Do we go nowhere ?

Options
1…34689…13

Replies

  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    Options
    denny_mac wrote: »
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    denny_mac wrote: »
    jjpptt2 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.

    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.
  • KosmosKitten
    KosmosKitten Posts: 10,476 Member
    Options
    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).
  • bojack3
    bojack3 Posts: 1,483 Member
    Options
    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.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    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.
  • ChaelAZ
    ChaelAZ Posts: 2,240 Member
    Options
    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.
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    edited April 2018
    Options
    denny_mac wrote: »
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    denny_mac wrote: »
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    denny_mac wrote: »
    jjpptt2 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.

    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...
  • bojack3
    bojack3 Posts: 1,483 Member
    Options
    jjpptt2 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.

    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.
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    edited April 2018
    Options
    bojack3 wrote: »
    jjpptt2 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.

    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).
  • bojack3
    bojack3 Posts: 1,483 Member
    Options
    jjpptt2 wrote: »
    bojack3 wrote: »
    jjpptt2 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.

    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.
  • SabAteNine
    SabAteNine Posts: 1,866 Member
    Options
    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*
  • huntersvonnegut
    huntersvonnegut Posts: 1,176 Member
    edited April 2018
    Options
    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.
  • Bullet_with_Butterfly_Wings
    Bullet_with_Butterfly_Wings Posts: 5,545 Member
    Options
    ChaelAZ wrote: »
    bojack3 wrote: »
    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...

Categories