05 Jan 05
Originally posted by KellyJayThis is an old classic.
May I ask, what would be the need for faith if what you believed
in was standing in front of you? Of course faith is going to be the
driving force behind what we cannot prove, if we could prove it
there would be no need for faith.
Kelly
The simple answer is yes what is the need for faith? What purpose does it really serve?
Does God NEED faith like some form of tonic to keep his spirits up?
Do we need faith in the same way we need to be able to repress traumatic memories?
One can say what is the need for 'hate' or 'avarice' or 'deception' just because it exists does not make it a good thing.
If we could learn to love everyone there would be no need for hate, would that not be a good thing?
If we could have proof there would be no need for faith again would that not be a good thing?
Could Faith be just a good crutch a substitute for knowledge, like Chocolate, Alcohol and Drugs are a substitute for some type of elusive happiness?
If you are saying that faith is none of the hierarchy of needs like food, shelter, companionship etc.. where is your proof and what do those lack faith also lack?
PS in this more than any other I play the advocate as faith is far to complex to be treated so irreverently but i hope you get the gist of the one sided argument.
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by pcaspianI used the book as way of delivering the theory of gods non existence.
Originally posted by Deepfault
[b]Just finished reading the D'Vinci Code by Dan Brown.
It's a bunch of drivel, best-selling athiest fodder. They come around in 3 to 5 year cycles. Kinda like the Sun, you have no idea why people actually believe any of that junk, but sure enough, there is always some guy with it sitting opposite you in the tube.
[/b]
I do not intend to defend the book as i do not have the research at my fingertips I merely say that IF some of the ideas are true would it not prove that god did not exist.
The book obviously upsets you and your terminology places you on the side of the believers in god.
Very few on this side of the fence dare to step in the uncertainty of hypotheses i.e if A is true therfore B, just in case A turns out to be more true then they care.
Do you dare or are you the fire from a distance and run way type contributor?
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by Deepfault
I used the book as way of delivering the theory of gods non existence.
Do you dare or are you the fire from a distance and run way type contributor?
Well, funny you should mention that, because this in entirely what such books are. Fire from a distance, then run away. Ofcourse initial sales are all that matters.
The Bible code was another big seller. I didn't buy it. Again however it outlived its sell by date, 2004. 2004 was the year of the end of the world according to its codes, but it achieved its target; large profits.
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by pcaspianWell yes ... I can not deny that and I state again apart from it being a passable adventure story and quite well constructed in its psuedo truths I dont intend to defend it.
Originally posted by Deepfault
[b]I used the book as way of delivering the theory of gods non existence.
Do you dare or are you the fire from a distance and run way type contributor?
Well, funny you should mention that, because this in entirely what such books are. Fire from a distance, then run away. Ofcourse initial sales are all that ma ...[text shortened]... year of the end of the world according to its codes, but it achieved its target; large profits.[/b]
I also would probably agree with you on broader issues of profit and its negative effect on world faith (a point you have not yet made).
My point is that IF it was true even in part would this not call into question the existence of God?
Do you Feel like responding to this point rather then attacking a book in a very un freedom of speech type way.
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by Deepfault
My point is that IF it was true even in part would this not call into question the existence of God?
This existence of God is called into question all the time. My view is that some people are athiests, and only God can change their views, others are believers, and nothing can change their views.
Do you Feel like responding to this point rather then attacking a book in a very un freedom of speech type way.
Appologies, my judgement is of the book and not you. I merely tire of 'the new' IT. I also tire of Christian marketing or any religion where money plays a central role.
If you spend a significant amount of time on these forums, you'll notice many people making very obtuse conclusions from Biblical scriptures. To hear 'Jesus was married', 'Jesus = codeword for Hemp', or any other 'conspiracy theory revelation' annoys me, most of all because people that read these books, have no idea where the Bible originated from anyway, but are willing to believe anything if in hardcover.
pc
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by DeepfaultAbsolute rubbish.
The definition is just another way of stating my definition using diety as opossed to God or Gods.
The key point is that there IS disbelief rather then uncertainty.
If I were to say to you that in the next room is a table and you could not check the this.
If you were to say I believe there is a table there even though i have not seen it you would ...[text shortened]... ho got their faith before their proof should be regarded with extreme suspicion.
Atheism is a non-belief. If you want to talk about definitions then look at the literal meaning of the word "atheism". "A" (without) "theism" (the belief in a god). The word literally means without belief in god. It does not mean a belief in the non-existence of god.
Claiming there is a table in the other room is a common type of claim. We already know that tables exist, and that they frequently exist in rooms. For you to claim there was one in the other room would be entirely plausible. But claims for the existence of god are extraordinary claims that would require a high level of proof before they could be accepted as being true. Plus nobody is asking me to base my life around the existence of a table.
You are correct in saying that atheists are reactive. But not in the sense you give. Atheism is a reactive claim in that the atheist has nothing to say at all until the theist brings up the notion of god in the first place. The atheist is reacting to the theist's claim. There is only one claim in question, and that is the theist's claim for the existence of god. The atheist is making no claim, or assertion, of his own. The atheist is merely observing that the theist has failed to prove his claim and that it cannot be believed. If the theist never brings up the issue of god then the atheist has nothing to say.
I do not need to disprove the existence of god. The ENTIRE burden of proof belongs to the one making the claim. It is entirely incumbent upon the theist to prove his claim. If he cannot, then his claim cannot be believed. Theists and agnostics alike seem to very keen in trying to show that the atheist is making an active claim of his own (that god does not exist) and that since god's existence cannot be proven that the atheist is just as illogical as the theist. But that is not how it works. The atheist is making no independant claim. He is merely withholding belief from the theist's claim for the existence of god. It is a negation of the theist's claims and not an affirmation of the atheist's claims. The atheist does not claim that god does not exist. He merely says that god's existence cannot be believed.
I'm not sure where your last example is supposed to be going. It seems to be supporting my position. You may expand upon it further if you wish.
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by pcaspianI have not finished reading it, but it is a work of fiction even though there are factual parts related to descriptions of places in it. This thread began by questioning the existence of God based on a work of fiction. Uh...am I missing something here?
Originally posted by Deepfault
[b]Just finished reading the D'Vinci Code by Dan Brown.
It's a bunch of drivel, best-selling athiest fodder. They come around in 3 to 5 year cycles. Kinda like the Sun, you have no idea why people actually believe any of that junk, but sure enough, there is always some guy with it sitting opposite you in the tube.
[/b]
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by rwingettYou seem to be doing a very good job of missing my point entirely or I am doing a poor job of making it.
Absolute rubbish.
. If you want to talk about definitions then look at the literal meaning of the word "atheism". "A" (without) "theism" (the belief in a god). The word literally means without belief in god. It does not mean a belief in the non-existence of god.
Claiming there is a table in the other room is a common type of claim. We already ...[text shortened]... to be going. It seems to be supporting my position. You may expand upon it further if you wish.
You say that 'Atheism is a non-belief' and expand on the linguistic source of the word.
I absolutely agree with you! Our definitions are EXACTLY the same, given that I STILL state it is a poor intellectual position.
I see you point that you are making about my analogy, that it is 'reasonable to expect' that tables exist in rooms where as it is not reasonable to expect that God exists. But I used the analogy for simplicity I can give you a similar one that deals with concepts much nearer the complexity of a diety if required.
The existence of prrof is irrelevant we are dealing with conceptual analysis, the logical concepts in an arguement remain wether we are trying to prove that the ground, air, aliens or even God exists. The distance that a concept is away from your accepted set of realities is not an issues when dealing with the nature of concepts in general rather then specific concepts. If you judge all things against your own experience set and refuse to apply the same logic to a concept because you 'feel' it is unlikely you are biased against that concept on emotional rather then intellectual grounds. Unless of course you have some definitive poof that you are justified in being biased against that concept which i dont believe you do. Lack of proof of the positive is not by definition proof of the negative.
Atheism does not imply waiting for proof even in your definitions it implies a decision made i.e I DONT believe in God. Yes the athiest IS making a Claim or assertion on his own. He IS claiming that God does not exist.
As I read through your email I see even though you state the dictionary definition you are putting your own spin on it. This may in fact only be a question of symantics.
Let me try it another way if an atheist IS what you state i.e.
'The atheist is making no claim, or assertion, of his own. The atheist is merely observing that the theist has failed to prove his claim and that it cannot be believed'
etc...
What is the label of an individual who has made up his mind and Definately does not believe in God with the same intensity of one who does? There is no alternative word to describe this person because the word to be used is 'atheist'.
And is there any difference in your mind between and agnostic and an atheist?
I wonder if your definition of atheist is not my (and I believe the general) definition of agnostic perhaps? Maybe you ARE an agnostic in reality.
Another approach....
Then again this may be the way that you approach the world you have a set of beliefs, with out being presumptous i would guess in gravity, your own existance, taxes and the requirement to eat or something and probably a fair few other things, these you believe. Then everything else you dont believe in unless proven?
So the big bang theory, Brane theory, the existance of higgs bosons, cell mitosis etc for you are all unproven and thus not believed in? You are atheistic towards them ( I know they do not involve god, I merely say your attititude towards them is the same).
Or do you have room in your belief structure for.... this may be true... I give this a fair chance of being true but i dont absolutely believe it and simply I dont really know.
I critise atheism because I have encountered real atheists who passionately do not believe in god they have a form of anti-faith as much emotional and non intellectual as faith and sourced from the core of their personality. They generally have no problem with stating 'I dont believe in God' first and proving it later, much in the same way as christians but in the inverse.
At a wild guess I dont think you are one of these people.
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by kirksey957No I dont think so, you prettu much got the point.
I have not finished reading it, but it is a work of fiction even though there are factual parts related to descriptions of places in it. This thread began by questioning the existence of God based on a work of fiction. Uh...am I missing something here?
Acknowledging it is a work of fiction the theory states that IF it were true or substaintial parts of it were true would this not question the existence of God?
I could just have easily chosen the Koran and said IF it were true would this not question the divity of Christ.
The hidden trap is that if you admit that this is so and something signficant in the book turns out to be true you have pre-agreed the statement, but this is not the main point.
I was hoping this would develop into a discussion in regard to how God manifests his presence in our world and wether by analyising how he influences us we would be able to determine if he exists as a consitant effect that we can pinpoint.
The book was just a popularist and contraversal delivery tool.
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by pcaspianThough apparently argueing from opposite corners we probably have similarities in our outlooks.
Originally posted by Deepfault
[b]
My point is that IF it was true even in part would this not call into question the existence of God?
This existence of God is called into question all the time. My view is that some people are athiests, and only God can change their views, others are believers, and nothing can change their views.
...[text shortened]... e Bible originated from anyway, but are willing to believe anything if in hardcover.
pc
I propose the arguement as an analysis of Gods influence (if any) on earth as a way of prooving of disproving his existence. I have two ways of attempting to 'find' god one of which is by external analysis the other internal analyis but that is a different subject. This is is an angular approach to the external analysis discussion.
I would disagree slightly with your view on the entrenched positions though not very much. There are theist and atheists and generally but not always these people are in their bunkers and can not be moved. Though I have witnessed theists loose their faith and proclaimed athiest gain faith, a painful personal experience in both cases. The battle if there is one is for the middle ground the young and the agnostics. I always think these threads are more for their benefit then the self confessed imovables. This opens up a whole new and interesting conversation about how people travel from agnostic or 'young' positions to the two entrenched areas and the fact that the paths that are followed are changing rapidly but that is yet another debate.
I confess I did not buy the D'vinici code but read it to my wife who brought it and I also find such sensational writing tiresome in the much the same way I find anything that hints of a con or a manipulation very tiresome (dont get me started on advertising).
But I did some research and it reawakened a theory of mine about gods existence being provable (or not) statistically by observation of the world and thus I used it as a launching platform hoping to attract those who also have been caught up in the storm of publicity and contraversy that has been created by it. Opus Dei for example have a section about it on their home page!
Any way back to the plot....
If it were true in any signficant part do you think it would prove the non existance of God or do you think it can be true and God could still exist?
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by DeepfaultOf course there are atheists who claim to know that god does not exist. This is known as "strong" atheism. But this position is no more tenable than theism. Consequently, most knowledgable atheists will eschew this position and will confine themselves to merely withholding belief from the theistic claim. But this does not make them agnostics.
You seem to be doing a very good job of missing my point entirely or I am doing a poor job of making it.
You say that 'Atheism is a non-belief' and expand on the linguistic source of the word.
I absolutely agree with you! Our definitions are EXACTLY the same, given that I STILL state it is a poor intellectual position.
I see you point that you a ...[text shortened]... but in the inverse.
At a wild guess I dont think you are one of these people.
An atheist (properly speaking) will say that the claim for the existence of god is an extraordinary one, and since there has been absolutely no evidence to substantiate the claim, he has no choice but to withhold belief and will assume it to be false. But at no time does he claim to "know" that god does not exist. In fact he freely admits that there is a chance (however small) that he could be wrong.
An agnostic, on the other hand, says that the question of god's existence is simply unknowable, or that the concept of god is unintelligible. An atheist will assume god to be false. An agnostic will take no position on the matter.
So we can clearly see that when an atheist says, "I do not believe in god", he is not making a claim of his own. He is merely saying that the theist has failed to substantiate his own claim and that it cannot be believed. It is a negation of the theist's claim and nothing more.
As for things like the big bang, Brane theory, higgs bosons, cell mitosis, etc., it is all a matter of probability. I do not "believe" any of them in the sense that a theist believes in his god. I think that they are all likely to be true. They are all consistent with what we already know to be true. And if it turns out that we come up with a better answer, then I am perfectly willing to modify my views accordingly. This is completely different from the theistic claim for god, which is believed as the absolute truth despite lacking any substantive basis whatsoever.
So I would encourage you to frequent some of the more credible sources on atheism rather than relying on the confused ramblings of your acquaintances.
05 Jan 05
So I would encourage you to frequent some of the more credible sources on atheism rather than relying on the confused ramblings of your acquaintances. [/b]A little bit of a barb there indicates a degree of irritation I think, well fair enough I will attempt to establish some commonality.
This does appear to be only a dispute over definitions you have introduced a new one called 'Strong atheism' something I have encountered and would be my purist definition of atheism.
This concept of weak atheism (or standard atheism) is interesting and you call on unnamed sources on atheism to back up your definition. I would be grateful if you would suggest some of these so i can look them up.
It is possible that your weak atheism is my supra-agnostism, ok the actual labels may be different but I am more interested in the nature of the mind that can be labelled as such.
If you will indulge me I would like to see if they are one and the same thing.
If we were to order the terms we have as follows:-
Theist
Agnostic
Supra-agositic
Weak Atheist (or just atheist).
Strong atheist.
Where theist is strong belief and strong athiest is stong disbelief. Would you agree with this?
I see where you are comming from in defining an agnostic as someone who believes the truth can never be known, my dictionaries have this down as nothing non materally can be known and so this is not really appropiatte as an alternative standpoint to athiesm, because presumably you beleive it can be known. I would point out that colloqually the material aspect of the agnostic definition is often overlooked.
I see supra-agnostism (and perhaps an entirely new word is required) as a completely open mind one that gives equal credence to something being true as it not being true, the ultimate fence sitter position.
I think you would agree that atheism is not this?
So what is this position? There is no term for it as far as I aware (apart from one i have devised).
It is this position whatever it may be called that I would say is intellectually superior to all other positions of the scale as it makes no assumptions, presents a completely open mind on this subject and any other and gives equal credence to proving god exists as it does to proving that there are multiple higher dimensions.
It is an open book with no bias or preconceptions the ultimate analytical starting point.
Or would you say athiesm is in fact this in your mind?
05 Jan 05
Originally posted by silver fernIt is very had to obtain 100% proof on anything and almost impossible to get 100% proof that something does not exist within the universe somewhere as we can not see all of the universe.
now lets have your opinions about this, what if there was irrefutable proof that God did not exist.the proof was 100% so no debating about points of that proof. would christians still force themselves to believe in God? and how would society look at christians then?
But let us say that hypothetically this were achievable. Then one would probably have many fewer christians around and those that still persisted would be regarded as intellectually challanged or rather sweet in much the same way as those that persist in their belief in father christmas after the age or 10.
Although meethinks that your question is rhetorical as the answer is pretty obvious.