This is the second time I’ve seen a “gay-man” hypothetical from you in the last day or so. What’s up with that? The unPCness of it is getting me annoyed.
Wow, I’m surprised at all the voices saying they don’t really respect other beliefs.
I respect the beliefs of others, in that I think they’re a fundamental part of the lives of many people, and that by not respecting their beliefs I don’t show them the respect I feel is due any human being. I’d even go a bit farther then some here: Up to a point, I respect the beliefs of others even when they lead to a negative impact on my life. I think respect and tolerance go hand in hand, and that tolerance necessarily involves accepting something even when it harms myself.
Do I respect the beliefs of someone who, after genuine consideration, has decided that homosexual behaviour is contradicted by Christian belief? All else being equal, yes. Do I respect the beliefs of someone like, say, Fred Phelphs? No. I think it’s a matter of degree, and if the respect is mutual…
I don’t mean to annoy. I’m simply using an analogy to help people understand what I mean. Do you think that, as an atheist, you could simply decide to believe?
Wow. So, you don’t respect the more extreme cases, but maybe you do respect the beliefs of the Jersey Diamonds of the world?
Yep, if that’s the only image you get of religion, then I can understand why you’d be so dismissive of it. But I’m surprised that you are not willing to entertain the notion that your experience of religionists is not universally representative.
I don’t necessarily respect all beliefs. I don’t, for example, respect the beliefs of young earth creationists. But when I questioned Gobear, I did not mean that I thought he respected the beliefs of *all * others. I merely though he respected mine. And that’s just because my beliefs do not interfere with his desire to pursue his own happiness in his own way, free from both interference by men and condemnation by God. In other words, I respect him and his views, so I was stunned to have my own called “twaddle” and dismissed with “God doesn’t exist”. I mean, it was like saying, “I’m on your side,” and someone responding with, “Well, get off my side.”
I’m not an atheist, I’m a pantheist. BTW, it sounds like you really found the Source with that joint, Keanu.
Yes, I did: I found myself. My point is that I feel the need to be true to myself. I don’t consider the alternative to be an option. And sorry again for the offense.
Lib, if you are as thoroughly convinced as it sounds that you’ve found god, what do you think of non-christians who believe they’ve also got the answer (and it’s nothing like the answer you’ve found)? Do you think there’s a possibility you’re wrong and they’re right?
None taken, my brother.
Actually, what I think is that we’re both right. Since no two people can experience the same thing at the same time in the same place in the same way, it is perfectly natural that our perceptions will differ. It is merely two different subjective takes on the same objective thing. The atheist who values goodness above any other aesthetic is more like my God than the Christian who would deny Gobear the happiness he seeks.
When I say that I respect people but not their beliefs, I mean I respect them from their behavior. If you’re a good person, I don’t care how you got there, I respect you for being a good person. I might think your path is silly (and in many, many cases I do, since I haven’t found a religion yet that I don’t find silly), but I’m not going to tell you you’re wrong, because 1) I don’t really know, and 2) I respect you. I might try to convince you that you’re wrong (that’s what GD is all about), but I don’t think saying “You’re beliefs are dumb” is a very good way to convince anyone.
Similar in ritual and practice, not really, no. Similar in effect, yes. Both preach rather similar moral objectives - not to mention the fact that there is the argument (though rather dismissed) that Buddha and Jesus share some basic similarities. I was thinking, though, more of the non-Judeo-Christian beliefs that have existed all over the world since prehistory, notably paganism.
That is a very narrow-minded view of religion, and I’m curious where you picked that up. While it is obvious that you equate “religion” with “Christianity,” that is simply not the case, not to mention the fact that it is a horrible generalization against Christians as a people. Your prejudice against them is no better than a prejudice against anything else. For someone who claims to be fighting ignorance, you certainly are embracing it here. I mean, lumping Daoism in and calling it evil because you had a bad experience with Christians is silly.
Except that in the text you quote yourself, emarkp did not assert that God does exist, he says that he believes certain things to be true, but does not expect to prove it to anyone. He objected to gobear’s plain statement of ‘fact’ which is not actually provable. If gobear had merely stated that he does not believe in the existence of God, there would be no problem.
Well, I think you’re picking nits here. I don’t think anyone considers Gobear the end-all authority on the existence of god. It is assumed everything anyone says about the subject is an opinion and nothing more.
The existence of god is unknowable, but the subject matter lends itself to lively debate. That’s the only useful purpose religion has in my life. I don’t know whether there’s a god or not, but so far, I haven’t seen any evidence of a higher power. And I’m not going to pretend there is one “just in case.” If and when the situation changes, I’ll be the first to say, “Well, whaddya know?”
I think that’s a very fair position. I wish I had been that level headed when I was an atheist.
Well, there’s a debate and a half right there. But getting past that…
The difference between believing in God and asserting his nonexistance is the difference between a postive and negative claim. My claim that God exists is based on my personal experience providing sufficient proof to me that he exists. Now, I realize that personal experience is not sufficient as a scientific proof, and do not propose God as objectively provable.
Now, how could anyone claim that God does not exist? How would he come to such knowledge? Did God tell him? Of course not. Did he determine that no one ever has any interaction with God? Did he seek out all dark corners of the universe to make sure God wasn’t hiding? Of course not. Proving God’s nonexistence even subjectively would require you to be a god. Hence it’s not a reasonable assertion, from simple logic.
It is reasonable to say “I don’t believe in God.” It is not reasonable to claim “there is no God.” People who hold the second position are who I call “pious atheists”–people whose belief system requires as much faith as (or even more than) that of the believer.
I think that’s a reasonable position, even though I don’t agree with it (I’ve seen plenty of evidence personally, but of course I have no idea what your life experience has been).
But your logic here is illogical. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever produced any direct scientific evidence that such a thing as a god being exists. Therefore, in my mind, s/he/it doesn’t. Taking the converse of a position that because there is nothing to scientifically prove the existence of a god being also means that there is nothing to disprove it contributes nothing to the debate. The only possible result is stalemate.
One would hope that beliefs are/could be backed up by some form of real evidence, But your belief is unsupported by any scientific evidence. As I’ve said before, I don’t have a problem with that, as long as you keep it to yourself, your family and your friends and don’t try to impose your belief or anything to do with your belief on anyone else in any way, shape or form. If you want to pray 5 times a day, go ahead. If you want to sacrifice a live sheep on the alter of your god, go ahead. Just don’t tell me or anyone else that we have to do or be bound by the same things as you.
I think you’re logic is illogical. Science isn’t the only epistemology, and it isn’t appropriate for every task. You need deduction, for example, to prove that 1 + 1 = 2. All the experiments in the world won’t prove it. Similarly, science is not an appropriate method to test metaphysical things, which God is by definition. Science is useful for studying the natural world. But God is supernatural.
But then, in your mind, bacteria, atoms, and quarks didn’t exist until they were observed. That little planetoid out beyond Pluto they just found only popped into existence a few months ago, and all the unnamed, undiscovered insects on this planet aren’t out there chewing stuff up. By your reasoning, nothing exists until its existence has been proven to people. But there are huge numbers of things that were never dreamed of until someone found them, and undoubtedly there are many more.
As Lib points out, God is not subject to scientific evidence, being of a different order than the natural physical world. Not everything is a nail, even when your hammer is the scientific method. There are a bunch of other tools (some of which, I suppose, have yet to be invented!).
Stalemate is fine with me; it means we have to agree to be on equal ground, and one cannot claim debate ‘victory’ over the other. Not a problem. Then we can get on with the sometimes-pleasant civil discussions on our respective beliefs or lack thereof. As you said yourself, “just don’t tell me or anyone else that we have to do or be bound by the same things as you.”