01-26-2017, 08:23 PM
(This post was last modified: 01-26-2017, 09:12 PM by FireIceTalon.)
You know, sometimes things aren't all that complex. I think this is one such instance.
Almost all natural and social phenomena has come to be scientifically understood and materially observed in some way. There are solid facts, observations, analysis, and data which support the conclusions. Theists of almost any stripe commonly make the claim that all or nearly all the worlds workings are influenced by some, invisible higher being. But where is the evidence to support this metaphysical rationale? Scientists can and must (and have!) produce facts and observations to support their conclusions. Theists should be held to the same standard, yes? If so, they thus far have been unable to produce any evidence to support their conclusions. If they shouldn't be held to the same standard as scientists (the use of facts, reasoning, logic, and material observation), then what is sufficient and necessary for them (theists) to prove their hypothesis as being true? There is a reason that belief in a higher power is called "faith".
It's why I am baffled that adults who would believe in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy would be looked at as being 'borderline' insane by other rational adults; but adults who believe in some invisible sky wizard that watches our every action get a free pass, and in fact, those who DON'T believe in said sky wizard, based on a lack of evidence, are viewed as being everything from insane to amoral/immoral.
Almost all natural and social phenomena has come to be scientifically understood and materially observed in some way. There are solid facts, observations, analysis, and data which support the conclusions. Theists of almost any stripe commonly make the claim that all or nearly all the worlds workings are influenced by some, invisible higher being. But where is the evidence to support this metaphysical rationale? Scientists can and must (and have!) produce facts and observations to support their conclusions. Theists should be held to the same standard, yes? If so, they thus far have been unable to produce any evidence to support their conclusions. If they shouldn't be held to the same standard as scientists (the use of facts, reasoning, logic, and material observation), then what is sufficient and necessary for them (theists) to prove their hypothesis as being true? There is a reason that belief in a higher power is called "faith".
It's why I am baffled that adults who would believe in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy would be looked at as being 'borderline' insane by other rational adults; but adults who believe in some invisible sky wizard that watches our every action get a free pass, and in fact, those who DON'T believe in said sky wizard, based on a lack of evidence, are viewed as being everything from insane to amoral/immoral.
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)