Evidence which wouldn't stand up in a court of law or in a laboratory. Or heck, even in the minds of people who currently don't believe ("evidence" that requires you to believe in it beforehand is redundant and therefore not evidence).
It's more of a discussion of what can be considered evidence, and what's not. It's also more of a discussion of whether something that breaks the dictation of science is what other people would justify as being evidence. Since a lot of what religion entails breaks the boundaries of science, yeah, it's where things get picky between scientists and theorists. We weren't a part of the generation that witnessed the events of the scriptures with our own eyes.
On that basis alone, I don't see why God (to those who believe He exists) would punish anyone simply because they weren't there to see it all happen.
Indeed. Only things to which evidence logically points when observed by the scientific community can be proven by science (if you're somehow suggesting that this method is unreliable, then you'd need to say why). When scientific ideas are modified, that says more about its strengths than its weaknesses.
That's... debatable. It's kind of like playing a game, only you're writing up the rules as you go along. Like... Calvinball for example. It's generally unreliable (but not completely) because science still only has a limited scope of the facts, facts that, if religion is right, can be bent or broken by divine forces. That's not to say science is useless to followers of religion. I think science is a helpful resource and tool to help recognize and analyze patterns and use them to benefit mankind. But to me, it's not and won't ever be all-knowing.
Logic or facts aren't opinionated or dictated by belief (at least, beyond the belief that our senses are working, which is a completely reasonable assumption to make). I believe your belief is as-of-yet irrational (using the dictionary definition of the word). You believe it's completely rational. We can't both be right.
Logic and facts are grounded on the basis of what is followed by the context of human senses and what our brains interpret. It still, however, opens up the question and possibility that there is a context of awareness that exists outside our senses, which is quite possible given animals possess instincts and attributes that we don't have. Again, logic is very much like science in this scenario and works on a linear dictation. It works and is universal, but only if there exists no chance of any context outside of human sense scopes having any outside influence that may disrupt the patterns of logic's dictation.
We cannot be truly sure of that. Therefore, I see logic as a good interpretive tool and is generally reliable for most cases, but again, to apply it as universal is a conceited notion.
If you're going to ask skeptics to stop asking for evidence, it's only fair that we ask you to stop presenting ideas that require evidence you can't give.
It's religion's way of opening the door as an invitation and as a means to educate. If your heart feels worshipping is the right thing to do and you feel this particular religion holds meaning, then all one needs to do is walk through that door.
Religion is still a freedom of expression. Again, you may feel the evidence is insufficient. Others, like myself, believe there is enough to evidence in the world around us and in scripture and personal feeling of faith to advocate divine creation.
You don't agree with the idea, which is on the basis of your own personal preference. However, I ask for skeptics to stop asking for evidence because you likely won't get more than what's already here, at least not from the people you're asking anyway.
I don't expect proof of the Loch Ness Monster to be presented to me in this lifetime. Doesn't stop me asking for evidence whenever someone claims to have seen it.
If someone were to make the claim to have seen it, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that it exists. Given the nature of the situation, it's entirely possible. But whether you really believe it exists or whether you don't, our own personal opinions on the matter only reflect on yes, personal opinions. The fact of whether it may or may not exist is entirely independent of our own personal beliefs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/200...,10150343074831091&fb_action_types=news.reads
"'Death was the least she deserved,' said Abdel-Qader. 'I don't regret it. I had the support of all my friends who are fathers, like me, and know what she did was unacceptable to any Muslim that honours his religion,' he said."
I'm not going to act like I'm an expert on what Muslims believe, because I only have limited knowledge of the Islamic religion, and therefore wouldn't be able to accurately explain on what basis they justify these customs or their actions.
I do, however, feel society cannot function properly if there is a separation of church and state. An action that violates a country's law cannot be dismissed on the basis of it being based on religion. Given the situation that religions are continuously created (I personally think Scientology is a massive scam, but we'll save that debate for another day), any separation undermines the overall welfare of that entire society. A newly-made religion could make it custom to murder and pillage from anyone who doesn't follow them, which simply can't be allowed for the sake of civilization. If a religion's network doesn't agree with the laws of that country, that's tough luck. They can go somewhere else in a country that does allow for such things. But as we know, countries that allow such travesties to be committed typically stay in shambles and never grow into economic superpowers. And, in turn, they are dominated and then influenced by countries that do know how to retain a balance of social benefit and stability that works for the people residing in it.
Do I personally believe Abdel-Qader was right about what he did? Not in the slightest. There is no lesson learned from inflicting death. I don't believe God would warrant such brutal, heartless, and unforgiving punishment, but again, I'm a Christian, not a Muslim. I would not prosecute Abdel-Qader because he was following Muslim beliefs. I would prosecute him because he murdered another human being in cold blood, which if allowed, greatly undermines society and the quality of life.
Cute little analogy there, making skeptics look like spoiled little brats.
More on the basis of not being satisfied with what you already have. It's up to the beholder of whether they consider that "spoiled" or not. Some think it's enough, some do not.
Of course, little boy Jimmy wouldn't continually seek justification (i.e. the destination) for the car ride if his parents didn't tell him to get into the car to begin with. Likewise, I'm not going to ask for evidence if no ideas are presented to me.
Religion is opening the door in invitation. In this case analogy, no one "forced" little boy Jimmy to come along. Heck, in this case, they saw little boy Jimmy walking off on the side of the road, invited him for a ride to the destination, and little boy Jimmy asked if they were already there and what the place looked like as soon as he jumped in the car. The driver told him, but Jimmy didn't believe him, but still wants to get there and know what the place looks like this very instant. As the driver, I'm saying to little boy Jimmy to wait until we get there so he can see for himself if my word isn't enough.
There are three positions: Acceptance, Skepticism and Denial. By telling me to stop asking for evidence, you're telling me to abandon skepticism (since the definition of skepticism is doubt/a requirement for evidence). Which means you're either telling me to accept the idea or deny it, which I can't do without evidence.
I'm not asking you to abandon skepticism, I'm simply asking you to stop asking for evidence because you're relying on a expectation you require to be fulfilled, but cannot be fulfilled by the ones you're asking. At this point... it just becomes annoying.
What particular things are you talking about? We've turned water red, we've "resurrected" people, we've cured diseases (we've even made steps toward curing blindness).
Two totally different realms of interpretation.
Problem with your analogy: if I'm asking the fans about the existence of the sports players, they'll probably have quite a bit of evidence (including photographic) to back it up.
But if they really had a photograph of God, would you believe it? Or would you laugh and scoff that it was a great attempt at Photoshop, or whoever made it was a crafty CGI artist?
That's the problem with the expectations of skeptics. Where and when you do recognize credible and examinable evidence?
This is only true if said skeptic has double standards and is selective about what he asks questions about. I'm not only skeptical about your god, I'm also skeptical about all other gods. Heck, I'm even skeptical about the claim that "there is NO god". Hence, skeptics can be said to be "ready" in regards to multiple things.
But you're relying on the expected evidence to decide the basis for you. Without it, you remain uncommitted and won't decide until evidence that fulfills your expectation presents itself. That may and will likely only happen after death. Hence, why I say wait rather than ask.
Furthermore, evidence for any one thing can come in many flavours. If a skeptic can respond appropriately to all kinds of evidence, then he is truly "ready for anything".
Depends on the nature of the skeptic's willingness to believe what presents itself before them. They may never believe anything that presents itself, in which case, they're not ready for anything at all.
You too
No, you misinterpreted me. I was referring to people who believed in a way where it affects people around them. Ie: judging someone for not agreeing with you, or restricting the rights of those who don't agree. The debate isimportant.
That's a violation of their rights as human beings in society, and yes, that's not something I agree with either. A religion that forces itself on others by threats or duress is generally looked down upon, and those forced to practice it at immediate harm will often come to resent and not truly feel the passion and belief that is necessary to practice religion. Hence, why after 9/11, very few people in America were driven to become Muslims out of fear. Instead, the opposite effect was experienced. No terrorist attack by Muslim extremists will ever convert people in mass quantities or generate the kinds followers they're expecting. Instead, all they're creating is a resistance movement from the surviving population that will make it their objective to shut down these kinds of operations not from a religion's perspective, but to correlate with the foundations of that society's commonwealth beliefs. Hence, why Americans felt 9/11 was an attack on freedom and American society, and why they celebrated the death of Osama bin Laden. Case in point, you do not attack and undermine the foundations and objectives of a society (freedom and the pursuit of happiness) and expect not to experience the consequences of it. The death of Osama bin Laden was celebrated because it was a clear demonstration of the consequences an extremist leader faces when they undermine society with duress and violence. It also discourages further such actions from those that would seek to continue his mission or other similar mission that undermines society and attacks the foundations of one.
To obtain additional believers, a religion needs to be open and may only express invitation to practice worship. By no means should it ever be done under duress.
Not all Christians will give the same answers as you have. Many in fact do believe they have proof; proof enough that they can look down on me or insert religion in politics.
Personally, I believe a theocracy won't ever work, as it doesn't adequately address the evolving changes of civilization. Until the divine deity takes a proactive seat in the country's administration and keeps in clear, concise, and direct correlation with changing society, there's no telling what's a regulation imposed by that deity, or whether it was the made-up regulation of that theocracy's authority figure(s) taking advantage of the beliefs of that populace to believe the dictation was founded by their deity, and not on their own, personal judgments.
Case in point, I don't follow everything the pope says either. He doesn't represent God in my opinion, and is really a "leader priest" when it comes down to it. And priests, as we know, are still fallible human beings like everyone else.
You seem to portray yourself as a guy who has an opinion but don't want them to clash; unfortunately, not everyone shares the same view as you.
Again, like I mentioned before, religion needs to only be allowed to present itself as an open invitation. To those who witness this invitation, they should have the freedom to accept or decline the invitation with no consequence of physical, mental, or social harm for their choice as long as they don't inflict physical, mental, or social harm upon those that present it to them. You may not like it when Jehovah's Witnesses come to your door, but you should always have the option to say "no thank you" and close your door. They, in turn, should respect your decision, and move along without thinking any less of you or portraying you in a bad fashion (what I mean by social harm). And if they nag and repeatedly ask, that, in my opinion, falls on the grounds of annoyance, and is considered "mental harm," and should be addressed with reasonable but humane repercussion to ensure such behavior isn't repeated or used against someone else.
In addition, no separation between church and state, as state administers and provides the necessary institutions (law enforcement, agencies, and so on) to ensure quality of life without anarchical consequences (as such limits on society-undermining and welfare-damaging freedoms need to be prohibited, ones like the case that Double A presented, may be encouraged by religion, but not by state and federal laws). Followers and foundations of that religion, bound, benefitting from, and reliant on the law enforcement and military protection of that state, need to respect the laws and regulations of said state, and should receive no special exemptions to standard regulations if they wish to reside and practice there.
Yes, I realize not every Christian would share these beliefs, but from a personal standpoint, it's what I think is necessary to ensure quality of life, freedom of religion, and maximum society stability.
