since we're talking about religion, I'll throw my two cents in:
a guy goes to confesion and says "father, forgive me I've slept with 7 women"
The priest says: "ok, here's what I want you to do, go home and get 7 lemons. Squeeze the juice from the lemons into a glass and then drink all of it."
The guy says: "Father, if I do this, will my sins be forgiven?"
The priest says: "no, but it'll take the goofy grin off your face!"
Of course God exists, in the same way that Allah, Yaweh, Shiva, Neptune, ghosts, fairies, the number 12, and RHP exist. Each of these things is a concept, a representation of the state of a human mind. The debate "Is there a god?" is really just the debate "Does, or does not, the concept of god affect other concepts in an absolute way?"
That I suppose is rather unclear. I think the God Existence question is really about cause. Since we're all talking about some god, we're acknowledging god's existence as a concept. Furthermore, everything that has a physical existence (objects and events) as well as everything that doesn't but is still "imaginable" has an existence as an idea or piece of information.
'A' is the fact representing a physical event. If A implies at least one of a set of facts representing events taken along with A, then we can say that one of these statements represents an event that is the cause of A. The "Is there a God?" question seems to be equivalent to "Is the conept of God representative of the cause of some or all physical events?" We really have no empirical data about the world to indicate that this question should be answered in the affirmative, but we do have many data to indicate that other concepts can be so associated with physical events, and not clearly asscoiated with the god-concept. This indicates that if the god-concept is to be a cause at all it likely has to be a cause of a very wide array of events, which is even more implausible given what was just said. So because of a lack of evidence for god, and many theoretically and phenomologically acceptable explanations that do not make use of the god-concept, I am an atheist until evidence is introduced to make that position untenable.
EDIT I suppose others in this forum have made the same kind of conlusion, so you needn't read all that.
There is much, hugely much in fact, that draws me to "freethinking". Genuinely and sincerely there is. While feeling that I share a great many of the tenets and ideas that belong to "freethinking" (don't worry Rob - not going to apply to join your clan, not that you'd have me 😀) there is something about being a "freethinker" (nothing to do with clans) that I'm unsure of.
3 days ago, in the shower, I was troubled. Even more alarming was that even after removing the rubber duck that was sitting on my foot I was still troubled.
It seems that one (the?) definition of "freethinker" might be along the lines of one who forms opinions on one's own, based on one's own experiences, based on the evidence that one has seen/felt/read without undue influence of the authority of others. What's troubling me is does this preclude forming an opinion that there is a God?
Despite former "beliefs" from years ago, I side with those who feel they have found insufficient evidence yadda yadda yadda. But I'm not sure I would want to call myself a "freethinker" if those who are theists are automatically disqualified (some may deserve to be, but I don't think all) from being called "freethinkers". Can a theist be a "freethinker"?
[Apologies if this has been answered on this site or any other - if so someone point me in the right direction please]
T1000
Hi RoyalChicken,
Surely you would concede that, even if the concept of X exists, X itself may or may not exist, and debate about X existing is not just a debate about whether the concept of X exists, but whether X itself exists. For example, the concept of unicorns clearly exists; the question, however, is whether unicorns really do exist. The same, surely, goes for God. There is a fact of the matter, as well as a construal of that fact.
Of course, the God case is more complicated, because the concept of God is more ill-defined than that of unicorns. Indeed, the concept of God may not be coherent, in which case God can't exist, as the coherence of a claim, parasitic on the coherence of the concepts denoted therein, is a precondition for the truth of a claim.
As far as conceptualizing God goes, I think Voltaire put it best when he said: "If God made man in His own image, man has more than reciprocated." On the other hand, I also like G. K. Chesterton's comment: "An atheist is someone who believes that the universe is the most exquisite masterpiece every created by nobody."
Aiden
Originally posted by T1000There is nothing preventing a freethinker from thinking that there is a god, provided that they have some reason to think that (although an intricate logical proof that shows there is a god is not required, in my view).
It seems that one (the?) definition of "freethinker" might be along the lines of one who forms opinions on one's own, based on one's own experiences, based on the evidence that one has seen/felt/read without undue influence of the authori ...[text shortened]... - if so someone point me in the right direction please]
T1000
I think the definition of freethinker may preclude someone who is "religious", however, at least in the conventional sense of the word (i.e. - someone who has a set of beliefs which have been taught to them and which they do not question).
Originally posted by eddie andersThere is an old football joke from the 70's Liverpool signed a player called St.John. Graffitee went up in Liverpool about what happens when St.John comes.Some one wrote under it that we move Jesus to left back.
i think you are in need of a footballing lesson rangers are the greatest team to grace this earth no team will stop us we will be champions of europe so give your self a shake montathingy😛
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeHello, Aiden
Hi RoyalChicken,
Aiden
Surely you would concede that, even if the concept of X exists, X itself may or may not exist, and debate about X existing is not just a debate about whether the concept of X exists, but whether X itself exists. For example, the concept of unicorns clearly exists; the question, however, is whether unicorns really do exist. The same, surely, goes for God. There is a fact of the matter, as well as a construal of that fact.
You clearly have a rather narrow definition of existence that is encompassed by the phrase "physical existence". I was not having a debate about whether the concept of God exists. Furthermore, the only type of really verifiable existence is conceptual anyway-so you are certain that unicorns exist conceptually and hypothesize that: 1.) there is a meaningful concept of physical existence; 2.) there is nothing physically existing that coheres with your concept of a unicorn. This kind of talk is not the subject of the debate really. I'm saying that there is an injection mapping the set of physically existing things into the set of conceptually existing things, so that events can be looked at merely as changes in the informational state of the world (in fact, empirical science cannot debunk this). I am then saying that the "God Debate" is really just a debate about whether the god-concept is capable of altering any of the existing concepts which correspond to physical things.
Of course, the God case is more complicated, because the concept of God is more ill-defined than that of unicorns. Indeed, the concept of God may not be coherent, in which case God can't exist, as the coherence of a claim, parasitic on the coherence of the concepts denoted therein, is a precondition for the truth of a claim.
This is true.
Voltaire said some humourous stuff. Send a game and we could continue this conversation.
~Mark
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell, some sort of clear empirical justification as well as a repudiation and re-explanation of evidence to the contrary. It would have to be stronger than any evidence brought forth by empirical science, because I don't 'believe' the statements of natural science; rather I accept them as at best very likely, which is the intention of the scientific method. To make me 'believe' in God there would have to be some sort of logical justification within an axiomatic base derived from perfect observation.
I am an atheist until evidence is introduced to make that position untenable.
Hi Royalchicken,
What evidence (facts ?) are you willing to accept ?
IvanH.
Originally posted by bbarrAlas this argument is not congruent with atheim as defined: i'm afraid there is NO 'evidence' of the lack of god, though one can posulate the lack of certain definitions of god (or gods) according to the specific religeous denominations.
This is a misconstrual of atheism, as Comrade Rwingett has pointed out in these threads innumerable times. The atheist does not make the claim "There is no God" but, rather, "Since there is no compelling evidence for the existence of God, ...[text shortened]... ment to the point where all statements are similarly metaphysical.
For example: you cannot disprove that some 'god' created the universe, then went off and totally ignored it: thus the BELIEF that there is no god, a belief that cannot be proved, qualifies as a religeon itself (a metaphysical belief structure that cannot be proved). ironic huh?
Agnostisism is the belief structure of choice for the non-believer.
My own beliefs are mine: I'm not evangelical.
Originally posted by royalchickenWith all due respect, RC, please do not confuse god-believers with god-pushers. The former have no need to prove anything to anyone - it is the latter that must be prepared to defend their position.
This is ridiculous. The onus is on the God-believers to prove the existence of god, not for the atheists to prove the non-existence.
Consider the analagous dichotomy between an atheist who says "I do not believe there is a god" and one who says "there IS no god, and anyone who thinks otherwise is irrational".
Originally posted by bbarrCertainly I agree with this, but I doubt many religious people who have thought about it disagree with this point. In my experience, their reply is not contradictory to this, rather, they say "God is outside of reason, and therefore the reasonabless of belief in him/her/it is no test of whether god exists." However:
it is not rational to believe in God."
When one talks about anything, one is really invoking and performing operations on the concept related to that thing. Ideas and concepts are best dealt with on the basis of reason. Asserting that "god is outside reason" is saying that a concept should not be considered in a rational way. They propose "faith" as a way to deal with a concept instead of reason, but give no indication why concepts amenable to rational consideration cannot be dealt with on this basis.
If God cannot be dealt with in a reasonable way, then no "acts of god" may be observed, experimented upon, or thought about except in an illogical or completely indecisive way. Thus physical phenomena, which by definition have some empirical record, are not results of a god. Furthermore, ideas that can be logically manipulated are not results of a god. So the religious person is left with two choices:
1. Insist that god is outside of reason, and accept the consequence that no part of human existence can be attributed to god besides totally valueless and irrational thoughts.
2. Retract that claim, say that god can be contained by rationality, and be forced to accept the already decided conclusion that belief in god is irrational.
That is some supreme being 😕. It is strange that religious people, who apparently should be total nihilists, are sometimes so vehement. Anyone care to comment?