Religion: The views of an agnostic

Sunny said:
To deny that something exists, one does not have to prove that it doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on the one making the assertion that something does exist.
Click to expand...
I agree.

"That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." - Christopher Hitchens
 

Where is the proof that love exists?
Dawkins posits that love is merely the action of the "selfish gene", however he never actually identified the location of that particular gene on any particular chromosome.

Some things that are neither matter nor energy do exist - I assert that love does indeed exist.

Who is going to dismiss the idea of love ?
 
CAKCy said:
As I said: I don't need to prove anything. The burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the one who makes the assertion. Identify yourself as a member of Group A and I will stop debating with you. Besides I happen to be the OP of this thread. You came afterwards questioning my post. ;)
Click to expand...
And as I said, you haven't. And please get your facts straight. Way back on post 9, Raybar cited lack of proof of God, and on post 13 I made the statement that life was indeed proof of God's existence. I was not responding to you. You came along in post 22 with your "that's quite a leap" statement. So the burden is on you to support your statement that life is not proof. And you have not done that, because their is no such proof. To me, my statement is self evident, and no additional proof is required. It is beyond your human logic.

p.s. - being the OP does not give you any special rights to define the debate or to set down rules. It is an open forum. And I keep responding because you keeping taking the bait. You quit biting, and I'll quit casting a line into the water.
 

Warrigal said:
Where is the proof that love exists?
Dawkins posits that love is merely the action of the "selfish gene", however he never actually identified the location of that particular gene on any particular chromosome. Some things that are neither matter nor energy do exist - I assert that love does indeed exist. Who is going to dismiss the idea of love ?
Click to expand...

But Love is the opposite of "selfish". Maybe Dawkins has never experienced true love and devotion.
I don't doubt for a second that there is a selfish gene though...just not connected to love.

Love exists. "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it doesn't keep a record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices in the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. And now these three things remain, Faith, Hope, and Love, but the greatest of these is Love." ~1 Corinthians 13
 
Last edited:
Of course love exists. Lara has just quoted one man's understanding of it. How many times have men and women written about love? Shakespeare alone wrote 154 love sonnets.

Not all of the writing about love are about sex, which is a different concept altogether.

My challenge is why do the people who refer to the Sky Fairy not also disparage love in the same way? Try to answer rationally using your best logic and with reference to known and proven science. I cannot do this, yet I still believe that love is very real.
 
Buckeye said:
And as I said, you haven't. And please get your facts straight. Way back on post 9, Raybar cited lack of proof of God, and on post 13 I made the statement that life was indeed proof of God's existence. I was not responding to you. You came along in post 22 with your "that's quite a leap" statement. So the burden is on you to support your statement that life is not proof. And you have not done that, because their is no such proof. To me, my statement is self evident, and no additional proof is required. It is beyond your human logic.

p.s. - being the OP does not give you any special rights to define the debate or to set down rules. It is an open forum. And I keep responding because you keeping taking the bait. You quit biting, and I'll quit casting a line into the water.
Click to expand...

You are right, of course. I should've ignored you from the very beginning. :)

The End
 
Warrigal said:
Where is the proof that love exists?
Dawkins posits that love is merely the action of the "selfish gene", however he never actually identified the location of that particular gene on any particular chromosome.

Some things that are neither matter nor energy do exist - I assert that love does indeed exist.

Who is going to dismiss the idea of love ?
Click to expand...

Warrigal said:
Of course love exists. Lara has just quoted one man's understanding of it. How many times have men and women written about love? Shakespeare alone wrote 154 love sonnets.

Not all of the writing about love are about sex, which is a different concept altogether.

My challenge is why do the people who refer to the Sky Fairy not also disparage love in the same way? Try to answer rationally using your best logic and with reference to known and proven science. I cannot do this, yet I still believe that love is very real.
Click to expand...

The scientific study of emotions, especially love, is extensive and has a number of hypotheses and evidence. Brain activity through brain imaging as well as release/actions of specific chemicals have been studied by neurochemistry with clear results. So your assertion that love does indeed exist has scientific evidence to back it up.
 
Long ago I decided to leave theology to the theologians. I am wired to need to live a purposeful life. I found that in living a life of service. Spiritual I suppose rather than religious. I find organised religions claustrophobic and rather too male oriented. Empath and poet that I am, I am drawn to some sort of Universal Pattern that I sense,

not logical, but much more than that. My creativity is pulled from that like invisible threads of spider silk. So are my compassion, intuition and other traits to which I aspire. I can call this Pattern anything I choose, Deity, or otherwise, but it works for me, without constraints. In some indefinable way, I belong. Namaste.
 
Lara said:
I believe we already know when the beginning of time was...when the sun and the moon were created, giving us day and night...thus "time".
That was for our benefit, to have light by day and moon light by night for navigation. And no, that knowledge is not going to make believers cease in believing in God.
Click to expand...
Time existed long before our solar system came into being and Earth existed a long time before even the most primitive life came into being.
Time, as we understand it, logically came into existence with the beginning of the universe. We cannot know what existed, or didn't exist before that point. Some might say "God" existed, but that is faith,not knowledge.
 
CAKCy said:
The complexity of the universe is not evidence of anything. If nothing else one should observe the random events that happen in space. Death and creation of new celestial bodies.

The beginning? We don't understand it. Yet. But simply because we don't understand it doesn't mean that there is a God. Because if one's logic reaches to the second step of the creation: "Since there's a beginning we don't understand... therefore God"... it shouldn't stop there. It should have the power to move on to the first step: "Who created God?".
Click to expand...
I politely disagree. When you see a Ferrari on the street, do you think all the pieces just happened to come together by chance? Do you not see that it was designed and created. Yet how much more complex is our universe, our world, our bodies?

"They have eyes, and they do not see, They have ears, and they do not hear." "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

The reference to "The Beginning" was said tongue in cheek to the posts that kept referring to the end. You read too much into my sentence or perhaps I didn't communicate it well. ;)
 
Last edited:
Shalimar said:
Long ago I decided to leave theology to the theologians. I am wired to need to live a purposeful life. I found that in living a life of service. Spiritual I suppose rather than religious. I find organised religions claustrophobic and rather too male oriented. Empath and poet that I am, I am drawn to some sort of Universal Pattern that I sense,

not logical, but much more than that. My creativity is pulled from that like invisible threads of spider silk. So are my compassion, intuition and other traits to which I aspire. I can call this Pattern anything I choose, Deity, or otherwise, but it works for me, without constraints. In some indefinable way, I belong. Namaste.
Click to expand...

My Lady, welcome to the discussion!

The hierarchies of organized religions have a purpose and a target a lot more sinister than believers care to admit. I understand your choice of a non-dogmatic, independent spiritualism rather than canned religions. What are your sources of enrichment of this spiritualism, if I may ask?
 
God created science. 😉
CAKCy said:
Ummm.... no...
Click to expand...
Ummm... yes... The ping pong ball is back on your side of the table.

Not much of an answer for a man or woman of science.

I'm enjoying the conversation and could go all day as long as the banter remains friendly. I've been down this road sooooo many times before and I don't mind traveling it with you my friend, but in the end it ends up being circular in nature and neither party embraces the views of the other. With that in mind, is it worth discussing? By all means, as one day, this side of heaven or the other you'll change your mind.

Have a good day.
 
Last edited:
Gardenlover said:
I politely disagree. When you see a Ferrari on the street, do you think all the pieces just happened to come together by chance? Do you not see that it was designed and created. Yet how much more complex is our universe, our world, our bodies?

"They have eyes, and they do not see, They have ears, and they do not hear." "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

The reference to "The Beginning" was said tongue in cheek to the posts that kept referring to the end. You read too much into my sentence or perhaps I didn't communicate it well. ;)
Click to expand...

I have a problem disagreeing with somebody who "politely" disagrees with me but I have to! :)

No, a Ferrari had a designer and a creator. That does not, necessarily, apply to everything. An ink bottle overturned by the wind and creating a blotch on a piece of paper is a random event with a random result. Even if the result is beautiful to look at.

Maybe I do have eyes that cannot see and ears that cannot hear. And maybe my wisdom is that of a fool. But I cannot leave the path of logic and accept something without any evidence or proof. Or accept unrelated data to be evidence of the truth.

...or maybe I didn't interpret it well. My apologies.
 
CAKCy said:
My Lady, welcome to the discussion!

The hierarchies of organized religions have a purpose and a target a lot more sinister than believers care to admit. I understand your choice of a non-dogmatic, independent spiritualism rather than canned religions. What are your sources of enrichment of this spiritualism, if I may ask?
Click to expand...
I cannot explain. They reside in the spaces between words.
 
Gardenlover said:
God created science. 😉

Ummm... yes... The ping pong ball is back on your side of the table.

Not much of an answer for a man or woman of science.

I'm enjoying the conversation and could go all day as long as the banter remains friendly. I've been down this road sooooo many times before and I don't mind traveling it with you my friend, but in the end it ends up being circular in nature and neither party embraces the views of the other. With that in mind, is it worth discussing? By all means, as one day, this side of heaven or the other you'll change your mind.

Have a good day.
Click to expand...

Ummm... no... Your game... :p

Maybe my answer was very poor for a scientist. The assertion left me no option.

The conversation is enjoyable. But you are right, that it will soon end up being circular in nature. For a simple reason: I base my part of the discussion on logic. You base yours on faith. Sadly, there is no common ground to debate it any longer.

Have a wonderful day/night yourself!
 
CAKCy said:
I have a problem disagreeing with somebody who "politely" disagrees with me but I have to! :)

No, a Ferrari had a designer and a creator. That does not, necessarily, apply to everything. An ink bottle overturned by the wind and creating a blotch on a piece of paper is a random event with a random result. Even if the result is beautiful to look at.

Maybe I do have eyes that cannot see and ears that cannot hear. And maybe my wisdom is that of a fool. But I cannot leave the path of logic and accept something without any evidence or proof. Or accept unrelated data to be evidence of the truth.

...or maybe I didn't interpret it well. My apologies.
Click to expand...
Random actions are a part of the world in which we live and I think they are part of the Maker's grand design. The random existence of an ink blotch in no way negates that the little red car was designed and created. Your reasoning "seems" to imply that everything is accidental or sporadic in nature. I myself find that a much greater leap than a belief in God. I think I'll have another sip of my accidental coffee, while I await your reply.
 
Gardenlover said:
Random actions are a part of the world in which we live and I think they are part of the Maker's grand design. The random existence of an ink blotch in no way negates that the little red car was designed and created. Your reasoning "seems" to imply that everything is accidental or sporadic in nature. I myself find that a much greater leap than a belief in God. I think I'll have another sip of my accidental coffee, while I await your reply.
Click to expand...

Everything is accidental or sporadic in nature unless a logic explanation exists about it. I don't think this is a leap of any sort. People over the ages tried to attribute the unknown to a God (the Sun is warm and bright, therefore the Sun is a God). The progress of science has proven that the Sun, the moon, the lightning etc. are not Gods or Gods' creations but nothing more than natural phenomena. I believe that at some point this will happen with the last of the Mohicans too. Science will progress to the point of explaining everything there is to explain.

But... do you agree that we don't have common ground to continue with this debate? Logic Vs Faith don't have much in common, do they?
 
Mon ami, you say “No, a Ferrari had a designer and a creator.” You have answered the most important question of all time CAKCy .

The universe also has a designer and creator, c'est - God.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top