Can we please move out of the topic where we discuss whether or not Brock's ideas are logical or not? We're just gonna get into another flame war.
It pretty much says that you can say the most craziest absurd thing ever and claim that people can't disprove it as long as you make enough excuses for it (ie: it's invisible! people haven't looked well enough for it! all traces of it were erased!). That's why usually the logical thing is trying to explain why X exists, not claiming it just does and challenging everyone else to prove you wrong.
Well, I wasn't really trying to convince anyone about the flood (I think, I dunno anymore i wrote that two days ago...). I stated that it wasn't possible to disprove it, therefore I will believe in it because of my religious beliefs. I suppose I should have added that I don't expect anyone else to believe in it just because of that.
The point is, the belief in God and the structures that have been created around it do hurt a lot of people. And what's it all for, in the end? Peace of mind that life doesn't end? Is the sketchy promise of an afterlife really worth the torment it has caused people in the life we know for sure we have? It's unfathomable to me.
And then there's the potential for future damage. How many more people have to kill themselves or else be killed by others, how many more people have to live through any of the various forms of torment created by religion before people will realise that the book to which they so desperately cleave causes more problems than it solves?
Ah, but can you prove anything? Or disprove it, for that matter? Let’s say I want to prove that I don’t have a tail. I cannot observe any tail; it would be rather awkward when I sat down if I did, and I don’t experience any such discomfort; and really there’s no evidence to suggest that my tail exists.
So if someone asked you to prove that they didn’t have a tail, those are the types of things you’d point to. And if they didn’t accept it – if they said that their tail was invisible, intangible and retracted whenever they sat down – you’d think they were an idiot.
But here’s the thing – you haven’t proved that they don’t have a tail. As long as there’s some other possibility, we should strictly remain in doubt – and after all, it’s possible that their tail is invisible/intangible/retractable. We can’t prove it isn’t. We can say it’s highly unlikely, of course we can – but we could be wrong. So we haven’t proven anything.
The logical conclusion to this line of thought is Descartes’ famous statement: ‘I think, therefore I am’. Having doubted every belief he held – because after all, a deceitful demon could be tricking him into thinking trees were green when in fact they had purple spots, and we can’t prove that such a demon doesn’t exist – the only thing Descartes felt he could be sure of was that he existed. Because, if he didn’t, who would be doubting his existence? (This is clearer in the extended version of the statement: 'I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am'.)
I’ll wrap this up. You said that ‘the only thing is that no one can prove a major flood as described in the Bible’. Absolutely. Then you say, ‘but, correct me if I'm wrong, they can't disprove it either, right? So it's another case of belief’.
Well, yes, but we don’t tend to think of most things that way! If someone asked you, ‘do you believe in cats?’ you’d think they were being irritating on purpose. But strictly speaking, belief is cats is just as uncertain as belief in a flood:
‘The only thing is that no one can prove that cats exist. But, correct me if I'm wrong, they can't disprove it either, right? So it's another case of belief.’
But would you say, in casual conversation, ‘cats exist’ or ‘I believe that cats exist’? I’m betting on the former. And so we have to ask ourselves - does religion deserves special consideration? Are we justified in saying that the simple fact that you can’t disprove something makes it a reasonable belief? Or is arguing ‘well, you can’t disprove the flood!’ just as silly as arguing, ‘well, you can’t disprove my tail!’
Oh yeah, I think a child also has more say about his beliefs than what the parent says. Take for example several members here; many have been converted to atheism and they have a religious background. A parent, I think, more suggests what to wear for life; its then the childs choice to wear it or not.
omg, I wrote so much. I probably wrote a ton of stuff that people won't like and a ton that may be wrong. I might edit it. So please go easy on me if you reply.