Why do you believe in YOUR religion

[Tao_Equus]

Originally Posted by cyberpi

I think what you are saying is that Walmart or the store that you purchased some goods from delivered... unless you learned, studied, designed and built those things yourself. While you may not have prostrated and prayed for those things you still went to the store, asked, and submissively handed over some hard earned money.

That is meant to have meaning?

So with your purchased technology, show us the detailed data list that contains the Billions of names of people you talked to who prostrated in prayer and could not report it to have worked.
No Tao, a person claims Truth. You claim Truth. Show me the data of the Billions that you referred to. Back up your assertion of Truth. That is... if you truly hold good science to be of any value.

Dont be ridiculous Cyberpi. If any of these people or any of the churches they belong to could prove they worked they would be front page news. That you fall back to such a position and challenge is nothing but desperation. Are you and Netti related by any chance?


tao

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

No religion has ever even got off the starting block in the race with the sciences to explain reality and truth. Yet science does not claim truth, religion does.

Huh??!! If "science does not claim truth" then it cannot also be in "the race...to explain...truth." Which is it?

s.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

If people are really interested, I could start a post and post some references and summarize some of the more complicated stuff.

How strange, path, cos I was going to ask if you wouldn't mind recommending some, er, stuff. However, for this you would only receive my undying gratitude. So I think you should commence work on an online book; I'm sure you've got the time.

These seem like a good example! >>>

Self Publishing Company - AuthorHouse

I'd pre-order, I promise.

s.

[Alex P]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Path,
it would be nice to end the hijack of this thread.


tao

hear, hear... It gets old, quick.

[wil]

Originally Posted by tao

it would be nice to end the hijack of this thread.

Originally Posted by Alex P

hear, hear... It gets old, quick.

lol, now I would have thought that the hijack would be by anyone who doesn't believe in a religion yet responded.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

for this you would only receive my undying gratitude.

Aw, I will feel so loved and appreciated.

So I think you should commence work on an online book; I'm sure you've got the time.

I may be teaming up with another anthropologist on a book; it's in the works but it's sharing burners with the ethnography I'm trying to write and a couple others. There really is a desperate need for a good discussion of religion, magic, and science though. Poor definitions of all three abound, leading to lots of misunderstanding.

[cyberpi]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

That is meant to have meaning?

Yes. You claim that the products came from science, but you did not design and make the products. The individuals who designed and made the products may have a different understanding of what it took to design and make the products. Maybe they were religionists <gasp>. Whereas the skill sets required to purchase and use a product do not include the scientific experiment or knowledge that went into making it. It does however require a relationship with someone.

Similarly a person could say that religion reveals truths simply because they receive things from the members of that religion... rather than from having learned any truths from the religion themselves.

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

Dont be ridiculous Cyberpi. If any of these people or any of the churches they belong to could prove they worked they would be front page news. That you fall back to such a position and challenge is nothing but desperation. Are you and Netti related by any chance?

Well as an engineer I find your scientific method flawed. You assert data where you haven't collected it. If you tout science or scientific methods then I would expect you to live and behave with science and scientific methods. Alternatively I recognize it is hypocricy when a person claims a virtue but doesn't themselves practice it.

[path_of_one]

I think what I find fascinating is that atheists (whether also scientists or not) find it uncomfortable that there are many scientists and engineers that have a religion or consider themselves spiritual or are theists.

I haven't seen much in the way of real science attacking theism. I see a lot of people uncomfortable with theism and using science as the oppositional category, which is in fact unsubstantiated by data/evidence. Which makes their position just as counter-evidential as the positions they claim to oppose.

The theists trust their own experience or the recorded experiences of others to believe God exists.

The atheists trust their own experience or the recorded experiences of others to believe God doesn't exist.

Both claim that their experiences are the accurate ones, and the others are delusional or limited.

Am I the only person who finds this amusing? Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Everyone bickers about the details, and yet the spectre of common human cognition and behavior looms before us all...

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Am I the only person who finds this amusing?

No.

s.

[Netti-Netti]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

The theists trust their own experience or the recorded experiences of others to believe God exists.

The atheists trust their own experience or the recorded experiences of others to believe God doesn't exist.

Atheists use logical argumentation to support their contentions. Interestingly, they adduce evidence that has questionable value with respect to their arguments. I'm sure you'll have no problem finding lots of analyses showing that atheists' arguments are logically unsound in terms of both the validity of the premises and the logical leaps that atheists make to get to their conclusion. I've even presented a few here and there on this forum. You'll find accessible analyses along these lines in book reviews of some of the more popular recent restatements of the old atheist arguments, some of which have actually been best sellers of late.


One of the oldest (as in hundreds of years old) formal logical arguments against the existence of G-d is known as the "Argument from Evil." There are four variations of it:

1)the argument from imperfection

2) the argument from natural evil

3) the argument from moral evil

4) and the argument from unbelief

Each of the four arguments from evil begins with the claim that if God existed then the world would reach a certain standard. The standard anticipated differs between the different forms of the argument, each argument claiming that the evil named in its title—imperfection, natural evil, moral evil and unbelief respectively—would not exist in a world created and sustained by God.

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/?page_id=52


Religionists also have logical arguments that presumably prove the existence. The main difference between the atheists and religionists is that atheists are totally dependent on logical argument because they haven't had an experience of G-d or any other experience that leads them to believe.

You can't very well argue from nonexperience because it does not necessarily reflect on the potential object of the nonexperience (e.g., G-d). That is, you can't say G-d does not exist just because you've had no experience of Him or because you choose to believe others who report not experiencing G-d.

Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Everyone bickers about the details, and yet the spectre of common human cognition and behavior looms before us all...

I think the religionist and atheists are miles apart in terms of world view, ethical framework, and cognitive style. These people are basically living in totally different worlds.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

Atheists use logical argumentation to support their contentions. Interestingly, they adduce evidence that has questionable value with respect to their arguments.

I think the religionist and atheists are miles apart in terms of world view, ethical framework, and cognitive style.

Now words are so interesting. What is the diffence between a religionist and an atheist? Are they opposite? Is there a diffence between a religionist and a theist? Is there an anti-religionist an atheist?

And why are atheists so dogmatic? Why do the atheists think every word of the bible must be inerrant in order to believe in it as a worthwhile book?

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Netti-Netti

You can't very well argue from nonexperience because it does not necessarily reflect on the potential object of the nonexperience (e.g., G-d). That is, you can't say G-d does not exist just because you've had no experience of Him or because you choose to believe others who report not experiencing G-d.

Yet this is precisely the argument that many atheists present. They have not experienced God, and they believe their own experience more valid than that of others who disagree with them. So they say there is no God.

I agree that it is a lousy argument, but it is an argument I've run across time and again.

And I also agree that the "logical" arguments are faulty. Lots of good book reviews on Dawkins point this out.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I may be teaming up with another anthropologist on a book

Ha! Proof there is a God!

I sensed something bookish, I could feel it in my kyôsaku!

s.

[Dawud]

Originally Posted by Tao_Equus

I challenge you to make a list of even 5 provable religious 'hits'.


tao

Baha'u'llah made historical prophecies that were subsequently fulfilled:

1. The Fall of Napoleon III
2. The Defeat of Germany (twice)
3. The Success of Queen Victoria
4. Sultan and Minister of Turkey warned
5. Breakup of the Ottoman Empire
6. Downfall of the Persian Monarch
7. Constitutional Government for Persia
8. Massive decline in World Monarchy
9. End of Caliphate
10. Communism, its Rise and Fall
11. Rise of Israel as Jewish Homeland
12. Jewish Persecution
13. America's Racial Struggles
14. Baha'u'llah's Release from Prison
15. Destruction of Baha'u'llah's House

[Alex P]

Are they like "zomgz look at the precise detail!!"

Or are they like "Oh that is so nostradamus..."

?