The Atheist Corner

[Big Al]

Figuratively speaking.

I was being facetious with that comment, but you understand my central point, correct? The universe did not need to suddenly appear out of nothing any more than God did.

[aabbcc]

Following your train of thought, I hesitate to call it logic, do we exist at all or are we only a figment of someone's/thing's imagination.

I asked you a very simple question. I am not moving onto any next question until we have resolved why is illogical to say that belief in G-d is irrational.
You not only pretend to insult my knowledge of formal logic (and you are not following my train of thought, btw), but are also masquing the fact that you cannot answer my simple question?

Suffice it to say we are entitled to our opinions of what is logical or not.

Disagree.
Heavily disagree, in fact. What is logical is not dependant on "opinion" in any way.

[curlyqlink]

This Earth, this Universe did not spring from thin air so to speak, and even if one believe in evolution, there had to be something that started the process.

I understand this line of reasoning. Since there is creation, there must be a Creator. But the question then becomes... who created the creator?

And if God didn't need a creator, why not simply skip a step, and figure the universe didn't need one?

[plainjane]

I asked you a very simple question. I am not moving onto any next question until we have resolved why is illogical to say that belief in G-d is irrational.
You not only pretend to insult my knowledge of formal logic (and you are not following my train of thought, btw), but are also masquing the fact that you cannot answer my simple question?

Disagree.
Heavily disagree, in fact. What is logical is not dependant on "opinion" in any way.

Since neither of us are going to budge from our opinions, I do not wish to butt my head up against a brick wall. You are welcome to do as you wish, I will not respond. If you think I have insulted you, I apologize, that was not my intention, I have no way of knowing what your knowledge is, nor you mine.
I will simply follow the Bible injunction of, as quoted in an earlier post of mine.

International Standard Version Matthew 10:14
If no one welcomes you or listens to your words, as you leave that house or town, shake its dust off your feet.

You are welcome to do the same.

I understand this line of reasoning. Since there is creation, there must be a Creator. But the question then becomes... who created the creator?

And if God didn't need a creator, why not simply skip a step, and figure the universe didn't need one?

The Bible says that God is and always was.
Only answer I can give you is Faith. You've either got or you don't.


This thread has gone way off the tracks of it's originator, dare I say creator?
Whoops hit the wrong button.

I think we should allow the atheists say what they wish to say without comment. After all you are so shy and retiring.

[Big Al]

I thought theism was founded on logic? "Faith" is the bane of rational thinking.

Also, the "You won't change my mind and I won't change your mind, so let's not even bother" line of thinking is essentially the same as saying, "My beliefs are set in stone, and so I'm going to ignore your objections."

[aabbcc]

The Bible says that God is and always was.
Only answer I can give you is Faith. You've either got or you don't.

Excellent! Now we perfectly agree, and understand, when you speak from the position of faith and not logic. If you put things this way, then we can peacefully co-exist, I can appreciate your choice and will have absolutely no problems with your lack of classical argumentation.

The problem arises if, and only if, you have pretensions to speak about G-d from the position of logic and start to speak in those terms. In that case, I do expect you to follow the rules and ways of the position you want to speak from. You know, sort of, "when in Rome, do as Romans do", because you are at the territory of another discipline where ad verecundiams of the kind "Bible says so" simply cannot pass.

[Walter]

I think we have a working proof here that atheists have good strong voices, even in the presence of Christians. So now what was that original question that this thread was going to be about?

[Jozanny]

I'm waiting to hear the first thing yet that you have been afraid to utter all these years for fear of causing discomfort. I promise not to be uncomfortable.
Utter away!

I took some time to try to figure out how to answer your specific challenge Walter, and I haven't quite figured it out yet, but in another thread, I was leaning toward defining American Christianity as something else, in sympatico with Harold Bloom,to a degree:

http://www.ctlibrary.com/bc/2002/novdec/19.36.html

The American Religion's thesis was stated repetitively, even tediously, throughout. The religion that most Americans adhere to "masks itself as Protestant Christianity yet has ceased to be Christian." Bloom elaborated:

There are indeed millions of Christians in the United States, but most Americans who think they are Christians truly are something else, intensely religious but devout in the American Religion, a faith that is old among us and that comes in many guises and disguises, and that overdetermines much of our national life.

Let's say it got bumpy, despite my lack of intent to be deliberately divisive.

[NikolaiI]

There are many different ideas of what faith is. To me faith and logic are not in opposition at all. Logic is a part of the mental realm, faith is a part of the spiritual realm. There is no part of my faith which I would use, if it transcend, rather than conflict with, the logical. It comes down to ontology and language, if we look at it philosophically, and it comes down to symbols or feelings we can't express, if it comes down to sense-experience. So then, if in someone's intuition is in agreement with one's analytical reasoning, then to that person, their faith and logic aren't at odds.

I apologize if I have clumsily explained my idea.

While this is my own idea, I cannot bring myself to bring negative valuation of people who have other ideas, and yet I notice and feel the effects of negative association or energy, when I present my ideas and then am insulted or treated negatively.

[Jozanny]

I was struck by the original poster's phrase "...why atheists need to fear *giving offense* to believers..."

I would think that the real question is why believers "take offense" with atheists and their critical attitude.

Yours is the stronger imperative jg. I stand corrected.

Can some please remind me how to go Advanced -----> then multiple quote?

Thanks. Never mind, I found the icon.

[Big Al]

There are many different ideas of what faith is. To me faith and logic are not in opposition at all. Logic is a part of the mental realm, faith is a part of the spiritual realm. There is no part of my faith which I would use, if it transcend, rather than conflict with, the logical. It comes down to ontology and language, if we look at it philosophically, and it comes down to symbols or feelings we can't express, if it comes down to sense-experience. So then, if in someone's intuition is in agreement with one's analytical reasoning, then to that person, their faith and logic aren't at odds.

The problem is that a person can use analytical reasoning and not always come to a logical conclusion. The problem with taking things such as the existence of a god on faith is that, in many ways, it acts as an automatic barrier to opposing objections and arguments. It has already been demonstrated in this thread; when confronted with completely rational objections to common flaws in theistic thinking, many people will simply ignore those objections and respond with something along the lines of, "You have to take it on faith," thus completely tossing logic out the window.

Also, on a related train of thought, is there any logical reason to believe in a "spiritual realm?"

[Walter]

Jozanny, It's your thread, and for atheist discussion. So say what you wish. I'll do my best to be a quiet listener.

This is in reference to your post #40 to me. A few other posts slipped in between.

[aabbcc]

Nikolai... If you were referring to my post... I did not say that faith and logic were always and necessarily in conflict.
What I said was that, if one desires to approach religious truths from the position of formal logic, i.e. treat religion as something "logical" and explain why are the postulates of one's religion "logical", one must do it lege artis, in accordance with the rules and ways of the discipline one is referring to when one claims its adjective, "logical". If one desires to simply state one's beliefs and 'argumentate' them with the Scripture, one is fully entitled to do so, but not from the position of logic as discipline. That is what I referred to as "speaking from the position of faith" - when one says "I believe X because my holy source Y claims X, and I use Y as an authority for what I regard as my utmost truths", and has no pretensions to delve into logical argumentation of the truths their source presents.

Some believers, though, seem to wish to prove to some non-believers that their faith is rational and that postulates of their religion are logical. Well, if you delve into that, you step out of "faith-approach" to "logic-approach", and you must change your method. That is all what it is about.

Jozanny, sorry. I promise to stick to the topic from now on.

[Virgil]

Holy smoke did this thread take off. I'm glad I'm not joining this conversation. All I have to say is that when one relies on "rationality" you have essentially lost the argument. Rationality is a set of logic within a context. What is logical today is not logical tomorrow or to someone else within a different context. Newton appeared perfectly logical until Einstein showed differently. Thomas Aquinas has a logical proof of God's existence that was perfectly rational in the 12th century. I think of rationality as seeing and thinking inside a box. It depends on what you have closed off within the box. No one can rely on rationality and truly have a sound argument.

[Big Al]

Nikolai... If you were referring to my post... I did not say that faith and logic were always and necessarily in conflict.
What I said was that, if one desires to approach religious truths from the position of formal logic, i.e. treat religion as something "logical" and explain why are the postulates of one's religion "logical", one must do it lege artis, in accordance with the rules and ways of the discipline one is referring to when one claims its adjective, "logical". If one desires to simply state one's beliefs and 'argumentate' them with the Scripture, one is fully entitled to do so, but not from the position of logic as discipline. That is what I referred to as "speaking from the position of faith" - when one says "I believe X because my holy source Y claims X, and I use Y as an authority for what I regard as my utmost truths", and has no pretensions to delve into logical argumentation of the truths their source presents.

Some believers, though, seem to wish to prove to some non-believers that their faith is rational and that postulates of their religion are logical. Well, if you delve into that, you step out of "faith-approach" to "logic-approach", and you must change your method. That is all what it is about.

I think I'm in love.

Holy smoke did this thread take off. I'm glad I'm not joining this conversation. All I have to say is that when one relies on "rationality" you have essentially lost the argument. Rationality is a set of logic within a context. What is logical today is not logical tomorrow or to someone else within a different context. Newton appeared perfectly logical until Einstein showed differently. Thomas Aquinas has a logical proof of God's existence that was perfectly rational in the 12th century. I think of rationality as seeing and thinking inside a box. It depends on what you have closed off within the box. No one can rely on rationality and truly have a sound argument.

I disagree. Aquinas was no more rational in the 12th century than he is in the 21st century; more people simply know better now. What you are actually asserting is that the ability of people as a whole to recognize rationality changes over time, and indeed it seems to increase. Besides, what should we rely on if not rational thought?