• Religion : why does it exist ?
    792 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Megafan;37859973]So you find reason in believing in an unverifiable, undetermined, unseeable, unknowable entity that no one except you and people who already believe similarly to you would buy into?[/QUOTE] No. I find reason in believing in an entity that's been proven to ME. Maybe not you, or Joe Blow, or Bob Robertson-But the point is that I think that from my experiences that there is reason to believe that God DOES, in fact exist. In other words, this entity is verifiable and knowable on a personal scale. Its not like its some scientific topic that can be spread to EVERYONE in one submission of a report or something. [editline]30th September 2012[/editline] And no, I will not delve into the details of my life for your cross-examination.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;37860625]No. I find reason in believing in an entity that's been proven to ME. Maybe not you, or Joe Blow, or Bob Robertson-But the point is that I think that from my experiences that there is reason to believe that God DOES, in fact exist. In other words, this entity is verifiable and knowable on a personal scale. Its not like its some scientific topic that can be spread to EVERYONE in one submission of a report or something. [editline]30th September 2012[/editline] And no, I will not delve into the details of my life for your cross-examination.[/QUOTE] Ancedotal evidence is not evidence. Re examine it.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;37860625]No. I find reason in believing in an entity that's been [B]proven to ME.[/B] Maybe not you, or Joe Blow, or Bob Robertson-But the point is that I think that from my experiences that there is reason to believe that God DOES, in fact exist. In other words, this entity is verifiable and knowable on a personal scale. Its not like its some scientific topic that can be spread to EVERYONE in one submission of a report or something. [editline]30th September 2012[/editline] And no, I will not delve into the details of my life for your cross-examination.[/QUOTE] Yes, but let's examine what you really mean in this case when you say "proven to ME". For one, if it's not provable to other people, it's not really proven, so this would be best restated as "I believe it". So essentially what you've said is "I find reason in believing in an entity that I believe in." Now what sense does that make? Do note that I am not launching some crusade on all people who believe this, I'm not going to come firebomb your house or try to make religion illegal, all I am doing is attempting to expose logical flaws in your reasoning, you know, sort of like a 'debate'.
[QUOTE=Megafan;37861962]Yes, but let's examine what you really mean in this case when you say "proven to ME". For one, if it's not provable to other people, it's not really proven, so this would be best restated as "I believe it". So essentially what you've said is "I find reason in believing in an entity that I believe in." Now what sense does that make? Do note that I am not launching some crusade on all people who believe this, I'm not going to come firebomb your house or try to make religion illegal, all I am doing is attempting to expose logical flaws in your reasoning, you know, sort of like a 'debate'.[/QUOTE] Trying to prove something is true is, in itself, a fallacy. I believe he is more saying he has enough evidence (most likely anecdotal) to base decisions and choices on. He has a belief, an opinion, with evidence to back it.
[QUOTE=Meader;37862544]Trying to prove something is true is, in itself, a fallacy. I believe he is more saying he has enough evidence (most likely anecdotal) to base decisions and choices on. He has a belief, an opinion, with evidence to back it.[/QUOTE] But the supposed evidence is apparent only to him, and thus of no worth to anyone else. Saying that something is proven to you exclusively and to each individual person who believes it exclusively is pointless, and only results in everyone who believes it already believing it. Imagine I say that outside of this realm of existence there is some kind of sentient being that is both unseeable and unverifiable. That being is, [I]by definition,[/I] also unknowable. If it is unknowable, then there is no reasonable evidence that could be produced without violating his being unseeable and being unverifiable that would prove his existence. If the only evidence claimed to exist is in the minds of those who already believe it, then that can hardly be considered evidence, as no one else can see it or know it besides you, and therefore cannot be used to substantiate an argument.
[QUOTE=Megafan;37862650]But the supposed evidence is apparent only to him, and thus of no worth to anyone else. Saying that something is proven to you exclusively and to each individual person who believes it exclusively is pointless, and only results in everyone who believes it already believing it. Imagine I say that outside of this realm of existence there is some kind of sentient being that is both unseeable and unverifiable. That being is, [I]by definition,[/I] also unknowable. If it is unknowable, then there is no reasonable evidence that could be produced without violating his being unseeable and being unverifiable that would prove his existence. If the only evidence claimed to exist is in the minds of those who already believe it, then that can hardly be considered evidence, as no one else can see it or know it besides you, and therefore cannot be used to substantiate an argument.[/QUOTE] The evidence isn't necessary for everyone else, only for that person. Religion and spirituality aren't about every person believing together, it's personal. I agree, claiming to KNOW is irrational and impossible to prove to anyone else, therefore making it illogical too. Not everyone believes that this "god" is unverifiable. Most people think the exact opposite. It's not unknowable, it makes itself very apparent. Sometimes I look all over the place for my glasses and just can’t seem to find them. It’s really annoying because they would definitely aid me in the search for my vision. The kicker is when they wind up being on my face already… literally right in front of me. Sometimes you look at things for so long that you no longer see them, and then when you want to find them, you’re already overlooking them so it makes them impossible to rediscover.
[QUOTE=Meader;37862910]The evidence isn't necessary for everyone else, only for that person. Religion and spirituality aren't about every person believing together, it's personal. I agree, claiming to KNOW is irrational and impossible to prove to anyone else, therefore making it illogical too. Not everyone believes that this "god" is unverifiable. Most people think the exact opposite. It's not unknowable, it makes itself very apparent. Sometimes I look all over the place for my glasses and just can’t seem to find them. It’s really annoying because they would definitely aid me in the search for my vision. The kicker is when they wind up being on my face already… literally right in front of me. Sometimes you look at things for so long that you no longer see them, and then when you want to find them, you’re already overlooking them so it makes them impossible to rediscover.[/QUOTE] But whether or not people [I]think[/I] it is apparent does not mean it is, and if they do, they obviously have a very different definition of what 'apparent' means than anyone else in the world of determining what's true (to the best degree possible) would have. Every single person in the world sans one can believe that a god exists, and they can all be wrong, if in fact he does not exist, because his existence is not contingent on how many people believe he exists. Thus far, there has been no testable, observable evidence presented for the existence of a god or gods, and because of that there is no logical reason to believe that one exists. Claiming that one exists (even if only to you) because of some mental connection you feel you have with a god does not constitute a logical, sound reason for the same reason that claiming there is a 10th planet in the Milky Way only you can see because a voice in your head told you so is not a good reason for believing that there is one. To act as though faith is some practice exempt from all logic (and by extension, logical criticism) and that [I]must be respected intellectually[/I] would mean that nothing can be used as reasonable evidence for any thing at any time, and that anything from an opinion about whether something is true to a tried, tested, and researched theory has the same intellectual worth. And we know this is not the case.
[QUOTE=Meader;37859304]It's not really a bet or a gamble... I don't quite get how this analogy works to be honest.[/QUOTE] I suppose it only works for those who believe that their religion is the only way to salvation, or that not believing in their religion leads to bad shit. To those who don't believe that, I guess the game itself doesn't even exist; everyone wins/loses.
[QUOTE=Megafan;37863003]But whether or not people [I]think[/I] it is apparent does not mean it is, and if they do, they obviously have a very different definition of what 'apparent' means than anyone else in the world of determining what's true (to the best degree possible) would have. Every single person in the world sans one can believe that a god exists, and they can all be wrong, if in fact he does not exist, because his existence is not contingent on how many people believe he exists. Thus far, there has been no testable, observable evidence presented for the existence of a god or gods, and because of that there is no logical reason to believe that one exists. Claiming that one exists (even if only to you) because of some mental connection you feel you have with a god does not constitute a logical, sound reason for the same reason that claiming there is a 10th planet in the Milky Way only you can see because a voice in your head told you so is not a good reason for believing that there is one. To act as though faith is some practice exempt from all logic (and by extension, logical criticism) and that [I]must be respected intellectually[/I] would mean that nothing can be used as reasonable evidence for any thing at any time, and that anything from an opinion about whether something is true to a tried, tested, and researched theory has the same intellectual worth. And we know this is not the case.[/QUOTE] From a scientific standpoint I agree with you 100%. It is illogical and intellectually counter-intuitive to believe in something that can not be tested for in any way. Doesn't change how I feel though. Sometimes you can't ignore something, but you can't explain it, so it's just there... even if it makes no sense. [editline]30th September 2012[/editline] I do realize I'm outside of any logicality at this point, so as far as a scientific "debate" goes, I have no more ground to stand on. All I can say is that I'm happy, I'm aware of my inconsistencies, and I still believe all the same.
[QUOTE=Meader;37863095]From a scientific standpoint I agree with you 100%. It is illogical and intellectually counter-intuitive to believe in something that can not be tested for in any way. Doesn't change how I feel though. Sometimes you can't ignore something, but you can't explain it, so it's just there... even if it makes no sense.[/QUOTE] All that means is that it's not logical to believe it, and in a debate should not insist that others treat it with the same respect as a premise that is actually proven to the best degree and is testable. If you want to be irrational, by all means I'm not going to accost you, but this is a debate about why something exists and should we be believing things reasonably.
[QUOTE=Megafan;37863122]All that means is that it's not logical to believe it, and in a debate should not insist that others treat it with the same respect as a premise that is actually proven to the best degree and is testable. If you want to be irrational, by all means I'm not going to accost you, but this is a debate about why something exists and should we be believing things reasonably.[/QUOTE] Well... to be fair: [QUOTE=Ganerumo;33716818]Hello there. This debate is about the existence of Religion. We are not here to argue which religion is the best or if religion should or shouldn't exist, but to discuss about why religion was "invented" in the first place. What's your opinion on the matter ? Does religion exist because of a need of morals, because of the need of a superior figure, or for any other reason ?[/QUOTE] So we're both off topic at this point :D
[QUOTE=Meader;37863170]Well... to be fair: So we're both off topic at this point :D[/QUOTE] This debate has long outlived it's original topic anyway. No point in arguing over anecdotal evidence for ages, but understand that it is not suited for this debate nor any other.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.