It is unethical to believe without evidence:

5236004 You mean that one philosopher says that it's unethical, ignoring the fact that other philosophers disagree. Also, I would like to point out a major difference between religious belief and those others mentioned. While those others have large amounts of evidence against them, I have yet to hear any argument that gives evidence against the existence of God that cannot be countered. While there is no sufficient proof for, there is also no sufficient proof against.

5236219

Yes, we have no significant evidence against the toothfairy, so we should believe. It might be a good idea to believe things only for which we have evidence. That is why I founded the Skeptics' Guide to Equestria.

5236320 No significant evidence other than the fact that I found my tooth on the counter the next day because my parents had forgotten to throw it out. Or the far more obvious and blunt evidence of my patents telling me outright that they were the ones doing it all along. Yeah, no significant evidence there. The Tooth Fairy is totally a good comparison.

5236360

Clifford is right; it is a dangerous idea to believe without evidence. You could make the momentous decision of James and join the Church of Jim Jones and drink the FlavorAid, if you prefer.

5236219

I have yet to hear any argument that gives evidence against the existence of God that cannot be countered.

Counter this.

5236399 Well, I watched the first 10 minutes, and I'm unimpressed. His main point for people to not believe is the lack of evidence, which is only a viable condemnation if Clifford is right. Other than that, I've heard only a few actual pieces of supposed evidence against God, and they all have more to do with supposed contradictions that, yes, are able to be explained.

1) "Thou shalt have no other gods before me. And yet, Jesus." This is a relatively simple one with two answers. First, you believe in the Trinity, where God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are simply three different manifestations of the same being. Second, you believe that they are separate and distinct beings and that we worship God the Father while revering Jesus Christ as our Savior, but not as our God. Thus, He is not before God. Either belief counters this point.

2) "Adam and Eve were perfect, but they made an imperfect decision and were punished for learning right from wrong even though that's what God wanted all along." Adam and Eve were not perfect. They were human and innocent. Their state was like that of a child, not knowing good from evil. However, as I'm sure everyone knows, children do make mistakes and disobey their parents. When they do, there are consequences. Adam and Eve disobeyed God, and the consequence was twofold and from two sources. First, eating the fruit gave them a knowledge of good and evil but it also made them mortal. Second, God had Adam and Eve leave the Garden of Eden as a consequence of disobeying him and transgressing.

3) "Christians don't know that Jews wrote the first version of their holy book." I think that's actually fairly obvious to anyone who actually studies the Bible at all. The Old Testament is a record of the Abrahamic line down to the Israelites and eventually narrowing down to the Jews. It testifies many times, especially in Isaiah, of the coming of the Messiah. The New Testament, however, is not a Jewish book, at least not with regards to the Jewish religion. It is a record of the coming of the Messiah and all that happened after that. This is the point at which the two religions diverge, whether Jesus was the Christ or not. If he was, the Christians are right. If not, the Jews are right. Assuming, of course, that the Old Testament is accurate.

4) "God has commanded the death penalty for everything." In the Old Testament under the Law of Moses, the death penalty was very common. The Israelites were heard-hearted and slow to listen to God, often beginning to turn back to the Egyptian worship or idols. Thus, God's law for them had to be exceedingly strict for the simple reason that, if it were not, they wouldn't follow it. It should be pointed out that Christ fulfilled the Law of Moses with His Atonement. From that time forth, the Law of Moses was replaced by His higher law, and the death penalty was no longer a punishment of the church, among other changes (ie, circumcision). Judaism still had it, of course, because, as said above, they did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah and so they saw the Law of Moses as still in effect.

These were the four points of "evidence" that I saw him present against God in those first 10 minutes, all of them rather easily refuted off the top of my head. Heck, the only thing I had to look up was how to spell "Isaiah". Tell me, does he come up with anything other than supposed inconsistencies that can be easily explained and countered, or would watching the rest of this video just end with me hearing more "evidence" that I've heard refuted before and a continual stream of, "but you can't prove it"? What sort of solid, concrete evidence does he present that God does not exist?

5236362 No idea what that church is.

Also, with so many different contradicting philosophies out there, how can you say for sure that one of them is right over another? Any argument using Clifford's philosophy assumes that Clifford is definitely and indisputably correct. And yet, another philosopher in that same video (along with many others, I'm sure) disputed against him. If you're going to say that it's morally wrong to believe without sufficient evidence, then you're going to have to give me a real reason to believe that Clifford is absolutely and indisputably right. Good luck with that.

5236741 I see your mouth opening, but all I hear are excuses.

What would you accept as evidence against God?

Can you provide any evidence against a normal-sized teacup orbiting Jupiter? Do you believe there is one there?

5236749

Jim Jones started a church. He and his followers, committed suicide by drinking poisoned FlavorAid. Almost a thousand people died in the mass suicide. According to James, Joining the Church of Jim Jones is a momentous decision, and should improve life, but that is clearly not the case.

Jonestown-Massacre

¡That is what happens when one believes without evidence!

The writer M. A. Larson based StarLightVillage "Our Town" on Jonestown, which you might remember from the 2-part episode the CutieMap.

5236741

⸘You use a book for proving a book‽ I can use books about hobbits for proving that hobbits exist. You need external corroborating evidence; as an example, when I read that the CO2-concentration has risen to over 400 ppm, I do not have to take it on faith, but can test the air myself.

5236803 I'm not using a book to prove anything. I'm not trying to prove any religion. All I was trying to show is that there is no sure-fire evidence that there is no God, and that that video fails to disprove Him.

I do not know nearly enough about that event to comment on it, so I won't. Though I will point out that those of a religious persuasion are more likely to live longer and describe their lives ans happy and fulfilling. Any sociologist can tell you that off the top of their head. So I have a hard time believing that belief without evidence is inherently bad and morally reprehensible when it is proven to, as a whole, improve quality of life.

5236762 And by excuses you mean legitimate counter-arguments, explanations and refutations?

That's the thing, it's as impossible to disprove the existence of God as it is to prove His existence. I'm not saying that He does or doesn't exist, at least not here. I'm simply saying that there is no way to prove it one way or the other and that believing without evidence is not inherently morally reprehensible

.Other than the fact that I don't see how one could have gotten there, no. I have no way to disprove that. If someone told me that there was one, I would ask them how they knew it or how it could have gotten there. If they explained it and their explanation made sense, I'd probably just shrug and say, "alright, could be. I don't believe it, but it could be."

5237000

If someone told me that there was one, I would ask them how they knew

How do you know there is a god?

5237084 Thoughts, feelings and impressions that others would describe (and have described) as imaginations, hallucinations and wishful thinking. In short, the whispering of the Holy Spirit which, while enough evidence for me and those who have experienced it, is absolutely nothing for those who have not. Impossible for believers to prove what they were, and impossible for non-believers to prove that they weren't. Hence, faith. If you have it, then those feelings of peace and joy are a confirmation from the Holy Spirit. If you don't, then those feelings are most likely imagined. And it's impossible to prove one way or the other.

5237096 So, the faith is prerequisite for you to interpret those feelings as whispering of the Holy Spirit? If so, the question remains, what brought about the faith that causes such interpretation of your feelings?

5237110 I may have misphrased a bit earlier. Hm, how to put this...

(Fair warning, I didn't really plan out any of what I was going to say; i just started typing. So if this seems a bit like I'm rambling, it's because I kind of am.)

It starts with a willingness to believe. If you are closed off and refuse to believe, then those feelings won't come in the first place. If you are willing to believe, you then study the word. As you study, those feelings come to you. They come especially when this study is accompanied by prayer/meditation/pondering/whatever the particular belief system calls it. Those feelings are the Holy Spirit/equivalent telling you that those words are true. This pattern continues until that willingness to believe becomes a desire to believe becomes belief and faith. However, those without faith would look at this from the outside and say that these people are simply hallucinating and imagining these things and fooling themselves.

From the atheistic perspective, the gullible read these words and people around them convince them that those words are true. They keep being told about these feelings more and more until the person begins to think that they are feeling these things and convinces themselves that they are and thus that they believe. However, believers hear this and roll their eyes, saying that atheists are conspiracy theorists accusing them of brainwashing people.

Objectively speaking, either one could be true. Their openness could be leading them to feel the promptings of the Holy Spirit, or their openness could be leading them to be influenced by believers. There's no definite way to tell which is actually happening. Believers will insist that their feelings are too powerful and too sure to simply be their imaginations and that atheists only say they're imagining it because they've never felt it themselves. Atheists will insist that those feelings are just that, feelings, most if not all of them self-created to confirm to themselves what they want to believe.

I guess it really comes down to that initial mindset. Those who become believers start out thinking, "yeah, it could be true. Let's see." Those who become atheists start out thinking, "no, I don't think it's true. Let's see." If you think it could be true, you'll either get taken in or you'll feel the Spirit. Whichever is the true case, you believe. If you think it can't be true, you'll either not be taken in or the Spirit won't bother speaking to you. (see the scripture, I forget where, about casting pearls before swine) Either way, you don't believe. Being open to the possibilities vs being skeptical of the possibilities.

While I'm on this topic, I would like to point out that skepticism does have its place in religion. Starting from the foundation of "God/Allah/deity is real", you then examine the various doctrines with a more skeptical eye. Let's face it, there are a lot of doctrines and gospels that just don't make sense. This skeptic examination won't lead you to a single final choice, but it will let you knock a number of doctrines out of consideration. But from there, it's once again back to the scriptures and the Spirit to determine which doctrine not only makes sense, but is actually right.

Wow, sorry about that. Got a bit preachy there. Tl;dr: If you're open and willing, the feelings come and faith happens. If you aren't, the feelings don't come and faith doesn't happen. Both sides make sense, and neither can be proven or disproved.

5236989

We seem to write at crosspurposes:

I do not try to disprove the existence of gods; I merely point out that it makes no sense to believe without evidence. Bad Dragon already brought up Russel's Teapot, but it is worth revisiting:

Professor Bertrand Russel was a physicist. He was also an atheist too. When asked about why he is an atheist, , he asked whether to interviewer believed in a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars. The interviewer replies "No." When the Professor asked the interviewer "¿Why?", the interviewer replied "Because we have no evidence for such a teapot.". The Professor gave that as the reason he does not believe in gods.

One can imagine all sorts of fantastical things. If one believes them as long as one does not have disconfirming evidence, one believes thousands of things almost certainly wrong things. Rather than believing whatever one can invent without counterevidence, it makes more sense to believe in things supported by evidence.

5237634 Fair points, but I would direct you to my post immediately above. It may not be sufficient evidence for anyone else, or presentable evidence at all, but it's enough for believers.

And I do agree that where the evidence is, our beliefs and knowledge should there be placed. All evidence points to vaccines working and away from them causing autism, so that's what I believe. However, on matters where evidence neither can confirm nor deny, I don't believe that faith is morally wrong, which is the main point I present against the original post. But does it make sense to believe? As I said, see my above post.

5237675

You convinced me to believe without evidence. The 1st thing I shall believe without evidence is that on a planet orbiting Sirius are sapient English-speaking donkeys discussing eugenics:

"Some people speak as if we were not justified in rejecting a theological doctrine unless we can prove it false. But the burden of proof does not lie upon the rejecter.… If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed? Some minds would be prepared to accept it, if it were reiterated often enough, through the potent force of suggestion."
——
J. B. Bury

5237717 Ah, eugenics. Such a wonderfully controversial topic. In any case, why do you believe this? What path caused you to believe that this was true? Was it a distinct series of events and sensations that led you to this conclusion (most descriptions of how people came to their faith), or did you decide to believe it just for the heck of it (what you seem to be describing)?

5237735

> " … or did you decide to believe it just for the heck of it … "

Yes, just for the heck of it.

5237744 Well, then have fun believing that. If you'll excuse me, I'm going to go and try to start a flame war on another forum. What ship comparison do you think will get more people reacting: CelestiaCord as opposed to TwiLestia, or CelestiaCord as opposed to TwiCord?

5237825

TwiLestia because mares get all upset with incest:

Princess Celestia is like a 2nd mother to Princess Twilight Sparkle.

5237837 ...oh my gosh. I just got a wonderful idea for a love triangle fic. Ha! Something actually productive DID come from our conversation!

5237842

Eugenic donkeys, I presume.

5237215 If the society you were raised in was that of Islam and the Holy Quran was the only book you'd be reading, would you also get those whispers of the Holy Spirit, telling you that book is true?

5237845 No, actually, but now I do want to include that in something. Basically, Celestia and Twilight fight over Discord, which is hilarious to him as he doesn't love either of them. But, of course, he eggs both of them on. I'd probably end it with Celestia and Twilight together and Discord rather peeved that his fun is now over. Comedy one-shot.

Now if only I had any experience whatsoever writing romance...

5237851 I don't know; I've never read the Quran and prayed about it, so I don't know what sort of answer I would receive. I might receive impressions on certain points of doctrine telling me that they're true. I might receive a testimony that it is true as a whole. In that case, it would mean either that Islam was true, or that it was closer to the truth than what I had at the time and was good for me to stick with until a more complete truth made itself known into me. Of course, by that logic, my current faith might similarly be a spiritual placeholder until I am lead to a more complete truth.

5237902 The feelings you have are also prevalent in the members of other religions. It doesn't look to me as if they were a pathway to truth, given how opposite the beliefs are.

5237918 I don't think they're opposite. Most religions have at least the basic morals and values the same, as well as many ideas about deity and the afterlife. Details beyond that vary widely, but they're all closer to whatever the truth is than believing nothing.

5238137

they're all closer to whatever the truth is than believing nothing.

Do the ghostly whispers tell you this?