posted
Did I ever say that I like your way of reasoning, bev? 'Cause I do!
Oh, and sorry for my poor choice of words earlier in this thread. Sometimes when what I want to say seems really clear to me I'm not able to rewrite it so that it becomes more intelligible no matter how much I try. Thanks twinky for helping me out, and Jacare for not giving up until what I wanted to say was worded properly!
Edit: With this said, I'm off for a night of canasta. Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It's a question of faith. People willing to make the leap of faith necessary to believe in god -- either as a result of a personal spiritual experience or for some other reason -- will believe. People who are not willing to do so won't believe"
Exactly my point. Whatever belief you hold most dear is what will influence your belief in God, but if so then your belief isnt based upon objective facts, only relative (sometimes subjective) beliefs. Faith is the ultimate relative factor. If you have faith it is because you value something more than a person without faith does.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky- I reached that conclusion based on this post of yours:
quote: Logic says that, yes. But as I said, an omnipotent god is not constrained by logical rules. If god wanted us to not experience pain and yet still "progress and grow stronger and have joy," then god could make that happen despite how illogical it seems to us.
Edit: Lots of posts in the meantime. If god is not omnipotent, then all this is fine. I just wanted to know where you stood on the omnipotence question.
I am not saying that you belive this, but it seems that, from our point of view, if God could make us into anything at all but decided to make everyone suffer for no good reason then he isn't really all that nice of a fellow.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Does that mean, that you have it on paper? Or that you wrapped on it last night?
On paper? Hah! I never write them down.
No, I just mean that I wrote a new group of melodies that could become a song if I work a little more at them and write some lyrics.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
— Christopher Hitchens, "Less than Miraculous," Free Inquiry magazine, February-March 2004, Volume 24.
i don't like most arguments against the existence of god, nor most of the arguments for the existence of god (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God) . all of them can be refuted in some way by the other party, so i prefer to follow the principle outlined in this quote, as well as this one (my favorite)
"It is often said, mainly by the 'no-contests', that although there is no positive evidence for the existence of God, nor is there evidence against his existence. So it is best to keep an open mind and be agnostic. At first sight that seems an unassailable position, at least in the weak sense of Pascal's wager. But on second thoughts it seems a cop-out, because the same could be said of Father Christmas and tooth fairies. There may be fairies at the bottom of the garden. There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?" — Richard Dawkins, from www.world-of-dawkins.com
the idea behind this quote is that the mere idea of a debate on whether god exists or not is stupid, because it has the same logical stance as arguing whether or not fairies exist. arguments from ignorance are fallacious, both ways.
quote:Faith is the ultimate relative factor. If you have faith it is because you value something more than a person without faith does.
Huh. This doesn't really make sense to me. Different internal value systems could definitely give rise to different kinds of faith, but I don't necessarily think there is a huge difference in values between the believer and the atheist.
We all want justice and mercy, right? If not from God, from man-made law. We want things to have meaning in our lives, even if it is only the meaning we choose to give it. I think we are a lot more the same than we are different.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jacare Sorridente: Twinky- I reached that conclusion based on this post of yours:
quote: Logic says that, yes. But as I said, an omnipotent god is not constrained by logical rules. If god wanted us to not experience pain and yet still "progress and grow stronger and have joy," then god could make that happen despite how illogical it seems to us.
Edit: Lots of posts in the meantime. If god is not omnipotent, then all this is fine. I just wanted to know where you stood on the omnipotence question.
I am not saying that you belive this, but it seems that, from our point of view, if God could make us into anything at all but decided to make everyone suffer for no good reason then he isn't really all that nice of a fellow.
Oh, I see. Sure, that's certainly true, but none of you believe in what I'd call an omnipotent god, so your positions don't have that problem.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:if God could make us into anything at all but decided to make everyone suffer for no good reason then he isn't really all that nice of a fellow.
Naw, it's me who said that. But mostly because I have heard *other* atheists/agnostics say it. It wasn't an idea that occurred to me before that.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Being omnipotent means you get to break the rules of logic.
I couldn't disagree with this more.
Being Omnipotent does not being able to make something both exist, and not exist, for example.
I think it does. If you believe otherwise, then in my view you believe that god is not omnipotent. That's perfectly fine! I don't see anything problematic about believing in a non-omnipotent god.
Being omnipotent (which I do believe God is) does not mean creating things which are contradictory in the current logical scheme. Now, it does mean the ability to change that scheme. But then they won't be mutually contradictory anymore.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: the idea behind this quote is that the mere idea of a debate on whether god exists or not is stupid, because it has the same logical stance as arguing whether or not fairies exist. arguments from ignorance are fallacious, both ways.
The problem with Dawkins is that he is sure that he is smarter than everyone else.
Look at it this way- the majority of human beings believe in some sort of divine entity. Now, it is possible that all of these people are stupid, ignorant or delusional, but I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it. That is why Pascal's wager makes some logical sense whereas believing in fairies makes less sense.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: the idea behind this quote is that the mere idea of a debate on whether god exists or not is stupid, because it has the same logical stance as arguing whether or not fairies exist. arguments from ignorance are fallacious, both ways.
The problem with Dawkins is that he is sure that he is smarter than everyone else.
Look at it this way- the majority of human beings believe in some sort of divine entity. Now, it is possible that all of these people are stupid, ignorant or delusional, but I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it. That is why Pascal's wager makes some logical sense whereas believing in fairies makes less sense.
actually, pascal's wager causes more problems than it solved, because it requires you to pick a specific religion to believe in, which means that if any of the vast others are right, you're still screwed
EDIT: and i dont think that ppl who believe in god are dumb or etc., they just dont apply rationalism to that part of their lives, because they have been taught not to. its more of an indoctrination thing
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?
Huh, well, maybe we are. Did you ever think of that?
Honestly, I don't know why so many cultures have stories of fairies, dwarves, vampires, and giants. I was just reading yesterday about the Philippino version of these fey creatures. I thought it was interesting that there would be so many similarities.
Granted, I don't think fairies exist. But I can't say for a fact that I *know* they don't exist.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look at it this way- the majority of human beings believe in some sort of divine entity. Now, it is possible that all of these people are stupid, ignorant or delusional, but I wouldn't want to bet the farm on it.
I don't know, were I to form an opinion based on this evidence, I think I'd be more likely to say, given that the various conceptions are generally mutually exclusive, that this widespread conception reflects a psychological need (e.g. for supernatural control/security) or perceptual set among these humans, rather than an underlying condition of reality.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
cant forget the crutch effect, religion can be a very effective way of getting you through hard times, and bringing an otherwise incompatible society together. it wouldnt still be here today if i didnt help us live and reproduce, but i feel as though the way that evolution is leading towards now (at least social evolution) is to secularism
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know, were I to form an opinion based on this evidence, I think I'd be more likely to say, given that the various conceptions are generally mutually exclusive, that this widespread conception reflects a psychological need (e.g. for supernatural control/security) or perceptual set among these humans, rather than an underlying condition of reality.
But of course you come to the question with a preconceived set of notions (as do we all) that prejudices you to view this issue the way you do.
Put another way, your point of view could also explain the phenomenon, but it depends on a couple of assumptions, such as emphasizing the differences in beliefs rather than the similarities. While perhaps you would couch it in other terms, this position also essentially requires that all of those who claim to have had supernatural experiences of one form or another are delusional.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is no evidence for it, but you can't prove that there aren't any, so shouldn't we be agnostic with respect to fairies?
Huh, well, maybe we are. Did you ever think of that?
Honestly, I don't know why so many cultures have stories of fairies, dwarves, vampires, and giants. I was just reading yesterday about the Philippino version of these fey creatures. I thought it was interesting that there would be so many similarities.
Granted, I don't think fairies exist. But I can't say for a fact that I *know* they don't exist.
haha good point, but i think that he meant other things as well, like flying carpet keyboards (just made that up), should we be agnostic to them too? i understand that we cant prove anything completely, just by the paradigm of the empirical method, but that doesnt mean that we should seriously discuss something, until we have some evidence for it. we dont discuss flying carpet keyboards, just like we should believe in or discuss god in principle, cuz its not logically sound. if god does exist, and he gave us rationalism, then he really doesnt want us to believe in him
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Huh. This doesn't really make sense to me. Different internal value systems could definitely give rise to different kinds of faith, but I don't necessarily think there is a huge difference in values between the believer and the atheist.
We all want justice and mercy, right? If not from God, from man-made law. We want things to have meaning in our lives, even if it is only the meaning we choose to give it. I think we are a lot more the same than we are different."
While this may be correct, if we were to think about why people choose to have faith or not, we would see that other factors in the persons life cause them to believe unconditionally in a God (whether it be culture, experience, or simply logic). The factors that cause one to believe in a God through faith are much the same to those who do not believe in God. Yet, some people value things more strongly than others. For instance, for someone who has had a relative who has been sick may take this as a sign that God does not exist and therefore, loses faith. On the other hand, for someone else who has gone through the same thing, they may take this as sign that God has taken them to heaven and thus, their faith is strenghtened. Faith is relative in this way as, i suspect, are most things we argue about.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: EDIT: and i dont think that ppl who believe in god are dumb or etc., they just dont apply rationalism to that part of their lives, because they have been taught not to. its more of an indoctrination thing
posted
Angio, cultures across the world have independantly come up with stories about fairies and other magical creatures. Enough that it makes me wonder why. Not enough to make me think they exist.
But if you start telling me I should be agnostic about invisible pink unicorns and purple pandas, you're just being silly.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: EDIT: and i dont think that ppl who believe in god are dumb or etc., they just dont apply rationalism to that part of their lives, because they have been taught not to. its more of an indoctrination thing
Wrong! Thanks for playing; try again.
the only possible way i see that im wrong is in the case of people who changed religions throughout the course of their lives, but even then, the concept of a god that we should all believe in and not question *is* something that is taught to us as children, and something that we are traditionally not supposed to doubt in the same way we would doubt the existence of flying cows or invisible gnomes. this is the geo-social argument against religion, the one that states that wherever you were raised or born influences your religious beliefs more than your own sincere faith, because if you were born in rome, you would most likely be catholic, and if you were born in mecca, you would most ikely be muslim. there is no real counter argument to this, and it even applies to atheists.
however, if you still think that i am wrong, would you be so kind as to give me a reason why?
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beverly: Angio, cultures across the world have independantly come up with stories about fairies and other magical creatures. Enough that it makes me wonder why. Not enough to make me think they exist.
But if you start telling me I should be agnostic about invisible pink unicorns and purple pandas, you're just being silly.
thats the whole point, you shouldnt be agnostic about them! just like you shouldnt be agnostic about god. it is dumb to believe in invisible pink unicorns just because there is no evidence they do not exist, or because someone wrote about them a thousand years ago. do you see my point?
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because I have not been taught to not scrutinize religion rationally. I have been taught that rationality and faith are compatible. I have spent a lot of time thinking rationally about my religion, and I still have faith in it.
Edit: You're telling people it's dumb to believe in God? That probably violates the user agreement for this forum, you know.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: Because I have not been taught to not scrutinize religion rationally. I have been taught that rationality and faith are compatible. I have spent a lot of time thinking rationally about my religion, and I still have faith in it.
maybe you and i have different concepts of what it means to look at something rationaly, because it seems to me that if you were to look at religion rationaly, you shouldnt still have faith in it. explain to me how they are compatible?
and dont get me wrong, i have nothing per say against religion, i just think that we need to seperate it from rationalism, and recognize that separation
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:this is the geo-social argument against religion, the one that states that wherever you were raised or born influences your religious beliefs more than your own sincere faith, because if you were born in rome, you would most likely be catholic, and if you were born in mecca, you would most ikely be muslim. there is no real counter argument to this, and it even applies to atheists.
How about this: Your argument is not really "against religion." It's only about why people might believe in God, not about whether God really exists. The fact that lots of little kids are being brought up to like Harry Potter says nothing about whether the books are well-written or not (don't diss them, though).
Posts: 794 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Edit: You're telling people it's dumb to believe in God? That probably violates the user agreement for this forum, you know."
i believe i said explicitly that it *isnt* dumb to believe in god, just not rational in my opinion. does it make someone dumb if he/she holds a belief that isnt rational? you said yes, i didnt
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beverly: Twinky: I would very much like to know more about how you arrived at your current beliefs.
Okay. This is the Coles Notes version that does not include the things that really upset me. There are some things (not serious or terrible things, just ones it would take a long time to explain) that I'm not willing to post about here and now. I hope that's okay.
I was raised theistically, in that the Christian god was just something that everyone around me believed in (or at least did not expressly deny; I now know that my father went to church partly to indulge my mother and partly because he liked the music, not because of any particular devotion). I went to church and even Vacation Bible School. The part of Nova Scotia I grew up in was full of Baptists, though we were Anglicans (not that I discovered this until a couple of months ago; denomination was never a big issue, we just went to whatever church we wanted).
In my teens, though, I realized I knew nothing about this god person everyone else was always thanking or praising or praying to, and that I'd never had any interaction with him. I was curious about that, but I assumed it was simply because god did not take a direct hand in people's lives. A few years later I heard the word "agnostic" for the first time and realized that it described me pretty well, since I certainly had no way of knowing whether or not god existed. I mentally applied the label to myself and started thinking about the question of god's existence.
In that period, a Catholic friend of mine (one of the most wonderful people it has been my pleasure to know in life) told me about the words of a famous agnostic whose name escapes me. It was something along the lines of "I don't know if god exits, and I don't believe that it is possible to know." That resonated very deeply with me. I found myself becoming more and more confused about why exactly everyone else seemed to believe so unquestioningly in god's existence. When I mentioned this to my mother, she said that she went through a similar phase as a teenager herself. Presto! The first time I ever felt condescended to by a theist. I was irritated at not being taken seriously, but didn't let it show. I mean, she's my mother. I know she meant well.
So after that I didn't talk to my mother about religion anymore. It never occurred to me to talk to my father, because he simply never talked about religion. I don't think I ever heard him say the word "god." I considered this recently, actually, and I'm starting to suspect that this was part of the effect that the Korean War had on him. He learned to shoot a rifle before he was even ten yeras old, won championships and stuff, taught his kids in New Zealand to shoot, went out and shot rabbits with them all the time, then went off to war and as far as I know never touched a gun again afterward. There were certainly no guns in my upbringing, and the first time I ever touched a real one was when I was in New Zealand meeting my step-brothers. One of those things.
I had a very fundamentalist Christian (we're talking Young Earth Creationism here) friend all through school. He and I started discussing the question of god about the time I started questioning my faith. We went through all of the usual things -- carbon dating, fossils, the Flood, irreducible complexity, blah blah blah. The more I talked to him the less and less compelling I found Christianity, though I certainly liked him well enough and we stayed friends. In fact, his father runs a Christian bookstore and my friend gave me my only copy of the Bible. He suggested, of course, that I read it.
I took it to university with me and read it, though not the whole thing. I found the Old Testament extremely troubling, as many do -- particularly so because my mother is Palestinian and I take great issue with the notion that god promised her homeland to the Jews. I also read Karen Armstrong's A History of God, among other tomes, which gave me a better understanding of Judaism and Islam. Ultimately I found that the tenents and strictures of all three religions did not ring at all true to me.
It was also about this time that I began taking philosophy courses at university as electives. I examined as many philosophical arguments for god's existence as I could get my hands on, from Aristotle to Descartes and onward into more modern writers, and found none of the arguments convincing or compelling. I concluded that the question couldn't be answered by sitting around and thinking about it, and decided to follow the chief piece of advice offered by theists to agnostics or atheists seeking faith -- look for it.
Partly because it was next in line and partly because I'd recently taken up karate, I began to study Zen Buddhism. I ultimately realized that it requires the same leap of faith as any other religion, but of a different kind (you must believe in the oneness of the universe before you can become enlightened enough to realize that it is true), but I did find it significantly more compelling than any of the monotheistic religions. I found, though, that when I practiced my katas I entered a meditative state similar to that advocated by the practitioners of Zen. So I tried the real kind of meditation, as well as prayer, looking for god or the universe to see what I would find. Nothing happened. No prayers were answered, no sense of union with a great power or with the universe overwhelmed me.
Eventually, I stopped looking. At first I thought less of myself for it, but then I realized that I was actually happier. I resolved to stop looking for real and for good, because the question of god's existence is irrelevant to me living a happy life, and I wanted to get on with living that happy life and stop worrying about whether or not god existed. A little while after that, I stopped answering the question "Do you believe in god?" with "I don't know" and started answering it with "No." That, combined with my generally negative experiences and interactions with evangelical theists, my generally negative opinion of the Judeo-Christian god as described in the Old Testament, and most importantly the total and complete lack of personal spiritual experiences in my life got me to start self-identifying as an atheist.
I am an atheist because of my answers to the following two questions:
"Do you believe in god?" "Do you believe that god exists?"
My answer to both is "No." I don't need to believe in god to be happy, so why bother? I'm just not going to worry about it anymore. It's fun to dabble in these sorts of discussion sometimes, but that's all it is for me now -- enjoyable hypothetical discussion.
posted
1. God did not create evil. The fact that evil exists is not because He created it with some specific purpose for mankind, rather, He allowed it so that we humans have the perception of choice and free will.
2. God is not responsible for suffering. God created humans with perfect abilities. The fact that suffering does exist is due to the effects of Sin. As a result, "time and unforseen occurrence befall us all". So why does God permit suffering to continue? There are issues of universal sovereignty that were raised that need to be answered before mankind can be restored to their perfect state.
3. Why do animals suffer? We need to accept that we do not have an answer for everything in the universe. For example, it's completely possible that something/someone else is responsible for some of the "evil" things we see in the world.
4. Faith is a reflection of the heart and mind. A person will rationalize what they perceive as evidence or lack of evidence in whatever way fits what they want to believe. If God appeared before us right now, some would see a miracle and proof of a God, others would see a hallucination, others might see proof of an alien race, while others may create some completely new scientific theory to try to explain what they cannot understand. Egyptians and Isrealites witnessed the separation of the Nile River by Moses. Some chose to believe, while others did not. Likewise, we probably witness miracles all the time, but we just choose not to see it for what it is. We can try to discount the Flood of Noah's day because it seems impossible, but that's what makes it a miracle. "The Life of Pi" illustrates really well how there can easily be two sides of a story, it's just a matter of what you want to believe.
5. Regarding the "wait and see what happens" approach to an afterlife, what if there are strict requirements that need to be met if you want to get to the afterlife? If I live a religious life and it turns out I am wrong, I'm no worse of than an atheist. However, if an atheist is wrong, granted he won't know after he's dead anyway, is going to miss out on a lot. Personally, I'd rather err on the side that at least gives me a prospect to look forward to.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: maybe you and i have different concepts of what it means to look at something rationaly, because it seems to me that if you were to look at religion rationaly, you shouldnt still have faith in it. explain to me how they are compatible?
and dont get me wrong, i have nothing per say against religion, i just think that we need to seperate it from rationalism, and recognize that separation
And it seems to me that you don't understand faith or rationality if that's what you believe. They're compatible to me because I have arrived at the same result using both faith and rationalism.
And one thing: one second you're saying that people need to examine religion rationally, and then you're saying that religion and rationalism should be separate. What exactly do you mean by that?
quote:it is dumb to believe in invisible pink unicorns just because there is no evidence they do not exist, or because someone wrote about them a thousand years ago. do you see my point?
You're obviously using invisible pink unicorns as a metaphor for God and then saying that it's dumb to believe in them, because there's no proof they exist.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:this is the geo-social argument against religion, the one that states that wherever you were raised or born influences your religious beliefs more than your own sincere faith, because if you were born in rome, you would most likely be catholic, and if you were born in mecca, you would most ikely be muslim. there is no real counter argument to this, and it even applies to atheists.
How about this: Your argument is not really "against religion." It's only about why people might believe in God, not about whether God really exists. The fact that lots of little kids are being brought up to like Harry Potter says nothing about whether the books are well-written or not (don't diss them, though).
you are right, HP does kickass, and you are also right, the argument isnt about the existence of god, but it does explain why certain people are so strong in their opinions about god, even when said opinions contradict many other religious ppl's opinions, or rationalism in general
there are no fool-proof arguments against god, but there are also no fool-proof arguments for god. in cases like this, rationalism would dictate that we dismiss the idea completely until some sort of real evidence surfaces, just like we dismiss the existence of invisible pink unicorns, and that alone is why a belief in god is irrational.
again, that doesnt mean its wrong!! just cuz something is irrational doesnt make it bad. why is it so hard for ppl to accept that you can separate religion and rationalism, and agknowledge that you believe in god just cuz you do, and not because it is rational, or because there exists some sort of proof?
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Angio, I think you missed my point. I *don't* just believe in God because someone thousands of years wrote about Him. I also believe in God because I believe that He called a prophet in the early 1800s who spoke with Him face to face, and left a line of prophets leading up to modern-day. I trust their testimonies for a variety of reasons. Part of it is that their teachings appeal to me, make sense, have symmetry. That isn't all of it, but it is true that it is more subjective than objective.
I haven't seen God face to face, but that's where the faith comes in. I can wait till after I die to see for sure. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism: maybe you and i have different concepts of what it means to look at something rationaly, because it seems to me that if you were to look at religion rationaly, you shouldnt still have faith in it. explain to me how they are compatible?
and dont get me wrong, i have nothing per say against religion, i just think that we need to seperate it from rationalism, and recognize that separation
And it seems to me that you don't understand faith or rationality if that's what you believe. They're compatible to me because I have arrived at the same result using both faith and rationalism.
And one thing: one second you're saying that people need to examine religion rationally, and then you're saying that religion and rationalism should be separate. What exactly do you mean by that?
you still havent given me any exampels of said compatibility. what i think is that once you examine religion rationally, you realize that it isnt rational, so you have 2 options: 1) discontinue your belief in religion or god, or 2) separate religion and rationalism. its up to you what you do
but please provide me with your justification for reconciling rationalism and faith, i am sincerely interested in how you arrived at the same conclusion regarding your belief in god.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
