Do we go nowhere ?
Replies
-
TheRoadDog wrote: »I believe in what I can see, touch and examine. God is a fabrication to try and explain the universe. That was acceptable thousands of years ago and helped create rules to live by and a morale standard. "Don't want to sin and be banished to hell."
Faith is not proof.
If you spend your time worshipping that which is non-existent, you have wasted time you could be spending with those you care about so you can ascend to a place that does not exist.
Before you crucify me, I just want to say, I have great respect for those that believe in any religious doctrine as long as they live by those standards. Hypocrites are the worst.
But surely there are things you can't see, touch, or examine that do exist, right? That is to say, the inability to see/touch/examine does not necessitate a lack of existence, does it? Surely there are things at the furthest reaches of the universe or at the deepest depth of the ocean that we can't see/examine... but does that mean they don't exist? New species of animals are still being discovered - does that mean they don't exist prior to discovery? Where do you draw the line between that which you don't know to exist and that which you know to not exist? I could say that's an issue of faith as well.1 -
TheRoadDog wrote: »I believe in what I can see, touch and examine. God is a fabrication to try and explain the universe. That was acceptable thousands of years ago and helped create rules to live by and a morale standard. "Don't want to sin and be banished to hell."
Faith is not proof.
If you spend your time worshipping that which is non-existent, you have wasted time you could be spending with those you care about so you can ascend to a place that does not exist.
Before you crucify me, I just want to say, I have great respect for those that believe in any religious doctrine as long as they live by those standards. Hypocrites are the worst.
But surely there are things you can't see, touch, or examine that do exist, right? That is to say, the inability to see/touch/examine does not necessitate a lack of existence, does it? Surely there are things at the furthest reaches of the universe or at the deepest depth of the ocean that we can't see/examine... but does that mean they don't exist? New species of animals are still being discovered - does that mean they don't exist prior to discovery? Where do you draw the line between that which you don't know to exist and that which you know to not exist? I could say that's an issue of faith as well.
It takes Pluto about 240 yrs to orbit the sun. There isnt anyway possible that a human would ever live long enough to see that entire orbit. However, I do believe the evidence provided by such things as science, math, and physics that the calculations of Pluto's orbit to be true. It's not a huge leap of faith to believe in something you will not see if there is data that raises the probability to a threshold of near fact. Its about about evidence. And yes new things can be discovered all the time, but that does not mean we should make stuff up about things before we do discover them. There may be unicorns and leprechauns, but until we have real evidence to substantiate that they really exist its just myth, and wanting it to be true doesnt make it any more so.1 -
TheRoadDog wrote: »I believe in what I can see, touch and examine. God is a fabrication to try and explain the universe. That was acceptable thousands of years ago and helped create rules to live by and a morale standard. "Don't want to sin and be banished to hell."
Faith is not proof.
If you spend your time worshipping that which is non-existent, you have wasted time you could be spending with those you care about so you can ascend to a place that does not exist.
Before you crucify me, I just want to say, I have great respect for those that believe in any religious doctrine as long as they live by those standards. Hypocrites are the worst.
But surely there are things you can't see, touch, or examine that do exist, right? That is to say, the inability to see/touch/examine does not necessitate a lack of existence, does it? Surely there are things at the furthest reaches of the universe or at the deepest depth of the ocean that we can't see/examine... but does that mean they don't exist? New species of animals are still being discovered - does that mean they don't exist prior to discovery? Where do you draw the line between that which you don't know to exist and that which you know to not exist? I could say that's an issue of faith as well.
It takes Pluto about 240 yrs to orbit the sun. There isnt anyway possible that a human would ever live long enough to see that entire orbit. However, I do believe the evidence provided by such things as science, math, and physics that the calculations of Pluto's orbit to be true. It's not a huge leap of faith to believe in something you will not see if there is data that raises the probability to a threshold of near fact. Its about about evidence. And yes new things can be discovered all the time, but that does not mean we should make stuff up about things before we do discover them. There may be unicorns and leprechauns, but until we have real evidence to substantiate that they really exist its just myth, and wanting it to be true doesnt make it any more so.
Well said, good point. Then take it a bit further.
Life on other planets? There's no evidence to prove there is, and I'm not aware of any evidence to suggest there likely is. One could say that given the vastness of space and the adaptability shown by life on earth, percentages alone would suggest there is life *somewhere* - but there isn't a scientific track record of life beyond earth to suggest it's likely.
What about UFOs? That might be the best parallel to a god that I can come up with quickly. People who believe they've seen a UFO believe as such because of their experience. Maybe people who believe in God do so because they feel they've experienced God in some way. To my knowledge, not all UFO sightings have been proven to be something man-made, have they? And going back to your point... we do have evidence to suggest space flight is possible...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
And to be clear, I'm not arguing either way, either side. Believe what you want, don't believe what you don't want... just be thoughtful and intentional about it.
My point was simply that there is no evidence to prove, nor to disprove the existence of a god(s). So to believe takes a certain degree of faith. But to not believe also takes a certain degree of faith. Where you choose to draw the line and what side of the line you choose to stand on is entirely up to you.1 -
Clever_User_Name wrote: »Why am I just now reading this?
God's Will.5 -
And to be clear, I'm not arguing either way, either side. Believe what you want, don't believe what you don't want... just be thoughtful and intentional about it.
My point was simply that there is no evidence to prove, nor to disprove the existence of a god(s). So to believe takes a certain degree of faith. But to not believe also takes a certain degree of faith. Where you choose to draw the line and what side of the line you choose to stand on is entirely up to you.
Could you please expand on why you say it takes a certain degree of faith to not believe?
I can try, lol.
IMO, to not believe requires a certain degree of faith in mankind, and in the knowledge we have gained during our existence... that our inability to prove something is suggestive of its lack of existence more so than our inability to study/prove it.
The universe is billions of years old. Mankind is hundreds of thousands. Believing that we've got the universe pretty well figured out/understood in that relatively short period of time takes some faith in mankind. IMO.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
SuperOrganism2 wrote: »And to be clear, I'm not arguing either way, either side. Believe what you want, don't believe what you don't want... just be thoughtful and intentional about it.
My point was simply that there is no evidence to prove, nor to disprove the existence of a god(s). So to believe takes a certain degree of faith. But to not believe also takes a certain degree of faith. Where you choose to draw the line and what side of the line you choose to stand on is entirely up to you.
Could you please expand on why you say it takes a certain degree of faith to not believe?
I can try, lol.
IMO, to not believe requires a certain degree of faith in mankind, and in the knowledge we have gained during our existence... that our inability to prove something is suggestive of its lack of existence more so than our inability to study/prove it.
The universe is billions of years old. Mankind is hundreds of thousands. Believing that we've got the universe pretty well figured out/understood in that relatively short period of time takes some faith in mankind. IMO.
Using "God" as an explanatory force kind of erases His importance.
Why is it raining?
damn you The Holy Ghost!
I'm going to need a few more breadcrumbs...1 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
I adore George Carlin... this rant helps me put things into perspective. It is true that the earth will chew us up and spit us out if need be... There is something bigger than we are, I just dont believe it to be a man with a beard in a gown in the sky... If only human kind were to abandon dogmatic practice and organized religion that has been used to instill fear for the purpose of control... we might get closer to the truth...
"The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!
We’re going away. Pack your *kitten*, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.
The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”
Plastic… *kitten*.”
― George Carlin6 -
And to be clear, I'm not arguing either way, either side. Believe what you want, don't believe what you don't want... just be thoughtful and intentional about it.
My point was simply that there is no evidence to prove, nor to disprove the existence of a god(s). So to believe takes a certain degree of faith. But to not believe also takes a certain degree of faith. Where you choose to draw the line and what side of the line you choose to stand on is entirely up to you.
Could you please expand on why you say it takes a certain degree of faith to not believe?
I can try, lol.
IMO, to not believe requires a certain degree of faith in mankind, and in the knowledge we have gained during our existence... that our inability to prove something is suggestive of its lack of existence more so than our inability to study/prove it.
The universe is billions of years old. Mankind is hundreds of thousands. Believing that we've got the universe pretty well figured out/understood in that relatively short period of time takes some faith in mankind. IMO.
I don't believe we've got the universe pretty well figured out, nor do I believe we ever will.
I also don't think there are a lot of (reasonable) people trying to prove that god does not exist. Because what would be the point? Those who believe in god would not believe the findings, even if they were indisputable, and those that don't believe, or at least are agnostic in their beliefs probably wouldn't really care either.
I disagree that to not believe in something requires faith, but perhaps I just don't understand your position well enough. But I think we're probably both okay with that
haha... yes, I think we are as well.
But I'll take 1 more attempt to explain myself, and if you still don't understand or still disagree, I'm perfectly ok with that.
There is no evidence to prove the existence of god. There is no evidence to disprove the existence of god. Where there is a lack of evidence, there is a lack of knowledge. Where there is a lack of knowledge, there is only belief. Belief = faith, if you take away the religious connotations.1 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »So what's the point in living if that's your opinion?
Why must there be a point to existence? Certainly things exist just for the sake of existing. Not everything has a purpose.
To answer your original opening statement: We die and we either decompose back into the earth to continue the cycle or we are cremated and our ashes are held somewhere (or spread out and still, eventually decompose).0 -
A personal experience is anecdotal evidence and cannot be used to explain anything. It may make that individual more prone to believe in what effected them, but it is not proof of anything.0
-
The basis of picking one stance over another, for a skeptic, has to do with the quality of the evidence. There are several principles at play and I’ll list a few.
1. Occam’s razor. The simplest explanation is most likely true.
2. The closer you are to the evidence, the more likely it is true (did you see it, did it happen today) as compared to third hand hearsay from a fragment of a copied document in a dead language written a hundred years after the supposed event.
3. You can’t prove a negative.
I’ll make an unprovable statement. “There is a teapot orbiting the earth.” Prove me wrong. It takes less faith and more logic to say there is no teapot.1 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »Actually intrested to get an atheist view on life. Do you think when we expire that's it? What can your views on life possibly be if that's the case? I am very intrigued by this.
If nothing else, our energy goes somewhere. Not sure if it is as one intact entity or or spread and absorbed somewhere in the universe. I'd like to think it stays together and transcends to something new, but I only focus on how I can use my collective now, least I be dissipated in the stars rendered ineffective for anything more.0 -
And to be clear, I'm not arguing either way, either side. Believe what you want, don't believe what you don't want... just be thoughtful and intentional about it.
My point was simply that there is no evidence to prove, nor to disprove the existence of a god(s). So to believe takes a certain degree of faith. But to not believe also takes a certain degree of faith. Where you choose to draw the line and what side of the line you choose to stand on is entirely up to you.
Could you please expand on why you say it takes a certain degree of faith to not believe?
I can try, lol.
IMO, to not believe requires a certain degree of faith in mankind, and in the knowledge we have gained during our existence... that our inability to prove something is suggestive of its lack of existence more so than our inability to study/prove it.
The universe is billions of years old. Mankind is hundreds of thousands. Believing that we've got the universe pretty well figured out/understood in that relatively short period of time takes some faith in mankind. IMO.
I don't believe we've got the universe pretty well figured out, nor do I believe we ever will.
I also don't think there are a lot of (reasonable) people trying to prove that god does not exist. Because what would be the point? Those who believe in god would not believe the findings, even if they were indisputable, and those that don't believe, or at least are agnostic in their beliefs probably wouldn't really care either.
I disagree that to not believe in something requires faith, but perhaps I just don't understand your position well enough. But I think we're probably both okay with that
haha... yes, I think we are as well.
But I'll take 1 more attempt to explain myself, and if you still don't understand or still disagree, I'm perfectly ok with that.
There is no evidence to prove the existence of god. There is no evidence to disprove the existence of god. Where there is a lack of evidence, there is a lack of knowledge. Where there is a lack of knowledge, there is only belief. Belief = faith, if you take away the religious connotations.
Replace the word "god" with any other possible beings that we don't have scientific evidence of existing. Let's just say "little green men". I don't believe in little green men, and I don't think I'm basing that disbelief on any faith that tells me "surely if there were little green men, someone would have discovered them by now". I just don't believe they exist. Doesn't mean that they don't ACTUALLY exist. But I don't have any belief or faith (because those are equivalent, right?) that they do exist.
You also posited that Belief = Faith. This appears to contradict your position that the absence of belief also requires faith. If belief truly equals faith, then the absence of belief must then equal the absence of faith. Logically speaking, of course.
I'm not sure how far down this rabbit hole we want to go because i'm not sure if anyone else cares, but I'm enjoying this, so...I don't believe in little green men, and I don't think I'm basing that disbelief on any faith that tells me "surely if there were little green men, someone would have discovered them by now". I just don't believe they exist. Doesn't mean that they don't ACTUALLY exist. But I don't have any belief or faith (because those are equivalent, right?) that they do exist.
The point I was making, which I'm now asking myself in this slightly different context...
If you don't believe believe little green men do exist... does that mean that you do believe they don't exist.
Going back 1 step... I think there are 3 arguments in the god conversation -
(1) In the face of lacking evidence, I believe god does exist because *insert reasoning here*
(2) In the face of lacking evidence, I believe god doesn't exist because *insert reasoning here*
(3) In the face of lacking evidence, I don't know for certain, and while either are possibilities, I think *insert both position and reasoning here*
Roaddog's post, which started this branch of conversation, read (to me) as option #2. No evidence = no possibility. The scenario you posted about the little green men, you clearly painted option #3. You don't for sure, and while you admit they might/could exist, you believe they don't based on what you know.
And to your second point... the absence of belief in something = the absence of faith in that same something, yes. The point I was making, which I may or may not be rethinking as I type this, is that the absence of belief/faith in something = the belief/faith in the opposite (or in an opposing premise).
And thanks for making me think. I don't get to think like this much anymore...0 -
And to be clear, I'm not arguing either way, either side. Believe what you want, don't believe what you don't want... just be thoughtful and intentional about it.
My point was simply that there is no evidence to prove, nor to disprove the existence of a god(s). So to believe takes a certain degree of faith. But to not believe also takes a certain degree of faith. Where you choose to draw the line and what side of the line you choose to stand on is entirely up to you.
It does not take faith to believe something that has a lack of sufficient evidence to prove it. I do not need faith to not believe in Bigfoot. I just don't believe because of lack of evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To believe in something that would be extraordinary without evidence would take faith. To not believe it does not.4 -
And to be clear, I'm not arguing either way, either side. Believe what you want, don't believe what you don't want... just be thoughtful and intentional about it.
My point was simply that there is no evidence to prove, nor to disprove the existence of a god(s). So to believe takes a certain degree of faith. But to not believe also takes a certain degree of faith. Where you choose to draw the line and what side of the line you choose to stand on is entirely up to you.
It does not take faith to believe something that has a lack of sufficient evidence to prove it. I do not need faith to not believe in Bigfoot. I just don't believe because of lack of evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To believe in something that would be extraordinary without evidence would take faith. To not believe it does not.
Doesn't it take faith that the lack of evidence is meaningful? In the bigfoot scenario, that would suggest that our knowledge of the environment, of various animal species, of evolution, and of natural history is, minimally, more inclusive than it is exclusive, at least in terms of mammal/bipeds, correct? That is to say, you believe that we know more than we don't know, and thus it's more reasonable to believe that what we do know is a greater indicator of truth than the possibility of what we don't know.
Maybe I'm getting hung up on semantics, but... Do you know bigfoot doesn't exist? Or do you believe bigfoot doesn't exist? If you know it, then you can prove it. If you believe it, then you believe it based on the the faith you put in that which you do know (the lack of fossil records, for example).0 -
And to be clear, I'm not arguing either way, either side. Believe what you want, don't believe what you don't want... just be thoughtful and intentional about it.
My point was simply that there is no evidence to prove, nor to disprove the existence of a god(s). So to believe takes a certain degree of faith. But to not believe also takes a certain degree of faith. Where you choose to draw the line and what side of the line you choose to stand on is entirely up to you.
It does not take faith to believe something that has a lack of sufficient evidence to prove it. I do not need faith to not believe in Bigfoot. I just don't believe because of lack of evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To believe in something that would be extraordinary without evidence would take faith. To not believe it does not.
Doesn't it take faith that the lack of evidence is meaningful? In the bigfoot scenario, that would suggest that our knowledge of the environment, of various animal species, of evolution, and of natural history is, minimally, more inclusive than it is exclusive, at least in terms of mammal/bipeds, correct? That is to say, you believe that we know more than we don't know, and thus it's more reasonable to believe that what we do know is a greater indicator of truth than then possibility of what we don't know.
It just means based on the knowledge that we have now, that is what I will base my conclusion on. Not on what may or could be, what is currently known. The great thing about science is it will evolve and conclusions can change. But based on what is known at the moment, my conclusion i believe to be based on facts and not speculation.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Expiration, no expiration... I'm determined not to get to that point. I mean cryonics are quite affordable now, and maybe until I'm close to keeling over Mr. Musk will have successfully integrated us with machines. Who knows. But damn sure I'll have my popcorn with the end of the world show.
/End rant. Regarding where we all go, don't think we know sufficient physics to figure an apt answer to this question, which to me is an energy question. We see, hear, understand or think we understand an insignificant part of the spectrum. *shrug*3 -
This content has been removed.
-
It just means based on the knowledge that we have now, that is what I will base my conclusion on. Not on what may or could be, what is currently known. The great thing about science is it will evolve and conclusions can change. But based on what is known at the moment, my conclusion i believe to be based on facts and not speculation.
I tend to put more faith in the possibilities of what we don't know than the small collection of things we think we know and can currently prove based on it. It isn't dismissive of science, but exactly what keeps true science moving forward. That is, never being comfortable and confident in facts beyond what they currently show, and always working to question that and find the next level of understanding. Theory works like this, which is based on some of the things we know, we will in others with faith that certain other facts could, should, would align to something.
People tend to look for comfort in both side of it really, with neither gaining much by doing so. It is more to give meaning to their existence and this part of life, more than the unknown of what is next.
5 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »Actually intrested to get an atheist view on life. Do you think when we expire that's it? What can your views on life possibly be if that's the case? I am very intrigued by this.
Didn't notice this before and it's 9 pages long as of this writing. Don't have the time to go through everyone else's comments but here goes. You ask what my views on life can possibly be if I expect the good times to end after I shuffle off this mortal coil. Sorry but sounds too much like something neurotic Woody Allen would have said. "What's the purpose of life if we're just going to die and that's it? That's exactly why I'm trying to squeeze as much as I can get out of life while I still have it. To quote Steve Goodman from, "You Better Get It While You Can",
Now one night I asked Carl where he got the fire
And he said, 'Steve, you've got to understand
If you want to be someone, you better have some fun
And you better get it while you can.'
He said:
You better get it while you can
You better get it while you can
If you wait too long, it'll all be gone
And you'll be sorry then
It doesn't matter if you're rich or poor
And it's the same for a woman or a man
From the cradle to the crypt
Is a mighty short trip
So you better get it while you can
Would I like it if there was an after(life) party? Sure, but I guess I'm able not to let knowledge of my mortality get in my way. I say this as someone much closer to the end than the beginning. As Heinlein wrote in Time Enough For Love, "There is no conclusive evidence of life after death. But there is no evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will know. So why fret about it?
I also hope to live my life so the Westboro Baptist Church wants to protest at my funeral.2 -
It just means based on the knowledge that we have now, that is what I will base my conclusion on. Not on what may or could be, what is currently known. The great thing about science is it will evolve and conclusions can change. But based on what is known at the moment, my conclusion i believe to be based on facts and not speculation.
I tend to put more faith in the possibilities of what we don't know than the small collection of things we think we know and can currently prove based on it. It isn't dismissive of science, but exactly what keeps true science moving forward. That is, never being comfortable and confident in facts beyond what they currently show, and always working to question that and find the next level of understanding. Theory works like this, which is based on some of the things we know, we will in others with faith that certain other facts could, should, would align to something.
People tend to look for comfort in both side of it really, with neither gaining much by doing so. It is more to give meaning to their existence and this part of life, more than the unknown of what is next.
I agree, without blind faith in the unknown and unseen we wouldn't have the knowledge and technologies that we do today... light, x-rays, radio, just as examples. This blind faith breeds curiosity, and the more we learn the more we learn... Nikola Tesla for example, changed the face of life on earth as we know it in so many ways... sometimes you have to believe it to see it...3 -
This content has been removed.
-
huntersvonnegut wrote: »Avocado_Angel wrote: »Actually intrested to get an atheist view on life. Do you think when we expire that's it? What can your views on life possibly be if that's the case? I am very intrigued by this.
Didn't notice this before and it's 9 pages long as of this writing. Don't have the time to go through everyone else's comments but here goes. You ask what my views on life can possibly be if I expect the good times to end after I shuffle off this mortal coil. Sorry but sounds too much like something neurotic Woody Allen would have said. "What's the purpose of life if we're just going to die and that's it? That's exactly why I'm trying to squeeze as much as I can get out of life while I still have it. To quote Steve Goodman from, "You Better Get It While You Can",
Now one night I asked Carl where he got the fire
And he said, 'Steve, you've got to understand
If you want to be someone, you better have some fun
And you better get it while you can.'
He said:
You better get it while you can
You better get it while you can
If you wait too long, it'll all be gone
And you'll be sorry then
It doesn't matter if you're rich or poor
And it's the same for a woman or a man
From the cradle to the crypt
Is a mighty short trip
So you better get it while you can
Would I like it if there was an after(life) party? Sure, but I guess I'm able not to let knowledge of my mortality get in my way. I say this as someone much closer to the end than the beginning. As Heinlein wrote in Time Enough For Love, "There is no conclusive evidence of life after death. But there is no evidence of any sort against it. Soon enough you will know. So why fret about it?
I also hope to live my life so the Westboro Baptist Church wants to protest at my funeral.
My daughter and I actually attended a Westboro Baptist Church Rally. It was a hoot.
Not sure why they didn't like us.
9
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions