whether to believe it or not.

Yet clearly you do spend a considerable amount of time on the choice to believe in God or not. So much so that you have written more than 1,800 posts on the topic.

[brunumb]

In life, for me, the better position is to make a claim and live it out.

That is perfectly fine as long as you don't insist that anyone else lives their life according to those claims.