Faith, religion, and the afterlife: A form of denial

[cosmosdan]

@x-ray_vision

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.

As I said several times, I’m speaking generally so I didn’t see the point in you just referencing your personal practices. If you are aware that atheists make unsubstanbtiated claims then that’s all we need. We don’t need to go into the specific examples in this thread and discuss them. I’d rather not because I don’t want the tangent. The point I’m making is that it is a rather common practice among human belief systems to make some claims as fact, things we haven’t personally checked out and/or can’t verify.

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.

What seemed to be happening earlier was god belief is catagorized as irrational and delusional rather casually, by comparisons to IPU or whatever

You indirectly said something about atheism when you said you are “not a theist.”
That’s all an atheist necessarily is- not a theist.

No I didn’t you read something that wasn’t there by pulling "not a theist out of context. You claimed I implied atheism and being an agnostic were mutually exclusive when I implied nothingof the sort.

Which definition of atheist do you prefer?

Maybe it’s the one I gave.

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.

Oh please. I was talking about myself being an agnostic and how I generally define being an agnostic. Again, there was context that should have made it relatively clear.

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.

Didn’t I just say I’m aware of this? Explaining it again serves no pupose.

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.

This is exactly the type of semantic wrangling, disection and nitpicking I have no interest in. I said I’m agnostic and explained the defintions I go by. If you want to tell me which definitions you prefer for the sake of understanding fine, but please don’t bother with “you’re an atheist” I have little patience for that.

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.

Look, I already explained I completely understand that people vary within the three catagories I use. I understand the terms agnostic atheist or agnostic theist , I just don’t find them useful or nessecary. If you prefer them fine. Feel free to use them, but again, I have no interest in semantic wrangling or arguing over which terms are the official or more accurate ones.

[Trinopus]

@arielburns

Wow, I like to spend countless hours winding around in circles with people on logic that can never be backed up because its power lies in the essence of its own subjectivity. . . .

It’s like messing around with Parliamentary Procedure: endlessly fascinating, and about as pointless as, well, Dungeons and Dragons, really! To me, theological discussions have a lot of the same attraction as D&D. It’s a huge, deep, rich subject, and can be analyzed in wondrous detail.

@arielburns

Be tested? Isn’t that what’s happening to you? You’re being tested. Your strengths, to survive, to be the fittest. . . .

Well, I was specifically talking about testing the proposition, “God is infinite.”

But, yes, my own propositions, claims, insights, and views are certainly being tested here. That’s the joy of a (good-natured) debate.

Sorry, I’m a bit of a Freudian.

Compadre! Me too! There aren’t many of us around these days.

. . . God is powerful because the concept can’t be tested - it’s not for your perusal. It’s out of your reach. How smart did primates actually become thus far? I like watching those shows with ape studies on PBS. It reminds me of my limitations from the view of a higher intelligence.

What makes theology work is that people do make specific claims about God…and others make other claims, sometimes contradictory. We have the ancient holy texts to examine, and centuries of tradition. If we were working ab nihilo, then, no, we could never possibly come to any conclusions. But we can look at the history of the Abrahamic faiths – an incredibly rich history – and then take into account previous scholarship, such as Aquinas or Luther.

Even if we approach it as nothing more than literary criticism, it’s still the stuff of pleasant, ongoing discussion…for the next two thousand years!

[Voyager]

@cosmosdan

MAybe, the argument is this.
we cannot make any claim that simple god belief or a lack of it makes people better or worse leaders. any thoughts.

It isn’t the belief, it is whether you act on it.
John Kerry is a good Catholic, but he said that while he though abortion was wrong he was not going to impose his beliefs on others who did not share them. Santorum is a good Catholic, but does want to impose his beliefs on others. No reason for Kerry to prove his god exists since his belief is personal. Santorum had better if he wants to impose his on my daughters.

[Voyager]

@cosmosdan

Do people vote based on very superficial reasons? Of course. Both believers and non believers.

I tell people all the time that the label “I’m a Christian” means nothing to me because that statement tells me NOTHING of that persons character. They might be kind humble, and considerete of others, or judgemental pias jerks.

Same goes for the label of atheist It only reflects one small aspect of a person’s makeup and IMO not a significant one.

So, if a politician says “I pray every day to try and be a goood public servant to my constituants” that also doesn’t tell me anything about his leadership capabilities or his position on the issues.

Now this I agree with. Some people who do good claim to do it because of their religion, but others do it because of the baseball team they favor. Assholes are assholes no matter what religion they are. Karl Rove is an atheist, after all. :eek: The problem arises when the assholes justify themselves by using god, and reject having to justify themselves rationally. The other problem is that some weak-minded people will do all sorts of stupid stuff - like giving money to the crooked preacher - convinced that God told them to. There will always be suckers but maybe we can cut down on the impact to them.

[arielburns]

@Trinopus

It’s like messing around with Parliamentary Procedure: endlessly fascinating, and about as pointless as, well, Dungeons and Dragons, really! To me, theological discussions have a lot of the same attraction as D&D. It’s a huge, deep, rich subject, and can be analyzed in wondrous detail.

Well, I was specifically talking about testing the proposition, “God is infinite.”

But, yes, my own propositions, claims, insights, and views are certainly being tested here. That’s the joy of a (good-natured) debate.

Compadre! Me too! There aren’t many of us around these days.

What makes theology work is that people do make specific claims about God…and others make other claims, sometimes contradictory. We have the ancient holy texts to examine, and centuries of tradition. If we were working ab nihilo, then, no, we could never possibly come to any conclusions. But we can look at the history of the Abrahamic faiths – an incredibly rich history – and then take into account previous scholarship, such as Aquinas or Luther.

Even if we approach it as nothing more than literary criticism, it’s still the stuff of pleasant, ongoing discussion…for the next two thousand years!

Well you certainly observed how I was leaning when I asked that question. And Freudian you are, I appreciate your intent to validate me while exploring the subject matter. I was passing judgement too harshly in a forum I hardly know anything about, since it is my first day of posting. I do apologize for minimizing, when oddly enough I was concerned about people doing this very thing.

I’ve had many turns inside and out of my own beliefs, and I feel strongly that people should be supported in whatever reality they are experiencing. It is the freedom to change your mind that seems most important to me. I always want for people to stay away from labeling and casting others into a pot because of their cultural experiences and what understandings they have therein. And we are very contradictory in nature. While we propagate the negations of one aspect, we might also be building a plaint for the positive ones. I have an interest in dialectical thinking. And that’s just running around circles inside my own head most of the time, I was projecting. Nice to meet you.

[x-ray_vision]

@cosmosdan

If you are aware that atheists make unsubstanbtiated claims then that’s all we need.

I didn’t say I was aware of it. You are the one that 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.”

You then said you can see examples of it in this thread. If that’s your “only objection”, then back it up. Show examples in this thread so we can discuss them.

BTW, you skipped over one of the questions I asked you:

You: 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.

Me: 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.

No I didn’t you read something that wasn’t there by pulling "not a theist out of context.

WTF? Please tell me what context you meant “not a theist” in?

You claimed I implied atheism and being an agnostic were mutually exclusive when I implied nothingof the sort.

Yes you did. I’ll go over it again.

You: Also, I’m nota theist I’m an agnostic duscussing the validity of certain arguments.

If I said, “I’m not Irish; I’m a Russian…” no one would have an issue with my statement. It’s clear I’m claiming I’m one and not the other as those are mutually exclusive states of being.

If I said, “I’m not Irish; I’m Catholic”, everyone would wonder if I was under the impression that those two conditions are mutually exclusive. That’s what your quote above sounds like.

Hell, you did it again post 578:

I doubt we can say whether a believer, agnostic or atheist is more likley to be kind to others…

@x-ray_vision

Which definition of atheist do you prefer?

@cosmosdan

Maybe it’s the one I gave.

I see what you’re doing.

Oh please. I was talking about myself being an agnostic and how I generally define being an agnostic. Again, there was context that should have made it relatively clear.

I know that. You were defining an agnostic in regards to what one can know. It says nothing regarding what you believe. Regarding belief, you made these two statements:

“I’m nota theist”

"If they answer with ‘No I don’t believe in God or gods’ they are atheist. "

You said you’re not a theist.

One that is not a theist, does not have any belief in the existence of any gods, correct?

You said that one that does not believe in God or gods is an atheist, correct?

By your own definitions, you’re clearly an atheist.

If you’re aware that agnosticism is not mutually exclusive to theism or atheism, why not just tell us if you are an atheist or a theist? If you’re going to claim that you’re neither, please explain. I’m especially interested in how you’re not an atheist when you claimed that you’re not a theist given the definitions you’ve given.

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

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.

MLK cheated on his wife and Gandhi was supposedly a horrible father. We can admire people for selective accomplishments. I think it’s healthier to realize that often our heros have major flaws. IMO it can help us accept our own and still trudge on.

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.

I agree that has happened but I think we are free to challenge that.

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.

I agree with everything except that last bit. AS I mentionmed before, I think my rebutting certains aspects or characteristics of God is very similar in a practicle way to your rebutting “that god”

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.

No free passes even though they try to claim them. When I have discussions with believers who try to dodge responsibility by claiming they are only following God’s will, or quote the Bible and say “It’s not me saying it, it’s God” I remind them that it’s really only their opinion about what God thinks or wants. Obviously, with even Christians unable to agree on what the BIble means , no 1 person has the ultimate authority to declare what God’s will is. They interpret their scriptures, and interpretations vary, so ultimately it is their opinion. What makes one interpretation godly and another incorrect? Their personal belief, IOW, their opinion. While individuals are free to believe as they will when they come to the table of public discourse express your opinon as one person with an opinion , like everyone else, not as someone speaking for God.

[arielburns]

@x-ray_vision

I didn’t say I was aware of it. You are the one that 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.”

You then said you can see examples of it in this thread. If that’s your “only objection”, then back it up. Show examples in this thread so we can discuss them.

BTW, you skipped over one of the questions I asked you:

You: 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.

Me: 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.

WTF? Please tell me what context you meant “not a theist” in?
Yes you did. I’ll go over it again.

You: Also, I’m nota theist I’m an agnostic duscussing the validity of certain arguments.

If I said, “I’m not Irish; I’m a Russian…” no one would have an issue with my statement. It’s clear I’m claiming I’m one and not the other as those are mutually exclusive states of being.

If I said, “I’m not Irish; I’m Catholic”, everyone would wonder if I was under the impression that those two conditions are mutually exclusive. That’s what your quote above sounds like.

Hell, you did it again post 578:

I doubt we can say whether a believer, agnostic or atheist is more likley to be kind to others…

I see what you’re doing.
I know that. You were defining an agnostic in regards to what one can know. It says nothing regarding what you believe. Regarding belief, you made these two statements:

“I’m nota theist”

"If they answer with ‘No I don’t believe in God or gods’ they are atheist. "

You said you’re not a theist.

One that is not a theist, does not have any belief in the existence of any gods, correct?

You said that one that does not believe in God or gods is an atheist, correct?

By your own definitions, you’re clearly an atheist.

If you’re aware that agnosticism is not mutually exclusive to theism or atheism, why not just tell us if you are an atheist or a theist? If you’re going to claim that you’re neither, please explain. I’m especially interested in how you’re not an atheist when you claimed that you’re not a theist given the definitions you’ve given.

I apologize if I haven’t read enough of the conversation to jump in, but isn’t agnosticism the disbelief in both theism and atheism? I think that term has been especially applied in the case when someone wants to claim they are neither theistic or atheistic, they are undetermined.

Definition of AGNOSTIC

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

It isn’t the belief, it is whether you act on it.
John Kerry is a good Catholic, but he said that while he though abortion was wrong he was not going to impose his beliefs on others who did not share them. Santorum is a good Catholic, but does want to impose his beliefs on others. No reason for Kerry to prove his god exists since his belief is personal. Santorum had better if he wants to impose his on my daughters.

right. This is an example of what I was talking about. Kerry has his own beliefs but also respects the right of others to have thiers and choose accordingly. Santorum can believe as he wants but has to deal with the real world consequences of how his beliefs affect others.

[x-ray_vision]

@arielburns

I apologize if I haven’t read enough of the conversation to jump in, but isn’t agnosticism the disbelief in both theism and atheism? I think that term has been especially applied in the case when someone wants to claim they are neither theistic or atheistic, they are undetermined.

Agnostic Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

The word has multiple definitions. See the cite you linked to.

[x-ray_vision]

@cosmosdan

MLK cheated on his wife and Gandhi was supposedly a horrible father. We can admire people for selective accomplishments. I think it’s healthier to realize that often our heros have major flaws. IMO it can help us accept our own and still trudge on.

But MLK and Gandhi weren’t admired because of their dickish actions.

Voyager’s following sentence which you quoted separately:

“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.”

If MLK and Gandhi were Biblical characters and all we knew of them was their immorality, Bible thumpers would be claiming that that they couldn’t be immoral because they were inspired by God.

[monavis]

@Trinopus

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.

The idea of a Supreme being is just that, and idea, It came from human minds, Being is different than “A” being the pre- Bible days when people believed in a God of Thunder etc, seems to show that they saw power etc. that they couldn’t understand so attributed it to an entity . Then in the Psalms the writer states ;“I said you are gods ans sons of god” I can be wrong but I see it as the word God was different than we think of it today, Jesus is quoted in John 10 saying ;"It says in your law,I said you are gods, and seemed to feel the same thing about his claim to call god his father. I also noticed Jesus said your Law, not God’s , even though he is also quoted as saying the Scriptures are good for teaching.

[cosmosdan]

@Voyager

Now this I agree with. Some people who do good claim to do it because of their religion, but others do it because of the baseball team they favor. Assholes are assholes no matter what religion they are. Karl Rove is an atheist, after all. :eek: The problem arises when the assholes justify themselves by using god, and reject having to justify themselves rationally. The other problem is that some weak-minded people will do all sorts of stupid stuff - like giving money to the crooked preacher - convinced that God told them to. There will always be suckers but maybe we can cut down on the impact to them.

Belief systems made up of intellect and emotion. Some people lean more toward emotion than others Some have plenty of intellect but lack the emotional connection with others. Then there’s the conscious things and the unconscious things that move us to act as we do. I appreciate the religions that teach people to look within as part of their personal growth.
The results are the belief systems that people give lip service to, and the evidence of their actual actions. Sometimes they don’t match.

[arielburns]

@x-ray_vision

The word has multiple definitions. See the cite you linked to.

I know, but one of those definitions describes being uncertain and choosing not to take a stance. I think that’s fair. No one should have to accept a label as being athiest or theist, sometimes people avoid thinking about it at all and choose to say they just don’t know.

[x-ray_vision]

@arielburns

I know, but one of those definitions describes being uncertain and choosing not to take a stance. I think that’s fair. No one should have to accept a label as being athiest or theist, sometimes people avoid thinking about it at all and choose to say they just don’t know.

Yes, I realize that one of the definitions is in regard to not being certain and not knowing. Thanks for the heads up.

[arielburns]

@monavis

The idea of a Supreme being is just that, and idea, It came from human minds, Being is different than “A” being the pre- Bible days when people believed in a God of Thunder etc, seems to show that they saw power etc. that they couldn’t understand so attributed it to an entity . Then in the Psalms the writer states ;“I said you are gods ans sons of god” I can be wrong but I see it as the word God was different than we think of it today, Jesus is quoted in John 10 saying ;"It says in your law,I said you are gods, and seemed to feel the same thing about his claim to call god his father. I also noticed Jesus said your Law, not God’s , even though he is also quoted as saying the Scriptures are good for teaching.

I always beg the question of why people have this thought in the first place. Thoughts have power, they lead to all manifest, essentially. Truth is discovered through the mind, and ideas often lead to discovering truths. Many ideas aren’t of value or go no where, but the fact that so many cultures throughout time, and cultures who had no contact with each other, came up with similar constructs about a spiritual plane is fascinating.

[arielburns]

@x-ray_vision

But MLK and Gandhi weren’t admired because of their dickish actions.

Voyager’s following sentence which you quoted separately:

“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.”

If MLK and Gandhi were Biblical characters and all we knew of them was their immorality, Bible thumpers would be claiming that that they couldn’t be immoral because they were inspired by God.

I’m not so sure that’s true. What I’ve gleaned from the bible is that all men are sinners and immoral, and that we are saved from eternal darkness through the son, who was the only one born without sin. That’s a common belief among Christians from my understanding.

[Voyager]

@arielburns

I always beg the question of why people have this thought in the first place. Thoughts have power, they lead to all manifest, essentially. Truth is discovered through the mind, and ideas often lead to discovering truths. Many ideas aren’t of value or go no where, but the fact that so many cultures throughout time, and cultures who had no contact with each other, came up with similar constructs about a spiritual plane is fascinating.

First, different religions are not all that similar, so I don’t think that works. People have always wanted an explanation. Why is there a hot thing in the sky that moves? Since people make fire, a really big person must have made that fire.
Plus it must be more satisfying to live in a world you can affect. You can’t directly affect whether it rains, but you can convince yourself that dancing around or sacrificing will make the gods give you rain. And sooner or later it works.
That’s why people pray for things to happen when with the next breath they say that whatever happens, even if it is not what was prayed for, was God’s plan.

[Voyager]

@arielburns

I know, but one of those definitions describes being uncertain and choosing not to take a stance. I think that’s fair. No one should have to accept a label as being athiest or theist, sometimes people avoid thinking about it at all and choose to say they just don’t know.

In the US at least it is hard to not think about it, considering that most kids get dragged off to be indoctrinated in whatever religion their parents buy into at the moment.
Now no one knows in the Theory of Knowledge sense (Moses and Abraham would know if they had been real) but I understand that saying “I don’t know” is a good way of keeping the god botherers away. Kind of like saying “I’m not very religious” - people see it as being too lazy to go to church or whatever, and usually leave you alone.

[cosmosdan]

@arielburns

I apologize if I haven’t read enough of the conversation to jump in, but isn’t agnosticism the disbelief in both theism and atheism? I think that term has been especially applied in the case when someone wants to claim they are neither theistic or atheistic, they are undetermined.

Agnostic Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

YoU are correct. That’s how I’ve seen it and am defining it now.

You’ll find people on the SDMB who like the terms
agnostic atheist, because some people who don’t believe in god still recognize that they can’t know in an absolute sense.
and agnostic theist, which is a believer who recognizes they also can’t know with complete certainty.

Personally I find theose terms unnessecary and don’t use them, but it’s good to know how they are used. .