Societies don't have to be secular to be modern

[grumbler]

I imagine on the basis that everyone who is not insane operates under the presumption that non-evidenced things do not exist.

Heaven does not exist. While I cannot prove it anymore (or less) than I can "prove" that any other imaginary thing exists, your insistence that someone provide "proof" in such a selective manner suggests you don't really understand what the word means, and how it applies.

I see you still have trouble distinguishing between presumptions and "truths."  "Heaven does not exist" is an assertion of fact, while "I won't believe that heaven exists until you show me proof" is a statement of presumption.  Making statements of fact about topics on which data is entirely absent is presumption of an entirely different kind.

Faith trumps reason on this topic for those for whom, on this topic, faith trumps reason.  Attacking that belief is futile.  Arguing that it is only for the feeble-minded is absurd (Kant famously believed that faith trumped reason, as did many others.  I don't believe it myself, but that is a statement about me, not about "reality."

[grumbler]

I was only asking for proof because Marty seemed to say he had such proof, or else why would he say that heaven and the resurrection were "false".

Perhaps because his statement was a bit of hyperbole? 

I am amused by the argument over the existence of heaven, which takes place even though I am convinced that everyone would pretty much agree that they would behave no differently if their current beliefs on the subject were disproven.

[Viking]

That is where you are mistaken.  I consider heaven and the resurrection as non-falsified, then through faith accept them as true.  I have never claimed that my faith is proven.

Please please please tell me that you don't do your work based on that standard of truth?

But you didn't actually answer my question - instead you just turned around and attacked me.  What basis do you have for saying that heaven is proven to be false?  Or did you (as I think you did) over-reach in your statement?

Well, I can say it on the same ground that you say the Koran is false. There is no evidence. You have your faith and your faith has a doctrine on truth and untruth. I say your faith is just as true as any hypothesis your faith defines as untrue.

Now ultimately I (nor anybody else) should need to prove anything false, you are making a claim and you have the burden of proof. I can't prove any untestable hypothesis wrong, but I can treat it as irrelevant or untrue without consequence.

[Berkut]

I imagine on the basis that everyone who is not insane operates under the presumption that non-evidenced things do not exist.

Heaven does not exist. While I cannot prove it anymore (or less) than I can "prove" that any other imaginary thing exists, your insistence that someone provide "proof" in such a selective manner suggests you don't really understand what the word means, and how it applies.

I was only asking for proof because Marty seemed to say he had such proof, or else why would he say that heaven and the resurrection were "false".

For the same reason you think Binky the 800ft. Carrot God is "false".

[Barrister]

Perhaps because his statement was a bit of hyperbole? 

It clearly was, but I am curious if he'll acknowledge that or not.

[Eddie Teach]

I am amused by the argument over the existence of heaven, which takes place even though I am convinced that everyone would pretty much agree that they would behave no differently if their current beliefs on the subject were disproven.

I would certainly be sitting in the pew on Sunday morning.

[Berkut]

I imagine on the basis that everyone who is not insane operates under the presumption that non-evidenced things do not exist.

Heaven does not exist. While I cannot prove it anymore (or less) than I can "prove" that any other imaginary thing exists, your insistence that someone provide "proof" in such a selective manner suggests you don't really understand what the word means, and how it applies.

I see you still have trouble distinguishing between presumptions and "truths."  "Heaven does not exist" is an assertion of fact, while "I won't believe that heaven exists until you show me proof" is a statement of presumption.  Making statements of fact about topics on which data is entirely absent is presumption of an entirely different kind.

Faith trumps reason on this topic for those for whom, on this topic, faith trumps reason.  Attacking that belief is futile.  Arguing that it is only for the feeble-minded is absurd (Kant famously believed that faith trumped reason, as did many others.  I don't believe it myself, but that is a statement about me, not about "reality."

I am not attacking Beebs faith - just saying that for anyone who does not share it, the phrase "heaven does not exist" is perfectly reasonable. I make no claim about its "truth", but simply note that I presume that things that are not evidenced do not exist.

I don't think there is any particular difference between "Heaven does not exist" and "I will presume heaven does not exist until shown otherwise".

[Barrister]

Well, I can say it on the same ground that you say the Koran is false.

I don't think I would say that the Koran is "false".  I would say I don't believe in it (or at least in the spiritual message it contains).

That is distinct from Berkut's 800ft Carrot God, which is clearly false as no one, ever, has claimed such a thing.  Islam is the subject of reverential belief by nearly one billion people, so gets treated with some respect.

[ulmont]

Well, I can say it on the same ground that you say the Koran is false.

I don't think I would say that the Koran is "false".  I would say I don't believe in it (or at least in the spiritual message it contains).

That is distinct from Berkut's 800ft Carrot God, which is clearly false as no one, ever, has claimed such a thing.  Islam is the subject of reverential belief by nearly one billion people, so gets treated with some respect.

Now discuss Scientology.

[The Brain]

Well, I can say it on the same ground that you say the Koran is false.

That is distinct from Berkut's 800ft Carrot God, which is clearly false as no one, ever, has claimed such a thing.  Islam is the subject of reverential belief by nearly one billion people, so gets treated with some respect.

Are you joking?

[Berkut]

Well, I can say it on the same ground that you say the Koran is false.

I don't think I would say that the Koran is "false".  I would say I don't believe in it (or at least in the spiritual message it contains).

That is distinct from Berkut's 800ft Carrot God, which is clearly false as no one, ever, has claimed such a thing.  Islam is the subject of reverential belief by nearly one billion people, so gets treated with some respect.

So religion comes does to a popularity contest?

[Berkut]

That is distinct from Berkut's 800ft Carrot God, which is clearly false as no one, ever, has claimed such a thing. 

And this is untrue anyway - I have claimed such a thing.

[crazy canuck]

I imagine on the basis that everyone who is not insane operates under the presumption that non-evidenced things do not exist.

Heaven does not exist. While I cannot prove it anymore (or less) than I can "prove" that any other imaginary thing exists, your insistence that someone provide "proof" in such a selective manner suggests you don't really understand what the word means, and how it applies.

I see you still have trouble distinguishing between presumptions and "truths."  "Heaven does not exist" is an assertion of fact, while "I won't believe that heaven exists until you show me proof" is a statement of presumption.  Making statements of fact about topics on which data is entirely absent is presumption of an entirely different kind.

Faith trumps reason on this topic for those for whom, on this topic, faith trumps reason.  Attacking that belief is futile.  Arguing that it is only for the feeble-minded is absurd (Kant famously believed that faith trumped reason, as did many others.  I don't believe it myself, but that is a statement about me, not about "reality."

I am not attacking Beebs faith - just saying that for anyone who does not share it, the phrase "heaven does not exist" is perfectly reasonable. I make no claim about its "truth", but simply note that I presume that things that are not evidenced do not exist.

I don't think there is any particular difference between "Heaven does not exist" and "I will presume heaven does not exist until shown otherwise".

I am sure glad scientist working on theories that could not be proven until technology was improved were insane enough to pursue theories that could not yet be "evidenced".

People have lots of believes in lots of fields.  Some prove right some prove wrong and some remain unproven.  Religion, like philosophy, is a field where there is a lot of argument, a lot of strongly held views but no evidence.

[Barrister]

Well, I can say it on the same ground that you say the Koran is false.

I don't think I would say that the Koran is "false".  I would say I don't believe in it (or at least in the spiritual message it contains).

That is distinct from Berkut's 800ft Carrot God, which is clearly false as no one, ever, has claimed such a thing.  Islam is the subject of reverential belief by nearly one billion people, so gets treated with some respect.

Now discuss Scientology.

There appears to be a significant amount of actual evidence that L Ron Hubbard went out and created Scientology as a deliberate scam. 

[Viking]

Well, I can say it on the same ground that you say the Koran is false.

I don't think I would say that the Koran is "false".  I would say I don't believe in it (or at least in the spiritual message it contains).

That is distinct from Berkut's 800ft Carrot God, which is clearly false as no one, ever, has claimed such a thing.  Islam is the subject of reverential belief by nearly one billion people, so gets treated with some respect.

Truth is not democratic. The number of gullible idiots you can convince to join your cult does not make my 800 ft carrot god (or in my case either Thor or FSM) any more true. In any case of truth you don't hold a referendum on if the earth is flat or not or if the sun goes round the earth or if pluto is a planet (whoops..they actually did that). 1 Billion factually wrong persons are stilll wrong.

The Koran claims to be the recited and true word of god. It also claims that the bible is forged. Furthermore it claims that jesus was a non divine mortal prophet. I can't think of any modern christian sect which can agree with that.