12 Mar 03
Originally posted by mikadoThe two are not at all the same. The christian's claim of the existence of god is an affirmation of something. He is claiming that something exists, and would have others believe likewise. The atheist is not claiming to believe IN something, he is merely denying the validity of the christian claim. The atheist says the christian has failed to prove his case, and therefore his claim to the existence of a god is no more worthy of belief than is the tooth fairy, or the ancient Greek pantheon. Of course, this does not prove that god does not exist, but simply states that the atheist has no logical choice but than to disbelieve in the existence of a god until some verifiable proof has been given to the contrary.
Acolyte stated that Christianity is a matter of faith and that he is an atheist. To my mind atheism is equally a matter of faith as religious belief. An atheist believes that there is no god, but is just as incapable of proving that position as a Christian is of proving the existence of God.
Mick 🙂
12 Mar 03
Originally posted by mikadoOK, perhaps atheist was a bad word to use. I do not believe in the existence of a god or gods, however I do not believe in their nonexistence, either. Whilst this is technically agnostic, the general interpretation of agnostic is someone who is wavering and can't make up his mind, which is different to someone who, like myself, takes it as an axiom that there is no god, without believing that there is no god. In fact, I will generally assume that that which I have no evidence for does not exist, even though I believe this assumption to be false. Perhaps 'strong agnosticism' is best, to distinguish it from the 'can't make my mind up' of weak agnosticism, which is arguably the dominant belief in many European countries, even among nominal Christians.
Acolyte stated that Christianity is a matter of faith and that he is an atheist. To my mind atheism is equally a matter of faith as religious belief. An atheist believes that there is no god, but is just as incapable of proving that position as a Christian is of proving the existence of God.
Mick 🙂
Whilst an axiom is a logical entity, faith is an emotional thing: you 'know in your heart' that it is true. One of my axioms (which, to be fair, I would have great difficulty abandoning) is that logic is the most reliable form of reasoning available to us, and that our emotions are only distantly connected to reality via the (currently opaque) processing mechanisms of the brain. In this sense, though there might be evidence for the existence of God, I cannot have faith in Him without abandoning this axiom.
12 Mar 03
1 edit
In reply to rwingett...
If you have insufficient evidence to prove that god exists then you have two logical choices - either
a) decide that god does not exist (which is a matter of faith if you cannot prove that god does not exist), or
b) keep an open mind.
Personally I believe that there is a god but I don't believe that Christianity (or Islam) has got it right. But I accept that that is just my personal faith and is not provable.
Coming back to the original point of the thread, as I remember the bible it is a pretty hardline document, for example -
- Christianity is an exclusive religion. All other religions are worship of false gods and thus unacceptable
- Christians are under a duty to spread the word of God (it's not ok to say "Hey I'm saved, but you guys make your own mind up!"😉
So yes, people who take the bible literally may well appear extreme!
Mick 🙂
12 Mar 03
Originally posted by rwingettA Christian would argue that this misses the point, because Christians don't need or want evidence for the existence of God; they have faith in it. Therefore a shift from most forms of atheism or strong agnosticism to Christianity is not a matter of evidence; it's a 'paradigm shift' or change of axioms, including (it seems to me) the axiom that allows you to have axioms in the logical sense. Thus the only way you can convert someone from one to the other is by emotional means, and for a non-believer to do so would be hypocritical; you can't intimidate someone into thinking logically and ignoring their emotions. Thus in an evolutionary sense religion is fitter than non-religion as it is more capable of spreading.
The two are not at all the same. The christian's claim of the existence of god is an affirmation of something. He is claiming that something exists, and would have others believe likewise. The atheist is not claiming to believe IN something, he is merely denying the validity of the christian claim. The atheist says the christian has failed to prove his cas ...[text shortened]... isbelieve in the existence of a god until some verifiable proof has been given to the contrary.
12 Mar 03
Thank you for your open mind mikado. I do read the Bible literally, but I don't think along quite the same lines you mentioned. In the instance of "spreading the word", I believe this is a good thing, and if one truly believes that it is the truth then it is only right to do so. However, I do not see it as something that should be pushed. If someone is not wanting to learn, then a push will only create distance instead. I love to talk Biblical, but only to those who wish it.🙂
12 Mar 03
Originally posted by mikadoc) decide that the matter is unprovable, ie you will never know either way, so you have to assume existence or nonexistence. Logic isn't actually about 'true' and 'false', it's about whether consequence B follows from axiom A. That doesn't make the axiom has any objective truth.
a) decide that god does not exist (which is a matter of faith if you cannot prove that god does not exist), or
b) keep an open mind.
12 Mar 03
Originally posted by AcolyteWell said, Acolyte. This thread basically illustrates the reason why the many "logical" and logical arguments for the existence of God that have been made throughout history (the ontological argument, Goedel's modification of said...) are missing the point. It is a great affront to someone's faith if the offices of logic are required to affirm it. And, to clarify the point you just made, anyone could pick some axioms from which they could deduce the existence of God. If their argument was deductively valid, and their axioms were consistent with the laws of physics (if they were shooting for proof of "physical existence of God"😉, then it would be untouchable. The same is identically true for, say, the Riemann Hypothesis, and such proofs, in and of themselves, would be about equally impressive.
c) decide that the matter is unprovable, ie you will never know either way, so you have to assume existence or nonexistence. Logic isn't actually about 'true' and 'false', it's about whether consequence B follows from axiom A. That doesn't make the axiom has any objective truth.
However, most religious people who I know who are willing to talk about it in a critical light would say that God is not necessarily a physical presence. So a proof of the existence of a God would entail
a. discovering some mode of existence, non-physical
b. finding laws that govern that mode of existence (analogous to physical laws)
c. constructing a deductively valid argument based on those laws that shows that God exists in that manifestation.
For example, it is clear that God is very real as an idea.
12 Mar 03
1 edit
Originally posted by AcolyteI didn't express myself very well - my option (b) was meant to include the possibility that you might make a working assumption along the lines of your option ( c). Of course you don't have to make that assumption. All I meant was that you either believe there is a god, or you believe there is no god, or you accept it as unproven ("keep an open mind" ).
c) decide that the matter is unprovable, ie you will never know either way, so you have to assume existence or nonexistence. Logic isn't actually about 'true' and 'false', it's about whether consequence B follows from axiom A. That doesn't make the axiom has any objective truth.
Mick 🙂
12 Mar 03
Originally posted by mikadoAtheism is not based on faith.
Acolyte stated that Christianity is a matter of faith and that he is an atheist. To my mind atheism is equally a matter of faith as religious belief. An atheist believes that there is no god, but is just as incapable of proving that position as a Christian is of proving the existence of God.
Mick 🙂
As others have said, lack of faith in something does not imply faith in the lack of something.
I liked the invisible pixie analogy.
PS. Off topic, but did anyone see Louis Theroux with the fundamentalist christians? He sang the George Michael song 'Faith' to them, which is all about touching bodies and stuff 🙂
12 Mar 03
Originally posted by yorksnoviceWe may be disagreeing on terminology.
Atheism is not based on faith.
As others have said, lack of faith in something does not imply faith in the lack of something.
I liked the invisible pixie analogy.
PS. Off topic, but did anyone see Louis Theroux with the fundamentalist christians? He sang the George Michael song 'Faith' to them, which is all about touching bodies and stuff 🙂
I had taken "Atheism" to mean "rejection of the possibility of god". You appear to take it to mean "rejection of the certainty of god". My apologies if I have misunderstood.
The pixie analogy is interesting. I cannot prove whether dyl has a pixie on his shoulder - the best I can do is to reject it as inconceiveable (an act of faith) or make a working decision to proceed as if there is no pixie (in the knowledge that there is a possibility that I may be wrong).
Mick 🙂
12 Mar 03
1 edit
Originally posted by mikadoI don't believe it is a matter of faith for (a).
In reply to rwingett...
If you have insufficient evidence to prove that god exists then you have [b]two logical choices - either
a) decide that god does not exist (which is a matter of faith if you cannot prove that god does not exist), or
b) keep an open mind.
Mick 🙂[/b]
Rather than a situation where one thinks about it and decides "I will not beleive" (which could imply faith), why cannot someone think "Why should I beleive?".
If one can see no particular reason to believe in the existence of god it's not about faith.
12 Mar 03
Originally posted by dylRead this with interest. Appollogies for my not so perfect English. I’ll make this probably poor translation of (I think) very wise words of a French man of state and philosofer, but hope the MEANING will be clear…
athiests don't need to prove anything.
it's like me saying there is an invisible pixi on my shoulder. i'm sure you'll agree that if i made this claim, then claimed your position (that there isn't one sitting on my shoulder) is an act of faith, you would think i'm a loony.
any religious people who don't feel the need to try to push people to their way of thinking (as omnislash seems to be) have a healthy attitude though.
Thinking processes
may never submit themselves,
neither to a dogma,
nor to a party,
nor to a passion,
nor to an interest (???),
nor to a prejudice
nor to whatever,
but exclusively
to the facts themselves.
Because to submit oneself
means the end
to all thinking.
Poincaré
12 Mar 03
Originally posted by OmnislashAsking reasoning beings to find "truth" in a silly myth is the same as asking us to find "dryness" in the ocean. There is no truth in superstition. Period.
Buckle up everyone, because your good friend Sean here is about to take you on another mindbending ride of....(tadah!) SELF EVALUATION and LEARNING! Yes boys and girls, it can be done! You too may read such ancient texts as the Bible and make your own intelligent discernment about it! I wish you luck, and may we all find God by the truth in our hearts.
...[text shortened]... Peace be with you all,
Sean
As for finding "Peace"... it is highly over rated. Conflict is the norm for the group of animals called predators to which all of humanity belongs.
We should strive not for peace but for managed aggression. The essence of Chess. My heart contains muscle and blood. My mind contains my past, present and future. Past is the square root of minus one. Present is the locus of all datum "sensed" by me. Future is infinity divided by any number or any number divided by zero.
Ps... I have read King James, both testaments at least 10 time each. Beautiful stories, myths and poetry. It contains no more "truth" than a Marvel comic book. Bible : Beautiful use of language. Comic : Better pictures and more imagination.