I don’t think you understand the concept of disproof. I’ve been debating this issue on line for 35 years now, and in that time I think I have come across one atheist who claims that it is possible to disprove the existence of any god. And he was clearly wrong.
How nice if that were true. But rational Christians inherently support the irrational ones by making it socially difficult to attack the basis of their beliefs. The rational ones believe that Jesus was the son of God, and rose from the dead, and was predicted by prophecy. The irrational ones believe in nearly every word of the Bible. How can the first set falsify the contentions of the second set? If they use logic, they will falsify their own beliefs. If they just appeal to faith, why is their faith better than the faith of the second set? Pantheism is a lot easier to support, but is even less popular than atheism.
Our downer is responsible for the computer you are typing on, so it is an upper to me.
These definitions don’t support yours. Absence if belief, remember? Active rejection is also included, so weak atheists fall under the first clause of definition 1, strong ones the second and also def 2.
The third definition of agnosticism is the popular, though incorrect one - remember dictionaries are descriptive. Now, we all agree that you can’t prove gods don’t exist in general. But if some deity came down and did all sorts of cool tricks, wouldn’t that be more or less a proof of his existence to you? If you say yes (which is reasonable) you are not an agnostic.
Some atheists like definition 3 because theists are more accepting of “I don’t know” than “I don’t believe.”
The easy way of distinguishing the concepts, and seeing that they are orthogonal, is that atheism (and theism) are statements of belief, while agnosticism is a statement about knowledge and the possibility of knowledge.
I have a friend whose mother is like this. When my friend became a moderate Christian as an adult, her athiest mother took every opportunity to mock her. She constantly goes on about how she failed as a parent, and how could my friend “do this to her”, etc. It was pretty bad for a while there. I was embarrassed to be in the room with them when her mom was on one of her rants.
Years later she still does, though not as often. My friend loves her mother very much, and this has put a real strain on their relationship. Strangely, her mother cannot figure out why her daughter started limiting the their time together. My friend is also careful about letting her kids around her mom too much. Her mom is cutting of her nose to spite her face. Hopefully one day she will realized that the superiority of mocking her daughter’s choice isn’t worth losing time with her or her grandkids.
In the 1930’s it was common for Jewish fathers to disown daughters marrying Christians. My grandfather did not disown my aunt for doing so, I am happy to say, because his new son-in-law, while Catholic, had a far more important faith - in the Brooklyn Dodgers.
Actually I strongly suspect my grandfather was a closeted atheist, which perhaps explains it.
That’s not the point. It’s not my job to actively “disprove” anyone’s faith, unless they shove my face in it. Any given Christian may be “deluded” due to his or her belief that Jesus Christ was divine – but as long as they keep their delusions under the radar, I couldn’t care less what they believe in.
Don’t get me wrong – scientific method’s extremely useful, when applied properly. But it shouldn’t be applied to everything – that’s all I’m saying.
Assuming that said deity can’t be reasonably explained away as (a) an outright delusion (due to drugs/insanity/too much porn), (b) mistaken identity, or (c) the result of the NSA secretly beaming lasers into my brain…then yes, such an experience would convince me that said deity does exist. However, I’ve not had such an experience – I’ve experienced subtle notions, inclinations, and other permutations, but none have been immediately identifiable as either “God” or “Not God.” At least, not yet.
Cool…does that mean I can eat another cheeseburger?
If you showed me even one person with proof that the gods, as I conceive of them, do not exist, it would certainly be something to consider. I do not think this will take place, and it is a different matter altogether than there being no proof they exist, which I cheerfully concede and is indeed why I do not expect anyone else to believe as I do.
Either I don’t have the ability to see it in any other way (I think I do have that ability, or in other words that I am perfectly capable of entertaining other points of view, but find I disagree with them, at least insofar as my own faith), or else I am not a “true believer,” although I’m not sure what value of that you’re using.
A basic tenet of many fundamentalist religions is intolerance.
Strongly religious people feel like they would be being bad parents if they didn’t force their children to follow their parents’ religion.
I’ve been wondering throughout this thread what the difference is between religious parents disowning their kids for being non-religious and non-religious parents disowning their kids for becoming religious. Many people on this board have had bad experiences with religious people being intolerant of their lack of religious belief, yet they would do the same in reverse?
My dad was strongly religious, and in the end he didn’t feel that he was being a bad parent by not forcing me to follow his religion. He certainly had his point of view, but he became reconciled to my change of religion.
People who are going to be assholes to their children can’t get off the hook that easily. It’s not an inherent part of being religious; it’s a choice they’re making, and they can make different choices.
I’m religious (lapsed Catholic, vague theist), but I’d never disown a child of mine for chosing a different religion, or being an atheist or whatever. The only reason I can see for disowning them would be if they were a neo-Nazi, or a rapist/child molestor, serial killer, etc.
Or if they started rooting for the Browns, or the Flyers. THEN they are DEAD to me.
My great-grandfather disowned my grandmother for marrying my grandfather back in the 1940’s. Grandma was brought up Catholic: grandpa was Protestant, but did not attend church. I saw how that affected my grandma, and I am just now developing relationships with descendants of her two brothers. As a Christian, and one who believes in God’s unconditional love for me, what kind of mother would I be if I didn’t give that same unconditional love to my children?
No, I wouldn’t disown them without some pretty extreme behavior. If they chose to try to convert me, I would treat them with the same scorn I treat everyone who tries to convert me.
My mother believes she’s a bad parent because two of her children are atheists. She might believe she’s a bad parent because one of the others is an Episcopalian, but I’m not certain.
Sure. But the usual response of moderate theists to the extreme ones is either a denial they exist in any numbers (quickly refuted by polling data) or a correct denial that the moderate theist thinks that the Bible is a science book. They seem to have a hard time saying why they believe in some parts of the Bible and not others. The bottom line is that this set enables the extremists to a certain extent, though they get very, very, upset by my saying so.
But what is more amenable to scientific study than the origin of the universe and the causes of things? Science says nothing about the kind of god who set the ball rolling 14 billion years ago and took a powder, but any god who has said anything to us about anything can be studied - if only by his affects on the world.
Science can and has studied all sorts of nonscientific things, like what we consider beautiful. Not everything science studies involves test tubes.
Sure, but agnosticism involves the possibility of having the experience, not the study of an experience you have had. So it seems you are not truly an agnostic, but hold what I consider to the reasonable position on this.
I can’t see ANY reason I would disown my hypothetical children, but if they became fundamentalists of any stripe, not merely religious, but fundamentalists, I would question my ability as a father. I still would NOT disown my hypothetically fundamentalist children though.
I coould imagine cutting off contact for safety, or turning someone in to prevent them doing harm to themselves or others, but ‘disowning’ always seemed like a silly idea to me anyhow.
Religion by itself at worst would be something we’d argue over, and even then it would be only over them trying to convert me or the like.
Now if they started supporting Australian Rules Football, that would be a whole other story…
I don’t believe in any part of the Bible. It’s hard to have a discussion about the nature of religion if other people are going to use “religion/theists” as a shorthand for “a certain subset of religions/theists” and possibly “a subset of the ways in which those religions are practised.”
See, there’s a difference between mocking the religion and being stupidly abusive toward the kid. My entire family, sarcastic bastards all, walk that line all the time.
Just in case you wonder, it is (b) that is usually refuted, but by redefining “kind, loving & merciful.” Myself, I refute (c). As far as I can tell, the concept of hell, at least as you described, is not biblical.
Ummm… huh? Disown my own child for anything they do, however misguided? :eek:
TBH, I wouldn’t disown my own child if they became a serial axe murderer. Now I’d fully support putting them in prison for the rest of their life, but I’d visit them.
Frankly, the very fact that you even think this is a reasonable question speaks volumes about your mindset, and I suspect that your religious leanings contribute to it.
:eek: