quote:The 'reasoning' kmb is applying here is that, although there is no evidence in favour of her god's existence, there is no absolute proof against it, so therefore she is free to "choose to believe".
To be fair, she also believes that choosing to believe in God makes her happier than not choosing to believe in God, whereas she presumably doesn't feel that a belief in leprechauns has as positive a value.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:1)I had originally asked: ``Can you give an example of something that would falsify your religious faith?" Could you answer as well ``Can you give an example of something that would falsify your faith in the existence of god?"
2)With regard to your example: do many religions have a completely concrete behavioral requisite central to their practice? Anyway, fairly central to Christianity is the notion that there is only one god, and you shouldn't worship anything else. So if a kidnapper took your child and then told you that he would only return the child if you worshiped a false idol, would you conclude that worshiping a false idol is not always wrong, and so leave the religion?
3)I was asking specifically about your religious faith; can you provide such an example e.g. how "love thy neighbor" as a moral principle might be falsified?
1) No, the existence of God is an unfalsifiable claim by itself. I could find evidence that would lead me to judge it to likely be false, but nothing that would require me by proof to reject it.
2) I'd think most religions have a behavioral component that directly follows from belief in that religion. In your example, if I believed that worshipping other idols was inherently wrong, I don't think that kidnapping would be enough to convince me that the "no worshipping other idols" rule was false. Instead it would just convince me that bizarre exceptions to the rule exist. Single exceptions in situations artificially created to contradict a general moral rule like that don't convince me to reject the moral rule. But natural situations where the moral rule repeatedly leads to a wrong outcome can convince me to reject a moral rule. (This is because I don't think moral rules actually define right and wrong. Rather, they define the wisest way to act given that our limited knowledge prevents us from knowing what truly is right and wrong in any given situation. I could elaborate more on that, but it would be a significant sidetrack...)
Incidently, I do consider belief in one God to be central to my religion, but I don't consider the idea that "worshipping other idols is inherently immoral" to be central to it. In fact, I'm not sure I'd even consider that true. I don't really think Hindu believers are doing something morally wrong by simply worshipping in the way they believe to be right.
3) I actually can't think of a hypothetical realistic situation where "love thy neighbor" would be falsified. I think merely being able to imagine such a situation would be enough to falsify it. This is going to be true with any fundamental moral rule that I actually do accept; the fact that I accept the rule means I don't think there could be any realistic situation where it would turn out false.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If a leprechaun showed up, it would not unduly disturb my worldview.
I don't see how, barring psychological "Big Brother Loves Me" or "There are four lights" kind of trauma, that one could "worship" what one believed to be a false god. Faking worship under duress is not the same as worship. It may be its own sin, but it isn't that.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh but so many of you ignore evidence when it comes to the things of man. Which is worse, believing something that lacks evidence or embracing something that has plenty of evidence against it? The government will solve all our problems, they have such a good track record in that regard, don't they?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You go in circles. That others believe silly things does not relieve you of the responsibility for not doing likewise. In any case, I am not necessarily very much to your left on social and economic questions. Note that many atheists are libertarians, and vice-versa. But this misses the central point: Even if all atheists were communists, their folly in economic questions would be no more than an ad-hom. Either you take responsibility for your own beliefs, or you don't. Which is it?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I take complete responsibility for my own beliefs and I'm a Libertarian despite their position on issues like abortion. My sin is my own and theirs is theirs. I believe homosexuality is immoral but we should not persecute the homosexual. The problem isn't that Christian's persecute, the problem is that others can't accept that a christian believes what they are doing is wrong. My beliefs are mine and yours are yours...believe what you want and have a nice life. I don't scold or criticize my gay neighbor and I don't call you foolish for being an atheist. I have different beliefs but I'm not going to run around telling every atheist he's going to burn in hell. People have a tendency to project their struggles on others, the one's who run around screaming racism, intolerance, etc are often the one's who see race first and are least tolerant of others beliefs. It seems there is a mentality that if one group does not accept the actions of another they are somehow discriminating against that group. Discrimination is not a belief, it's an action. KoM you remind me of the annoying Seventh Day Adventists and Mormons that continually knock on my door to save me from my foolish beliefs.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I take complete responsibility for my own beliefs
Then where's your evidence? Why are you so reluctant to say what convinced you to believe as you do? I assume you did not flip a coin, "Heads God exists, tails I become an atheist". But you have conceded that the evidence you have mentioned is not convincing, and that there's a component of 'faith'. Well, why have faith? Why the Lord Jehovah, and not the Prophet Mohammed? If you cannot base this on evidence, then how are you "taking responsibility" for a faith which - quel surprise! - just happens to match the mainstream of your culture?
And another point: If you believe in your god, and you think that some people will go to hell for their actions (perhaps you are one of those Christian who do not believe this; it's a hypothetical) then how can you present leaving others alone as a virtue? If someone walked over a cliff, believing they could fly, would you watch them go on the grounds that they should be permitted to believe what they liked?
As for discrimination: I did not say a word about it. You keep making these assumptions about what I believe, and you keep missing. Please stop, and address yourself to what I actually write. I am not a strawman left-liberal, and would appreciate you arguing with me, not some combination of Michael Moore, the ACLU at its nuttiest, and the monster from "It Came From Berkeley U".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
christ returned after he died and told everyone there is life after death. im waiting for an atheist to come back after death and tell me the contrary.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, you're adorable. Here, let me pinch your cheeks and otherwise patronize you, you little cutie.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I was being sarcastic. I think you are adorable, and I was patronizing you. But, yes, I was being snide.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Tom told you he had died and is now back and that the afterlife is just a giant roller derby, would you believe him, or would I have to write a book about it first?
See, *that* was sarcasm.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
I had to think about your statement of how I follow a belief that "just happens to be the mainstream of my culture". I believe I've even suggested that societies, ie North Korea, Middle East etc impact the beliefs of the people but there is a difference between state propaganda and religious freedom. I take solace in the fact that my country, my culture was founded by Christian men to make the freest and most productive nation in the history of the world. A nation that has done more good and is more charitable than any other nation on the planet. If I were from Iran, the common culture argument for blind faith might be a strong argument but in this case, it supports the opposite of what you suggest.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
What does any of that have to do with what's true? Taking responsibility for your beliefs does not include "Well, the other people who believe it seem to be doing ok." (We can discuss the religion of the people who wrote the US constitution another time.) Either you have evidence for your position, or you're just another monkey who screams what the alpha male tells him to scream. That the alpha male has managed to gather a lot of nuts and expand the tribal territory does not entitle him to think for you. Do you have evidence, or do you have 'faith'? There is no third position.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
kom. i dont think malanthrop has the evidence you desire nor do i think he is a monkey. most of your comments are condescending to the point of being pathetic. in the case stated above, there is not third positon for you either: do you know god doesnt exist, or do you just believe (or hope or wish) he doesnt? its doubtful you would be so concerned with mal having proof to back his beliefs if you didnt have evidence to support your own claims.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to point out that not believing in the existence of a god is not a positive claim, and thus does not require evidence to be rational. The absence of belief is, for most beliefs, the default state.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The oldest and most unanswerable questions are: What is true? and What is the meaning of life? I doubt those answers will be found in Hatrack. I've stated repeatedly, there is a component of evidence and a component of faith. I do not intend to go in circles by pointing out that everything in life has a measure of faith. Scientific theories that have been revised or debunked shows the measure of faith in science. Faith that your next paycheck will come before your employer files for bankruptcy and faith that you will survive the commute to work in the morning. I do not know for certain if I will wake up in the morning but I have faith that I will...my confidence in my cardiovascular system is not foolish.
The only things certain in life are death and taxes. Of all things in human history, these two have always been supported by the evidence you seek.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You have, however, mentioned numerous pieces of evidence that, upon prompting, you have failed to provide.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I just want to point out that not believing in the existence of a god is not a positive claim, and thus does not require evidence to be rational. The absence of belief is, for most beliefs, the default state.
I don't think that it is necessary to take a position just because it is the "default" position.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I just want to point out that not believing in the existence of a god is not a positive claim, and thus does not require evidence to be rational. The absence of belief is, for most beliefs, the default state.
I don't think that it is necessary to take a position just because it is the "default" position.
posted
I think that the Bible (OT especially) is a record of the relationship between God and one people. I think that God is bigger than that. I don't think that God is a tribal god. Worshipping Zeus or Apollo or Thor are other ways certain people related to God - less useful ways most of the time, I think, but our way is certainly not without its issues. Being Christian, I believe that Jesus is God incarnate and the best way to relate to God.
ETA: I usually use the New American Bible, but not always.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a bit unclear: are you saying 1)that Zeus was an (inefficient) manifestation of god and therefore, insofar as god exists, Zeus exists or 2)that when people thought they were worshiping Zeus they were actually worshiping God? (in which case you haven't yet said whether or not you think Zeus exists).
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The absence of belief might be the default state in the sense of a hard drive being wiped clean but not in the case of humanity. Humans have always believed in god/God/gods/spirits, etc. The natural, hence default state, is to believe in something beyond. I doubt it would be too much of a stretch to suggest that 99% of all humans that ever lived had a supernatural belief. 1% cannot be the default state.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The absence of belief might be the default state in the sense of a hard drive being wiped clean but not in the case of humanity. Humans have always believed in god/God/gods/spirits, etc. The natural, hence default state, is to believe in something beyond. I doubt it would be too much of a stretch to suggest that 99% of all humans that ever lived had a supernatural belief. 1% cannot be the default state.
I think a natural human state is to be curious and seek answers. As is making up answers for that which we do not know. Your claim of 99% (which is doubtful) merely shows that we have a propensity to create stories to mask our ignorance.
Unless you're claiming that the entire 99% have been correct in thinking that their god/gods have influenced their belief.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: christ returned after he died and told everyone there is life after death. im waiting for an atheist to come back after death and tell me the contrary.
Oh cool, you can be malanthrop's opening act.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: christ returned after he died and told everyone there is life after death. im waiting for an atheist to come back after death and tell me the contrary.
Oh cool, you can be malanthrop's opening act.
thank you for your permission. that sounds fun. how do i do that?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
I certainly don't accept that all natural things are "default." Nor do I necessarily accept that religious belief is actually "natural."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: thank you for your permission. that sounds fun. how do i do that?
It's pretty easy. Just keep making anklebiter-style interjections like that first thing of yours I quoted.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The absence of belief might be the default state in the sense of a hard drive being wiped clean but not in the case of humanity. Humans have always believed in god/God/gods/spirits, etc. The natural, hence default state, is to believe in something beyond. I doubt it would be too much of a stretch to suggest that 99% of all humans that ever lived had a supernatural belief. 1% cannot be the default state.
I think a natural human state is to be curious and seek answers. As is making up answers for that which we do not know. Your claim of 99% (which is doubtful) merely shows that we have a propensity to create stories to mask our ignorance.
Unless you're claiming that the entire 99% have been correct in thinking that their god/gods have influenced their belief.
I agree the natural state is to seek answers. In the absence of scientific answers, belief in the supernatural is understandable. With all our modern science, why do people persist to believe in a higher power? I wouldn't suggest that 99% have been correct in their belief, rather 99% have had an inherent belief in a higher power. Even self proclaimed christians will vehemently disagree about specifics with other christians. Where the vast majority of humans diverge is where their individual hope/interpretation/ideals differ. Engaging in an argument with an atheist about Christianity is pointless. Christianity is just another manifestation of man's desire to explain the existence of God. If we can't agree that we need a highway built, why are we arguing about the architectual style of a particular bridge? Why would the suspension bridge promoter argue with the person who doesn't even want the highway. My attempt has been to bring this back to the fundamental point that there is an inherant belief in god, yet a difference in interpretation. It's pointless to argue interpretation with someone who denies the language.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The absence of belief might be the default state in the sense of a hard drive being wiped clean but not in the case of humanity. Humans have always believed in god/God/gods/spirits, etc. The natural, hence default state, is to believe in something beyond. I doubt it would be too much of a stretch to suggest that 99% of all humans that ever lived had a supernatural belief. 1% cannot be the default state.
This may be the case for humanity as a whole, but it is not true for individuals. We are all born atheists. I think that may be what Tom means by a "default state". We are born without belief. Those who believe have changed their default state for whatever reason. Those who do not believe have not found a reason to.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: It's a bit unclear: are you saying 1)that Zeus was an (inefficient) manifestation of god and therefore, insofar as god exists, Zeus exists or 2)that when people thought they were worshiping Zeus they were actually worshiping God? (in which case you haven't yet said whether or not you think Zeus exists).
I'd imagine that she thinks that Zeus is one group's perception of the divine, and that it's incomplete, as all human attempts to understand the divine must necessarily be. Kate? Is that close?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The absence of belief might be the default state in the sense of a hard drive being wiped clean but not in the case of humanity. Humans have always believed in god/God/gods/spirits, etc. The natural, hence default state, is to believe in something beyond. I doubt it would be too much of a stretch to suggest that 99% of all humans that ever lived had a supernatural belief. 1% cannot be the default state.
This may be the case for humanity as a whole, but it is not true for individuals. We are all born atheists. I think that may be what Tom means by a "default state". We are born without belief. Those who believe have changed their default state for whatever reason. Those who do not believe have not found a reason to.
Here's the nature vs nurture argument. An intersting experiment would be to take infants and raise them in an environment without religious training and monitor their perception of the world. Not in an inherently atheist country but in an entirely neutral environment. Would Tarzan be an athiest?
quote:I agree the natural state is to seek answers. With all our modern science, why do people persist to believe in a higher power?
We still don't have all the answers. Add to that the social mores, traditions, and the general comfort that comes from having a place to belong, and it's not surprising that religion persists. And that's true even amongst the religions that are wrong (somewhere between 3.6 billion and 5.7 billion people, depending on which religion is right).
quote:Would Tarzan be an athiest?
If I had to venture a guess, judging by the sheer number of offspring who are the same religion as their parents (crazy--you'd think the correct god would be able to elbow his/her way in there somewhere ), I'd go with very yes.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, you're adorable. Here, let me pinch your cheeks and otherwise patronize you, you little cutie.
In another thread you inferred that the problem with Hatrack is that it no longer has the atmosphere of a place where people act as if they were in "Card's living room." Is this really a comment you'd make if you were in OSC's living room, particularly given he is religious?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This may be the case for humanity as a whole, but it is not true for individuals. We are all born atheists. I think that may be what Tom means by a "default state". We are born without belief.
There's a contradiction in this statement. Atheism IS a belief. Therefore, if we are all born without belief, nobody is born an atheist.
Once we start thinking about the world around us, that is when we start forming beliefs. I'm sure if a bunch of children were left to grow up entirely separately from one another and society, like Tarzan, there'd be plenty of them who would never begin to think about religious questions like "Where did the world come from?", just as plenty would never begin to think about math questions. These people would be neither atheist nor religious; they'd simply have no beliefs or opinions about the question whatsoever. But if you started asking them religious questions, and they started thinking about it, I suspect the majority would end up coming to religious explanations such as gods, souls, etc.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh, you're adorable. Here, let me pinch your cheeks and otherwise patronize you, you little cutie.
In another thread you inferred that the problem with Hatrack is that it no longer has the atmosphere of a place where people act as if they were in "Card's living room." Is this really a comment you'd make if you were in OSC's living room, particularly given he is religious?
Not that I would have answered that way...But I would never walk into someone else's living room if nobody knew me and insert myself into an obviously controversial argument and say something to goad people.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:An intersting experiment would be to take infants and raise them in an environment without religious training and monitor their perception of the world.
I'm doing that right now. I'll let you know how it goes.
------------
quote:In another thread you inferred that the problem with Hatrack is that it no longer has the atmosphere of a place where people act as if they were in "Card's living room."
That actually reflects a somewhat profound misunderstanding of what I said.
quote:These people would be neither atheist nor religious...
No, they would be atheists, in that they would hold no belief in a god.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: It's a bit unclear: are you saying 1)that Zeus was an (inefficient) manifestation of god and therefore, insofar as god exists, Zeus exists or 2)that when people thought they were worshiping Zeus they were actually worshiping God? (in which case you haven't yet said whether or not you think Zeus exists).
I'd imagine that she thinks that Zeus is one group's perception of the divine, and that it's incomplete, as all human attempts to understand the divine must necessarily be. Kate? Is that close?
Yup. Zeus being way incomplete.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That actually reflects a somewhat profound misunderstanding of what I said.
Here's the quote:
quote:To sum up: the "this is Card's living room" metaphor worked very well, as long as people believed it. But it was only a metaphor that could work as long as the atmosphere contributing to it was sustained.
quote:An interesting experiment would be to take infants and raise them in an environment without religious training and monitor their perception of the world.
I'm doing that right now. I'll let you know how it goes.
I can help you a little there Tom, because I was raised this way. While my parents were themselves raised Christian, they did not raise me Christian. I never went to church, never prayed, and never read any part of the bible until just a few years ago so that I could understand what the big fuss was about. The Golden Rule was always dominant in my family, but it didn't come from any one religion.
And how do I perceive the world? I am an atheist. Or very strongly agnostic, depending on your definition. Sure, in the last year or so, I have become very curious about how others see the world. I'm not looking to change my beliefs. I am very comfortable with how I view the world. It is simple curiosity and a desire to understand others. I am taking a class in Tibetan Buddhism. My closest friend studied world religions and we talk often. We both find it highly rewarding.
I haven't killed anyone, hurt anyone, broken any laws (okay, I ran a red light and download music from time to time), think I am a moral person, and have had other people tell me I'm a moral person. My siblings are the same.
Is this surprising? Is it unusual? Is it what you would expect?
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's pretty much what I'd expect, yeah. That said, I do wonder about outside cultural influences. In some areas, the social impact of not going to something like Vacation Bible School can be pretty harsh. I remember being in a creative writing class in college and writing a story very heavy on Biblical symbolism, then having to explain it to the one Muslim immigrant in class who had no idea what the allusions meant -- and realizing that this must be the experience of a lot of people reading certain works of Western literature.
The degree to which Christian culture has diffused through American culture might make a fair experiment sort of difficult.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. Just this last month I read Matthew and was amazed as to how much of the story and details I already knew. So much of the story and imagery is found nearly everywhere that is isn't surprising that I picked up most of it. It struck me then that America really is a Christian Nation. Sure it has tremendous religious diversity, but I am not familiar with the Koran, or most of the Old Testament, or hardly any of the teachings of Hinduism or Buddhism.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
), I'd go with very yes.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
