Yes, evidence can most certainly lead to physical proof (truth) but it is not the standard for ALL truth. Just because man has not discovered the evidence of a truth does mean the truth doesn't exist. It just means that some men won't believe until they SEE the evidence in a physical sense.
Then what is the standard for non-physical truth? Feelings?
Me too, but I don't stop there. Because what may not "make sense" today, could very well make a lot of sense down the road. It is better to realize that our brains are LIMITED and unable to "make sense" of all truth. In light of ALL truth, humans are yet VERY ignorant.
So is it not better to hold off on believing something until you
can make sense of it?
I just watched this in it's entirety. I loved it. I felt bad for Richard though. It was as if he was talking to a wall. The woman is clearly a victim of religion. I know of MANY folks like her. They mean well, but they suffer from years of indoctrination, causing them to be somewhat delusional.
I could listen to Richard all day.
Did he seem bitter or hateful during that interview?
You are right. I should have worded that differently. Religion is not what makes anyone peaceful. It is merely a path which aids in SOME people's pursuit to peace. Likewise it can makes one's preexisting pride worse.
It sounds to me like you believe religion can be both destructive
and enlightening, so why do you hate it?
Yes, I agree. One cannot be bitter at something they GENUINELY do not believe exists. Therefore, if they display bitterness, I question whether their beliefs are genuine.
Why not instead consider the possibility that they're bitter at society, or at those who are asking them the same questions over and over, like Wendy Wright, without bothering to listen to the responses? Dealing with indoctrination can itself be maddening, so does it honestly surprise you that Dawkins can sometimes seem aggressive? Not only that, but he himself has admitted this and delivered a rather humorous response in this brief video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik I think it's unfair to suggest that because Richard can be short with people, the genuineness of his beliefs should be brought into question. A man who has literally spent his entire life dedicated to science, and has never once said or done anything to even remotely indicate any significant doubt. Once again, the more plausible hypothesis is that he comes off as bitter at times because he constantly has to deal with a lot of aggression and ignorance himself (he's even done videos where he reads some of the thousands of hate mail letters he receives daily), and unlike some of the religious people he debates, he doesn't have billions of people to back him up.
You asked, I answered. I was not judging him, I was offering my REASONS for saying what I said. I never said that his bitterness, if indeed he is bitter, is anything WRONG, as if judging him. It is perfectly normal to feel bitterness toward someone or something that caused harm to your mind.
That's just it though, there's no evidence that it
has caused harm to Dawkins's mind, just look at the way he speaks. Between him and Wendy Wright, to whom do you think religion has caused harm? A woman who can't accept evidence even when it's right in front of her, and who repeats herself with a frozen smile, or someone like Dawkins who can reason, speak coherently and accept other perspectives while politely explaining why they are wrong? Luckily Dawkins got out
before any damage was done and became an atheist in his mid teens, so there's no reason to suspect that he hates religion for what it has done to him personally, it's more likely that he has a disdain for religion because of what it's done to other people. And as far as spirituality is concerned I don't think he has a disdain for that
at all, he doesn't believe in it because there's no logical reason to, but ultimately I think his biggest issues lie with religion due to its global impact. Spirituality, though unfounded and silly, doesn't encourage people to murder one another.
Another assumption on your part. Are you reading MY posts, or just injecting YOUR ideas into what I actually write? Where did I state as a fact that I was an atheist at any time in my life? Don't assume that just because some of your posts are in line with a mindset that I had, that this means I was an atheist. It had more to do with HOW you question and WHAT types of questions you ask, or, how you reason things out. It was actually a compliment.
Fair enough, if you were never an atheist then I apologize for the incorrect assumption, but I still consider it a step backwards to question and ask for evidence and then resign yourself to belief
without evidence. Especially when everything you do is limited to the physical anyway, so everything you feel and everything you say and everything you think is based in the physical world - a product of brain functioning, as indicated by brain scans. So you have no choice but to either request physical evidence for this realm that's been proposed to exist, or resign yourself to accepting
nothing at all to support it, because feelings and emotional experiences are based in the physical as well.
Do you believe that you have ANY knowledge about ANYTHING that I do not?
Evidently yes, if we're going by your scientific questions, but I can prove this. Can you prove you have "knowledge" of a spiritual realm I do not? By
any means? No you cannot, as we've established, so it's arrogant to claim you have "knowledge" that I do not, without backing it up.
Of course you are limited, per your own admission.
We are
all limited, including you. This is precisely why you
don't have knowledge of a spiritual realm, you've had emotional experiences that you label as knowledge and anyone else who doesn't believe you is ignorant for expecting physical evidence of a world that is not physical.
Anyone can say this, I could make up a spiritual realm right now and say I had knowledge of it, and you didn't, and I couldn't prove it because it conveniently falls outside the realm of the physical. It's special pleading; a logical fallacy.
You reject the possibility of anything that cannot be proven with current science (evidenced by the use of derogatory names and labels), therefore you are automatically limited to having any knowledge about something that is, or may be true, yet not provable with physical science.
I don't reject the possibility, I reject the plausibility. I've said this multiple times now. In order to believe in something, it doesn't just have to be possible, it has to be
plausible, and that's where the idea of a spiritual realm breaks down. Because one cannot provide any evidence whatsoever (scientific or otherwise) for its existence, there's no cogent reason to consider it plausible. It exists only within your mind.
I cannot explain this in any provable way. All I can say is that when you find yourself you will KNOW what I am talking about. You will KNOW that your REAL self is NOT your flesh and blood.
I didn't ask you to explain it in any provable way, I simply asked you to explain it. I already know you can't prove it, what I'm looking for is simply an explanation of exactly how I'm supposed to "find" myself, and how I will "know" when I have. I keep telling you that "You'll know" is a non-answer, and you're just not reading.
Note: I never intended to "prove" this, nor do I care if one never "believes" it. If you want to keep on believing that love, for example, is a mere emotion that evolved out of thin air, that is your choice.
What I "want" is irrelevant, I believe love is an emotion because that's what the evidence suggests. That's another problem with spiritual people, it's always about what you
want to believe, and never about what is likely to be true. This is why early in the discussion you started asking me random questions about life's purpose and so forth and why anyone would bring children into a hate-ridden world - to you it's not about a pursuit of truth, it's about what makes you feel better (and you assume it's the same for others, like me). Spirituality is a self-absorbed, self-involved concept. I have no interest in believing in something extraordinary purely because it gives me happy thoughts, I'm interested in truth or probable truth. Though you will not admit it to me or to yourself, you are not.
This is why you are unlikely to find the truth. You have already convinced yourself that you are all-knowing with such a profound statement of surety. You are not even open-minded enough to accept the POSSIBILITY that some things DO have everlasting value. Therefore, you have limited yourself from learning beyond what you think you know.
When did I say anything about being all-knowing? I not only labeled myself an agnostic atheist but I've also stated several times now that I do not consider anything extraordinary to be impossible, you seem to have difficulty accepting this because you're probably accustomed to the misconception that all atheists are gnostic. When I say "nothing is everlasting" I do not say this as a certainty, I say this as a statement of plausibility. History has taught us that nothing is everlasting, everything dies, scientific calculations have also suggested that everything
will die. Infantile fantasies about everlasting love and light belong in 80's romantic comedies, not in reality. In reality, whether we like it or not, everything points to the inevitable likelihood that sooner or later, one way or another, an end will come. This can be bleak if you choose to look at it that way, but personally I find it rather comforting.
Sure. Stop assuming that EVERYTHING must be "proven" with "science" and start realizing the ignorance of the human race (including the geniuses). Be more open-minded to things which you have prematurely deemed fictional or impossible.
I did
not deem them impossible, please stop putting words in my mouth. Nor have I deemed anything fictional prematurely - I've actually researched these things. I didn't simply wake up one day, hear about spirituality and immediately dismiss it off the bat, I actually took the time to
try to "find" myself, with meditation and so forth. I'm a former theist, a former believer in ghosts, the supernatural, you name it. All those myths I listed earlier I listed because at some point in the past I was partial to believing in them myself, until I learned how to be reasonable and logical. Once I began furthering my education and intelligence of science, the natural world, religious studies etc. I realized just how much we know, and just how unsupported those previous myths were. Now you're the one making assumptions, I do not hold to my lack of belief due to lack of open mindedness, I hold to it
because of open mindedness.
And realize that just because you cannot currently understand something, doesn't make it false.
I didn't say this either, many of the things we're discussing science
does understand, that's why I provided you with evidence of the brain's complete symbiosis with consciousness and emotion. If we had no evidence at all of this, and virtually no framework to even begin to make a decision, I would be agreeing with you. I would be saying "Well we don't have any proof either way, we know nothing about the brain and we know nothing about death, so I can't make a judgement given our profound ignorance of the topic", but the fact is this is not true. We've studied death and we've studied the brain for centuries and we
have convincing evidence that the brain controls emotional experiences, that love is one of those emotional experiences, and that without the brain consciousness would not exist.
So the choice becomes a no-brainer (pun intended), since one side (science) has evidence and the other (spirituality) has nothing but non-answers, and in your case directions to turn away from something which has proven itself reliable, and life-saving.
This is what I dislike about e-dialogues. I was NOT directing that at YOU. I was simply considering that maybe we would BOTH be better off to stick to fewer questions at once. And I said this because I have been guilty MYSELF of writing lengthy posts which others have rightly criticized me of.
But if you don't mind, I don't mind. Sorry for not being clear on this.
I have no problem with lengthy posts, I myself am an extremely fast typist and I've had debates where I've even had to split posts up into two and three parts to cover all the questions and topics, I find it stimulating to juggle more than a few concepts, it's good practice for multi-tasking. So feel free to post replies as lengthy as you like, as long as you actually read what I type and respond to my questions (as I have with yours) instead of ignoring them. Like I said, there's no time limit, so take as long as you like.
"Well we're safe for now, thank goodness we're in a bowling alley."
reply
share