Burden of Proof

Are you saying that Jupiter, Aphrodite, Osis, Krishna, & Yahaweh are the same entity? Or that the Jewish and Christian God are the same- I'm not debating that point. Also, Allah is the same as Yahaweh.

Please put up the link b/c the arguements may be convincing to the average person, but would they hold up to scientific scrutiny? No. If you don't just believe, perhaps that is b/c you don't understand it? I don't expect people to believe something they do not understand, but then it is their responsibility to educate themselves. But if you don't believe something b/c you don't understand it, then why...

Why do you keep avoiding my questions about why you believe there is a God? I'm not asking for a mountain of physical evidence, but your thoughts.

Peace and love

 

What do you all think about the possibility of life on other planets or whether or not the Big Bang was a one-time event? Or more to the point, are these matters we even should be thinking about? What if somebody said in a superior tone: "There is no life on other planets and the Big Bang was a one-time event, because you can't prove otherwise." Or "It's silly to speculate about such matters, because we can't know for sure one way or another." I guess my point is that the quest for what William James called "something more" is a matter of temperament.

 

This is different, though. I would say that I am confident that there is life on other planets, for the same reason Carl Sagan gave: Sheer odds.

I believe (as in I think I remember this right, not as in I have faith) that it has been calculated that the galaxies in this universe are moving away from each other quickly enough that the gravitational forces between them are not enough to slow them and stop them (at which point they would accelerate towards each other). This means that the galaxies will travel apart forever. If you were immortal and stayed in one motionless spot in space, you would see the stars and planets and galaxies go beyond the horizon of your vision. One by one, they would get so far away that you could not see their light. Eventually, you would just be surrounded by blackness. It has been speculated (this might all be Sagan, too) that once the universe loses enough density, matter, particles, and atoms themselves will separate into a loose mist of uniform matter and energy.

IF that is to be the case, indeed, who is to say what happens next? Perhaps the universe itself will collapse. Perhaps the composition of such a mist would allow the universe to eventually contract again and undergo another big bang. It certainly is interesting to think about, though.

 

But we don't know. The Sagan estimate on life is based on the statistical probabilities of planets with environments capable of sustaining life, but no one knows for sure or even with a high probability how life originated on earth or any other planet. As for the Big Bang, we also don't know how it originated, but cosmologists aren't shy about speculating. Steinardt and Turok think the universe undergoes an endless series of cosmic epochs, each beginning with a Bang and ending with a Crunch. Theoretically, that's a falsifiable proposition, but as a practical matter is it likely we or our grandchildren will ever know? Then there's Superstring--the theoretical concept unifying relativity and quantum theory--positing a set of vibrating filaments in 10 or so dimensions which is the source of matter, energy, space and time. My point being that all of these theories are appealing to naturalists, but for all practical purposes are empirically untestable and unrefutable. But I've never heard anyone say: "these things don't exist, because you can't prove it, ha,ha, ha, and what a dumbass you are for believing it."

 

no assertion, no burden. make one, and that's where it comes from. echo one from a book or a priest or a carved stone, same thing.

i don't assert there has to not be anything. i don't assert there has to be anything.

i will assert that the unknown is unknown. being what is called an identity, in conceptual mathilogical (whatever you call it) terms, this, requires, as far as i can see, no burden of anything because it is more or less self revealing.

now with nothing being ruled out or in, i am thus equiped to accept as being the case, whatever the case may turn out to be, which pretending to know anything else, would deny me of.

=^^=
.../\...

 

a

 

sorry my internet was down for like a couple weeks.

i dont know hippie your asking me something that i can't explain to you. I've been spiritual ever sense i can remember. This definatly did not come from my parents, and there is no one else that i could think of that would have influenced me. I've always thought about things a lot and these are just the conclusions i've come up with.

 

The discussion came up because obviously the poster had run into the issue before and felt frustrated in dealing with it. I think the discussion has been of reasonably high quality, and I don't see much evidence of bickering. Burden of proof is a trickey issue, and I'd like to hear how believers and atheists deal with it.

 

Originally Posted by hippie_chick666
Are you saying that Jupiter, Aphrodite, Osis, Krishna, & Yahaweh are the same entity? Or that the Jewish and Christian God are the same- I'm not debating that point. Also, Allah is the same as Yahaweh."

i cannot speak for jupiter and aphrodite, or members of other polytheisitic panthions, these express aspects of a god rather then the whole of a unified diety, though a unified diety could conceivably be the voice of some unimaginable committee.

but yes, the rest of those names, not just according to me, but to what i read in the writings of baha'u'llah, are all names of the same diety that chose all of those revealers of all of those organized beliefs to reveal them to us.

certainly there is no difference between christian rejection of mohammid, jewish rejection of christ or islamic rejection of the faith of baha'u'llah.

what is somewhat less certain is that we really need any of these (names or even named beliefs) to love and relate to the deep inhierent connection we all have beyond the veil of the seen and the unseen.

after all, it also chose the buddha, whome it chose to not have name it at all.

=^^=
.../\...

 

What about culture? Nearly every aspect of humanity is influenced by culture.

There are psychological consequences of living within a cultured society. That's basically what I attribute most "faith" to, because most people are socialized to "believe" from a very young age until death.

 

well.
this is america.
i didn't realize that we were a very religious society?

 

Western culture, like any other, is quite spiritual by nature, yeah. It's all around you; if you're looking for signs of socialized spirituality you'll find it for sure.

Even things you don't think are a big deal really do matter. Holidays, popular opinions, popular loaded terms (words with extra connotative meanings), prevalent philosophies (even when shown through action, or lack thereof), etc... it's all reflected back on the individual interacting within the society.

What I'm trying to say is that people are often socialized to feel the need to be spiritual or find greater meaning in the otherwise mundane. That doesnt mean it's bad, but this is the truth. And in our particular culture, the dominant paradigm just so happens to be a duality between a single omnipotent "god" and an "anti-god" figure.

Just like how girls are socialized to play with dolls and talk more about feelings, and boys are socialized to be extra competitive, both girls and boys are socialized to find greater meaning. I just think that sometimes it comes from the wrong places, and people often do not look deeply enough for the answers.

 

Yeah. The United States, believe it or not, is the most religious industrial democracy in the world--far more than western Europe or Japan. Churches are thriving here and more are springing up like mushrooms, while the opposite is happening in the other industrial democracies. The United States has been undergoing a religious revival since the 1980s. It's in the news all the time. In particular, the rise of the religious right is a phenomenon of the past thirty years. And our Prez has certainly made no secret of his devotion to Jesus and God's hand in his decisions (God should sue for defamation). So yes, I'd say there are some cultural cues out there.

 

i would disagree with that.
how many truely religious people do you see day to day?

 

It depends on what your definition of "religious" is. Does that mean people who devoutly go to church every week? What makes a person "religious?"

Peace and love

 

Find a poll. Then find a poll of the same question for other countries. Relative to other countries, the US is quite religious.

In fact, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

2nd paragraph.

 

Really, it doesn't matter how many "religious people" you see on a day-to-day basis. Okay?

Thought processes behind religion are so ingrained in our culture, it's unavoidable. Everyone is succeptable to the fad of believing in a greater power, whether they accept more specific norms like going to church or not.

 

Hardly a fad. It's been going on for over five millenia.

 

people who practice what they preach.

i think you know what i mean.

 

No, I really didn't know what you meant. I would define a religious person as someone who follows dogmatic beliefs w/o question. If I answered your question w/o first understanding what your definition is, we would be talking about two different things. Your definition is not the same as mine and I disagree that someone who "practices what they preach" makes them religious. There are many, many people who would define themselves as "religious" b/c they have a belief system they follow, although they may not accept everything they are taught w/o questioning. Hence, a third definition of "religious."

From your definition, a non-religious person would not practice what they preach. I would say they are hypocrites, but they might say they are still religious based on the third definition. There is a sense in Christianity that imperfections are overlooked as long as you accept Jesus and God. From this attitude, a Christian can justify hating homosexuals b/c homosexuality is a sin and God hates sins, even though Jesus said to love each other. Plus, Jesus stopped a crowd from stoning an adulteress, saying that only the perfect could throw the first stone. But yet, that Christian still might espouse that they are religious even w/ this contrast. You would call them non-religious and I would say they are hypocrites. This is why we need to know what other people mean b/c talking about two different things is rather pointless anyways.

Peace and love