And people with a lack of education or a lack of concern are going to know the dfierence how? And in simply not knowing the difference does that make it an irrational belief? It would seem that you are implying that it does.
It would be nice if I could actually get a meaningful/clarifying response if there is confusion, and not some evasive misleading statement. I’m not twisting anything, I was asking what is so irrational about belief under the circumstances described?
So here you agree that the terms can be mutually exclusive which is what I’ve been trying to tell you.
No, it’s odd to see you seemingly arguing for the sake of arguing. (check the bold)
Yes they can and you have already agreed on why that is.
And you say that I’m picking nits…
You don’t need to be a jerk about it and I’m still not wrong.
I do need to pick this nit BTW, because you’re the one who has basically tried to tell cosmodan and I that we are atheists and not agnostic when that is not true.
What do you mean? If you want to carry a definition of atheism, agnosticism, and the mixture of the two that is not the official definition, then go right ahead. It just seems as though you are using too broad of a definition to appropriately make the attempt to categorize other people’s beliefs.
Depends on the spiritual belief. If it is that there is a reason for all this, and that makes him feel better, I’m fine with it. If it is that God cares about my sex life, I’m not so fine with it. If the feeling that there is a reason behind all this is treated the same way as the feeling that strawberry ice cream is best, no one will be hurt. Beliefs in specific interactions with the deity are as nutty as having an imaginary friend, and I’ll continue to think so until there is evidence - in both cases.
Why does success make a belief irrational? I’m sure one could think of many other irrational beliefs (Jody Foster loves me) that could inspire one.
Lincoln - who might not have been much more than a deist - seems to be saying exactly what I said - no one knows what God wants. He sugars it by saying what happens is what god wants. He couldn’t say it at the time, but I doubt he truly believed that God wanted the carnage he saw all too well.
There is just as much if not more proof that there is existence, and no one can say anything about a Supreme being, it is belief not fact. One can say God is the first cause , but it says nothing about how he came to be any more than existence. Existence is a fact, belief is not.
May have to do this in parts two responses disappeared already.
ok then. IMO a big part of all human belief systems is beliefs built from personal experiences. Information we don’t test, we just judge and trust or not to varyng degrees. That being the case, if those are common experiences and personal experiences are considered evidence in any way, then your “religious type faith never does” isn’t accurate.
It seems obvious that the pervasiveness of god belief and far different than the word of a passing stranger.
bolding mine, Are you telling me you’re unaware of any atheists making unsubstantiated claims about religion and religious beliefs?
…why people debate this topic at all. If you are looking for answers in another opinion, it seems that the subject of God or a higher power would be something you have the ability to ascertain through your own study, there are a lot of resources on this subject. And for those who are athiest, I wonder why you are in a conversation at all about it. What’s the intent? Do people have a need to put effort into a subject that is entirely meaningless to them? I guess I find it interesting that this subject is always being debated on some level which in essence feels like people are trying to make sense of their own beliefs through this continual dialogue, meaning, if you’re debating, you’re still unsure of what you believe. That is unless you feel the need to influence others toward a belief system you find to make sense for you - and in that case, do you feel more secure when others can validate your perceptions?
I just think that if you know, you know, and no matter what anyone else says, you’re sound and secure in your reality. No need for discussion.
I agree. So who gets to make the declaration that they are irraional and delusional? I see several atheists here stating it rather matter of factly. My position is that a fair and equal standing means looking at how human belief systems are formed and held. The IPU argument and comarisons to leprechauns addresses one tiny aspect of a belief system.
Sure seemed that way when you singled out supernatural beliefs.
the crux of it is IMO , the reasons people believe as they do, both intellectual and emotional.
Seriously? My head is spinning. I can’t understand how I implied agnostic excluded atheism when I said nothing about atheism at all. I think you read something into it that isn’t there.
That seems extreme. I go by old school simple definitions
When someone answers “Do you believe in God?” with “yes I Do” they are a theist.
if they answer with “I’m undecided. God may or may not exist” then they are agnostic
If they answer with “No I don’t believe in God or gods” they are atheist.
I’m aware those are simplified definitions and there are lots of nuances and variations among real people. An intellecdtual honest atheist will acknowledge they can’t really know, just as an honest theist will. I don’t see any need for more labels and subcatagories.
My source was a wkki page about Abe and religion who surces this quote to a book called “The collected works of Abraham Lincoln” I understand there are a l;ot of phony quotes floating around. Whether this was actually Lincoln or not isn’t all that relevant to my point.
Except that attributing the quote to Lincoln lends an air of authority to it. If the attribution turns out not to be true it can cast doubt not only on the quote itself, but on the entirety of your argument.
I think it’s the other way around-if merely talking about your beliefs upsets you to the point that you wish all conversation on the subject to stop, then perhaps your beliefs aren’t as strong as you think they are. “The weakest blade of grass is equal to the mightiest oak if left untouched.”
I agree, it depends on the belief and how it affects others. God wants me to be kind, to love and forgive, to promote peace, to feed the hungry etc
It seems pointless to respond to that with, “God belief is delusional”
Respond to the act, and the repercussions of the act.
I think people have a basic right to follow their own path and be true to their beliefs, but they must also be willing to take responsibility for the actions they choose based on their beliefs and how those actions affect others.
My only point is that while I share your wariness of those who claim divine guidence, god belief or a lack of it is not an indication of qualities of leadership. Either a believer or a nonbeliever can be a great or terrible leader, depending on other qualities.
btw; Gandhi said he heard the voice of God while he was in prison. He never tried or expected to convince others, but would not deny his own belief.
I would never suggest that anyone deny or hide what they actually believe. To thine own self be true and all. I’m only saying that IMO general attacks on god belief don’t seem as useful to me as accepting that god belief is unknowable, but other things are not. Beliefs do affect others and will be questioned and challenged.
That said, Someone pointed out that logical arguments have affected some people and they have exmined their beliefs, so, to each his own, What works has a lot to do with timing and individual personalities.
This has a shallow “truth” to it(I’d say about an eighth of an inch in depth, but I’m generous), but if their beliefs instruct them that their “god” is will hold them accountable if they do not ignore earthly rights and responsibilities to do his/her/it’s bidding, then it’s a moot point. You talk of taking responsibility and respecting the rights of others, but the introduction of gods adds another layer of responsibilities and rights above those of us mere humans-you no longer have human rights developed over centuries through hard fought negotiation and reasoning, but instead have God-given rights that can change at the whim of a deity that cannot be negotiated with. You no long have responsibility to your fellow human-your god will tell you what your responsibilities are. If religionists manage to get along with each other, it isn’t because of anything innate in their individual religions, but because of pressure from governments and society itself. Few religions teach “People First-God Second”, so let’s not pretend that this “Just let everybody believe what they want to believe and everything will be fine and dandy” idea is anything but an artificial construct suitable for nothing but bumper stickers.
If I profess the belief that a certain political leader is worth following, you have the ability to investigate his background, his accomplishments, his scandals, his habits, and just about anything about his personal life and maybe even his private beliefs and goals as told to his family and friends. If you think he has done something wrong he can be brought before authorities and questioned(and punished, if need be.) He is a human being with human emotions and human needs, and this allows you insight into what he might be about. He is subject to the human condition and anyone following him will bear the same human stain, if to a lesser degree.
Now, compare that to gods and their followers.
You received a lot of excellent replies by others in that thread. I doubt I’ll be able to convince you of anything regarding that topic in this one.
No, that’s not at all what I told you.
You said this:
“My only objection is the wode blankets tossed by some atheists that all god belief is irrational and delusional because there’s no objecive proof, all the while exhibiting their own tendency to insist things are factual that they can’t prove.”
and then after I told you I don’t do that you said:
“good for you, but we can see examples of it in this thread.”
I asked you to show me examples in this thread so we can discuss them.
You’re going back and forth between “religious claims” and “God belief.” What exactly have several atheists stated rather matter of factly? I said that religious claims needs to be examined before they’re deemed irrational and/or delusional. That’s because religious claims vary. “God” belief is talked about rather matter of factly at times because it’s a specific claim. But if you would tell me what it is exactly that several atheists stated rather matter of factly then we can discuss it.
You indirectly said something about atheism when you said you are “not a theist.”
That’s all an atheist necessarily is- not a theist.
Which definition of atheist do you prefer?
This is what you said earlier:
*I call myself an agnostic because my response to “Does God exist?” is I don’t know, and I don’t think anyone else does either. *
“Do you believe in God?” and “Does God exist?” are different questions. The first is necessarily regarding what one believes. Answering “Do you believe in God?” with “I’m undecided. God may or may not exist” is avoiding the question as one that is without belief in any gods can also think God may or may not exist. Many atheists on this board acknowledge that a god or gods may exist, but they do not hold any beliefs that any do. That last part makes them atheists.
You said you are not a theist. That means you don’t believe in God or gods. According to your statement above, you are an atheist.
Whether or not you think any may exist is irrelevant. That’s only relevant to whether or not you’re agnostic.
Okay then, you are stating right there that an atheist can say they don’t know as can a theist. You are showing that declaring oneself an agnostic does not tell us if he’s an atheist or a theist.
That’s the crux of it. Many of the prophets in the Bible were jerks, but they are held up as examples because they had true god beliefs, or so we are told. We are told all the time that God makes morality, so acts we consider immoral but which are inspired by God are actually moral in ways we are incapable of understanding.
Now, god belief in the general sense does not matter, but specific god belief does, because how are we to counter the evil believer except by rebutting his belief? That often involves accepting God but not that god - which gets into how to decide exactly which version of god to accept. Which boils down to logic, not faith, which winds up rejecting all gods.
So if you don’t reject god belief the believer gets a free pass to do whatever he wants as long as he can find divine justification for it. And we know there is divine justification for all sorts of obnoxious things along with the good ones.
Agreed. This is why I object to the specific claim you have been making.
“No one can say anything about a Supreme being.” That is entirely correct. Yet this is what you were doing, and I stuck my nose in to rebut it.
My personal objection to an “infinite” God is that the proposition can’t be tested. There will always be some (possible) God that has finite, yet very great, power, such that it exceeds our ability to differentiate from infinite.
If the total amount of energy in the cosmos is (just picking a big number here) 10^700 joules, and a God comes along who can wield 10^900 joules of energy – or even 10^9000000 joules! – that would be as good as “infinite” to us, while still being vastly short of truly infinite.
It’s something to do on a slow afternoon… Seriously, it’s a fascinating topic, of (almost!) infinite depth, and of a rich historical tradition. It lets us stretch our minds a little.