Can we all just agree on this one point?

Question

That matters concerning the existence of god(s), religion, and faith are nothing more than opinion with no inherent factual merit?

Ask a believer to give evidence for any of these points and you will get nothing more than arguments contingent upon elusive truth values, tales of personal experience, or anecdotal evidence. None of which can be tested or confirmed.

Since none of these count for anything in objectively providing solid, testable evidence on these matters, it's safe to conclude that we are dealing with nothing more than personal opinion.

If you disagree please provide your reasons.

Answer 1

Yep that's pretty much it.
Agreed.
Whitehorse below sums it up nicely" I have proof, it's right here in this book of fairy tales". Thanks for supporting the argument.

Answer 2

Prove conclusively that love exists, not using opinion or non inherent factual merit. If you cannot prove the existence of love objectively, with testable evidence on these matters, I guess it's safe to assume love does not exist.

Prove conclusively how you feel, at any given moment in time, and what events if any, made you feel that way. Again, do not use personal experience or anecdotal evidence. If you can not, then I guess you have no feelings either.

You see, I too can frame a point of reference in such a way, to convince me, and others, that without anecdotal evidence, or proof of the above, your are incapable of loving or feeling. After all, I highly doubt you can provide me with evidence of love, or feelings that can be tested and confirmed.

I don't mean to be rude nor am I trying to be, but based on how you worded your premise, I can come to a conclusion about you as well, knowing that you cannot prove my questions without using anecdotal evidence, personal experience and the like.

Feel free to disagree and provide your reasons, but under the same conditions as above.

Answer 3

I agree except for the historical accounts of the life and death of Jesus Christ the son of God. But, yes, especially on the creation of the world/universe people have an opinion because there are no hard cold facts regarding what occured physically during the creation of planets/space/universe.

If we had all the scientific facts laid out in front of us then we would all agree. We all agree that the world is round right? That is because we have all seen pictures of it; we know it's biology. Big unanswered questions like where did we come from?...why are we here? and other questions, to me, have not been answered by science. There are scientific theories about the origins of the earth...but there is no explanation for the starting point for the universe, and the laws of physics are based on cause and effect. So, what caused the Big Bang? What caused that, and what led to it, etc. and so on? We don't even know a fraction of what occured physically in the creation of the universe. My personal opinion...throw any scientific theory out at me and no matter what it is you cannot take the possibility of the existence of a higher spiritual being out of the equation. I cannot fathom that something popped out of nothing one day. Add to that the historical accounts of the life and death of Jesus Christ and here I am a Christian.

Answer 4

I think a lot of us can agree that horrendous events are reason enough to question the motive behind institutionalized religion. Consider the murder of millions of people during the Spanish Inquisition. Consider the tacit approval of the Nazis by the Roman Catholic Church, who not only did not excommunicate Nazi Catholics but helped some of them escape after the war. Consider the attacks on 9/11 in the name of Allah.

Now consider the possibility that religion has been fabricated to benefit world leaders. Consider that your dogmatic belief system is based on a book that was written when people thought the world was flat. Consider how much your church has asked you to donate and how nice a house Ted Haggarty lives in. If that's not enough to at least question your dogmatism then you deserve to live in your irrational quagmire.

Note: this is not directed at the author of the question.

Answer 5

Let Me explode a myth. The center fold and cover girls are just as plain looking as any other girl without make-up, lighting, a good airbrushing, computer enhancement and posturing. Magazines have sold the world a proposition that "Perfection" is "Beauty". Fake beauty is not Real beauty. Women want to look like the epitome of femininity, as shown by the "beautiful people" on TV. Men like women to be natural. We like, love and even lust after you for Who You actually are, not what fantasy You represent. We like curves and freckles and those stray bits of hair that brush Your face. We like bare feet, pony-tails, belly buttons, natural nails, and only the barest hint of make-up. My Friend, Natalie, was a Los Vegas Show Girl. She doesn't wear much make-up now. She does not need too. She is 'nice' enough just as She is. She is all of the above. We, i.e. Men, are considered by Women's Magazines to be too stupid to know what We like.......yet We don't buy Cosmopolitan, Vogue or Seventeen.....You do. So just Who has been lead up the garden path of stereotypical beauty? Make-up is for Women with flaws that need to be hidden. Max Factor made a career from being able to turn "plain Jane" into Jane Mansfield. Just be Yourself. It's a whole lot cheaper and better for Your complexion. Who knows, You might actually enjoy the freedom.

Answer 6

You'd get a lot better response to your insults if you'd phrase them as real questions. What you're really talking about in your thinly veiled dig at organized religion is one of perception.

What I think you're saying is that "reality" is tinged by the lens of individual perception. To that end, no one sees a particular tenet of belief exactly the same way - and there is such vast variation between people claiming to know the "truth" that any statement claiming an absolute is in and of itself a perception as opposed to a fact.

You're never going to get someone whose absolutes include a god, gods, or any form of theocracy, to converse with you on your terms. It's because your terms are not valid within their reality.

~Swingers

Answer 7

I completely agree and love the eloquence in which you said it.
There is absolutely no evidence, at all, of the existance of God other than religious text whose contents is dubious at best and completely ridiculous at most parts.
I, honestly, don't know how anyone could subscribe to religion who is above a certain age and intellect.

Answer 8

Not if such matters come from direct observation of the paranormal. A private fact is still a fact, just to the observer.

Answer 9

Gotta say, that's about right. Anybody's "proof" is based on their belief system, and someone with a totally different belief system will say that the other person's opinion is worth the dirt on the ground, depending on how open-minded they are.

Answer 10

Uh, disagree.

From the outset, denial of god is a constant. Atheism = no gods. Period.

Belief in god is variable...which god, how many gods, conflicting gods, defeated gods, dead gods, living gods, replaced gods, gods based upon local and on societal belief, small gods, omnipotent gods, creating gods, nurturing gods, helpful gods, hurtful gods.....

Now bring in Occam's razor. Make one cut. The simplest one.

That's why.

Answer 11

There is real evidence for the existence of God and matters of faith.