Some people didn't hop on the 'dahang and quadz' bandwagon. I chose to quit this little debate when it became fairly obvious that my questions would not get answered and my points would not get addressed.
On religion, the first part seems to apply, "For those who believe, no explanation is necessary". True believers in whatever faith, will believe without any concrete evidence (i.e. God himself touching your forehead and you are healed of all ills). It is a matter of faith. On the other hand, if you have someone who does not believe in a particular faith, they might have the need for some type of concrete evidence of facts to support the faith another has in a 'God' in order to understand, or 'believe'.Of all things to prove, or disprove, the question of if there is a 'God' is one of the most unsolvable in my opinion. "For those that do not, none will suffice." If there is no way to concretely prove there is a 'God', no explanation from someone of 'faith' in that 'God' will suffice as an answer. If I can't believe it unless I have evidence, and there is no way to get that evidence, it must not exist? Its a question of having faith versus having evidence.If there was a box on the table, completely sealed, and I told you the secrets of the universe were in that box, you could believe it, or you could not. If you asked how I came to that conclusion and I said, "I have faith that all there is to know is in that box," but you had no way of opening the box to see for yourself, would the lack of evidence or inability to open the box keep you from making your own hypothesis of what the box contains, even if you could never know for sure? Rationally, you could say since the box is so small, there is no possible way for it to hold the secrets of the universe, but even that is a act of 'faith', since you can't open the box to see. That is what it is like to prove or disprove 'God' in my opinion. Just a sealed box that no one can open, but anyone is free to believe it contains something, or free to believe it contains nothing.
Quote from: [BTF]EyEsTrAiN on November 19, 2008, 08:35:34 PMIf there was a box on the table, completely sealed, and I told you the secrets of the universe were in that box, you could believe it, or you could not. If you asked how I came to that conclusion and I said, "I have faith that all there is to know is in that box," but you had no way of opening the box to see for yourself, would the lack of evidence or inability to open the box keep you from making your own hypothesis of what the box contains, even if you could never know for sure? Rationally, you could say since the box is so small, there is no possible way for it to hold the secrets of the universe, but even that is a act of 'faith', since you can't open the box to see. That is what it is like to prove or disprove 'God' in my opinion. Just a sealed box that no one can open, but anyone is free to believe it contains something, or free to believe it contains nothing. Well said....
If there was a box on the table, completely sealed, and I told you the secrets of the universe were in that box, you could believe it, or you could not. If you asked how I came to that conclusion and I said, "I have faith that all there is to know is in that box," but you had no way of opening the box to see for yourself, would the lack of evidence or inability to open the box keep you from making your own hypothesis of what the box contains, even if you could never know for sure? Rationally, you could say since the box is so small, there is no possible way for it to hold the secrets of the universe, but even that is a act of 'faith', since you can't open the box to see. That is what it is like to prove or disprove 'God' in my opinion. Just a sealed box that no one can open, but anyone is free to believe it contains something, or free to believe it contains nothing.
Quote from: QuakeDuke on November 25, 2008, 02:21:39 PMQuote from: [BTF]EyEsTrAiN on November 19, 2008, 08:35:34 PMIf there was a box on the table, completely sealed, and I told you the secrets of the universe were in that box, you could believe it, or you could not. If you asked how I came to that conclusion and I said, "I have faith that all there is to know is in that box," but you had no way of opening the box to see for yourself, would the lack of evidence or inability to open the box keep you from making your own hypothesis of what the box contains, even if you could never know for sure? Rationally, you could say since the box is so small, there is no possible way for it to hold the secrets of the universe, but even that is a act of 'faith', since you can't open the box to see. That is what it is like to prove or disprove 'God' in my opinion. Just a sealed box that no one can open, but anyone is free to believe it contains something, or free to believe it contains nothing. Well said....But wait -- there's more!! ACHILLES: The secrets of the universe are in that box.TORTOISE: Sounds interesting! What kinds of secrets?ACHILLES: This box contains the secret of how thunder and lightning are produced!TORTOISE: Hmm... Liquid and ice particles colliding, building up electric charge, giant spark, air rushing to fill the void left by the spark... seems we might have unlocked that secret already?ACHILLES: This box also contains the secret of the orbits of the planets! After all, as Isaac Newton said, "It is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions. This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the council and dominion of an intelligent and powerful box."TORTOISE: But it seems LaPlace unlocked that secret as well? As LaPlace said to Napoleon, "A box? Sir, I had no need for that hypothesis."ACHILLES: This box also contains the secret of the marvelous diversity of species!TORTOISE: Once again... a natural explanation seems to have been discovered.ACHILLES: This box also contains the secret of how galaxies and planets were formed, and from whence came the elements of the periodic table!TORTOISE: We seem to have discovered those secrets as well. Anything else?ACHILLES: This box also contains the secret of why a large number of mammals believe this box surely contains the secrets of the universe!TORTOISE: Well now that is interesting.
But neither knows for sure *until* the box is opened, yes?
Neither knows what for sure? Seems to me the claims about the contents of the box are becoming less and less interesting as we discover more of the secrets of the universe on our own.
Credit goes to Christopher Hitchens for distilling, in a single phrase, a principle of discourse that could well arrest our slide toward the abyss: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Let us pray that billions of us soon agree with him.
"there are no athiests in foxholes"Just something I hear on talk radio all the time, i'm sure there are athiests in wars, but there is some truth to that.
"there are no athiests in foxholes"
[...]While there is nothing wrong highlighting in the program the role that religion has played in the American Armed Forces, I find your mindless parading of that silly old aphorism, “there are no Atheists in foxholes,” to be thoughtless and downright offensive to the families of uncountable numbers of atheists, and I include Agnostics, who gave their lives wearing the uniform of the American Armed Forces. Yes, there are, and always have been Atheists, both draftees and volunteers on the battlefield, many of whom bare the scars of war or are ironically buried below white crosses in battlefields throughout the world.[...]Preachers may blather on about serving for “God and country,” but as any number of combat studies have proven, that is “pure crap,” to use a traditional military term. Soldiers certainly do enlist for patriotic motives and many of them no doubt have deeply held religious beliefs, but this is not why in the heat of combat they risk their lives. They risk their lives for their fellow soldiers, to not let their comrades down, and to secure the survival of their buddies and themselves by getting the job done as rapidly and brutally as possible.Broadcasting a feel good puff-piece on religion is all well and good, but perpetuating the nonsense that only religious zealots defend their country is not only offensive but demonstrably wrong. Most Atheists and Agnostics in uniform get stuck with the Army’s famous euphemism of “no religious preference” on their dog tags. But mine simply said “Atheist,” after some initial arguments with my superiors. I am offended by your comments primarily in memory of the silent masses of non believers who did not make it back to object to your treatment of their deeply help beliefs. I believe you and NBC owe them an apology.
There are no atheist suicide bombers.
Quote from: quadzThere are no atheist suicide bombers.I'd honestly say the first quote is more accurate, and has more truth to it. But of course there are some athiests in foxholes : )
Welcome, Guest. Please 
November 22, 2024, 06:00:06 PM