Pope Francis Called Out, Against The Faith

[gowlerk 1,903]

1 minute ago, turtlespeed said:

I guess you are OK with not knowing . . . 

I think I would prefer to know, but it is unknowable. If I did know it's possible I would wish I did not. So I just leave it alone.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 minute ago, gowlerk said:

I think I would prefer to know, but it is unknowable. If I did know it's possible I would wish I did not. So I just leave it alone.

Just assume and make it up as you go - It seems popular - 

In the same actions - you can oppress genders, sexual preference, and Race . . .

Its a win win.

[gowlerk 1,903]

15 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Just assume and make it up as you go - It seems popular - 

Indeed. All through human history. That's where religion comes from.

Edited May 6, 2019 by gowlerk

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Indeed. All through human history. That's where religion comes from.

I'm not arguing against YOU - per se - 

We align almost perfectly on religion - except the fact that I have to say I honestly don't know 100% there CAN NOT be a god - just  that the evidence is very circumstantial.

 

[jakee 1,254]

3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

However the personification means God exists.

Thanks for proving my point.

Now - PROVE a coincidence exists in its definition - not root word descriptor.

Once again, what do you think coincidence means?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

45 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I'm not arguing against YOU - per se - 

We align almost perfectly on religion - except the fact that I have to say I honestly don't know 100% there CAN NOT be a god - just  that the evidence is very circumstantial.

 

There is no evidence, even circumstantial, that a god exists. It all requires attribution of something you cannot or will not explain.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I think I would prefer to know, but it is unknowable. If I did know it's possible I would wish I did not. So I just leave it alone.

 

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

There is no evidence, even circumstantial, that a god exists. It all requires attribution of something you cannot or will not explain.

And those two quotes make up a HUGE part of the 'belief in God' in a nutshell.

People need explanations. An answer of "I don't know" for any question is generally not acceptable. 

So one of the biggest reasons to invent 'God' is to be able to answer that 'why?'

 

Why did the tornado hit? God did it.
Why did mom/dad/husband/wife/child die of a disease? God did it.

Even today, an 'Act of God' is an insurance term. Answering the unanswered. Explaining the inexplicable.

 

With the really funny part of that being that when science does find a rational and reasonable (and provable) explanation for something, the 'true believers' attack them. Creationists against evolution being the best example.

 

"Where did we come from?"

"God made us."

"No, we can show we evolved over many millions of years, from single cell organisms, through various fish, them mammals, then primates."

 

"YOU LIE!!!!!! God did it!!! You are going to burn in hell for denying God!!!"

 

I'd be willing to take a good, close look at any 'evidence for the existence of God'. I looked for a long time and found zero. There was a fella a while back that showed up and claimed a "preponderance of evidence' for the existence of God. I asked repeatedly what that evidence might be. And got absolutely nothing. 
The idea that 'testimonials' are evidence is something of a joke. The only 'testimony' that includes actual interaction with "God" is a couple thousand years old. That would be thrown out of any 'evidential process' in court in a heartbeat. 

Any current or recent testimony that 'God touched me directly' is far more subjective than anything else.

The coffee shop conversation in Pulp Fiction between Jules & Vince, discussing the 'miracle' that Jules witnessed and the 'freak occurrence' that Vince saw is a really good example (and some of the best dialog in modern film). 

I fully agree that any 'miracle' is when someone 'feels the touch of God in their life'. But there are a zillion ways to get that feeling. The actual presence or existence of 'God' isn't necessary. It's just a handy explanation.

 

Scene from Pulp Fiction:

 

[gowlerk 1,903]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I'm not arguing against YOU - per se - 

We align almost perfectly on religion - except the fact that I have to say I honestly don't know 100% there CAN NOT be a god - just  that the evidence is very circumstantial.

 

In that case we are even closer than you think. The possibility of a creator is part of the mystery. Of course, it would only deepen the mystery. Even a creator would need a source.....on and on it goes. That's why it's pointless.

[turtlespeed 212]

26 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

In that case we are even closer than you think. The possibility of a creator is part of the mystery. Of course, it would only deepen the mystery. Even a creator would need a source.....on and on it goes. That's why it's pointless.

That would be a logical track.

But even the acceptance of the possibility technically turns one into an agnostic.

[gowlerk 1,903]

Just now, turtlespeed said:

That would be a logical track.

But even the acceptance of the possibility technically turns one into an agnostic.

Yea, I thought about that. I consider myself atheist even though I acknowledge that I not knowing leaves the possibility of a creator or creators.  However, I would not consider such a creator to be an object of worship, just curiosity. That is not a god as religious people think of god. I am comfortable both as a atheist and as someone you think of as agnostic.

[turtlespeed 212]

9 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Yea, I thought about that. I consider myself atheist even though I acknowledge that I not knowing leaves the possibility of a creator or creators.  However, I would not consider such a creator to be an object of worship, just curiosity. That is not a god as religious people think of god. I am comfortable both as a atheist and as someone you think of as agnostic.

Well put.

[yobnoc 142]

17 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

That would be a logical track.

But even the acceptance of the possibility technically turns one into an agnostic.

False.  The problem with a god claim is that it is unfalsifiable.  Slipper fairies are also unfalsifiable, but you wouldn't say you're agnostic about them.  Leprechauns: unfalsifiable.  Also not agnostic about leprechauns. 

I think the solution isn't to try to convince me I'm not an atheist (I am), but rather to let people choose what label, if any, they prefer to apply to themselves. 

Also, feelings and faith don't get you any closer to the truth of a claim.  And the bigger the claim, and the more consequential it is, the more evidence is needed to support it.  If you told me you saw a bluejay in your back yard yesterday, I'd believe you based on your personal testimony.  For one: it is completely inconsequential to me if you're lying, and two: people seeing bluejays in their back yard is a common occurrence that doesn't strain the imagination.

If you tell me that you know the origins of the universe and what happens when we die and that I need to follow the worship instructions and teachings from a bunch of ancient stories from bronze-aged goat herders or else I'll suffer a metaphysical torture chamber for all of eternity, I require a LOT more evidence than personal testimony.

 

And I do not accept the truth of the claim in any way prior to the presentation of sufficient evidence.

Edited May 6, 2019 by yobnoc
last sentence

[billvon 2,384]

2 hours ago, yobnoc said:

False.  The problem with a god claim is that it is unfalsifiable. 

I'd say that many claims surrounding a religion _are_ falsifiable.  For example, the old claim that God created the Universe around 6000 years ago, per simple math from the Bible. Radioisotope dating, CMBR studies and pulsar studies have proven that that's false.  

However, all too often religions simply change their interpretation.  "Well, the _real_ interpretation of that part of the Bible was that the third day was actually billions of years" or "it's just a metaphor" or some such. 

(There are plenty of similar claims in the most common translations of the Bible, including stopping the Earth's rotation for an hour, a tree so tall that you can see it from everywhere on the Earth etc.)

So such God claims are falsifiable, but falsifying them does not have much effect on belief in God overall, since such claims are pretty fluid.

[TriGirl 268]

 

On ‎5‎/‎5‎/‎2019 at 5:28 PM, turtlespeed said:

On ‎5‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 6:18 PM, TriGirl said:

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.  (Not)

Can you prove the existence of a coincidence?

My post was not regarding coincidence. It was in reply to the article you posted (see below)

On ‎5‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 4:58 PM, turtlespeed said:

Here is evidence . . . 

https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2019/05/03/Teens-praying-for-help-rescued-by-boat-called-The-Amen/5951556896544/?sl=6.

Post hoc: the boat showed up (it happened after),

...ergo, propter hoc: Therefore, the teens' praying caused it to happen.

 

It did not.

 

ETA: and the name of the boat?  That's just a statistical probability considering the numbers of evangelicals in Florida.

Edited May 6, 2019 by TriGirl
added comment

[yobnoc 142]

14 minutes ago, billvon said:

I'd say that many claims surrounding a religion _are_ falsifiable.  For example, the old claim that God created the Universe around 6000 years ago, per simple math from the Bible. Radioisotope dating, CMBR studies and pulsar studies have proven that that's false.  

However, all too often religions simply change their interpretation.  "Well, the _real_ interpretation of that part of the Bible was that the third day was actually billions of years" or "it's just a metaphor" or some such. 

(There are plenty of similar claims in the most common translations of the Bible, including stopping the Earth's rotation for an hour, a tree so tall that you can see it from everywhere on the Earth etc.)

So such God claims are falsifiable, but falsifying them does not have much effect on belief in God overall, since such claims are pretty fluid.

You're on the money with that point; there are many easily refutable claims in the bible, but what I was referring to is not just biblical theology.  A god claim could be simply a deistic creator being, not necessarily Yahweh.  The Native Americans have a turtle creator story I believe.  Big space turtle or something.  Anyway, it's the overarching god-claim that I'm referring to, not necessarily the minutiae of the stories themselves.  Many of those are indeed falsifiable. 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

32 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

You're on the money with that point; there are many easily refutable claims in the bible, but what I was referring to is not just biblical theology.  A god claim could be simply a deistic creator being, not necessarily Yahweh.  The Native Americans have a turtle creator story I believe.  Big space turtle or something.  Anyway, it's the overarching god-claim that I'm referring to, not necessarily the minutiae of the stories themselves.  Many of those are indeed falsifiable. 

So just what part of the god claims aren't falsifiable?

All of it is based on faith. That is, you believe what you are told. Whether its the Abrahamic "God", "Jehovah", "Yahweh", "Allah" or whatever, the North American Native 'Great Spirit', the Hindu gods (and there are a bunch), even the Sumerian 'Gozer'.
The 'High Priests' get the word from 'God' and pass it on to the masses. And then the same priests told the masses what 'tribute' their God demanded. And took it. Presumably to give to God, but ya gotta admit that the Pope sure has a nice house. 

And, of course those high priests told everyone what the 'origin story' was. How their particular "God" created the world and everything in it, along with how the world held it's place in the solar system and universe. On the back of a giant turtle was one. Held up by 4 wolves was another. 
One very fascinating thing, which is pretty damning to the idea of 'God' is the fact that every independent society has it's own God and origin story. While they have similarities, none are the same. Derivative religions have a lot of overlap. The Greek gods are similar to the Roman ones. Judaism, Christianity and Islam have the same God, same origins, even many of the same prophets. But none of the native American (from the Inuit up north through the plains tribes of what's now the US, the Aztecs or Mayans, the Incas or any cultures further south; NONE OF THEM have any concept of Jesus. Similar prophets, even 'living gods on earth', but not the messiah/son of god idea. 
Same with any other independent culture. Similarities, mainly because the subject has only so many ways to make up a story to give an answer. 

But nowhere is there the same "God", origin story or any of that. 

Almost as if the 'old wise ones' upon whom this knowledge was given by 'God' had simply made up a good story to explain questions that they couldn't answer. Go figure.
Either that or "God" is such a dick he told each independent society a different story to generate tension, friction and conflict.

[yobnoc 142]

13 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

So just what part of the god claims aren't falsifiable?

All of it is based on faith. That is, you believe what you are told. Whether its the Abrahamic "God", "Jehovah", "Yahweh", "Allah" or whatever, the North American Native 'Great Spirit', the Hindu gods (and there are a bunch), even the Sumerian 'Gozer'.
The 'High Priests' get the word from 'God' and pass it on to the masses. And then the same priests told the masses what 'tribute' their God demanded. And took it. Presumably to give to God, but ya gotta admit that the Pope sure has a nice house. 

And, of course those high priests told everyone what the 'origin story' was. How their particular "God" created the world and everything in it, along with how the world held it's place in the solar system and universe. On the back of a giant turtle was one. Held up by 4 wolves was another. 
One very fascinating thing, which is pretty damning to the idea of 'God' is the fact that every independent society has it's own God and origin story. While they have similarities, none are the same. Derivative religions have a lot of overlap. The Greek gods are similar to the Roman ones. Judaism, Christianity and Islam have the same God, same origins, even many of the same prophets. But none of the native American (from the Inuit up north through the plains tribes of what's now the US, the Aztecs or Mayans, the Incas or any cultures further south; NONE OF THEM have any concept of Jesus. Similar prophets, even 'living gods on earth', but not the messiah/son of god idea. 
Same with any other independent culture. Similarities, mainly because the subject has only so many ways to make up a story to give an answer. 

But nowhere is there the same "God", origin story or any of that. 

Almost as if the 'old wise ones' upon whom this knowledge was given by 'God' had simply made up a good story to explain questions that they couldn't answer. Go figure.
Either that or "God" is such a dick he told each independent society a different story to generate tension, friction and conflict.

Falsifiability is a term that has a specific meaning.  You cannot disprove it.  No matter how absurd it is on the surface, there is always some special pleading apologetic to get around the glaring inconsistencies.  Any scientific hypothesis formed has to be falsifiable.  It's a scientific term.  And a lot of simple folks try to use that as if it bolsters their claims.  "Aha!  You can't PROVE he doesn't exist, therefore god!"

The burden of proof lies with those who make the claim. 

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, yobnoc said:

You're on the money with that point; there are many easily refutable claims in the bible, but what I was referring to is not just biblical theology.  A god claim could be simply a deistic creator being, not necessarily Yahweh.  The Native Americans have a turtle creator story I believe.  Big space turtle or something.  Anyway, it's the overarching god-claim that I'm referring to, not necessarily the minutiae of the stories themselves.  Many of those are indeed falsifiable. 

Now we're talkin'!!

Welcome aboard!!!

[yobnoc 142]

38 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Now we're talkin'!!

Welcome aboard!!!

Welcome aboard what? Seems dubious, somehow...

[gowlerk 1,903]

2 hours ago, yobnoc said:

Welcome aboard what? Seems dubious, somehow...

Ummm.....I pretty sure it's all about the magical turtles......I mean, who could resist a story about a big space turtle?

Edited May 7, 2019 by gowlerk

[billvon 2,384]

17 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

So just what part of the god claims aren't falsifiable?

That God exists, and will interfere supernaturally with any attempt to prove his existence (which many people claim.)

[gowlerk 1,903]

45 minutes ago, billvon said:

That God exists, and will interfere supernaturally with any attempt to prove his existence (which many people claim.)

Well then, isn't that a convenient way to brush off those who don't believe? But it does fit in with my idea that we can not ever answer the question of why we (or anything else) exist.

[normiss 620]

Same reason trees grow out of cracks in mountains and sidewalks.

Given the opportunity, biology happens.

[yobnoc 142]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Well then, isn't that a convenient way to brush off those who don't believe? But it does fit in with my idea that we can not currently answer the question of why we (or anything else) exist.

I fixed it for you

[gowlerk 1,903]

11 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

I fixed it for you

No, I meant what I said. I am convinced that we can never know the true nature of existence. Any answers we find can only lead to deeper questions.