You know, the burden of proof is a voluntary burden. The Scientific Man’s burden, if you will. It falls upon those who seek to prove something to someone else. I don’t have it. You might well want me to feel it, but I am not trying to prove anything to you, so I don’t really have it at all.
Have you read “Principia Mathematica?” About fifteen years ago, I realized that I had not actually read this founding document of western philosophy. I had had it referenced to me hundreds of times. So, I bought a copy, and read it. Tough going, in the later parts. (My mathematical ability tends to be more spiritual than scientific. :))
But the thing that I noticed most about it was how very much it was ol’ Newt just begging his peers, “No, really, don’t take my word for it, get some balls and tracks and try it yourself!” When I discuss my faith, I pretty much take the same track. Don’t take my word for it, look into your heart, and see if you can find a place there where you can meet the Lord. (Well, you might want to clean the place up just a bit, first. Just in case He really is the Lord of All, ya know?) After you do that, you might want to read The Book.
Or, don’t. I won’t say it’s all the same to me, just that convincing you is irrelevant to the phenomenon. I have faith that you will meet Him. And when you do, you won’t ask Him for His identification. But my faith is not your faith, and it doesn’t make me better than you.
What **twickster ** & JustAnotherGeek said. I just do not feel any need to join them.
Two answers:
In the huge multiverse, which is accepted scientific theory; it is likely that somewhere creatures that would pass for Dragons and Unicorns do exist.
That out of the way, I find all the personalities and creatures you mentioned every bit as likely to exist as the Christian God, Jehovah or Allah. The difference is that the ones you mentioned are far more enjoyable to contemplate.
I thought I made it clear, I do not insist that anyone proves to me that God does not exist. I just have never seen enough proof to convince me of the non-existence. I do not think you really have an argument with me. I think I am just expressing myself very poorly again.
I thought something along these lines when I read that post. You’ve expressed it better than I could have. Thanks.
What irks me about posters like DerTrihs and **BC
** is that when you point out to them how their behavior is so similar to those they decry, or that portions of their argument are just equally wrong mirror images of the beliefs they are bashing they retreat to simple denial and misdirection, which is another tactic they ridicule in others.
To response to some of your points. IMHO the more liberal schools of religion have a better live and let live attitude. I have my beliefs and I respect your right choose your own path providing it doesn’t pick my pocket or break my leg, to borrow your phrase. There’s also a difference between believing in something on speculative and subjective evidence and believing something in spite of serious objective evidence against it. Even then, if someone believes the Bible was written by God and focuses on love thy neighbor I won’t hammer them on the subject. If someone pulls a verse out of context and tries to use it to suppress the civil human rights of gays then they need to be fought.
In language I have little problem with people saying “I believe this” I feel this way about it" " I think this is true" because they are taking ownership of their beliefs. When their language changes to “God said, The Bible says, Jesus says” in a way that implies it is not just their interpretation but an absolute truth, I have a problem. In a similar way when our more extreme atheists assert their own opinions as “the obvious truth” I have a problem. To me it indicates a mind that is more interested in asserting it’s ideas rather than understanding others.
I agree our society has a misunderstanding over what rude actually means. Being truthful, frank and direct are not rude. In many cases they are acts of consideration and respect. Add those qualities to a touch of diplomacy and someone can really win my respect and admiration. As my brother says, “Free speech is a right, not an obligation”
Then my follow-up question is how many of you have been banned because of it?
I mean, it’s a war, right? One would expect casualties.
What’s to crack down on?
[/quote]
I was asking if the lack of hostiile response of the mods to questions involving Judaism suggest tacit approval, as the lack of hostile response to questions about Christianity apparently suggests toward that faith. I don’t recall any time during a thread about Judaism that a moderator stepped in and said “You all realize the whole thing is a crock, don’t you? From now on, all posts about Jewish ritual will require a footnote saying so.” I suspect but don’t have the evidence offhand that a poster who came into such a thread and volunteered such a comment risks being warned by the mods for being a jerk. I’m curious why badchad has never seized on this (or maybe he has and I missed it). I’m assuming it’s because he has a strident bias against Christianity, rather than religion per se.
I hear this particular argument a lot, and I have to say I disagree with it. My value system - and, I’d wager, most value systems, even those espoused by religions - is based on reason. There doesn’t have to be any mystical spiritual connection behind it; the fact that I’m a human being and can communicate with other human beings lets me know that others feel exactly the same as I do when violence (theft, whatever) is committed upon them, and it is reasonable to conclude that it is a good thing not to add to the suffering in the world by committing violence (theft, whatever). Basic empathy, really - but even that has a logical base.
I don’t mean this to sound snarky, but honestly, what would be convincing proof that God doesn’t exist? I can think of all kinds of empirical evidence that could prove he did exist, none of which has ever occurred. Also, just to nitpick, this:
The multiverse is hardly “accepted scientific theory”; it is merely conjecture made by certain scientists, but they have no possible experiments that would verify it even a tiny bit yet.
Certainly we all live with some kind of faith. But there’s a big difference between the faith of athiests and the faith of religious people (or even the faith of religious people on most subjects and the faith of religious people in their god). I like to think of it as the athiest having faith that everything is as it appears, and the theist having faith that things aren’t actually as they appear.
As I pointed out before, both athiests and theists have faith that the universe is as we generally see it; we’re not brains in jars being poked with probes. Athiests look at the world and say, ok, assuming what I see is accurate, then there are no gods. Theists look at the world and say, ok, assuming what I see it accurate, then there might be a god, and I have faith that there is one. It’s an extra level of faith - it rises past the general faith we all have that we are actually people operating in reality.
My own value system is another example of this. I base it on the maximum amount of people being happy, and the minimum amount of people being unhappy. Just like a theist has faith that what God says is good, I have faith that being happy is good. However, I can directly measure the effects of my value system; I can go out and see if people are happier than before. A theist has no such way of determining their value system has the right results; they can’t go out and ask God if he is actually happy with what they’re doing. So again, there’s an *extra level * of faith there.
I’m not starting with that premise, no, but I did put what I meant badly. Apologies.
A theist can go and ask God something, but any result they get would be based on the same level of faith that God exists at all. The results of my value system can be obtained using only the faith that the world exists as we see it. The results of a theists’s value system relies on both that and that God actually exists. Extra level of faith.
I would also add that saying because this board does not hound people of faith from its site, it is therefore biased toward the religious is about as silly as insisting that if a media outlet does not report news with a right slanting bias it must therefore be “liberal media.”
The PTB do not turn away anyone because of religious preference. And why should they? They don’t stop tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists from joining up, either. It’s up to us as posters to either engage in arguments about religion or not and to hold our own in those discussions.
There are a ridiculously large number of threads within the past year alone with posts mocking Catholics, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, etc. Nobody gets a pass. Just because it isn’t done universally or vociferously enough to a few posters’s satisfaction does not make it bias in any direction.
Sure there doesn’t *have * to be any spiritual connection. It’s my belief there is. I see your point and it’s a valid one. IMO I think thats only part of the picture though. Certainly our enviorment and our experiences in whatever part of society we grew up in influences our belief system. Lots of religious beliefs are like that too. Still, not all people do agree on what is right and wrong or where our moral compass should point when we get down to details. Thats part of what an changing society is all about. We find our moral compass as individuals and that affects the whole. Certainly there is some observed consequences to judge from. Somewhere along the way you have to decide based on faith what is right and wrong, positive and negative for society and ourselves. How far do we go in helping others? How far do we go in defending ourselves? If nobody knows and I can’t get caught is it still stealing or cheating? IMHO the faith lies in dealing with the details. The day to day moment to moment stuff of life.
That’s a very good point. When I look at the Universe, and all the things that had to happen in order to ensure that it was created, that planets appeared, that some developed life, and that humans, and maybe other intelligent life, appeared, I get so amazed that sometimes I get to thinking that maybe positing the existence of a God is simply the obvious choice. Yes, I know, it’s a very anthropocentric position – what is it that’s really special about humans after all? – and the “God” that I would posit probably wouldn’t have the attributes that we usually give to gods. But it would still be an entity that exists outside of our limited experience as humans.
I still remain an atheist, at least for now. Since, even if this entity exists in some way, there is no way to even start to comprehend what it might be, I think that not having any belief whatsoever in the existence or inexistence of gods is the best choice, at least for me. But I can certainly understand why people would suppose the existence of The Entity and start believing in its existence.
Of course, that’s more akin to deism than to Christianity. If I ever become a theist, a deist is probably what I will be. From what I know about the character of Jesus of Nazareth, I think he was a great man (if he existed), but I don’t think that he needed to be any more than that. I see nothing that indicates to me that he had to be inspired by a supernatural entity, let alone one Himself. But my experience isn’t the same as anyone else. Christians here have considered Jesus of Nazareth, and have concluded that He was more than a man. This isn’t science: how do you scientifically conclude that what appears to be a man, is actually something more? There’s no way to prove this scientifically.
Therefore I am somewhat puzzled by badchad’s assertion that being a Christian is necessarily ignorance. Most of the Christians around here are clearly not ignorant, yet, for some reason, they’re Christians. They have seen something that badchad and I haven’t seen. But it’s not something that is expressable in material terms.
I think I understand what you’re saying. What I’m saying is that aside from simple belief that God is , may be, or is not we each apply our belief system to the decisions we make. If someone believes God wants them to be more loving and forgiving to others that may be the foundation of their choices. Their choices may yield positive results which they see as evidence that their foundation was solid. You might decide that your personal philosophy is to be more loving and forgiving to others and receive similar results and feel your philosophy is shown to be effective and God isn’t necessary. Both start from a point of faith which affects the initial decision.
You might say that the theist could believe in the benefits of kindness and compassion without believing in any other deity as a source. Maybe, but I think it might be irrelevant. The fact is that the choice of actions is closely connected to our foundational belief system.
I think many believers are trying to operate in the world as they see it. They just see it a little differently and might see their purpose of being in the world differently as well.
If we strive to improve our world isn’t the atheist operating on faith that we can make the world a better place for future generations? How does that relate to them world being as they see it , if they envision and aspire to make it better?
I understand that many intelligent people have become believers, but this generally involves a process of winnowing out the beliefs they can’t reconcile with any form of rationality, or of explaining them away as metaphors and whatnot. We atheists do not have to undergo that process. There is no need to strain out the bathwater if you don’t believe there’s a baby in the tub. It’s very Occams’ Razor.
I agree with you, for the most part. I just think we’d differ on our ideas of what constitutes “faith”, and the degree of its role in determining values.
You seem to think that it’s necessary for me, an atheist, to provide you with evidence that proves the non-existence of something. That’s not how it works. You wouldn’t call anyone irrational for saying ‘There’s no such thing as the Boogeyman.’ would you?
You’ve never asked anyone to prove that the Boogeyman doesn’t exist, have you?
Well what you, and many other people on this board and elsewhere, cannot handle is that ‘god’ as is commonly referred to is no different from the Boogeyman, nor is it any more incumbent upon me to prove ‘god’ doesn’t exist than it is to prove the Boogeyman doesn’t exist. It’s a myth. A scary fairy tale told to the children to keep them in line. Behave, or the Boogeyman will get you.
I know for sure I never phrased it that way. All I said was that the Big Three seem to get special treatment so far as arguments against other religions are allowed to consist of nothing more than stating that they are idiotic delusions. If you were to say that about christianity, judaism or islam here, it’s never considered enough to 'win the argument as it is with other religions, and at times has been implied to be hate speech.
Western culture defaults to taking as a given the existence of god and automatically granting respect to the Big Three religions where respect is not granted to many other religions which are roundly considered stupid, delusional, or flat out myths. This board is no different in that it grants automatic respect to the Big Three. Some of us atheists feel that the Big Three deserve no more respect than scientology or Boogeyman worship.
Also, considering the GD thread ‘Can America trust atheists?’, how long do the respondants to this thread think these topics would last:
Can America trust Christians?
Can America trust Jews?
Can America trust Muslims?
Can America trust Scientologists?
Can America trust Hindus?
Can America trust Rastafarians?
Can America trust Buddhists?
Actually Caridwen, anyone who says anything about needing proof that god doesn’t exist:
Doesn’t exactly agree with me.
I’m saying that no proof is necessary. There’s no reason to do anything more than we’d do with a believer in the Boogeyman. We’d tell them the Boogeyman is bullshit, fantasy, pure myth, and that if an educated adult still believes in it, they’re either ignorant or a liar.
And not one person would ever ask to ‘see enough proof to convince me of the non-existence’ of the Boogeyman.
Hmm, I don’t know. I’ve heard people passionately maintain that atheism isn’t a religion, that parallels drawn between it and theism aren’t valid. Even now, in another thread, people are going to great lengths to draw distinctions between the sort of faith Christians have in God versus the sort of faith atheists have in, say, gravity. So why here are we directly comparing “Can we trust Atheists” to “Can we trust Muslims”?
The difference being that the effects of gravity are directly observable to every single person on the planet. Not even remotely so with any claims to do with God.
I don’t disagree that theists may believe they see results. I’m just saying that, with a moral system that involves pleasing God, any results must be taken on the same faith that God exists, plus the faith that the universe works as we see it. Whereas the results to an atheist moral system are more likely to have tangible effects that need only to be taken on the faith that the universe exists as we see it.
Actually, I think it’s an interesting point. A theist who believes in a god, but whose moral system works entirely on the material plane, would certainly need less faith than a theist whose code involves a god. And an athiest’s moral code could have intangible results; honour systems, for example. On the whole, however, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that the vast majority of theists believe their moral system has results involving their god, and that a larger proportion of athiests have a moral system with purely tangible results.
Yes, they do, and that’s my point. Both athiests and theists have faith that the world as they see it is the way they see it; we are humans, the sky is blue, and so on. But theists also have faith that. while the world is as they see it, their god is also actually involved somehow.
Both the athiest and the theist operate on that faith. How does it relate to reality if we want to make it better? Well, again there’s something of a difference. Both have faith that their idea of “better” is actually better. But theists still have the extra level of belief, because their idea of “better” usually includes some amount of “make my god happy”, an intangible result. And for those results which are tangible - feeding starving people, for example, is pretty damn tangible - they have faith that it is through and with their god that it is accomplished, and not simply an act of humans alone.
