ok....how does this have anything to do with this thread? just wondering.....
Printable View
ok....how does this have anything to do with this thread? just wondering.....
His reponse would more than likely be that you didn't understand the definition of the word "faith" - hence your confusion. If evidence exists, faith is unnecessary.Quote:
Originally Posted by .shuu.
I see what your point is, but must clarify for others who might mistake what you're trying to say. Evidence does exist, but faith is also nessecary. You can't be like Spock (sp?) and say that you are doing it simply b/c it's the "logical choice" It Is the logical choice, but you also need to want it, to believe in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
That's an interesting choice of words. She doesn't sound very confused to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
This has always confused me. There are plenty of things for which no evidence exists. Why should one have faith in the Judeo-Christian God particualrly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
And fortunately, that's a biblically acceptable stance.Quote:
Originally Posted by .shuu.
Luke 23:34.
As they hammered the nails into his wrists, Jesus himself asked his dad to forgive the blokes doing it, "because they know what they do"
Not to mention Saulus and the Damascus Road.
The confusion exists in the logic of saying that one's faith is "weak" because of a lack of evidence. Faith is what one relies upon in the absence of evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Because He is different from all other variations of "God" presented by other belief systems. Other systems either deny the transcendancy of God, His personal nature and/or intelligence, His moral will or they make Him a blind "force" or worse, contingent upon something else. Only the God of Christianity exists, is necessary, is powerful, is transcendant, is non-contingent upon anything else, is intelligent, is personal, is moral, is engaged, is unique. No other "god" fits all that criteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
I believe you are wide of my point, Red. Why should one have faith in deities at all? I believe we are in agreement that no evidence exists for them (because if there was any evidence faith would be unnecesary, according to you). Out of all the things that there are is no evidence for, why should deities in particular be the subject of faith? Why not extraterrestrial intelligence, or perfect circles, or government conspiracies, or strange women in ponds selecting English monarchs?
"Evidence" is an interesting term; when I say "evidence" negates faith, I speak of "evidence" in terms of what a non-believer would accept - scientifically verifiable evidence based on the observable world. Christians believe we have "evidence" as well - but since our "evidence" cannot stand up to scientific inquiry, non-believers tend to brush it off as insubstantial - as if reality can only be comprehended by what our senses can perceive. That's what I meant by my use of "evidence." I think I've got plenty of evidence for my beliefs - but my evidence is of such a personal nature that it would be all but meaningless to you - just as if you tried to convince me that you have the best girl in the world for a girlfriend/wife - how could you convince me that I don't already have a woman with that title?Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Second - none of the other options you listed for belief left a record of its existence and interaction with us here on earth like the Bible. The Bible states that all men (meaning humanity) were created with an internal knowledge of God inside their hearts (all creations bear the hallmark of their creator) - knowledge which is partly present in our awareness of wrongdoing (called "guilt"), partly present in the attempts of artists to continually reach for the sublime, in our restless desire to be more, do more, to "suck the marrow out of life." Your other listed options do not change/heal lives, break addictions and inspire acts of sacrifice, compassion and love.
Not analogous. The title of 'best girl in the world for a girlfriend' is entirely subjective. We, more than likely, have different opinions of what qualities determine which girl in particular holds that title. A divine and beneavolent creator of the universe, on the other hand, is simply there or not there. He exists or he doesn't. The argument isn't over whether my god is better than yours, it is over whether any such thing exists at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
The Lady of the Lake sure did. If I collected all the Arthurian legends in one volume, I'm quite sure I would have something a lot larger than the Bible, and some of it, such as Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain, would purport to be fact. In addition, you seem to be using the Bible as evidence of the existence of God which, by your above statement, eliminates the need for faith in him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Your criticism is just; nonetheless, the point I was trying to make is still present (in a vague form, I guess): it is near impossible to prove something as personal as the existence of God - as possible as it is to convince you my wife is the best woman in the world. The analogy isn't apt because of the distinction you noted, but the subjectivity of religious experience makes it very very difficult to comminicate to others - and the primary reason for this is the nature of the presuppositional bases that you and I operate off of. I generally have found few atheists who will concede that their world view is predicated on the acceptance of a Naturalistic philosophic view of reality - many tend to insist that they are "clear thinkers" who have no biases and arrived at their conclusions by reason and consideration of the evidence alone; I'm sorry - I dispute that: I think humans are incapable of transcending the "filters" through which we see the world. I suggest that evolution makes logical, rational sense to you because the "evidence" you've examined makes sense inside the frame of Naturalism; as such, the same evidence which seems so persuasive to you is less effective on me because I operate off of the presuppositional base that God is real, and as such, being the all-powerful, all-knowing being that He is, that He is the sole gauge of what is reality - that nature in all its revelation, attests to His reality as well. Other believers will thus listen to my reasons for the belief in God and go "yes - of course, isn't that obvious?" while non-believers shake their heads and call us "deluded" or "blind" or ignorant. Don't you see that we go through the same motions when evolutionists give us their "irrefutable" evidence? Our foundation is predicated on the reality that the world exists at two levels - the physical world being the lower (and as such, less significant) of the two worlds (the spiritual realm being the second). As such, when handed "facts" about the physical world that don't gel with what a spiritual entity has told us, means that the spiritual takes priority. I know that to a scientist, such thinking appears to be intellectual suicide, but faith is not predicated upon verifiable evidence. God asks us to trust Him - because a provable God is not a God whom people would serve out of love - they would serve out of other, less noble motivations.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
But the Lady of the Lake did not claim Divine Authority and did not leave us a coherent narrative of her divine purpose in this world. As well, her minor role in the Arthurian romances (pretty much the beginning and the end) relagates her to a supporting role.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
I am not using the Bible to argue the existence of God - that would result in circular reasoning. The Bible is the testimony of God's character and His relationship to us - it cannot testify to the veracity of God's existence other than in whatever ways the Bible is confirmed by history, or by the truth of its moral statements. Belief in the Bible requires the prerequisite that God exist.
God's existence or non-existence is not at all personal, it is a fact that exists objectively, outside of any personal experience. Whether or not your reasons for believing in him are personal is an entirely different question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
The Vatican, an organization not widely noted for its Naturalistic worldview, recently endorsed Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Acceptance of the theory of evolution is in no way synonymous with atheism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
The difference being, of course, that one does not need to start with the assumption that there is no such thing as a deity in order to arrive at the conclusion that biological evolution occurs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Both statements are true, and both are irrelivant. Why should I not have faith that the unprovable Lady of the Lake has been guiding the English monarchy for millenia, despite the lack of any supporting evidence?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
And therefore your reference to it in post #728 is circular.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
God's existence is objective - but our experience of it is largely subjective in nature.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
True - though I disagree with the Catholic church on a number of theological points; either way, the generalization that evolution appeals to atheists still holds. That some Christians have embraced it is entirely up to them - but the Bible doesn't support its veracity.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
You must reject the supposition of divine creation for any other theory to even seem to be sensible.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Your "levelling" of the Bible with Arthurian mythology diminishes the clear moral value of the scriptures and makes it comparable to mere legends - legends that do not present a cohesive world view, that do not predict the future and cannot be historically verified (as many things in the Bible can). You cannot form a world-changing theology out of Arthurian legends, sorry. A lack of verifiable evidence for the Bible and Arthurian legend does not make them equal - the content of the books makes that distinction more than absurd to anybody who's read them both (I have).Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
I disagree. My reference to the Bible in post #728 does not assert that the Bible proves God's existence; it states that - given that God is real - we can assume the veracity of scriptures which tells us that He implanted "eternity in our hearts" (from Eccesiastes); I said that to state that according to the Bible, all men have an internal knowledge of God - I did not imply it proved His existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
This is the first time in this conversation that you have made that particular generalization. What you said was that it appeals solely to atheists. In fact, you say it again, in your very next sentence. We'll come to that in a minute.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Whether or not you agree with the Catholic church is irrelivant. They believe in a divine creator. They accept the theory of evolution. They aren't the only ones.
I am truly flabbergasted by this sentence. The existence of gods (any gods, not just your particular conception of them) and the fact of biological evolution are not in any way mutually exclusive. There is no inherent contradiction in theistically-guided evolution or deism. In any case, the fact that they are not mutually exclusive was shown in the very last topic you were talking about. The last time I checked, the Catholic church had not rejected the idea of a divine creator. Neither have the Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Unitarians, Congregationalists or Baptists, unless I missed something really big in the news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
I can only conclude that you are confusing biological evolution with abiogenesis.
Which makes sense, given that that is exactly what I think they are. I am an atheist, remember?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
I know that they're different, I'm asking why I should have faith in one and not the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
And again, the question was 'Why should one have faith in gods and not something else?' This does not answer it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Are you telling me my generalization is inaccurate? Because you've listed some denominations that have IMO compromised the Bible that makes my gereralization flat-out false?Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
So? Denominations exist because a unified interpretation of scriptures is unrealistic given humanity's tendency to interpret things inaccurately (due to bias or whatever).Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
I'm allowed to have my opinion - even if you and the above listed denominations disagree. They do not speak for all of Christianity. They speak for themselves - just as I assume you speak for yourself and not all atheists.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
That may be true.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
I haven't forgotten that - but my comment was based on the belief that you are a highly intelligent and well-read young man, and that even if one is an atheist, surely one would see from comparing the two that they are radically different in scope, intent, audience and social value. Or do I assume too much? I guess I hoped you would be willing to acknowledge that - whether God exists or not - the Bible has offered many people a hope, a guide, and a better way to live their lives. Perhaps not.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Because a belief in the Lady of the Lake cannot change your life, free you from an addiction, guide your choices and decisions and provide a framework from within which to assess the value of the world around you. That's why.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Because other things cannot give you a new life and the promise of eternity in the presence of God. I know you've dismissed Pascal's Wager elsewhere here, but my belief costs me nothing in this life except the approval of society and occasional discomfort when God asks me to grow as a person. Your view, IMO, costs too much to hold - because if I'm wrong, I've just spent a good chunk of my life believing foolish things; if you're wrong, you've lost everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
That's a very good analogy. I'm a longtime atheist and thought I'd seen all the good analogies, plus I'm a huge Arthurian legend fan, yet it had never clicked until I read that.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
You could make an outstanding case for it to be factual. If the bible is factual, despite having no factual basis outside of it and the church, then Arthur is a shoo-in. As you note, it ties in with fact, and it contains sufficient biblical references to be almost made for the job.
You have, however, now caused me to set aside time to further delve into the idea. Have you dome any cross-referencing yourself?
The one positive benefit of making Arthurian literature into a "religion" is that it is derivative of Christianity - so, of all the legendary material you could chose, at least you chose one that has a legitimate baisis. Good job.:)
If we are using my wording of your generalization ("it [evolution] appeals solely to atheists") and if we are in agreement that the denominations I mention a) are theistic and b) accept that biological evolution happens (regardless of who or what originated it) then yes, your generalization is flat-out false. If you mean that most atheists accept the theory of biological evolution, then you are most likely correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Certainly. You, however, did not make a statement of opinion, you made a statement of fact:Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Given that we were talking about the theory of biological evolution (and not the origin of life on the planet, of which that theory says little), you seem to be saying is that acceptance of the theory of evolution and belief in a divine creator are mutually exclusive. It is, in fact, quite possible to hold both ideas in one's mind simultaneously without any doublethink, regardless of whether or not you, personally, do. The idea of theistic evolution is not immediately self-contradictory, and is quite wide-spread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
I haven't compared the scope, intent, audience or social value of the Grail Legends to the that of the Bible. The only parallel I have drawn is that both claim the existance of a certain person and neither provide any evidence. I am not commenting on the value of either, I am drawing an analogy. I apologize if you are offended by the anaology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
You're making a Jamesian "true because it's useful and useful because it's true" argument, unless I'm badly misreading you? Fair enough, that was the answer I was looking for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
And if the ancient Egyptians were right, we're both screwed. I doubt if I'll lose much sleep over it. I appreciate your concern, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Can't say I have. I'm not really an Arthurian legend specialist. Monmouth's History would be a good place to start, if you're interested, but I've got enough reading to do as it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
My language may have been inexact; I was implying the latter.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Fair enough - though would you expect me to speak differently about what I believe to be fact? I think much of this goes on on both sides of the fence (esp in the evolution vs. creationism thread).Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
I see my error - I tend to lump all evolution together and I'm not always careful about the distinction. Sorry. I do understand the difference, and I speak primarily about the origin of life on the planet (of which evolution must address if God is eliminated as an option).Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Right - and I get the basis of the analogy - I suppose I'm trying to push the analogy further by showing that there is a weakness within it that won't allow it to seriously stand as an option because the contents of each is very different; as such, I'm suggesting that not all "mythology" is created equal. In fact, C.S. Lewis - an expert on literature - confessed that as mythology, the Bible was actually not even well-written mythology because it didn't follow much of the necessary patterns of mythology. My point is that both you and I know that there is a difference in the legend of the Lady of the Lake and the "legendary" contents of the Bible.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
No I'm not. I'm not saying that the qualities I listed prove that the Bible is true; I was applying another qualification to both proffered "faiths" to further underscore the difference between the two; a real faith changes lives; a pseudo-faith does not.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
I'd be worried if and only if the Egyptian's version of God answered all the necessary qualifications that God must answer in order to explain the existence of life, the universe and morality - luckily, no other god does so, so I'm pretty confident in my position.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
In my opinion, and no offense intended, there is no such thing as an athiest. They are simply people who really don't know if there is a God. They are agnostic, not athiests.
I understand this logic; I suppose I would reply that the agnostic at least presents the position that he might be open to the idea, provided some sort of "evidence" could be produced. In that way, I might call an agnostic a "passive" atheist. An atheist, by contrast, seems to hold the position that there is no "evidence" to be found, and even if it could be, it would more than likely be dismissed (what good is evidence for something that they refuse to acknowledge exists?). But - I speak for my atheist brothers/sisters and ought not: gentlemen/ladies - care to comment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zirkle2007
an agnostic is not a "passive atheist." agnostics believe that it is impossible to know whether or not a creator exists. atheists believe that one doesnt.
There are two types of atheist and two types of agnostic:
A strong (or positive) atheist believes that no gods exist.
A weak (or negative) atheist does not believe in gods.
A strong agnostic believes that it is not possible to have knowledge of gods either way.
A weak agnostic is not sure whether or not gods exist.
All agnostics are weak atheists, but not all weak atheists are agnostics (a person to whom the concept of gods has never been explained, for example, is a weak atheist but not an agnostic). People who describe themselves as atheists are usually strong atheists (i.e. they believe that no gods exist). This does not, however, imply that strong atheists are necesarily closed minded, or that they would not change their minds of sufficient evidence to the contrary was presented (as in the case of the philosopher Antony Flew, for example).
Yes, quite a few people on both sides tend to use the word 'opinion' in a way that is, in my opinion (heh), mistaken. Statements such as "In my opinion, humans are/are not descended from ape-like creatures" have the the same logical value as "In my opinion, that car is red" or "In my opinion, the atomic mass of xenon is 131.3". It works the other way too: "In fact, Finnegans Wake is the greatest novel of the twentieth century".Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Of course. I wasn't trying to imply any similarity further than the ones I specifically pointed out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
I'll be more specific: you are making the case that the idea that a god (or, rather, your God in particular) exists is useful in terms of improving the quality of life of the faithful, and should therefore be treated as true, right? That is exactly William James's point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
I get so bored with these statements which come up as though pre-determined by some kind of christian lottery:
"Hey, it's your turn to point out that they can't be actual atheists..."
N.B. to any which think that way:
In case my screen name doesn't give it away, I'm a strong atheist.
It's taken me nearly half a century to arrive at strong atheism, having passed from an openly atheist child to an agnostic youth, a questioning twenty-something, an atheist thirty-something and on to where I am now, a complete and outspoken atheist as I near fifty.
Just a note for christians - every single one of your positions or arguments is something I've already heard many times over the years and can be summed as up "anecdotal evidence + a collection of Abrahamic god myths = christianity".
You're welcome to retain the comfort-blanket of the big sky-daddy, but please do not, even for a millisecond, suggest that you know anything about life on the side of the road where there are no gods - the real world - because you have no idea why I'm an atheist and almost certainly all of the reasons you've been given to explain why people are atheists are irretrievably wrong.
Atheists are atheists for the simplest of reasons - there are no gods. We'll never agree on that, but I do respectfully ask that you learn to tell the difference between fact and fantasy. It's all very easily explained - from the voice of Jesus you respond to, to the religious awe you feel in contemplating your god. It's all physical and you can find the facts, should you choose to do so.
You won't find the truth on an internet message board, but you might if you open your eyes for a second or two along life's journey.
And note my first Orwell quote - it applies equally to religion as The Party
Thank you - that is helpful.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the results or overall effects of following a particular faith system might be said to reveal its value. A dangerous statement, I'll admit - but few things in life adhered to passionately are immune to such risks.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
CUPPAJOE JUST GETS CLEVERER. I wish I could believe him not. I feel through the ether a young man heading for a profound and terrifying conversion
Quote:
Originally Posted by ennison
Boy - wouldn't that be something.
What am I supposed to be converting to? (Or is it converging with?)
I assumed ennison was discussing Christianity. (Hence the use of "terrifying")Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Yes, it would be. I've tried it before, and I didn't much care for it.
Would you believe me if I told you that sometimes age changes things? I spent much of my 20s paying "lip service" to God and the Christianity I was raised within but living my life as I pleased (and I am still reaping the unfortunate results of many of those choices :( ); years ago, my father (attempting to steer my away from an "interfaith" relationship that had the potential to turn later into a "holy war") warned me to be careful - that what I'd grown up with might come back and re-assert its value in my life. He was right.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Carl Jung asserted something similar in his treatment of the Grail Legend - that young men often come into contact with something profound in their youth that only truly makes itself known to them in middle age. For an interesting treatment of this, I recommend Robert Johnson's short book He.
When I say I didn't much care for it, I am not refering to the fact that my freedom was restricted. I am refering to the capacity that was instilled in me to feel large ammounts of irrational guilt, not to mention irrational fear of eternal torture and the entirely irrational belief that sex and the sex instincts are somehow 'bad'. I don't need any of that, thank you, I'm stressed-out enough. On the off chance that I am, somehow, convinced that the Judeo-Christian version of God actually does exist, I suppose I might have a shot at Unitarian Universalism.
However much you convince yourself otherwise, atheism has a shakier position than religion. There are no stories of how we are here that is proved by science, and the idea of a big bang that is undirected is ludicrous. Christianity (and possibly other religions, though I am not familiar with their beliefs) has more evidence, historical and scientific than atheism. The fossil record shows no evidence of darwinism and "halfway fossils", while it does show evidence of species appearing, seemingly out of nowhere, then vanishing (as from a flood). Considering this, however difficult you find believing in a "big sky-daddy", you might consider making a Pascal style gambit.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
And a question; was Orwell an atheist?
Australopithecus - Homo habilis - Homo erectus - Homo neanderthalensis - Homo sapiens
Yes, no halfway fossils whatsoever.
The idea of a Big Bang is only ludicrous to those who don't understand what they're laughing at. The Big Bang was not undirected - science in its present form simply has no means of explaining it. And if evidence existed to support Christianity, it would cease to be a religion. Religion, by its nature, exists on faith and cannot be proven.
Orwell was ambivalent. Some see Big Brother in Nineteen Eighty-Four as a parody of God, but that's a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. What does it matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
Australopithecus - Homo habilis - Homo erectus - Homo neanderthalensis - Homo sapiens are basically the same thing that lost hair and gained brain. What I am talking about are links from, say, reptiles to mammals for a fairly simple one, or reptiles to birds.
Also, the Big Bang is a scientific theory stating how the universe was created. If it is directed, then there is a god who existed outside of the universe. There is evidence to support Christianity (without evidence there is no purpose for chosing Christianity over other religions). The evidence does not absolutely confirm it and faith must take you where evidence doesn't, but suggestive evidence exists.
I'm just curious. Also, you cite him as being against religion (unless I miss your meaning), so I wondered if he was against religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
They evolved, in other words.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
Ask and ye shall recieve.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
Nope. The Big Bang took place directly after the universe was created.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
I've yet to hear about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
Nope, I never claimed Orwell was against religion. Imperialism, laissez-faire capitalism and Stalinism, yes; religion, I dunno.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
Anyone else here find it quite humorous that atheists are the most feared group in America?
There is a difference between simple changes and the creation of an organ. Biologists have yet to explain how organs have been created.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
The Archeopteryx was a dead end. They were an unfortunate creature that survived for a very short time unsuccessfully, and did not have enough time to exist beyond that.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
How was the universe created then?Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Have you been looking?Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Sorry, that was The Atheist.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
I think that serial killers, terrorists and used car salesmen are still ahead of us, but yes, it's fairly amusing. And quite sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI