fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Matthew 16:4 - A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.
From the movie Contact:
Thought For The New Year
- Thread starter cammerfe
- Start date
From the movie Contact:
ahh, no. there is a difference, confused one. one is stating something physical is of existence. in the case of gods and other myths, you are stating i say it is, therefore it is.
everything of substance has evidence of itself somewhere. even atoms gave an indication of themselves long before they were fully discovered, yet we are incapable of seeing them.
gods still have no evidence of existence.
you keep trying to prove it. your failing miserably.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
More proof by assertion. Since we're going in circles, I will assume you cannot verify your claim. Since you are the one claiming no evidence exists despite a sheer inability to do just that, I will assume this conversation is finished.
I have just been interested Shag in the idea brought forth by you and others that the presence of faith with regards to the people who believe in God requires an equal presence of faith regarding those who don't. I don't have 'faith' there aren't dragons. They just 'aren't'. I certainly know people who have no 'faith' at all when it comes to a deity. There isn't a belief there isn't God, there just isn't one. Why do you need to balance faith against faith? Can't there just not 'be'? There isn't a dog in the room, I don't need faith to understand that. There isn't God in the universe, I can understand that there isn't a need of 'faith' to understand that.
As far as your examples- I have a mind - I don't need faith to know that I have a mind. I have freedom, it isn't based on a faith. I would know if I didn't have freedom, once again, not based on a belief.
I would really like to know why it is important to label people who don't believe in God with a 'faith' moniker.
Foss - it was an 'interest' question - don't be so afraid to explore the existence of God beyond and without verse... God gave us the ability to question...
You have not yet justified the materialist standard that you are imposing on the debate. Your explanation cannot explain the existence of the the mind, ideas, identity, etc. So, by your logic, those things are myths.
You have to justify your materialist standard here. If you cannot (or will not) do so, you are wasting everyone's time.
This equivocation has already been covered in this thread. Go back and read post #60 or read this article I cited numerous times here.
In fact, atheism is an active belief that God doesn’t exist. The article ‘atheism’ in Encyclopaedia Britannica 1:666, 1992, reflecting the usual definition in philosophy, begins:
Atheism is not the same as agnosticism.‘Atheism, the critique or denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is the opposite of theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a god or not, professing to find the question unanswered or unanswerable; for the atheist, the nonexistence of God is a certainty.’
The entry on ‘atheism’ in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, probably the preeminent reference tool for philosophy, begins:‘Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.’
I think you are missing the point I was raising...
I was NOT saying that the perceived existence of those things is based in faith. In fact, I was pointing out quite the opposite. According to the materialist standard that hrmwrm imposed you can ONLY know something through empirical observation or faith. If that is true then you can ONLY know that you have a mind, rights, etc through faith. By saying that you KNOW that you have a mind and not through faith, you are agreeing with what I have been saying; that you can prove the existence of something without empirical observation; that you can know something without physical proof and without belief. Therefore, the materialist standard being imposed on this debate is absurd and inappropriate; a self-serving attempt to move the goalposts.
Even if you use that materialist standard, you cannot disprove God. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Atheism still requires a leap of faith in positively asserting that God does NOT exist. The only reasonable position is agnosticism, and agnosticism is not the same as atheism.
I wasn't talking agnostic, nor atheism... but rather asking why people think that an affirmation that there isn't God proposes positive belief, rather than a certainty. Once again, I am not asking for empirical evidence or anything along those lines Shag - rather than wandering in the mire of philosophical thought, I asked a simple question-the dog isn't in the room... why isn't that the same as God isn't in the universe? Why isn't it possible to just 'be'? I see a wastepaper basket in my office, it isn't a matter of faith, it just is. If the wastepaper basket isn't there, do I need faith to create affirmation that there isn't a wastepaper basket there? Why do others demand that there needs to be 'faith' involved in just not having God.
hrmwrm was asking for empirical evidence, not me. But, just as you can know of something with physical proof and without belief, i.e. the idea of freedom, why is it so hard to move to you can not know of something due to lack of physical proof and without belief. We are comfortable believing in God with no physical proof, we don't ask for physical proof, we accept with faith. Why is it so hard to look at people who deny any God as having no faith with regards to a deity at all.
I realize that nothing is proofed by the absence of evidence. However, in the light of no evidence, you are still requiring 'faith' to draw a conclusion that there isn't a God. I am not asking to disprove anything - just wondering why you can't just accept 'none'. Why isn't absence of evidence enough? I have absolutely no evidence that there are dragons, however that absence of evidence doesn't prove there are no dragons. But, it isn't faith that draws out my conclusion that there aren't dragons. There just aren't. 'I know it'. Why isn't this comparable to people who, without evidence, just 'know' there isn't a God? It isn't a belief there isn't a God, there is no faith involved.
A certainty that there is no God requires positive belief.
Again, the difference between the physical (the dog in your analogy) and metaphysical (God, in this case). A materialist standard of proof is appropriate to one but not the other. You have to use a reasonable standard to judge by.
That distinction is a big part of my point. To miss it is to miss that point.
First: I assume you meant to say "without physical proof".
Second: I never said you can "not know". But that is NOT what atheism is. Atheism says it KNOWS that there is no God. What you are describing is agnosticism. You need to be very careful not to equate the two.
If they have no faith, they are agnostic. They do not know if God exists or not. To claim with certainty that God does or does not exist requires faith.
Exactly. You can say that, in the absence of evidence, it is unlikely that God exists (and agnostic statement), but you cannot reasonably say that God does NOT exist. Any certainty on the issue of God requires faith
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Foxy---
You can say that there's no dog in the room and base your statement on an intimate knowledge of the room. But you can't extend that line of thought to a statement that there's no God in the universe without having the same sort of intimate knowledge of the whole universe. Besides, I know there's a God, I just spoke with him a few minutes ago.
KS
You can say that there's no dog in the room and base your statement on an intimate knowledge of the room. But you can't extend that line of thought to a statement that there's no God in the universe without having the same sort of intimate knowledge of the whole universe. Besides, I know there's a God, I just spoke with him a few minutes ago.
KS
You don't know, you believe. Just like being atheist, you'd have to have intimate knowledge of the universe.
Don't worry about me KS - I believe in God -
It is just that I can understand that there are those who don't-and why it wouldn't be based in 'belief' it would just 'be'.
Without any evidence we believe. However, when someone states that there isn't a god, some say that it takes a belief to make that statement. Faith of a different type. Why? Couldn't it just 'be'? I don't think much about 'me', I just am. I could just be a bunch of computations living in a computer generated world ala Matrix, but I am not. I 'am'. I don't look for evidence either way. Why can't someone just not have God? No question of belief he exists or belief he doesn't exist - they just don't have 'god'.
It is just that I can understand that there are those who don't-and why it wouldn't be based in 'belief' it would just 'be'.
Without any evidence we believe. However, when someone states that there isn't a god, some say that it takes a belief to make that statement. Faith of a different type. Why? Couldn't it just 'be'? I don't think much about 'me', I just am. I could just be a bunch of computations living in a computer generated world ala Matrix, but I am not. I 'am'. I don't look for evidence either way. Why can't someone just not have God? No question of belief he exists or belief he doesn't exist - they just don't have 'god'.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Funny. You act like you have an open mind, and yet, in the face of irrefutable logic presented by Shag after a long discussion with him, you ignore it and persist with your false premise. You don't even realize how foolish you look.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Foss - I understand that the definition of 'atheist' includes the idea of belief, but what I was trying to find out is if shag could understand the idea that to some people it isn't 'I don't believe there is a god', but rather, 'there isn't god'. Why should that statement require faith? Probably more of a positivist viewpoint.
It is not simply what "some say"; it is THE DEFINITION OF ATHEISM!
And here is the general definition of faith:firm belief in something for which there is no proof
You seem to be missing my whole point in raising that "evil genius" scenario. How do you KNOW that you exist? That you are not actually in some matrix type world?
That is precisely the question that Descartes confronted.
Then you ARE taking it on faith...
No one is saying they can't "have God" as you put it.
The point being made is that an Atheist can't take that position.
To assert that "there is no God" is to assert a belief. Weather or not the person asserting it acknowledges it as a belief (to themselves or others) is irrelevant to that fact. It cannot be proven that there is no God. It can ONLY be taken on faith. You seem to be wanting some sort of middle ground that can not, by definition, exist. The middle ground between atheism and theism is agnosticism and under that view you can NOT say with any certainty that there is no God.
The definition of "atheist" does not simply include the idea of belief; it IS the idea of belief. It is not one among many options in the atheist viewpoint, it IS the atheist viewpoint. What you are talking about is agnosticism and that is not atheism.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
I think she just likes to see her words in print. She cannot let go of a discussion, no matter how exhaustively the dead horse has been kicked.
no, fox actually makes good points.
but still, the only thing proven is that judeo-christian ideals were thought up, had validation made up about them, then proceeded to replace another popular mythology of the time.
there are more ancient mythologies that exist that are before judeo christian.
yet they are thought of as mythology now as well.
that is why it needs to be proved. it is just another in a long line of god myths. it's even stolen stories from other myths.(flood myth)
but still, the only thing proven is that judeo-christian ideals were thought up, had validation made up about them, then proceeded to replace another popular mythology of the time.
there are more ancient mythologies that exist that are before judeo christian.
yet they are thought of as mythology now as well.
that is why it needs to be proved. it is just another in a long line of god myths. it's even stolen stories from other myths.(flood myth)
In other words, you can't justify your self-serving materialist standard and you have no argument without it.
I know - but why define some people under atheism. To some people there just isn't God. They don't look for evidence either way, there is no need to, to them, it is just a statement of 'being'.
I know-do you not know Shag? Or do you have 'faith' that you exist, do you 'believe' you exist? Or do you just exist? Do you look for proof on an ongoing basis? In the back of your mind is there a niggling thought "I am not really living in this world, that this is just a facade?" Isn't being human that - that statement of 'being' without need of proof? But, it isn't a faith or belief either.
Are there some things, like our statement of being, that we are here, in a dimension that is real and we are not living in a facade that you don't have to 'prove', but it isn't a faith based item either. Shag, you have once again taken this to black and white. It may not need to be viewed that way.
Here you are living within labels again, constrained within definitions. What if some things just are 'unlabel-able', or undefinable?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Wow, you really are desperate. If you just read what hrmwrm wrote in this thread, he clearly defines himself as an atheist and obdurately challenges anyone else to prove God's existence. You're actually ignoring the tone and the context of this thread in pursuit of a nebulous red herring. Of course, in pursuit of your 'point,' you have nowhere to apply it, because you will have departed this discussion. OOPS!
Dishonesty is your schtick, I'll give you that. You're consistent.
Foss - this is the start of this thread...
If GOD had not meant us to have guns, none of us would have been born with trigger fingers.
Where it has wandered and why - who knows. I know that hrmwrm defines himself as a atheist. Shag made some interesting comments on faith being needed on both sides of the God equation. I just thought 'why' does faith need to be involved in the non-god side.
I know you never ask why, since you have all the answers foss...
If GOD had not meant us to have guns, none of us would have been born with trigger fingers.
Where it has wandered and why - who knows. I know that hrmwrm defines himself as a atheist. Shag made some interesting comments on faith being needed on both sides of the God equation. I just thought 'why' does faith need to be involved in the non-god side.
I know you never ask why, since you have all the answers foss...
I am not defining anyone under atheism. They are defining themselves with there views.
Weather or not they look for evidence or not is irrelevant since there is no evidence do prove that there is no God. So any assertion of certainty that there is not God is based in belief; in faith.
And you do you know? If you have not sought any evidence, you have not attempted to prove it, then, by default, you are taking it on faith. There IS no other option.
Everyone has faith in many things, big and small, weather they realize it or not. You have faith that the sun will come up tomorrow. You have faith that the next step you take won't be your last, etc. None of these things can be conclusively proven. There is a degree of faith in much more then you realize.
You really should look into Descartes reasoning on this. I have already given you his beautifully simple answer; I think, therefore I am.
Again, you are searching for a middle ground when there is no. You don't have to prove anything. But then, by default, you are taking it on faith.
Actually, it is. Your attempt to manufacture a gray area only confuses things.
Philosophers have confronted these issues for centuries. While the implications of these things can get very complex and very abstract, at it's core, it is black and white. If you cannot prove something, but still accept it with certainty, you are taking it on faith.
I think it is more that you don't LIKE the definitions and the implications of those who have spent far more time then you and me thinking about these things.