Re: Post Any Evidence For God Here
Posted: Thu May 16, 2013 6:57 pm
Firstly, there are no significant assumptions that you make outside of religion that are not based on evidence. Unless you are a high level physicist, the speed of light could be an order of 10 or 100 or 1000 out and it would make no difference to you. But the fact is that we can prove what the speed of light on Earth is. The hypothesis (it might be proven by now, I'm not totally up to date on cutting edge physics) that there may be regions of the universe where the speed of light is not a constant has absolutely no impact on your day to day life, and is itself based on collected evidence, not on some scientists simply saying "well I think this happens and you can't prove it doesn't."
I challenge you to name one non-religious assumption you make without ANY evidence which has any sort of impact upon your day to day life, even occasionally.
You are right that the absence of evidence is no proof of anything except for the absence of evidence, but the contention is not that the absence of evidence disproves the existence of God, but that the absence of evidence makes it irrational to believe in any given God claim. Say I made the claim "molluscs telepathically communicate with each other and have an advanced psychic social heirarchy and culture". The rational way to respond to that claim would be to see if there is any way in which it can be tested. If it cannot be tested then the rational position is not to say "well then it is the truth", but to say to whoever made the claim "provide evidence please". You certainly wouldn't go out and start thinking really hard towards any molluscs you could find in an attempt to communicate with them. All atheists ask is that the same standards which we apply to every other claim are applied equally to religious claims.
But what happens when you can't prove something in either direction?
Then you say "I don't know". What you don't do is say "I know what happened there - God did it!" That is a meaningless answer, and you're heading down the road to a "God of the gaps" type argument which was refuted centuries ago. It also stops you looking, it impedes the advancement of society because once you satisfy yourself that "God did it" then you stop looking for whatever the real answer is.
Relativity is correct within certain bounds, but it is not correct as a universal theory of how space and time and matter work. Neither is quantum physics. Neither is Newtonian mechanics. They are all approximations, our best theories that seem to fit the facts in given situations, and for given degrees of accuracy. None of them is dogma, none of them is meant to be taken as a fact which cannot ever be disproved or an understanding which we can never improve upon. The scientific community, right now, is working it's ass off because the guy who can disprove them gets very very rich and famous indeed, and immortalises himself in history alongside Newton and Einstein and Heisenberg and Schrodinger and others.
The term has been applied to any tactic, psychological or otherwise, which can be seen as subverting an individual's sense of control over their own thinking(1), behavior(2), emotions(3) or decision making(4).
Please explain how this is not a perfect description of religious method. You should not do this or you will go to Hell!(2) You should not think this or you will go to Hell!(1) You should not feel this or you will go to Hell!(3) The only way to not go to Hell is to pray to God for forgiveness and give yourself over to him!(4) Seems very apt to me. Your ideological problems with the public education system may well be justified (you haven't given details for me to know or not and that's outside the scope of this conversation anyway), but that does not stop religion as a whole, and particularly the systematic indoctrination of children with religious concepts they haven't a hope of understanding properly (hence manipulative and unethical), being accurately described as brainwashing.
I challenge you to name one non-religious assumption you make without ANY evidence which has any sort of impact upon your day to day life, even occasionally.
You are right that the absence of evidence is no proof of anything except for the absence of evidence, but the contention is not that the absence of evidence disproves the existence of God, but that the absence of evidence makes it irrational to believe in any given God claim. Say I made the claim "molluscs telepathically communicate with each other and have an advanced psychic social heirarchy and culture". The rational way to respond to that claim would be to see if there is any way in which it can be tested. If it cannot be tested then the rational position is not to say "well then it is the truth", but to say to whoever made the claim "provide evidence please". You certainly wouldn't go out and start thinking really hard towards any molluscs you could find in an attempt to communicate with them. All atheists ask is that the same standards which we apply to every other claim are applied equally to religious claims.
But what happens when you can't prove something in either direction?
Then you say "I don't know". What you don't do is say "I know what happened there - God did it!" That is a meaningless answer, and you're heading down the road to a "God of the gaps" type argument which was refuted centuries ago. It also stops you looking, it impedes the advancement of society because once you satisfy yourself that "God did it" then you stop looking for whatever the real answer is.
Relativity is correct within certain bounds, but it is not correct as a universal theory of how space and time and matter work. Neither is quantum physics. Neither is Newtonian mechanics. They are all approximations, our best theories that seem to fit the facts in given situations, and for given degrees of accuracy. None of them is dogma, none of them is meant to be taken as a fact which cannot ever be disproved or an understanding which we can never improve upon. The scientific community, right now, is working it's ass off because the guy who can disprove them gets very very rich and famous indeed, and immortalises himself in history alongside Newton and Einstein and Heisenberg and Schrodinger and others.
The term has been applied to any tactic, psychological or otherwise, which can be seen as subverting an individual's sense of control over their own thinking(1), behavior(2), emotions(3) or decision making(4).
Please explain how this is not a perfect description of religious method. You should not do this or you will go to Hell!(2) You should not think this or you will go to Hell!(1) You should not feel this or you will go to Hell!(3) The only way to not go to Hell is to pray to God for forgiveness and give yourself over to him!(4) Seems very apt to me. Your ideological problems with the public education system may well be justified (you haven't given details for me to know or not and that's outside the scope of this conversation anyway), but that does not stop religion as a whole, and particularly the systematic indoctrination of children with religious concepts they haven't a hope of understanding properly (hence manipulative and unethical), being accurately described as brainwashing.