Originally posted by bbarrNo, I disagree with that interpretation. Atheism is not a belief, it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not a person who "believes" in the nonexistance of god; rather, he does "not believe" in the existence of god. It is a subtle, but very important distinction. If you were able to reliably demonstrate the existence of the aforementioned pixie, then the issue would leave the realm of faith and enter the realm of reason. Faith would become superfluous. The recalcitrant atheist from your example would be guilty of being irrational, but not of having faith.
Sorry if I was unclear. Suppose that he believes "there is no invisible pixie". Suppose that I then pull out a can of spray paint and spray the shoulder upon which the pixie allegedly sits, exposing what appears to be a pixie. If he still denies that there is a pixie, and no matter what type of evidence we present he will not budge, then I think it's fai ...[text shortened]... ng that any belief can be an object of faith, given the appropriate stance to possible evidence.
Originally posted by rwingettIf atheism is merely the absence of a belief in God, then someone who has never considered the matter would be an atheist by definition. Rocks and Trees would be atheists for that matter. Either the claim 'God exists' is true or it is false or it is literally meaningless. That's a logical truth. Theists think it is true. Does an atheist think the claim is false or that it is meaningless?
No, I disagree with that interpretation. Atheism is not a belief, it is the absence of belief. An atheist is not a person who "believes" in the nonexistance of god; rather, he does "not believe" in the existence of god. It is a subtle, but very important distinction. If you were able to reliably demonstrate the existence of the aforementioned pixie, the ...[text shortened]... citrant atheist from your example would be guilty of being irrational, but not of having faith.
Originally posted by dylI would consider it an act of faith if you chose not to believe that your cat was trying to kill you after you woke up to find your cat on top of you with a butcher knife hid behind its back. That's the point I was trying to make earlier. Faith is irrational belief, belief in the face of evidence to the contrary strong enough to warrant disbelief.
My pixie is displeased.
lets put it this way then. Would you consider it an act of faith if i chose not to believe my cat was trying to kill me? Or that my toaster could tell me who would win the footy on the weekend, if only i could induce it to talk.
The reason i don't believe these things (well, undecided on the toaster) is that there is no, or nex ...[text shortened]... ble.
In other words, in an athiests mind, an incredible claim requires at least some proof.
Originally posted by bbarrWhich means that if you claim your belief in god is based on faith, the evidence must, by definition, say otherwise?
Faith is irrational belief, belief in the face of evidence to the contrary strong enough to warrant disbelief.
Well the difference in our opinions comes down to you believing there is strong proof that god exists, while i think there is none. So from my point of view my lack of belief in god stems from logic, in yours it stems from faith that my point of view is correct. Either way, unless we start arguing about the possible proof of gods existance, we have hit a dead end.
By the way, for those who follow rugby league, my toaster informs me the eels will get up by 10.
Originally posted by dylWhoah there. Why do you think I believe there is evidence for the existence of God? I don't even know what the term 'God' refers to, that's why I asked people to clarify what they were talking about (this is in another post in this thread). I'm making a claim about rationality and belief. The claim I'm making is that no matter the content of a belief (a belief that something exists, or a belief that something doesn't exist) if someone is prepared to discount any evidence whatever that indicates their belief is false, then they have faith. But believing without evidence, or in the face of evidence to the contrary is irrational. So faith is irrational on epistemic grounds (though it may be pragmatic).
Which means that if you claim your belief in god is based on faith, the evidence must, by definition, say otherwise?
Well the difference in our opinions comes down to you believing there is strong proof that god exists, while i think there is none. So from my point of view my lack of belief in god stems from logic, in yours it stems from faith that my point ...[text shortened]... By the way, for those who follow rugby league, my toaster informs me the eels will get up by 10.
Ah ok, misunderstand.
But for the lack of a belief in god to be considered faith, my belief has to be in the face of the evidence, as you pointed out. As religion is based on faith itself, that must mean there is a lack of proof for the existence of god (by definition), meaning that an athiests point of view is not in the face of the evidence.
Originally posted by bbarrThe atheist does not claim that belief in god is false. He merely claims that god's existence can not be proven, and therefore that it can not be accepted as being true. The atheist will behave as though it were false until he receives some proof to the contrary.
If atheism is merely the absence of a belief in God, then someone who has never considered the matter would be an atheist by definition. Rocks and Trees would be atheists for that matter. Either the claim 'God exists' is true or it is false or it is literally meaningless. That's a logical truth. Theists think it is true. Does an atheist think the claim is false or that it is meaningless?
It is true, as you say, that god either exists, or he doesn't. The theist is unable to prove that god exists. The atheist is likewise unable to prove that god does not exist; but he doesn't need to. The atheist will say that until he is given some degree of proof that god exists, he will continue to assume that he does not.
As an agnostic, and (hopefully) a rational individual, I generally am immediately dubious of mystical claims that religion makes. However, as a scientist, I need to go back and examine the reality of the physical world before I begin doing what many agnostics do, which is erroneously applying Occam's razor to all metaphysical claims. Occam's razor is the dictum that states all things being equal, when comparing two hypotheses, the simplest one is most often the correct one. This is helpful in my day-to-day life, in that when I can't find my keys, it's probably because they're under my bed, and they weren't taken by a resurrected Elvis and cast into a wormhole to appear some where in the constellation Leo.
However, when one goes outside of daily life, particulary within the world of natural science, one encounters all sorts of phenomena which would never have been predicted if everything functioned as the result of the simplest means to accomplish something. Examples like this are all over biology. If one were to sit down and design a mammalian brain from scratch, it would likely be about 1/10 the size that it is, with orders of magnitude fewer connections and fewer means of conveying and storing information. However, that's not the way the natural world always works, sometimes things are the way they are because they just came about that way. There are plenty of other examples, but in the interet of brevity I'll allow you all to look them up for yourselves.
The point of this post is to highlight the fact that using the sort of logic that applies to day-to-day existence to disprove the fantastical notions posited by religion may not be as logical as it seems. And if our logic is dependent upon a predicted state (ie. the existence of a god) agreeing with our knowledge of previous states, then we have no basis for comparison in saying that there is or is not a god. All possibilities lie outside the realm of human experience, so it's neither more nor less logical to take one side of the argument over another. A scientific parallel would be if you found two materials made types of matter never before encountered, and induced a chemical reaction between the two. You would not be able to say whether they would react at all, or if they did react, what the resulting compound would be, because you have no basis for making any assumptions about the result of the experiment. Based on your experience, you could say 'Well, I seriously doubt that this chunk of what looks like lead, mixed with that gas that seems like hydrogen, when combined, will form a quartet of banjo-playing pink flamingos,' but this would be equally as likely as saying you didn't think they would react at all.
Unfortunately, it would appear to be a debate that, by its very nature, goes beyond the realms of conventional logic and rationality.
-mike
Originally posted by legionnaireSuppose I claim that there is a monster under your bed that telports to another dimension whenever to try to verify its existence (thus preventing any sort of verification of my claim). Are you saying that it is just as rational to believe my claim as to disbelieve it?
As an agnostic, and (hopefully) a rational individual, I generally am immediately dubious of mystical claims that religion makes. However, as a scientist, I need to go back and examine the reality of the physical world before I begin doing what many agnostics do, which is erroneously applying Occam's razor to all metaphysical claims. Occam's razor is ...[text shortened]... hat, by its very nature, goes beyond the realms of conventional logic and rationality.
-mike
Thank you bbarr for having such an open mind and for making good points. As to your question as to if there is anywhere in the Bible that it clearly states that God is perfect. Yes my friend, there is. I can REALLY understand why you didn't see it though. A clear and concise declaration of such nature is not common. There are many things in the Bible that are conveyed through understanding of the parable as a whole.
As an example, some of you may know the story of the woman who washed Jesus feet with her tears. She is a common figure in Christian art, especially in paintings. In the scripture it states that when Jesus first encountered her it was at a well in the middle of the day. She wondered at that he was not ashamed to be seen with her. The Bible never DECLARES why anyone would have not liked to be seen with her. My understanding of the matter is that people usually got their water in the morning and the evening when it was cooler, thusly I deduce that she was an outcast and probably a whore. Again, let me run my disclaimer that this what I have personally gleaned and the individual should read the text discerningly themselves before making up their own mind.
Now bbarr, would you like some specific biblical references for where it states that God is perfect or would you prefer my own analysis of texts in general? Again, thanks for the open mind. For what it's worth, I majored in philosophy when I went to college, and you've shown yourself to have the proper mindset for a philosopher in my book.
Sean
🙂
Originally posted by rwingettWell I dunno - if you have got it wrong, and God does exist, then you're going to spend eternity in hell 🙂 Wouldn't it be more logical for the atheist to play safe and assume that God does exist? 😉
The theist is unable to prove that god exists. The atheist is likewise unable to prove that god does not exist; but he doesn't need to. The atheist will say that until he is given some degree of proof that god exists, he will continue to assume that he does not.
As for faith, my dictionary defines "faith" as a "strong or unshakeable belief in something, especially without proof". If you strongly believe in the absence of God then that sounds like "faith" to me. If you're just saying that God does not necessarily exist then that sounds like agnosticism to me.
Mick 🙂
PS my stapler tells me that the Brumbies are going down to the Stormers tomorrow 😀
Originally posted by mikadoSomething to agree on:the Brumbies are going down.
Well I dunno - if you have got it wrong, and God does exist, then you're going to spend eternity in hell 🙂 Wouldn't it be more logical for the atheist to play safe and assume that God does exist? 😉
As for faith, my dictionary defines "faith" as a "strong or unshakeable belief in something, especially without proof". If you strongly believe in the ...[text shortened]...
Mick 🙂
PS my stapler tells me that the Brumbies are going down to the Stormers tomorrow 😀
Now please continue your debate.
5{ y posted by mikado[/i]Declaring a belief for god because it appears you've got nothing to lose and possibly everything to gain, is known as "Pascal's wager". But it is a false proposition. At best, it is a shallow and transparent attempt to gain possible salvation. At worst, it is the cheapening of one's verifiable existence by trying to believe what one knows to be illogical (that is not the best condemnation of Pascal's wager that's ever been written, but it will have to suffice for now).
[b]Well I dunno - if you have got it wrong, and God does exist, then you're going to spend eternity in hell 🙂 Wouldn't it be more logical for the atheist to play safe and assume that God does exist? 😉
As for faith, my dictionary defines "faith" as a "strong or unshakeable belief in something, especially without proof". If you strongly belie ...[text shortened]... f you're just saying that God does not necessarily exist then that sounds like agnosticism to me...
An agnostic will say that since the existence of god can not be rationally established, then it is just as likely to be true as to be false. The atheist will say that since the existence of god can not be rationally established, then it must be assumed that it is not true, and therefore probably false. The atheist does not have a strong belief in the nonexistence of god. Rather, the atheist has a strong belief that the theist must prove his claim about the existence of god before it can be accepted as being true. There are, of course, people who do claim to actively believe in the nonexistence of god, but they overstep the bounds of what atheism is able to provide.
Originally posted by OmnislashSo a philosopher with a "proper mindset" would be one who does not disagree with you, and who appears to be open to accepting input from you. That would seem to be a rather opportunistic definition.
Thank you bbarr for having such an open mind and for making good points. As to your question as to if there is anywhere in the Bible that it clearly states that God is perfect. Yes my friend, there is. I can REALLY understand why you didn't see it though. A clear and concise declaration of such nature is not common. There are many things in the Bible that ...[text shortened]... you've shown yourself to have the proper mindset for a philosopher in my book.
Sean
🙂
Beware! Although bbarr professes a lack of knowledge and asks many questions, I suspect that he is not really interested in discussing your insights. I suspect that he is merely engaging in a Socratic dialogue. By asking what appear to be innocent questions, he hopes to expose any weaknesses that your position (or mine) may hold.