Religion

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)

96. What is your definition and standard of proof?

Thu Nov 15, 2018, 06:44 PM

Nov 2018

Also, "heretofore unprovable" is both a significant departure from what you've been seeing as long as I've participated in this group, and an oxymoron. "Unprovable" implies that it's proven that something can't be done. IF you haven't proven that something can't happen, then it could happen in the future. All we could know is that it hasn't happened yet. So you would have to change it to "heretofore unproven." And also provide evidence for why existing proofs either way are inadequate.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

128 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Most religion is faith-based, rather than logic-based. [View all] MineralMan Nov 2018 OP

St. Thomas Aquinus would disagree zipplewrath Nov 2018 #1

If MOST religion was based in logic, Act_of_Reparation Nov 2018 #4

He was incorrect. The original premise is still not supported by evidence. MineralMan Nov 2018 #5

Link doesn't work marylandblue Nov 2018 #10

Sorry. I fixed it. MineralMan Nov 2018 #21

And the discussion, argument or debate can go dozens of different directions. Permanut Nov 2018 #2

Yes. There is no shortage of "proofs" of the existence of god. MineralMan Nov 2018 #6

And that's why they're not being greedy. Pope George Ringo II Nov 2018 #26

I think the word "faith" is misused marylandblue Nov 2018 #3

I'd class faith as one of the emotions, really. MineralMan Nov 2018 #7

I agree, but faith is treated as a magic elixir marylandblue Nov 2018 #9

There is no logic that leads anyone to atheism. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #8

IMHO, It's actually empirical rather than logical marylandblue Nov 2018 #11

The bottom line is that neither position is provable. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #12

I can't prove that elephants exist and God or unicorns don't? marylandblue Nov 2018 #13

Prove that God does not exist. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #14

I'll prove that neither God nor unicorns exist marylandblue Nov 2018 #16

There is no need, nor possibility of proving a negative proposition. MineralMan Nov 2018 #24

#13 made a claim. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #25

Did I write #13? MineralMan Nov 2018 #27

You inserted yourself into the sub-thread. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #28

I can insert a post anywhere I wish on this discussion forum. MineralMan Nov 2018 #29

And you already know my answer. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #30

You say many things. Many of them are incorrect. MineralMan Nov 2018 #32

Allow me to correct you: guillaumeb Nov 2018 #33

That is one definition from one source. It divides atheism into MineralMan Nov 2018 #38

Yes, it is a definition. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #40

One person cannot establish definitions for commonly-used words. MineralMan Nov 2018 #42

Dueling dictionaries: guillaumeb Nov 2018 #46

More importantly, you should allow people room for their own self definition marylandblue Nov 2018 #51

So what? Major Nikon Nov 2018 #105

This is also why I regret it every time I take him off ignore to see if he's showing integrity. Pope George Ringo II Nov 2018 #45

#46 guillaumeb Nov 2018 #47

Great. You've finally found one old dictionary which agrees with you. Pope George Ringo II Nov 2018 #57

Don't forget that Gil's posts are a performance Mariana Nov 2018 #84

I hate that. Pope George Ringo II Nov 2018 #104

Yes. I just posted the same content in a reply to Guy. MineralMan Nov 2018 #48

He's never been what I'd consider a reality-based poster. Pope George Ringo II Nov 2018 #58

Most atheists are weak atheists, including most on this site marylandblue Nov 2018 #39

And the definition defines atheism as a belief. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #41

Your definition is not an objective one. It has a blatant theistic bias. MineralMan Nov 2018 #50

I repeat: guillaumeb Nov 2018 #53

What's wrong with picking a valid definition that corresponds to what you believe? marylandblue Nov 2018 #60

Has more to do with the definition of belief than anything else, and belief is a problematic word marylandblue Nov 2018 #77

See my citation from that link, below. MineralMan Nov 2018 #49

I did see that, but the distinction between strong and weak atheism marylandblue Nov 2018 #52

Here is some information from your link: MineralMan Nov 2018 #44

#46 guillaumeb Nov 2018 #54

Dude, You're the one who used that source for your definition. MineralMan Nov 2018 #55

Wiki and a dictionary. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #56

Wikipedia is not an authoritative source, and MineralMan Nov 2018 #59

And you are the one who decides what constitutes an authoritative source? guillaumeb Nov 2018 #64

Well, if he's an atheist, I'd say he's pretty well-qualified to say what he believes. Pope George Ringo II Nov 2018 #67

And what atheism is, and is not? guillaumeb Nov 2018 #72

He simultaneously claims to be a deist and a theist Major Nikon Nov 2018 #106

Of course not. I decide for myself, though. MineralMan Nov 2018 #75

The definition has also changed over time Major Nikon Nov 2018 #107

Yes. Further, dictionaries changed from being prescriptive MineralMan Nov 2018 #111

I'm not sure if any negative connotation was intended Major Nikon Nov 2018 #112

Thanks for that information about the Collins Dictionary. MineralMan Nov 2018 #113

Translation errors happen with even the very best translators Major Nikon Nov 2018 #114

Indeed they do. I learned my lesson. MineralMan Nov 2018 #115

It doesn't really matter what it means Major Nikon Nov 2018 #116

"the absence of belief " Pope George Ringo II Nov 2018 #61

Leave him alone, people insert themselves in threads all the time marylandblue Nov 2018 #35

A weak analogy. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #37

Your first paragraph contradicts the third marylandblue Nov 2018 #43

An agnostic analogy, then? Pope George Ringo II Nov 2018 #65

Everyone defines their own beliefs. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #70

You don't let atheists define their own positions marylandblue Nov 2018 #82

But I do. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #92

It's not illogical marylandblue Nov 2018 #94

Scientists define proof one way. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #95

Yes, scientists define proof one way, marylandblue Nov 2018 #101

Except it's not that simple Major Nikon Nov 2018 #108

Occasionally, Gil has told us some specific things Mariana Nov 2018 #117

So Guy's god is nothing more than a bit of quantum instability? MineralMan Nov 2018 #119

I asked once Mariana Nov 2018 #120

But, see, I don't believe a word of that. MineralMan Nov 2018 #121

I don't think anyone believes a word of that. Mariana Nov 2018 #122

No worries. MineralMan Nov 2018 #124

What God? tonedevil Nov 2018 #118

Agree/Disagree TlalocW Nov 2018 #15

My belief is unprovable.And I accept that. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #17

I have a jar of jellybeans TlalocW Nov 2018 #18

You are mixing up the ideas. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #20

Prove that both positions are unprovable marylandblue Nov 2018 #90

Neither positions have been proven to date. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #93

What is your definition and standard of proof? marylandblue Nov 2018 #96

Agreed, heretofore unproven sounds better. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #97

Point is, "heretofore unproven" and unprovable are two different things marylandblue Nov 2018 #100

Ah, but what if there are no jellybeans? Pope George Ringo II Nov 2018 #62

Crap! Now I've got a craving for jellybeans. LastLiberal in PalmSprings Nov 2018 #69

It's the more reasoned position Major Nikon Nov 2018 #109

Atheists make a counter claim. eom guillaumeb Nov 2018 #123

I suppose someone who insists on a subliterate definition might think so Major Nikon Nov 2018 #125

Oh great, bothsidesism. trotsky Nov 2018 #19

I am not defining atheism. I never have defined atheism, except pointing out the definition. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #23

Utter and total bullshit. trotsky Nov 2018 #63

My response refutes what you claim that I said. guillaumeb Nov 2018 #66

Your response refutes only courtesy and reality. Pope George Ringo II Nov 2018 #68

By what definition of reality can you ignore what I said? guillaumeb Nov 2018 #73

That's also utter and total bullshit. trotsky Nov 2018 #91

I could define a cat as a dog marylandblue Nov 2018 #88

Strawman bullshit Major Nikon Nov 2018 #103

No, there is no belief that there are no gods. MineralMan Nov 2018 #22

Your definition of atheism is subliterate Major Nikon Nov 2018 #102

I agree w/ your statement that religion is faith based, not logic based. That's fine. Folks are... SWBTATTReg Nov 2018 #31

Most religions have a set of ethics. So do most societies and cultures. MineralMan Nov 2018 #34

Absolutely. And if one goes back into history, you'll find that most religions all have the ... SWBTATTReg Nov 2018 #36

Yes, exactly. MineralMan Nov 2018 #81

Actually, you find a huge variety of beliefs that have gigantic consequences. marylandblue Nov 2018 #83

I know this. We all know this, that there are exceptions to everything. ... SWBTATTReg Nov 2018 #85

Well, you said, "you'll find that most religions all have the exact same beliefs, marylandblue Nov 2018 #87

Now I know its the religion group. I avoid the religion group rather ironically, religiously. I SWBTATTReg Nov 2018 #98

Ok, no problem , see you in GD. marylandblue Nov 2018 #99

This is the Religion Group, in which we discuss religion. Mariana Nov 2018 #89

A religion isn't a set of rules.or desired traits. Mariana Nov 2018 #86

you might find this interesting... handmade34 Nov 2018 #71

Thanks for the link. I'll visit it when I have some time. MineralMan Nov 2018 #74

in the context of living in handmade34 Nov 2018 #76

We have codified a wide range of ethical rules in our laws. MineralMan Nov 2018 #79

IF you consider Ethical Culture to be a "religion", then it's an exception to that rule. no_hypocrisy Nov 2018 #78

No, I don't see it as a religion. MineralMan Nov 2018 #80

Des Cartes proved by logic that God exists and the Church rejected it because it negated the need fo keithbvadu2 Nov 2018 #110

And Desi Arnaz said, MineralMan Nov 2018 #128

Sorry, I am late to the discussion. saidsimplesimon Nov 2018 #126

And so, man did invent Gods, which MineralMan Nov 2018 #127