The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by SigTerm Typical. You could say that claim has failed if you performed an experiment that was supposed to produce positive results if claim is true, and the experiment failed. Lack of evidence does not qualify as such experiment. Well, whatever.

I don't know what point you're trying to make here. Is this an endorsement of any outrageous claim with zero evidence to support it?

Originally Posted by SigTerm Okay, so "nothing is ever 100% certain" includes the statement itself. Which means it is unknown whether the statement is completely true or false, which makes the statement pretty much useless as an argument. What was the point?

The point is that you leveled a charge against me, ie, "You, however, as an atheist, BELIEVE that if "truth value" of something is "unknown" then it is "false". I.e. if you don't know that if something exists or not, you assume that it doesn't. In my opinion such behavior is a reckless gamble that is no different from believing into something with no reason. The truth is unknown."

I am telling you that your caricature of me as the atheist equivalent of a fundamentalist is false.

More broadly, my point was to emphasize the fallibility of everything we have good reason to believe is true, ie scientific theories. How much greater the fallibility of those things which we have no reason to believe to be true?

You said, "If it is not 100% or 0% but you claim it to be, you're rounding off the truth in your favor, which is the act of belief, not the use of logic." But the probability of supernatural claims is not equal to the probability of scientific claims. It's not six of one, half dozen of the other, but vastly unequal, with the former approaching zero for those supernatural claims that conflict with established science.

Originally Posted by MrCode The impression I'm getting is that the "hard atheists" here are asserting something along the lines of "throw away all your unfounded beliefs (no matter how mild or vague), and to hell with how it makes you feel. If you can't deal with it emotionally, you're just a pathetic, weak slob who can't face reality.". I think that's what started the whole "logic vs. emotion" thing, actually; it started with a perceived assertion that "emotions are for the weak, and logic will prevail over all else!". In other words, it's starting to look like a case of scientific imperialism (basically the view that science, and science alone, should be the primary driving force of society and culture, above everything else).

You're taking it too far. All I've ever argued is that when you're learning about the world around you, emotion is a terrible teacher. Looking inward teaches you about yourself, but it does nothing to inform you of the nature of the outside world. And since we interact with each other in the outside world, a common frame of reference is necessary.

As I've said before, once you've learned something about the world, you're free to react emotionally to that knowledge however you like.

It's not a surprise that the period in which Western culture was dominated by inward-seeking behavior for answers was called The Dark Ages. The period in which they rediscovered old, outward-seeking knowledge was called The Renaissance, and the period in which they had successfully incorporated those outward-seeking processes and began applying them towards acquiring new knowledge was called The Enlightenment. The results of those eras speak for themselves.

In other words, appropriate emotional responses to valid information about the real world is a solid strategy for not just surviving, but thriving. And science and reason together make up the best processes for acquiring valid information. History is littered with the disastrous consequences of using emotion as a primary source of information.

So if you tell me, "There is a soul," you have to be ready to prove it through reason and science. If you manage to do it, I think I'd be pretty excited by the news.

Originally Posted by SL00b Is this an endorsement of any outrageous claim with zero evidence to support it?

I do not see why idea of soul is "outrageous". If, for example, you define soul as a combined electric/chemical state of neurons in your brain (same way as contents of RAM disappear), then you'll get "immaterial part of your body that disappears when you die". In other word - information that is "you".

Regarding religion/atheism, cracked had a good article.

Anyway, this was a waste of time. As usual.

Originally Posted by SigTerm I do not see why idea of soul is "outrageous". If, for example, you define soul as a combined electric/chemical state of neurons in your brain (same way as contents of RAM disappear), then you'll get "immaterial part of your body that disappears when you die". In other word - information that is "you". Regarding religion/atheism, cracked had a good article. Anyway, this was a waste of time. As usual.

Most claims about a soul indicate something that lives on in some alternate plane of existence for eternity. That fits my definition of "outrageous."

Electrical and chemical states are material, so it still doesn't fit your definition.

True, it was a waste of time. Perhaps that time could be better spent coming up with better arguments.

Originally Posted by SL00b Perhaps that time could be better spent coming up with better arguments.

Already provided plenty of decent arguments in this thread, so I'm done here.

Both sides are stubborn, will argue for eternity and that's about it - there is no deeper meaning or superior arguments on any side. It is a tar pit, and it is disappointing.

Originally Posted by SL00b ... The bolded sentence is the most bizarre, unfounded claim I've ever read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English...s_of_the_Bible

You're overreacting.
And Wikipedia is strangely biased when religion and morality are concerned.

Try to google for "Rome's persecution of the Bible", maybe you'll be more lucky. Wikipedia is NOT a place where the Bible is fairly treated.

I think I'll check back here in a hundred years or so to see if there is ANY proof of a divine being ... or for that matter a soul. Anyone with absolute proof please produce it ...Thank you ,that is all

Originally Posted by tiredofbilkyyaforallican I think I'll check back here in a hundred years or so to see if there is ANY proof of a divine being ... or for that matter a soul. Anyone with absolute proof please produce it ...Thank you ,that is all

that one was good

Anyway, you will see a lot of points of view, and
in my opinion, it is very good for all of us to see what others think or believe.

I mean, it is better to talk, discuss, even argue about religion than make war on it.

Originally Posted by SL00b Your job is to define "soul," and then present evidence that it exists. Until you accomplish this, the default position stands.

and the default position is, that the thing called soul
(whatever its definition is) may or may not exist.

Originally Posted by SL00b Your job is to define "soul," and then present evidence that it exists. Until you accomplish this, the default position stands.

It is not my job, it is job of the person, who CLAIMS any
of the following:
1. It is a fact that soul does exist.
2. It is a fact that soul does not exist.

You have claimed the second point, which just shows either
of the following:
1. You have a definition of soul (which is correct in your
view point), and you have verified that that soul does not
exist.

2. You have no knowledge about a soul and you are saying
that since I haven't seen anything like soul (and I even
don't know what it is), therefore it doesn't exist.

>If the case is first, then support your claims.
>If the case is second, then either you don't know the
difference between a belief and a fact (in which case
you should look it up first), or your aim is to annoy
people by making baseless statements (in which case further
discussions are pointless).

Originally Posted by SL00b You are committing the classic fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

If anyone here is shifting the burden of proof, IMO it is
you. A proof is supposed to be given by a person who claims.

Originally Posted by reed9 Believing germs cause disease is justified, believing in souls is, arguably, not.

The discussion here is NOT about which belief is justified
and which is NOT, discussion is only about what is a belief
and what is not. If tomorrow I post a picture of a cat in my
profile, anyone is free to believe that I am cat, people's
believes are none of my business.

Originally Posted by kostya You're overreacting. And Wikipedia is strangely biased when religion and morality are concerned. Try to google for "Rome's persecution of the Bible", maybe you'll be more lucky. Wikipedia is NOT a place where the Bible is fairly treated.

I'm not overreacting, because my comment was a response to your statement that they wouldn't translate the Bible into "spoken languages"... so I assumed you meant English. Then you went and referenced Rome... but the Bible was already in the languages that were spoken at that time. Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were very common. In fact, the common use of Greek was why so many NT books were written in it in the first place. So again, your statement is false.

I think googling for your search term would be a waste of time, because last time I looked, books didn't have feelings. However, I'd suggest you stop getting your history from biased sources, because Rome's relationship with Christianity was much more nuanced than you're led to believe. The Romans were famously tolerant of religion, and exchanged gods like we would exchange phone numbers today. It was the intolerance of Christianity that put them at odds with Rome. Their penchant for meeting in secret and for refusing to participate in public celebrations made everyone around them suspicious, and suspicion breeds paranoia. In addition, the practice of emperor worship was required as a state security matter... refusal to participate was considered rejection of the legal authority of the state. In much the same way that we used to require school children to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning in the US (it still goes on in some places, I believe), people within Rome were expected to make a small offering before the idol of the Roman emperor once a year.

Policies varied by emperor. Some emperors ignored the Christians. Some were Christian themselves. Some overreacted and went psycho, and the biased sources you're looking at have painted the entire empire with the broad brush of Nero. It's as if you're completely ignorant of Emperor Constantine, who made Christianity the state faith, and began persecuting anyone who wasn't. Or the Justinian Code, which states, "We order all those who follow this law to assume the name of Catholic Christians, and considering others as demented and insane, We order that they shall bear the infamy of heresy; and when the Divine vengeance which they merit has been appeased, they shall afterwards be punished in accordance with Our resentment, which we have acquired from the judgment of Heaven."

Emperor Trajan took a pragmatic approach... he couldn't allow sedition, but gave every accused Christian an easy way to avoid any punishment. The problem is, Christians were actively seeking martyrdom. Why wouldn't they? Life was hard and bleak in those days, but martyrdom would not only end the pain, but pay off an eternal reward. They did it for the same reasons we have Muslim suicide bombers today. In the early days of Christianity, suicide was rampant, too. That's why the church had to quickly assert suicide as a mortal sin.

Insane behavior, inspired by insane ideas.

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul and the default position is, that the thing called soul (whatever its definition is) may or may not exist.

If you can't even define it, why would we even bother talking about its existence?

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul It is not my job, it is job of the person, who CLAIMS any of the following: 1. It is a fact that soul does exist. 2. It is a fact that soul does not You have claimed the second point, which just shows either of the following: 1. You have a definition of soul (which is correct in your view point), and you have verified that that soul does not exist. 2. You have no knowledge about a soul and you are saying that since I haven't seen anything like soul (and I even don't know what it is), therefore it doesn't exist. >If the case is first, then support your claims. >If the case is second, then either you don't know the difference between a belief and a fact (in which case you should look it up first), or your aim is to annoy people by making baseless statements (in which case further discussions are pointless). If anyone here is shifting the burden of proof, IMO it is you. A proof is supposed to be given by a person who claims.

Read, and learn: http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html

Originally Posted by Anisha Kaul The discussion here is NOT about which belief is justified and which is NOT, discussion is only about what is a belief and what is not. If tomorrow I post a picture of a cat in my profile, anyone is free to believe that I am cat, people's believes are none of my business.

When I'm talking about justification and belief, I am talking about the definition of knowledge which, roughly and with some caveats, is "justified, true belief".

So when we are discussing whether we can "know" if the soul exists or not, we are talking about 1) whether it is factual, ie, true that the soul exists, 2) whether we believe that the soul exists, and 3) whether our belief is justified.

To "know" anything implies a belief on this basis, including to know that something is a fact.

And, briefly, turning to the Stanford Encyclopedia again, a belief is "roughly, whenever we take something to be the case or regard it as true."

Originally Posted by SL00b If you can't even define it, why would we even bother talking about its existence?

Please, define yourself. If you can't, then by your logic I'll have to assume that you do not exist.

Originally Posted by SL00b Read, and learn: http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-of-proof.html

Incorrect, and your logic is flawed. You claimed that "there is no soul", so burden of proof is placed upon you. It is fairly simple:

1. By default truth is unknown.
2. If I claim that soul exists, burden of proof is placed upon me.
3. However, if you claim that soul does not exist, the burden of proof is placed on you.
4. However, if I failed to prove existence of soul, it does not mean that soul does not exist, and if you fail to prove non-existence of soul, it does not mean that soul exists.
5. Failure to prove statement does not mean that opposite is true, because there may be more than one way to prove statement.
6. Failure to prove statement would indicate that opposite is true ONLY if there were only one and only way to prove or disprove something (existence of soul in this example).
7. If neither side can provide proof, then truth remains unknown and argument remains unsettled.

If you don't "get" it, then (IMO) you should read "Symbolic Logic" written by Lewis Carol. It doesn't deal with unknown, but it has few quite good graphical illustrations of situations when "truth" is in "A or B" state, and need to be "pushed" into either direction.