It seems you still don't quite understand what the term 'burden of proof' actually mean
yes you are right i did not know what it means exactly.
don't really see why one would devote their lives to disproving God
a lot of atheists did(eg. Feuerbach)
the point is, that you cannot be on the safe side if you negate an existenxe of god(what atheists do, as long as you have not disproven him). as theists are not on the safe side, because their believes can be proven wrong and therefore there would not be any cause to believe. the only ones on the safe side are agnostics.
I wouldn't say he devoted his life to disproving God, rather he believed that it was in man's nature to believe in the supernatural.
the point is, that you cannot be on the safe side if you negate an existenxe of god(what atheists do, as long as you have not disproven him). as theists are not on the safe side, because their believes can be proven wrong and therefore there would not be any cause to believe. the only ones on the safe side are agnostics.
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. Agnosticism is not a 'belief' per se, so much as a logical standpoint. You can be agnostic atheist or agnostic theist.
As for the 'safe side' argument I don't really think it holds. I mean as a theist you limit the choices you could potentially make by sibscribing to a certain code of conduct, as well as time and effort into belief. If there is no God, it all goes to waste. Atheists on the other hand sacrifice nothing and really have nothing to worry about, unless God is somehow proven to exist.
Atheists on the other hand sacrifice nothing and really have nothing to worry about,
y sibscribing to a certain code of conduct, as well as time and effort into belief
believing is not actually an effort. it mostly just happens. youre code of conduct is mostly pretty simple and equal to all religions. do good and do not evil. and most of the rules are pretty logical even for atheists. so theists and atheists just take their code of conduct from another source.
why do atheists do not have to worry?? only because god is not proven it doesnt make him less/more true/untrue. so if god happens to exists it could have pretty grave consequences. depends on which religion god is.
why do atheists do not have to worry?? only because god is not proven it doesnt make him less/more true/untrue. so if god happens to exists it could have pretty grave consequences. depends on which religion god is.
That's only true if you assume that the chances of God existing to not existing are 50-50, which is one of the biggets flaws with Pascal's Wager.
believing is not actually an effort. it mostly just happens. youre code of conduct is mostly pretty simple and equal to all religions. do good and do not evil. and most of the rules are pretty logical even for atheists. so theists and atheists just take their code of conduct from another source.
The point being that, although belief is not an effort per se, the choices you make are influcned by your beliefs and could limit decisions you make.
That's only true if you assume that the chances of God existing to not existing are 50-50, which is one of the biggets flaws with Pascal's Wager.
calculating chances in this topic makes no sense, because of the lack of evidence for either side.
The point being that, although belief is not an effort per se, the choices you make are influcned by your beliefs and could limit decisions you make
assuming that, all moral codes you can have limit youre decision making. and because i believe that every human being has a vision of moral behaivior we are all limited in our decisions, to what we think is right or wrong. hence religion does not limit you more than logic or any other foundation of moral laws.
calculating chances in this topic makes no sense, because of the lack of evidence for either side.
Although it would be impossible to come up with an exact percentage figure, the fact that there has been absolutely no sign of a God means the scales tip in the favour of non-existence.
assuming that, all moral codes you can have limit youre decision making. and because i believe that every human being has a vision of moral behaivior we are all limited in our decisions, to what we think is right or wrong. hence religion does not limit you more than logic or any other foundation of moral laws.
Yes all moral codes can limit your behaviour, but that's assuming that all people live by a moral code, which I would say is untrue.
Yes all moral codes can limit your behaviour, but that's assuming that all people live by a moral code, which I would say is untrue.
you do assume that all religous/ beliving persons do live by a moral code. which is also untrue. i still think that every human beliefs in right or wrong. even if you break the rules on purpose you know you did it wrong and this is also a limit.
Although it would be impossible to come up with an exact percentage figure, the fact that there has been absolutely no sign of a God means the scales tip in the favour of non-existence.
you do assume that all religous/ beliving persons do live by a moral code. which is also untrue.
Even if you are someone that believes in a God, but does not follow all it's commandments and rules, you would still likely look to your God for guidance through prayer.
i still think that every human beliefs in right or wrong. even if you break the rules on purpose you know you did it wrong and this is also a limit.
Right and wrong are so subjective though? Who has the mandate to define it? Go to some parts of the world and killing fellow villagers for personal gain is encouraged.
I beg to differ Firefly1V when you said "the fact that there has been absolutely no sign of a God"
How has there been no sign of a god. Lets say were talking about Christian God Jesus Christ is a sign, The bible is a sign, miracles is a sign and those are factual actual events or things. (Of course people would argue that point)
Jesus Christ is the biggest example. Like when he ressurected a dead guy.
Right and wrong are so subjective though? Who has the mandate to define it? Go to some parts of the world and killing fellow villagers for personal gain is encouraged
it is subjective. but if you try to live up to your own moral standards your decision is limited. and if you do not, i think you would not feel so happy, if you know you failed your own standards.
Even if you are someone that believes in a God, but does not follow all it's commandments and rules, you would still likely look to your God for guidance through prayer.
would you not look for some guidance in principles you believe in if you did fail youre own expectations of being good?
How has there been no sign of a god. Lets say were talking about Christian God Jesus Christ is a sign, The bible is a sign, miracles is a sign and those are factual actual events or things. (Of course people would argue that point)
I am talking about what would be classified as scientific evidence. Even if we take the existence of Jesus Christ as 100% true, it still wouldn't prove that he is the son of God.
it is subjective. but if you try to live up to your own moral standards your decision is limited. and if you do not, i think you would not feel so happy, if you know you failed your own standards.
That's the thing though. You wouldn't give a crap, because you would have no standards to live up to.
would you not look for some guidance in principles you believe in if you did fail youre own expectations of being good?
I think it does depend on the individual, but personally, I would not look for guidance. I think people should define their own morals. If they need to look for guidance, perhaps it is their moral system that needs re-adjusting, not their behaviour.
I think it does depend on the individual, but personally, I would not look for guidance. I think people should define their own morals. If they need to look for guidance, perhaps it is their moral system that needs re-adjusting, not their behaviour.
how do you find youre moral standards? grab them out of the air. or do you follow some authorities you belief they provide values to you? everyone has values and you have to get them somewhere. you are not born with them, and i suppose you didnt make them up all by yourself.
That's the thing though. You wouldn't give a crap, because you would have no standards to live up to.
i hope and believe that people who do not give a crap about any consequences of their actions and whether it is good or bad are an absolute minority. and even though good and bad are subjective, like 90% of all moral values are similar to people of all beliefs.
how do you find youre moral standards? grab them out of the air. or do you follow some authorities you belief they provide values to you? everyone has values and you have to get them somewhere. you are not born with them, and i suppose you didnt make them up all by yourself.
No you aren't born with them, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are imposed on you. I like to think I take a little bit from many different schools of thought with regards to my own morals. I'm quite a liberal guy, and the personal freedom aspect of the ideology really does appeal to me, so I don't see my choices as particularly limited.
i hope and believe that people who do not give a crap about any consequences of their actions and whether it is good or bad are an absolute minority. and even though good and bad are subjective, like 90% of all moral values are similar to people of all beliefs.
We are all human, so we are bound to display similar patterns of behaviour. All that it means is that behaviour is culture specific, not that these beliefs are necessarily similar.
No you aren't born with them, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are imposed on you. I like to think I take a little bit from many different schools of thought with regards to my own morals. I'm quite a liberal guy, and the personal freedom aspect of the ideology really does appeal to me, so I don't see my choices as particularly limited.
yes but having your moral standard existing right know, you could always decide between right or wrong.(i exclude prisoner dilemma or ethical problems like would you rather kill xxx to save yyy and similar). so if you behave in a way, you would probably chose what you believe is right. therefore you are limited there.
the source of youre standards is just different than to a religous guy. the fact that you have moral standards is true to all humans.
We are all human, so we are bound to display similar patterns of behaviour. All that it means is that behaviour is culture specific, not that these beliefs are necessarily similar.
it also shows that in a society right or wrong is not so subjective. otherwise people would not accept these values
it also shows that in a society right or wrong is not so subjective. otherwise people would not accept these values
I'm of the opinion that the values of societies have gone way too far and have essentially become a tyranny of the majority. Take the issue of marijuana for example. This is an incredibly mild psychosis drug, but due to social stigmas, it remains illegal, not for any practical reasons. If it is so dangerous, why are tobacco and alcohol so readily available? My overall point being that cultures have an influence, and that right and wrong really is that subjective. Society's laws do not necessarily equate to morality.
the source of youre standards is just different than to a religous guy. the fact that you have moral standards is true to all humans.
I'd go along with that, but I'd also add that a theist's moral standards are likely to be more restrictive on his choices than mine.
