• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

An appeal for the logic of religious belief

Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Popeyesays said:
Think about this:

"...the existence of an unseen force at work in human history is no less plausible and no less scholarly as an explanation for events than it is to consider the influence of unseen forces at work in the natural world (e.g. gravity)"...John S. Hatcher, The Ocean of His Words p 27

Does considering that make a difference in how you feel on the subject?
Click to expand...
Not really, no. The statement informs me of John S. Hatcher's image of God. I still have mine.
 
Smoke

Smoke

Done here.
crystalonyx said:
Theories are not generally postulated based on the lack of proof that the theory is false, but rather on that the theory fits the observable facts as they are currently known.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, lack of proof that something is false is the best argument most religious folks have for their beliefs, and is the argument they're most accustomed to using.
 
Q

Quath

Member
Rioku said:
The definition of Atheist is that you do not believe in god.
Click to expand...
That is one definition. I think a more general definition is "lacks belief in God." From this idea, we start out with no beliefs. (No child knows about Jesus, Santa or Thor at birth. We have to be told.) So an atheist is one who finds the evidence for these beliefs to be lacking and does not gain the belief.

In which case you would be wrong to believe that for there is no evidence proving god does not exist, and there never will be. So saying that you know god does not exist ( as you claim to be a stronger statement, which is true semantically) makes you even more incorrect then claiming you are atheist. In the end as long as you understand this point then you can call yourself whatever you want just make sure you take the point into consideration.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that there is a problem in language. I think we are pretty much on the same ideas, just seeing them differently. I call myself an atheist based on the evidence (or lack of). More precisely I would say that the odds of a god existing is very low. Also precisely, I would say that nothing is 100% provable. So either we need to remove the idea of a "fact" from our vocabulary or redefine it to mean an idea that has extremely high evidence that we are 99% confident that it is reality. That is the way we commonly use the idea of facts. So due to how we use language, a person saying "I know there is no god" could really be saying "I have extremely high confidence there is no god."

I think you were getting at this when you were saying everyone is agnostic in a sense, basically you want to change the definition of atheist to include the understanding that no one can prove god does not exist, which is a change that I do not think I would disagree with.
Click to expand...
Yeah, most atheists seem to agree with this. Most say they would believe in God if given evidence. (Whether they would support the deity would depend on what type of deity it was though.)
 
S

Somkid

Well-Known Member
Somkid said:
No, don't misunderstand a hypothesis based on what others believe, my point is that one has a bit more credibility than the other no matter how silly it sounds. If ET's exist which there is a very good chance that they do, due the the size and nature of the universe(s) they are bound by the natural laws as are we as would be any god that (supposedly) created them. I assure you I'm not confused I don't call myself an atheist because that would mean "I don't believe in god" I on the other hand know there is no god.
Click to expand...

I assure you not believing and knowing are 2 different things. I know 1+1=2 and I know that 2+1 does not equal 2, I don't "believe that statement to be true, I know that statement is true. This is called universal truth.

I know nothing can exist without matter or energy that is universally true. I know nothing is permanent or fixed in the universe that is universally true and I know there is no god.

Perhaps elsewhere in the all magnificent universes there are beings far beyond our comprehension that would appear to be god like to us but not gods. If we were to travel back in time we would appear to be gods.
 
R

Rioku

Wanabe *********
Jay said:
No, it is not. The best assertion one can make is that one is aware of no evidence that one believes warrants an appeal to supernatural agency. Talk of probability is simply misplaced.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree, because accepting the fact that there is a chance god can exist is a step forward relative to the simple atheist belief that there is no god. The knowledge one has of the lack of evidence makes them an atheist, it is the knowledge that there is a change god can exist that helps atheists to evolve into people who know more then just the fundamentals of atheism. In the end this is not worth debating, but I would like to know what you mean by the probability is misplaced?
 
S

Somkid

Well-Known Member
Rolling_Stone said:
Yes, you do. Or, rather, your understanding is very limited, leading you to humanize God. By definition, God transcends conceptualization: the best and highest conception of God is only an approximation. When atheists compare God to something along the lines of a pink unicorn or aliens or anything else that is finite and the effect of an antecedent cause, what they are really doing is positing a ridiculous concept of God and saying that because such a God does not exist or has no more credibility than aliens, God does not exist. Concepts range from (your) primitive anthropomorphic concept to something like the Integrated Theory of Intelligence. When you are doing is defining God in a primitive way and saying that because such a God cannot exist, God does not exist. You are not "atheist" because you are Buddhist. You are not atheist because you "know" God does not exist. A rose by any other name...

FYI: My son is a major in philosophy and an atheist, but even he sees philosophical problem of your argument.

P.S. The fact that you, as a Buddhist, say that you "know" there is no God makes me doubt you are Buddhist. The Buddhists I know would be disappointed in your assertions, if not disgusted in your dualistic thinking.
Click to expand...

Obviously you have a strong opinion and I can not debate with anyone that can not look at things from a different prospective without feeling insecure and intimidated into name calling and belittling.

I'm not sure where your son is studying philosophy but my comments are philosophy 101 nothing I came up with out of the blue on my own.

As far as being a Buddhist, the point of Buddhism is to know as pointed out by the Buddha himself... (sorry for the quote but I feel it necessary)

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

Yes, I have, I'm not sure what kind of Buddhists you know but after personally being a Buddhist monk for 11 years I would suggest I have a pretty good idea.

And I will not take a cheap shot at you for the "primitive anthropomorphic concept" comment I think everyone will read into that for themselves but I would suggest science and intellect would show quite the opposing argument as a belief in god as primitive and superstitious.
 
crystalonyx

crystalonyx

Well-Known Member
"The fact that you, as a Buddhist, say that you "know" there is no God makes me doubt you are Buddhist. The Buddhists I know would be disappointed in your assertions, if not disgusted in your dualistic thinking."

Do you say you "know" there is a god. If so, you also would be a disappointment.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Rioku said:
The knowledge one has of the lack of evidence makes them an atheist, ...
Click to expand...
You arrogantly promote opinion to knowledge, apparently without even being aware of it. That there is something rather than nothing, and that it is creative and comprehensible, is seen by many as sufficient evidence for a variety of theologies. You (and I) may well disagree, but to characterize that disagreement as 'knowledge' is an interesting claim.
 
R

Rioku

Wanabe *********
Jay said:
You arrogantly promote opinion to knowledge.
Click to expand...

I have a lot of respect for the things you say and to avoid acting perfunctory let me make sure we are on the same page. I believe you are trying to say that the knowledge god can exist is actually an opinion. In which case I have to refer you to The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It is a simple fact that there is a chance ( be it insignificant) that something outside of our current measurable realm exists. It is in one's opinion that there is no god based on their experience with the lack of evidence for the God hypothesis.
 
Willamena

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Rioku said:
I have a lot of respect for the things you say and to avoid acting perfunctory let me make sure we are on the same page. I believe you are trying to say that the knowledge god can exist is actually an opinion. In which case I have to refer you to The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. It is a simple fact that there is a chance ... that something outside of our current measurable realm exists.
Click to expand...
Is "a chance that something exists" the same as knowing that it does?
 
R

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
Somkid said:
I assure you not believing and knowing are 2 different things.
Click to expand...
Gee, no kidding? I didn't know that. How many ways are there of knowing?
Perhaps elsewhere in the all magnificent universes there are beings far beyond our comprehension that would appear to be god like to us but not gods. If we were to travel back in time we would appear to be gods.
Click to expand...
There you go again: by inferring God is a being, you succeed in anthropoporphizing the concept.

"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."
Click to expand...
I read that quote (or something like it) when you were a kid, And I agreed with it.
Yes, I have, I'm not sure what kind of Buddhists you know but after personally being a Buddhist monk for 11 years I would suggest I have a pretty good idea.
Click to expand...
Actually, no. I've lived long enough to know that being a professor or monk or priest for a number of years means nothing. That's an appeal to authority--in the way you mentioned it, it is pride.

I noticed that you ignored D.T. Suzuki. If both of you are Buddhists, whom should I believe has something to say: the one who speaks from the heart or the one who speaks from the head?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top