Atheists and proof cont….

[Kdtym10]

A carry on from the previous thread

Saying that people can be reincarnated is cruel and gives false hope. Better to understand we have one life and live it the best way you can.

How do you know they can’t be? Surely it’s cruel to deny this if someone believes in it. Unless you can categorically prove it doesn’t exist

Common sense - it’s not possible. Where’s the evidence that it does exist?

The denial of a spiritual realm and claiming truth can only be viewed and verified from one perspective is also a belief system. This is also a self fulfilling world view.

Much better to recognise the different systems

It’s not “common sense” why is it “common sense”? Agss as in the evidence is personal. I personally have more experience of it existing than not existing -of course I’ve never used a wholly inappropriate methodology to test this

Yes I have considered them. Actually if you read my posts you will see that your second point is very close to what I actually believe.

This is how I’ve been trying to explain your repeated questions re child cancer. It’s not that God doesn’t care, it’s that human emotions aren’t seen the same way by Divinity, the separation of good/bad etc is entirely man made

You have experience of reincarnation?

Any answer to why you won’t believe anyone on here who says there is no proof, or a proof you know won’t happen?

I followed the first thread too and am loving your inability to answer the parts of the discussion you don’t like. Considering you are asking for opinions…

I have done past life regression before, yes I believe we can live many lives.

I assume. That’s aimed at me. I’m sorry if I have inadvertent missed something- as I mentioned I’ve been travelling a lot. Can you point out anything you think I’ve missed so I can address it.

I would also consider myself as a Humanist (although obviously not in the context of the very restrictive definition of the Humanist Society. For most of the history of the concept of “Humanism” it’s very clear that Humanism cannot only happily coexist together with a belief in the divine but they are actually fairly interwoven concepts.

I asked earlier, to paraphrase

You are allowed to say that you don’t need proof because you believe, and your belief constitutes your proof.

However, an atheist ISN’T allowed to say there won’t be any proof, because they don’t believe, and thus their disbelief constitutes their proof.

Its sort of a double negative there, don’t you see?

Sorry I missed your post. Just answering your paraphrasing.

I have been told repeatedly from a scientific perspective, personal experience isn’t enough, there must be objective, observable proof which can be validated through replicable results and based on a falsifiable hypothesis.

I (and others) have said this kind of evidence is not applicable to the spiritual world. The scientific model is designed for,and largely good, at describing the physical world.

Therefore, I’m agreeing that anything physical should be assessed using the scientific model. If someone says only the physical/mundane world exists, I think we are all agreeing that proof should be by way of the scientific model.

Where one considers that there is a spiritual realm then there is a position that personal experience trumps scientific methodology (although some might contest that, this is my firmly held position),

I therefore, don’t see that there is any issue in applying these different types of proof depending on the question being asked.

then there is a position that personal experience trumps scientific methodology

I don't think that many people will agree with that.

Personal experiences, especially the ones happening only in your mind, are obviously hugely biased and strongly affected by confirmation bias!!

Plenty of statistical outliers in this world though. I think of science as being what most usually is observed. There are environmental factors and priors that might potentially affect what has been observed that are unknown. I am pleased there are exceptions to a statistical norm. It provides opportunity to hope. 🙂

@TheHorneSection many atheists describe themselves have having an absence of belief. If this the same as disbelief? To me disbelief seems less neutral. It is closing your mind. To close your mind to a possibility involves belief. To open your mind to a possibility involves belief. If a door is half open/half shut it is still open. So can an atheist say their lack of belief constitutes proof? They can but it is not scientific. As science aims for more neutrality than that. Door half open at least.

Where one considers that there is a spiritual realm then there is a position that personal experience trumps scientific methodology (although some might contest that, this is my firmly held position)

So why does an atheists personal experience of no deity not count as their own proof?

And you appear to have closed your mind to that there may not be a god, heaven, hell or after life?

@Lalupalina you might find Rupert Sheldrake's (biochemist, plant physiologist, author) observations interesting on the scientific method.

@TheHorneSection

So why does an atheists personal experience of no deity not count as their own proof?

Can you conclusively prove something from an absence of evidence? Surely proof requires evidence? My tests over recent years show no cancer being detected. Yet, I would be termed as 'in remission'. Medical people would be reluctant to say 'cured'. Why is that?

@Parker231,

And you appear to have closed your mind to that there may not be a god, heaven, hell or after life?

Yes, as previously discussed. But I am not claiming I am entirely reliant on scientific evidence in terms of my world view,

The etymology of the word empirical is interesting.🙂

"empirical (adj.)
1560s, originally in medicine, "pertaining to or derived from experience or experiments," from Latin empiricus (n.) "a physician guided by experience," from Greek empeirikos "experienced," from empeiria "experience; mere experience or practice without knowledge," especially in medicine, from empeiros "experienced (in a thing), proven by use," from assimilated form of en "in" (see en-- (2)) + peira "trial, experiment," from PIE per-ya-, suffixed form of root per-- (3) "to try, risk." With -all* (1). In a general sense of "guided by mere experience" from 1757. Related: Empirically (1640s as "by means of observation and experiment").
also from 1560ss*"

https://www.etymonline.com/word/empirical#etymonlinevv_5821

But there are many many people who believe this when talking about spiritual matters. Literally millions, probably billions over the centuries and millennia. It’s really not a niche view.

Because by definition they don’t believe in the spiritual realm and therefore they must think everything is verifiable by the scientific method. It’s literally what so many have been saying.

My tests over recent years show no cancer being detected. Yet, I would be termed as 'in remission'. Medical people would be reluctant to say 'cured'. Why is that?

Surely that is simply because the current tests and scans cannot (yet) detect a rogue cancer cell hiding somewhere in the body?

Now that it very interesting is it not?