I confess, I couldn’t decipher what your point was to begin with, so you may very well be right.
The god thing on the money…it’s someone’s motto, alright. It just doesn’t represent Americans.
My thesis was in response to Tomndebbs statement:
I was saying the beliefs and/or the “leap of faith” in the first place is frequently wrong if it is based simply on indoctrination, no matter how long it was held, and as I said it is particularly wrong if said beliefs go agaisnt one’s own reason and personal experience.
First, I think it is safe to say that you have never actually met Jesus. As such it is not the slightest bit unreasonable to say that all you know about him, you were taught. You did not seem him heal any sick, you did not see him walk on water, and you did not see him rise from the dead, create the universe, nor even say he was god. All this you were taught. Will you admit this?
You also have reasons to think that a lot of your premises are wrong. For the very same reasons you doubt the 6 day creation story of Genesis, you should also doubt that a man can not resurrect others or himself from the dead. Nor can a man be separate from anther being while being one and the same as another being (I think the trinity was what you originally said made no logical sense). I can probably think of a lot of other things that you experience does, or at least should, tell you is wrong, but which you believe anyway under the name of faith, because you were taught it is correct to do so.
Told ya.
Well yeah, there is. There are a lot of things our experience should tell us is “more true” than the existence of an all powerful, all loving being who perfectly created imperfect humans, then sacrificed himself to himself for said imperfection and yet pledges to damn most of his creation to hell for ever and ever anyway. Why you would settle back on this as in any way representing something even slightly true is highly suspect.
No no no, the details that brought you back to Christianity are very important to the discussion. If you say you returned to Christianity after “careful consideration,” it is important to say what that consideration is. If I argued the moon was permanently inhabited by extra-terrestrials, and cited “careful consideration” as my proof, you would most assuredly want to know what that consideration was before agreeing my argument was, at the least, reasonable. Wouldn’t you?
I should ask what you are referring to by the “nature of existence?” Christianity describes 6 day creation by god as at least the origin of existence, but you say you believe something else.
I wouldn’t be surprised if your beliefs were based on a fair degree of “what you wish were true.” We could open a new thread on that topic but I don’t mind arguing here that believing what we wish is true, shares the same flaws as believing just what we were told, particularly when said beliefs are opposed by our own observations and reasoning.
Those reasons are very relevant. Please state them. If you are correct, you should not hide your light under a bushel, but rather let it shine.
Have you ever studied human biology and the probability of reanimating a corpse that has bled to death and sat around at room temperature for a couple of days? Our reasoning says it’s quite improbable, if not impossible. If I told you I did so with a cat in my backyard, you would not believe me, certainly not without a lot more proof than someone saying so or even my telling you that a lot of people say it. Or would you?
Sounds to me like your god just rides the back of science and jumps off only when you deem it absolutely necessary.
You believe so because you were taught so. You were taught this from a book that got all the details of your above mentioned beliefs about the origin of the universe incorrect. A largely errant book can not adequately substantiate an extraordinary claim. Or do you think it can?
By that you should perhaps be a deist. But you give your supernatural force the name of Jesus for no better reason than that is what you were taught from childhood, and to this day you are still not able to escape you indoctrination.
Well how about that resurrection? How about a world full of evil being created by an all powerful and all loving god? How about Jesus not returning when he said he would and not answering your prayers?
Many tenets of faith have been disproven. You are just trying to retreat yours to the bare minimum to avoid contradictions with the observable world as much as is possible.
So if we entertain the idea of a teacup orbiting the planet Pluto, are you suggesting the theory that there is one, is on equal footing with the theory that their isn’t?
I think we’ve hit upon the problem here. I am not trying to justify my beliefs to you or to anyone else. I have no reason to justify anything. I believe what I believe. You believe what you believe.
There is absolutely zero chance of any of us proving that we are right, or that the other is wrong. we could continue to have this discussion until the end of time (just as our ancestors have been having it from the beginning).
What I don’t get is why it is so important for some people that I be “corrected” so that my views are “rational”. The argument seems to be that belief in god (one god, many gods, “this” god but not “that” god) is bad because there is no logical justification for it. But the belief that there is no god is perfectly justified, because there is no logical proof to the contrary.
There are only two options. Either the universe was created by an “outside” agent, or it was created spontaneously. Unless I am trying to force my particular view on you against your will, or my actions (based on my beliefs) are causing harm to myself or others, then my beliefs, whether “rational” or not, should be of little consequence to you. Any belief is non-provable. If it could be proven, it would not need to be “believed”. So how can one non-provable belief be “better” than another non-provable belief?
There’s at least one other option: the universe may have ALWAYS existed, and creation is not a term that can apply to the universe, anymore than “outside” is.
Why would you embrace rational thought in other areas of your life and deny it here? Would you pray to a tiki statue if you had a sick child or would you take the kid to a hospital? Would you head for cover in a tornado or would you drop to your knees and ask for god’s protection?
It appears to me that you don’t really believe that the christian god has any of the attributes you’ve been told he possesses. Because if you *did * believe it, you’d never go to a doctor and you’d never fear anything because he loves you and he’s all-powerful. Certainly you can understand the frustration in watching someone (i.e., “you”) say one thing and do another. You can try to fall back on the “free will” thing (which would account for your behavior but not his), but it boils down to the fact that god and christ don’t deliver. If they did, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. We’d all know he exists and we’d all be feelin’ the love.
Skald the Rhymer:
And another: the universe did not always exist, but nothing came before it, so it exists without prior cause and wasn’t created by anything, it just it.
And another: “Before” has no meaning because as you slide your brain back towards the singularity time curves just as spatial dimensions do in response to gravity, making our tendency to think of time differently than we think of the other dimensions increasingly a distortion. We simply lack the language, and the question itself, “How did the universe come to be”, has false assumptions about time embedded in it.
And another: The universe is in its entirety a freaking ginormous vacuum fluctuation. It’s here because it can be, because they’re nothing to prevent it from simply coming into being out of absolutely nothing, spontaneously.
And another: Insofar as sentience exists at all, sentience is a subset of the Big Bang (just as everything that is or has ever been is just a subset of the Big Bang), and therefore the universe is sentient in the same sense that I am sentient (as opposed to reductionisms like “I am not sentient, only my brain is sentient”, etc). And therefore, in combo with the previous possibilities described above, the universe is here because it chose to be. Created itself.
And another: Except in comparison with a backdrop of something else already stipulated to be “real”, nothing can be determined to be real as opposed to hypothetical, and in that sense not only does not not make sense to speak of how the world “got created”, it does not make sense to speak of the world “existing” or “not existing”. In the context of it existing, it exists; in the context of it not existing, it does not.
And son on.
Cheese, go away for twenty hours and look what happens…
Say it, presumably because they think they know it. There are people who interpret the limits of science’s assertions as this limits of truth. (For example, asserting there is no god based only on the sheer and total lack of evidence in favor of the position.) This is not to say they’re right or wrong on any given point, but one might feel obliged to reply “there are more things on heaven and earth, Horatio…”
I am barely knowledgeable about the common religions (one reason I lurk around here, actually) much less the obscure, arcane, and ancient ones. Not knowing about them, I have little or no opinion on them; I just don’t know about them. Much like I don’t know why this was your response to my pointing out that there’s enough apparent consistency of philosophy among atheists to be mistaken for an ‘belief system’. I think I’m missing your point. 
Person: I believe in ghosts!
You*: Do you believe in aliens?
Person: Nope!
You*: Why not?
Person: Because the ghosts told me not to!
You*: You’re not allowed to disbelieve in aliens until you give a good justification for your belief in ghosts, and that the existence of ghosts is fundamentally incompatible with that of aliens.
Person: I just told you that the ghosts told me not to believe in the aliens, weren’t you listening?
You*: But the ghosts might be lying to you!
Person: My studies on ghosts tell me that they don’t lie.
You*: Well, you still haven’t proven that the ghosts exist at all.
Person: …oh I get what this is, you want me to justify my belief in ghosts to you! Again. Why didn’t you just say so! Gimme a minute, I’ll go get the slides…
Really now. There’s nothing in this sideways attack that gives you any more leverage in attacking their religious philosophy than the direct approach does. Why bother being circituous? Does one need to obfuscate themselves?
- Not actually you. But I felt it captured your position on this pretty well, didn’t it?
I was riffing on the battery of jokes along the lines of “two wrongs don’t make a right, but three lefts do”. I apologise if this was confusing.
Uno) The definitions for this seem to be all over the board, but as far as I can tell, the guy who says “There is no god!” is still the atheist, and the guy who says, “Not enough info” is still the agnostic. Fortunately, I structured the post that you’re criticizing to work just fine by very broad definitions of the terms, including yours.
Two-o) Someone who so totally lacks a belief in god as to refrain from even positing as to his existence or nonexistence is an agnostic. Someone who says, “Well, there’s no evidence to the positive, and I don’t believe in unicorns, so I guess I won’t believe in god either” is asserting the atheistic belief that god does not exist. That is, a belief about a religious concept. This is why I called atheism a religious belief. (Contrary to your implication, I did not use this argument as a reason to call atheism a belief system. That is addressed in Three-o.)
Three-o) No matter how I put extra words in this to make it propor english, that’s still not what I said. What I said was something along the lines of “Atheists ‘as a group’ give the impression of holding a battery of consistent beliefs: big bang, evolution, no immaterial souls, no afterlife, disbelieving in fate, etcetera. Since the variation within ‘atheism’ is well-outshined by the variation within ‘christianity’ (much less ‘theism’) it’s not surprising or unreasonable for outsiders to think of atheism as having an associated system of beliefs. Since it kinda does, informal though it may be. And vehement assertions to the opposite are distractions which waste time and detract from the atheist’s arguing position.” Okay, the last sentence was only implied. Not that you seem to have been responding to any of it…
The reason why I did not respond to your ‘wrong, wrong, wrong’ post in itemized fashion before was that you seemed to have completely whiffed the point of my post, instead focussing on irrelevencies. I did you the favor of redirecting you to the meaningful content of the post. One presumes that that wasn’t what you were interested in…
I don’t know what Suburban Plankton specific beliefs are, but every religion I’ve heard gives at the very least half-decent justifications for everything you’ve said. We’re corrupted and deserving of a hard time; this is a test for us; it’s required by a metacosmic law of justice; he expects us to do as much as we can ourselves; we’re better off for having gone through it; it’s all part of God’s plan which we’ll understand later. If you’re characterizing all theology as being ragingly and blatantly internally inconsistent, I think that might be a strawman.
It is what it is. I’ve heard the excuses, but none of them are even near half-decent. They are excuses designed to keep god in hiding because they know he can’t be produced. The excuses didn’t come from god. They came from man. How conveeeeeeeenient.
Call it what you want. Extraordinary qualities have been attributed to god and jesus with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Not a single shred of evidence that can be comprehended by the human mind (the mind god supposedly gave us) has ever been offered up. The contradictions, however each christian chooses to explain them away (based on His Own Personal Interpretation Of The Bible™, of course) remain. You can use the polite term “inconsistency”, but that really doesn’t pack the desired punch. I was thinking more along the lines of “sham” or “bullshit.” The Emperor is bare-ass naked.
Not to refute you, but most religions state their justifications explicitly, in the doctorine, not as ad-hoc dodges by the constituents. I mean the last justification I listed is “God works in mysterious ways”, for goodness sakes.
And since I gather that (in some religions, at least) personal experience is a deciding factor in belief, there would presumably be no shortage of comprehensible evidence around. It’s simply non-transferrable to others (since it becomes heresay/anecdotal in the process).
If you’re claiming that every religious person is either insane or consciously aware that their religion is a sham, then I know that you’re fronting a strawman.
(I said “inconsistency”?)
I never said they were insane.
(sorry*…“inconsistent.”*)
Granted, all granted. However, I thought the point of this thread was to examine how we come by our beliefs. If we believe X - for instance that a modified capitalism is the best system, we need to look at why we believe it in order to tell if our belief is from careful consideration or as a default, based on our early environment. Someone who has studied economics and believes this is likely to believe it after careful consideration of the alternatives. Someone who hasn’t ever had a class in his life is likely to believe it based on what the politicians say, for instance. Consider how many people believe, against all the data, that we have the best healthcare system in the world.
When I was a kid I believed in the God of the Tanakh and did not believe in Jesus as a default. I got sent to Hebrew school , and the vast majority of my friends and classmates were Jewish.
But I can tell you exactly how I came to atheism, and the logical justification for it. That was not a default.
It matters little if your justification for Christianity is correct, only if it makes sense as a reason for you to believe. The cosmological argument you gave is not at all a logical justification for Christianity (or any other particular religion). If you believe because you believe that’s fine - but we might be excused for thinking you believe that way due to society, not from first principles.
It’s not unique to religion - most of us support baseball teams for this very reason, after all.
I won’t dispute that this shouldn’t be the only argument used. The utility of it is when a theist attempts to shift the burden of proof, or use the “prove there is no god” gambit. Various gods are closer to each other than ghosts and aliens - maybe unicorns and leprechauns would work better .
Gnosis has to do with knowledge, and agnosticism usually refers to the position that it is impossible to know. Check out the many threads on this very subject.
Yes, there is a common usage as you said - but many who call themselves agnostics do so because of the negatives that have accumulated around the term “atheist” - such as the accusation that we know there is no god. I doubt anyone - except maybe someone who claims direct revelation - would say they have enough info to be sure. Even if we have enough about God(a), we certainly don’t have enough about God(b).
This runs into the problem of the multiplicity of gods, especially of you wish to believe in something with some justification. I’ve been to a few Shinto temples, and I lack belief in Shinto gods, but knowing so little about it I’m quite unable to justify a belief they don’t exist. I’ll stick with a default lack of belief, just as I lack belief in the god of the nearest habitable planet to Aldeberan.
So, what do you think the default case should be - lack of belief in X (X might be little green men) or belief that X does not exist. If the latter, is it a religious belief even when X has nothing to do with any god? Or does the belief become religious when referring to a god. If so, how about a belief in the divinity of Augustus Caesar?
In the US, you’re probably correct (though I’ve never seen a survey.) In the USSR, likely not. If you consider Buddhists to be atheists, there is a great difference between what Buddhist atheists and US atheists believe. So, I think the similarity of atheist beliefs in the US is more a function of the path to atheism people take here than anything to do with the destination.
Fortunately, based on my deft use of the word ‘or’, I still know you’re fronting a strawman.
If you have to make up things about religion in order to criticize it, the real thing must not be so bad, eh?
What you believe is irrational. You as an irrational person, collectively with others who hold similar irrational beliefs, harm this world, and I live in it.
I think I can prove a good deal of the precepts of your religion wrong, or if you prefer, so improbable as to not warrant any reasonable consideration.
As Voltaire put it; if people believe absurdities they will commit atrocities. Muslim martyrs, Christian crusaders, abortion bombers and fag bashers do all their acts in the name of faith. You as an individual Christian might denounce these acts, but by claiming faith has merit, you give the worst of fundamentalist cruelty tacit approval.
By talking about Christ as speaking the word of god you are saying that unbelievers will be condemned to hell. For people who take Christ’s words at face value (a lot do) it actually becomes logical to kill infidels before they can convert your friends or family so that they might suffer in hell. For people who think Christ is soon returning (a lot do), it becomes logical not to give a rats ass about the environment we live in, so we might as well waste resources and pollute at will. For people who believe based on faith that contraception is evil, and teach as such even in AIDS infested Africa, it results in the suffering of millions. All this you may or may disagree with but it is all caused by irrational thought and the belief that faith without reason is ok.
The question is why people believe. The existence of a justification may or many not have anything to do with this. I would say that most believers do so on faith, and not due to the several “proofs” of god that are well known. I suspect most of those in the Soviet Union who believed in Communism never read all of Marx either.
Personal experiences are another matter. Those who claim to have had direct contact with god do indeed have a justification in line with the OP. The actual cause of the experience is irrelevant.
You know, I thought the point of this thread was to examine if theists had justifications for their belief, of if they believed as a default, growing up that way. That seems far more interesting than yet another discussion of why religion is wrong - not that I disagree.
For instance, but Lib and Polycarp say they believe in god in part because of personal experiences. Whether or not you accept these as accurate reflections on reality, their beliefs are not based on “brainwashing”.
Now, the interpretation of a mental experience might be influenced by the milieu - in medieval times night terrors involved demons, now they involve aliens. But that’s another debate.
It’s not made up. It’s the only logical explanation. They usually call it “periods of doubt” or “exploring other faiths” but it boils down to the same thing. I suppose the thought of life without the comfort of faith after so many years of religious influence would be a bit scary for some, so they continue to go through the motions and tuck the doubt away.
I don’t think it’s another debate at all. As I understand it, their reports of a religious experience involve a christian god, rather than just “god.” I think the connection between that and social or familial influence is pretty apparent.
So Varlos, since you are able to see that faith is valid epistemology, perhaps you wouldn’t mind explaining it to the rest of us. Also, if Liberal’s explanation was so good, why are you still an atheist?