Support NeoGAF

[Rentahamster]

According to our culture right now, it seems to be so.

Maybe it seems that way to you, but that's not how it actually is. Have you considered the option of "neither" or "something else"? There's more to life out there than what you think.

 

[Ballthyrm]

Lying / lying by omission doesn't speak to what you actually believe... it is using deception regarding the truth of what you believe, presumably in order to win an argument or get something over on someone.

You have Anne Frank in your cellar in Amsterdam.
A nazi knocks at your door, he ask about her.
You tell him, you believe she is in the Netherlands.

It is a sincerely held belief, something you hold to be true as she is in your cellar, in Amsterdam, in the Netherlands.

You are still lying by ommision , withholding your knowledge all while holding true belief.

 

[*Nightwing]

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Maybe it seems that way to you, but that's not how it actually is. Have you considered the option of "neither" or "something else"? There's more to life out there than what you think.

I guess we just don't see the "neither" or "something else" crowd bubble up with any kind of prominence like we do with the new religion.

 

[FullMetalx117]

It's not chicken-egg at all, and I didn't say something not being detectable means it's not there. This is a thread about belief, and something that is undetectable remains indistinguishable from that which does not exist.

Whatever is discovered about god in the future, there remains no logical reason to believe in god now. That's all I'm talking about. And if they find evidence for god/supernatural/ghosts/werewolves, I'd be a believer tomorrow! But there remains no good evidence now.



Because intellect (and thus imagination) is a key element when it comes to the biological evolution and advancement of a high-functioning conscious species. All those civilizations and thinkers, they essentially came up with superheroes independently from one another as well... that doesn't mean I have a good reason to believe Spider-Man exists; that's literally a logical fallacy.

I see what you’re saying about something being undetectable being indistinguishable from something that doesn’t exist. But it’s a semantic technicality - aliens have remained undetectable, regardless of the likelihood that they should exist given the vastness of space and time, because we can’t detect them, should we place them in that semantic technicality bucket that they simply don’t exist? With our imagination and intuition we know that they probably do but just haven’t proven it yet.

Why does having intellect cause something to automatically come up with a god or a superhero? Why didn’t that intellect gear towards something we would consider abstract today? Another point is that all these gods civizilations came up with had something to do with the sky, or a constant presence around us we can’t see. All of these civilizations seemed like they were designed to use their intellectual ability to arrive at a similar god like being which just seems extremely unlikely to me unless we all have something instinctive that points to a god.

 

[Rentahamster]

I guess we just don't see the "neither" or "something else" crowd bubble up with any kind of prominence like we do with the new religion.

Don't let the things you don't like dictate the direction of your life, and don't make them a bigger problem than they actually are.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Don't let the things you don't like dictate the direction of your life, and don't make them a bigger problem than they actually are.

??

 

[Solarstrike]

The aliens hacked our reality to serve them. The machine of capitalism, corruption, feeding their greed and insatiable appetite for blood. They have blocked out our creator, God from communicating with us. So he communicates through nature and through signs if he is aware or if he is angry. And so he sent his son to infiltrate the alien agenda many thousands of years ago. He left words of wisdom, stories to remember, and love for all, even his enemies. We are behind a void, a shield from the rest of the galaxy and must wake up. This is why it seems we are alone in the universe. It's just that the good aliens cannot see or hear us. The little bug eyed skinny grey Intra-Earth living bastard aliens time is running out. There is a lot to see and do out there in the universe. No one get's to see it by being an asshole.

 

[EruditeHobo]

You have Anne Frank in your cellar in Amsterdam.
A nazi knocks at your door, he ask about her.
You tell him, you believe she is in the Netherlands.

It is a sincerely held belief, something you hold to be true as she is in your cellar, in Amsterdam, in the Netherlands.

What do you think you are saying here? What does this have to do with "lying by omission", this is not lying... this is being purposefully vague.

If the nazi then asks a binary question, like do you know exactly where she is... how do you then answer?
If you say no, that is not a sincerely held belief, is it?

aliens have remained undetectable, regardless of the likelihood that they should exist given the vastness of space and time, because we can’t detect them, should we place them in that semantic technicality bucket that they simply don’t exist? With our imagination and intuition we know that they probably do but just haven’t proven it yet.

No, they aren't in the same bucket because there is evidence aliens of some kind, aka life on other planets, most likely does exist. But they ultimately are the same in that there is not good evidence to hold a positive belief that aliens (or god/s) do exist.

Why does having intellect cause something to automatically come up with a god or a superhero? Why didn’t that intellect gear towards something we would consider abstract today? Another point is that all these gods civizilations came up with had something to do with the sky, or a constant presence around us we can’t see. All of these civilizations seemed like they were designed to use their intellectual ability to arrive at a similar god like being which just seems extremely unlikely to me unless we all have something instinctive that points to a god.

Lots of things were come about by different people at similar times despite them having no way of really sharing information, it's one of the more incredible things about the human mind. But to say this lends credence to the concept of god being real is a logical fallacy, and that line of thinking also applies to lots of other things which almost certainly aren't real.

 

[JayK47]

Well, people still believe in a God. Just not the traditional God. God was replaced by technology and religion with wokism. People now get their morals from social media and it shows.

 

[Northeastmonk]

My son has a disability and sometimes I look at it in two ways. One is the life he could have had, where he would have lived on his own and he could have made choices with his fellow peers. Then the second is the one where he is completely dependent on me for the rest of his life. The second way of thinking is my reality and his. It sucks and there’s nothing more that can be done to fix it. I wonder why God would make us like this, to where we have to rely on people for everything. He allowed humans who can’t mentally comprehend basic tasks to the point of carrying those tasks out with our hands and legs.

How can someone with a learning disability comprehend God or religion? They can’t learn basic life skills or it’s super challenging for them. I see other kids with severe disabilities and it makes me wonder what they believe. Do they believe that someone other than their caregiver will be there for them when they are hurt or when they’re dying? There’s a lot of unknowns to this and I don’t think that denying a creator is a sign of weakness. It can certainly toughen you up if you don’t believe. You accept your reality and you live life one day at a time. That can also make things feel harder than they already are.

 

[Ballthyrm]

What do you think you are saying here? What does this have to do with "lying by omission", this is not lying... this is being purposefully vague.

If the nazi then asks a binary question, like do you know exactly where she is... how do you then answer?
If you say no, that is not a sincerely held belief, is it?

That's not the point I was making. There is beliefs that are sincerely held that don't constitute knowledge.
The point is holding something to be true and it being true aren't the same thing.

 

[ItsGreat]

The Bible is one of my favorite "books", it cointains a ridiculous amount of core truths, but I wouldn't consider myself a Christian (the Church is fucked up in several ways). More of a simple Deist.

You need to read more. Perhaps the Terry Pratchett series for core truths.

 

[ItsGreat]

The older I get the more I believe, not an anthropomorphic conception of God but more of a grand purpose of the Universe. I mean how else do you explain the current LGBTQ+- extremist psyop?

I also agree with the conspiracy dudes, but they are purposefully overtly overdoing it now to trigger people, seems the elites want people to feel like the conspiracy exists. It is too obviously in your face now. So perhaps the conspiracy was not real but they want certain people to feel like it is real now, so they can create more “events” to justify future political decisions. I sure hope it’s not to nazi my ass.

But seriously as we get older and come to face mortality it is natural to start believing in some woo woo stuff. I mean nature and life itself is magnificent enough for us to believe in something innately special about existence.

Evolution is very special.

Have you read The Blind Watchmaker by Rickard Dawkins?

 

[FunkMiller]

Well, people still believe in a God. Just not the traditional God. God was replaced by technology and religion with wokism. People now get their morals from social media and it shows.

Literally making this point in a thread about 80% of Americans believing in god.

 

[FunkMiller]

The aliens hacked our reality to serve them. The machine of capitalism, corruption, feeding their greed and insatiable appetite for blood. They have blocked out our creator, God from communicating with us. So he communicates through nature and through signs if he is aware or if he is angry. And so he sent his son to infiltrate the alien agenda many thousands of years ago. He left words of wisdom, stories to remember, and love for all, even his enemies. We are behind a void, a shield from the rest of the galaxy and must wake up. This is why it seems we are alone in the universe. It's just that the good aliens cannot see or hear us. The little bug eyed skinny grey Intra-Earth living bastard aliens time is running out. There is a lot to see and do out there in the universe. No one get's to see it by being an asshole.

Either hilarious… or get help.

 

[Tumle]

Tumle Why the laughing emoji explain

because I think blind belief in anything is laughable, and nothing to be proud of..

80% of Americans believe in a make belief sky daddy, but some of those 80% don't believe or have hard time accepting tangible evidence and scientific theories.. again nothing to be proud of

 

[EruditeHobo]

That's not the point I was making. There is beliefs that are sincerely held that don't constitute knowledge.
The point is holding something to be true and it being true aren't the same thing.

What does this have to do with your initial statement "you can know something that you don't believe by lying by omission".
No, you can't. That's not true, and lying by omission is not an example that proves this.

The example of someone playing word games to a nazi in order to hide Anne Frank is not relevant to a statement about what that person believes; it's an example of someone engaging in deceit so that someone doesn't kill an innocent little girl, which might happen if they expose the entire, specific truth. But that has nothing to do with the truth of what that person believes. So I'm confused as to why you brought it up.

I'm not arguing that holding something to be true and it being true are the same... that has nothing to do with the statement "knowledge is a subset of belief" -- if anything, as much as I can tell, it directly agrees with it.

 

[22:22:22]

because i think blind belief in anything is laughable, and nothing to be proud of..

80% of Americans believe in a make belief sky daddy, but some of those 80% don't believe or have hard time accepting tangible evidence and scientific theories.. again nothing to be proud of

Yeah I was curious if you were being sarcastic or not. That's why I asked. Thanks for responding

 

[ItsGreat]

Well i consider myself a Christian who isnslowly returning to faith (cautiously to not overdo ut) so i'll try to answer the wuestions the best i can:

- You can't show the existence of God by requiring scientific proof, but we believe there is, or for some might be, a force (not a person) who (that?) that could create all what we see and feel, or at least orchestrated the creation of life everywhere, or at least on our rock in space
- All in the book of Genesis. God loves us, gave us paradise and by eating the Forbidden Fruit we chose to decide our fate. He doesn't hate us because of what we did (as he did lay a path to redemption for all of us), but we are responsible for all our actions. God did try to meddle and reset everything, but after sending Jesus he does not interfere with our way of mortal life.
- God is loving, but more like a fatherly love where he want you to overcome your weaknesses yourself.
- etc.

We do have a hard wired need for religion and belief. It sits deep in our periaqueductal gray. Scans of our brains have shown higher activity in people who claimed to be religious and the more religious, the more movement in it. Belief is as natural as feeling pain, fear, love and altruism - all in one place knowing that - can we call believers dumb?

Why does your God give innocent children bone cancer?

 

[FunkMiller]

80% of Americans believe in a make belief sky daddy, but some of those 80% don't believe or have hard time accepting tangible evidence and scientific theories.. again nothing to be proud of

This is largely because those scientific theories and tangible evidence are in direct contravention of the doctrine they have believed all their lives.

The people I truly feel the most sorry for are those who have been brought up in a strong religious context, but find themselves understandably questioning the contradictions, inaccuracies, prejudices, and just sheer strangeness of it all. I know a few who have lost their faith, and I'm well aware of the damage it can cause to relationships, friendships and lifestyle.

 

[FunkMiller]

Why does your God give innocent children bone cancer?

I stopped asking this a while back, because I never received a satisfactory answer. It's either 'god works in mysterious ways' or 'our suffering brings us closer to him' or 'we're meant to be tested' or some other trite aphorism that dodges the need to give a clear answer.

Which is either:

god is a fucking cunt and wants to see children suffer unimaginable pain.
god is not omnipotent or perfect, and can do nothing to stop it.
god does not exist.

Obviously the third answer is the truth.

This, and 'why should I believe in your god and not theirs?' are always the questions they can‘t, and never do, answer.

 

[MikeM]

God is just an object created to explain things that humans don’t understand.

This is a major reason why the US still fights over things that the rest of the world has already moved on from.

 

[MHubert]

This must be one of those rhetorical gotchas you learn from these amazing Christian science videos on Youtube.
Honestly, how do you want to have a discussion, when we can't even communicate on this most fundamental level?



Because you cannot even imagine otherwise. You cannot even think that something is true and not true at the same time.
It's simple really.

That is a universal constant and objective truth independent of your personal views.

No.. just, no. I'm not refusing the validity of the logic at all. It is an objectively true statement.
The point I'm trying to make is that you would have to believe that statement to be true to even be able to classify it as knowledge to begin with.
I have expressed many times throughout the thread that I am arguing from an epistemological perspective, but so far every response I have recieved are accusing me of conflating the belief part of a true belief with belief in a higher deity, despite me rejecting that notion in basically every one of my posts.

It started with me refuting mr. millers statement that holding evidence to be true is the absence of belief, which is laughably absurd. The way some people have reacted in this thread makes a good case for why proclaiming to be an atheist is more of a mark of shame than anything else - just because a few choose to act like that - like the term 'gamer'.

Guess so!

Knowledge is a subset of belief.

Exactly

 

[arkhamguy123]

I find it intellectually embarressing and honestly sad adult humans still think god is real in 2022. A lot of girlfriends friends and family are religious (we're atheist) and from the outside it is legit absurd on the level of like, if these people in their 20s unironically believed in santa and the easter bunny. And it's so obvious to those outside of the faith. It really just makes me sad.

 

[Blade2.0]

Every scientific breakthrough/technology/knowledge we have today started as a belief, we just needed some time to find proof. Us not being able to assess something doesn't mean it isn't there. We can go back and forth on these chicken/egg responses all day.

There is some logic and reality. All the religions we have today - all of them have very similar core tenants. Many of these religions were created independently across many civilizations yet they all turned out to be very similar. Christians believe in a god, aztecs believe in a god yet they're on opposite sides of the ocean with no communication. Is the belief in a higher power instilled in the human instinct? Why did both civilizations decide to have a construct of religion?

Heroic Stories from all over the world also share common traits and core tenants. That doesn't make them real.

 

[strange headache]

No.. just, no. I'm not refusing the validity of the logic at all. It is an objectively true statement.
The point I'm trying to make is that you would have to believe that statement to be true to even be able to classify it as knowledge to begin with.
I have expressed many times throughout the thread that I am arguing from an epistemological perspective, but so far every response I have recieved are accusing me of conflating the belief part of a true belief with belief in a higher deity, despite me rejecting that notion in basically every one of my posts.

What you are saying makes no f*cking sense.
If you consider logical statement "objectively true", then you don't need to "believe" in their validity.

I don't need to "believe" that the laws of logic are valid. They are more than true, they are necessary in the sense that we cannot even think otherwise. The same goes for mathematics.
And if you think those truths are merely founded in belief, then enlighten us and try to cast doubt upon them, instead of reacting like the triggered snowflake.

Epistemological truth is derived in a Kantian manner from the structures of our thinking. These apriori rules of thought are universal and must, by definition, always be true. Believing in the existence of god is not a necessary truth, contrary to scientific axioms.
So no, epistemological truth statements are not anchored in belief, otherwise they wouldn't be universally accepted.

Knowledge is, by definition, the opposite of belief and trying to willfully conflate both is mere sophistry to justify your dumb faith.

 

[Airbus Jr]

Gaming forum are usually atheist so im not surprised to see the contrast reaction here

America is a christian country look at the banner on stage on white house "in god we trust "preach if youre not willing to respect american value, felt insecure about it, your hearts filled with hatred because of it and not willing to acept that then its your own problem

 

[ahtlas7]

Where there is a creation there is, by cause, a creator.

 

[DeceptiveAlarm]

Through life experience I can't help but believe in something. What exactly that force is I can't say. I don't buy into organized religion though.

 

[TheDreadBaron]

Gaming forum are usually atheist so im not surprised to see the contrast reaction here

America is a christian country look at the banner on stage on white house "in god we trust "preach if youre not willing to respect american value, felt insecure about it, your hearts filled with hatred because of it and not willing to acept that then its your own problem

The United States certainly has a history intertwined with various christian sects such as catholics, all kinds of protestants, southern baptists etc. But is it fair to say that it’s a christian country when there is an explicit separation of church and state? The bible has influenced laws in deeply christian communities, but at most you could say there’s a deep rooted christian culture in the country, and it’s explicitly a secular state. It’s not disrespectful or hateful to point this out.

From my perspective the ideal American values include christian values, as well as muslim values, jewish values, buddhist values, secular values, and whatever else you can think of, and there is room for all of these because America should value diversity of thought and belief, even when these values conflict with each other they can still coexist. That’s not my idea, that’s the basis of freedom of expression. Asserting that america is a “christian” country with christian values doesn’t leave room for any of that, and it’s also not true.

It honestly sounds like you’re insecure about your worldview that america is a christian country eroding away. People can be as christian as they want here, they just can’t force their christian values on other americans because that would be unamerican.

 

[It's all in the wrist]

Where there is a creation there is, by cause, a creator.

I really want to reply to this comment, but I don't know where to begin.

 

[Chaplain]

From my perspective the ideal American values include christian values, as well as muslim values, jewish values, buddhist values, secular values, and whatever else you can think of, and there is room for all of these because America should value diversity of thought and belief, even when these values conflict with each other they can still coexist. That’s not my idea, that’s the basis of freedom of expression. Asserting that america is a “christian” country with christian values doesn’t leave room for any of that, and it’s also not true.

Actually, the Western world (not just America) owes much to the Judeo-Christian worldview.

"The Greek world was fundamentally an aristocratic world, a universe organized as a hierarchy in which those most endowed by nature should in principle be “at the top,” while the less endowed saw themselves occupying inferior ranks. And we should not forget that the Greek city-state was founded on slavery. In direct contradiction, Christianity was to introduce the notion that humanity was fundamentally identically, that men were equal in dignity—an unprecedented idea at the time, and one to which our world owes its entire democratic inheritance." (Atheist philosopher Luc Ferry)

“The modern age, more or less repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for moral right and wrong as well. Thus, even educated persons sometimes declare that such things as war, or abortion, or the violation of certain human rights, are ‘morally wrong,’ and they imagine that they have said something true and significant...questions such as these have never been answered outside of religion...[Therefore], contemporary writers in ethics, who blithely discourse upon moral right and wrong and moral obligation without any reference to religion, are really just weaving intellectual webs from thin air; which amounts to saying that they discourse without meaning.” (Atheist Ethicist Richard Taylor)

“For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we must draw sustenance now, as in the past, from this substance. Everything else is idle postmodern talk.” (Atheist philosopher Jürgen Habermas)

“Humanism is not science, but religion - the post-Christian faith that humans can make a world better than any in which they have so far lived. In pre-Christian Europe is was taken for granted that the future would be like the past. Knowledge and invention might advance, but ethics would remain much the same. History was a series of cycles, with no overall meaning. Against this pagan view, Christians understood history as a story of sin and redemption. Humanism is the transformation of this Christian doctrine of salvation into a project of universal human emancipation. The idea of progress is a secular version of the Christian belief in providence. That is why among the ancient pagans it was unknown.” (Atheist Professor John Gray, former professor of European Thought at the London School for Economics)

"Science cannot underwrite any political project, classical liberal or otherwise, because science cannot dictate human values...As Nietzsche never tired of pointing out, the ideal of equality is an inheritance from Judaism and Christianity." (Atheist political philosopher John Gray)

"This influence flows from the teachings moral duty of Christ that ultimately inspired 17th-century European intellectuals to provide the moral foundation for the political philosophy of liberalism. These thinkers based their views on the “natural” rights bestowed by a Christian God. Contemporary views on the need for the rule of law, democracy and human rights are mainly a secular reconstruction of these older views. Consider the writings of John Locke, who argued that, because God created us all equal, we each enjoy the right to our own personhoods and that only through democracy – the consent of the governed – can this right be protected. Locke and other Christian thinkers promoted a revolutionary political doctrine: It is the moral duty of every Christian to rebel against any ruler who would deny these God-given rights. Modern atheists and others ultimately benefited from liberalism and the freedoms afforded them by a secular humanist society, including the right to observe (or not) any religious practices they wish. This holiday season I will rejoice in the birth of an iconic figure – not just because of the beauty and joy he brings to my Christian neighbours, but because of the sense of fairness and decency he brings to our world." (Law Scholar Arthur Cockfield)

 

[TheDreadBaron]

I really want to reply to this comment, but I don't know where to begin.

Children know how to defeat this argument, they just ask who created the creator? Instant KO.

 

[Rentahamster]

Where there is a creation there is, by cause, a creator.

We can't prove that's true in all circumstances, and even if it were, that doesn't mean this cause can be concretely identified as God.

 

[TheDreadBaron]

Actually, the Western world (not just America) owes much to the Judeo-Christian worldview.

Oh I’ve heard, Judeo-Christian foundations yada yada. That’s nice that the modern Judeo-“Christian” (aka voltron of every previously mutually exclusive christian sect banded together to appear more relevant and significant) folks want to take credit for the success of american secular democracy. The bill of rights is the revolutionary idea, and it doesn’t come from the bible, you can still keep the burning bush though.

 

[ahtlas7]

I really want to reply to this comment, but I don't know where to begin.

Interesting

 

[Rentahamster]

Actually, the Western world (not just America) owes much to the Judeo-Christian worldview.

"The Greek world was fundamentally an aristocratic world, a universe organized as a hierarchy in which those most endowed by nature should in principle be “at the top,” while the less endowed saw themselves occupying inferior ranks. And we should not forget that the Greek city-state was founded on slavery. In direct contradiction, Christianity was to introduce the notion that humanity was fundamentally identically, that men were equal in dignity—an unprecedented idea at the time, and one to which our world owes its entire democratic inheritance." (Atheist philosopher Luc Ferry)

We should also not forget that America was also founded on slavery. Which is condoned in the Bible. And women couldn't vote either. Women being subordinate to men is also in the Bible. We had those Judeo-Christian values in the bag.

 

[FullMetalx117]

Oh I’ve heard, Judeo-Christian foundations yada yada. That’s nice that the modern Judeo-“Christian” (aka voltron of every previously mutually exclusive christian sect banded together to appear more relevant and significant) folks want to take credit for the success of american secular democracy. The bill of rights is the revolutionary idea, and it doesn’t come from the bible, you can still keep the burning bush though.

The writers of the bill of rights were all religious/had a religious foundation. You can argue there may not be a direct relationship, but religion, just the idea of equality, had to snowball up to something like the bill of rights getting created and then iterate from there. Religion contributed to progress in the world, it was unifying tool for a population to work together and expand. Science/technology was basically funded by religious organizations for a period of time.

There are examples of countries that took the non religious path too…those resulted in communism, an example is North Korea/China.

And then you have all the history pre Abrahamic religions. It’s interesting that all the golden eras that a region experienced happened to follow expansion of religion.

 

[Rentahamster]

The writers of the bill of rights were all religious/had a religious foundation. You can argue there may not be a direct relationship, but religion, just the idea of equality, had to snowball up to something like the bill of rights getting created and then iterate from there. Religion contributed to progress in the world, it was unifying tool for a population to work together and expand. Science/technology was basically funded by religious organizations for a period of time.

There are examples of countries that took the non religious path too…those resulted in communism, an example is North Korea/China.

And then you have all the history pre Abrahamic religions. It’s interesting that all the golden eras that a region experienced happened to follow expansion of religion.

Cherry picking history.

 

[kurisu_1974]

There are examples of countries that took the non religious path too…those resulted in communism, an example is North Korea/China.

Don't forget those other atheist distopias like Denmark, Netherlands, France. Also China etc. were not atheist, they were antitheist and effectively destroyed temples and persecuted monks. Their cult of personality surrounding their communist leaders tried to replace religion, with Maoism effectively elevating Mao to some godlike status.

And then you have all the history pre Abrahamic religions. It’s interesting that all the golden eras that a region experienced happened to follow expansion of religion.

If you ignore all the book burnings and persecutions maybe. I feel like progress happens during golden ages regardless of religion, maybe even in spite of rather than thanks to.

 

[Amiga]

Evidence makes a good case to believe in something, but it's not a prerequisite for it to be real. Besides, you would have to believe that the proof or evidence given to you is in fact real and not doctored or fabricated in any way, so it's pretty hard if not impossible to transcend the fundamentals of belief. It is a problem of epistemology more than it is a problem of fine tuning the scientific method.

Plenty of actual evidence, people are either just ignorant of the evidence, or confused because of many world religions, or reject the evidence out of a desire to justify denial.

 

[kurisu_1974]

Plenty of actual evidence, people are either just ignorant of the evidence, or confused because of many world religions, or reject the evidence out of a desire to justify denial.

OK I'll bite.

Post one piece of evidence.

 

[MHubert]

What you are saying makes no f*cking sense.
If you consider logical statement "objectively true", then you don't need to "believe" in their validity.

I don't need to "believe" that the laws of logic are valid. They are more than true, they are necessary in the sense that we cannot even think otherwise. The same goes for mathematics.
And if you think those truths are merely founded in belief, then enlighten us and try to cast doubt upon them, instead of reacting like the triggered snowflake.

Epistemological truth is derived in a Kantian manner from the structures of our thinking. These apriori rules of thought are universal and must, by definition, always be true. Believing in the existence of god is not a necessary truth, contrary to scientific axioms.
So no, epistemological truth statements are not anchored in belief, otherwise they wouldn't be universally accepted.

Knowledge is, by definition, the opposite of belief and trying to willfully conflate both is mere sophistry to justify your dumb faith.

EDIT: My first response was arguably a bit hostile. Let's just say that I don't see any point in continuing this discussion, if we cannot agree that belief is widely considered a core component in the theory of knowledge.

 

[Rentahamster]

Plenty of actual evidence, people are either just ignorant of the evidence, or confused because of many world religions, or reject the evidence out of a desire to justify denial.

You have plenty of actual evidence for the existence of God? Like what? Is it strong, conclusive evidence?

 

[lukilladog]

My body is ready.


...but of course it will be some story that we cannot verify, or some argument with fallacious logic or at least one bogus premise in it. (Most likely )

 

[Amiga]

OK I'll bite.

Post one piece of evidence.

Evolution

 

[strange headache]

Evolution

You religious types ridiculed Darwin for hundreds of years because the theory of evolution undermined your dogmatic belief system. Since you couldn't prevent the theory from spreading, you're now twisting it into some kind of evidence for the existence of your god?
FFS and you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

 

[Amiga]

You religious types ridiculed Darwin for hundreds of years because the theory of evolution undermined your dogmatic belief system. Since you couldn't prevent the theory from spreading, you're now twisting it into some kind of evidence for the existence of your god?
FFS and you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

Darwin believed in God

 

[NecrosaroIII]

I'm an atheist, I suppose. But lately I've come to understand that there is a need for an appreciation of the Mysterious. We are limited by our perceptions of the natural world. And in that way, we cannot perceive the objective truth of things. So I'm that regard, the world I live in is not the same as the one others live in. Our biology, emotions, preconceptions all create biases in interpreting what we see.

If we peer behind the vail of our perceptions, there is a world beyond our imagination