Atheism and Materialsm

[blü 2]

Yes

I guess that's why they call it "faith" ...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

That's how you know why you haven't fallen through the floor and down to the center of the earth.

Yes, that is all the everyday world is.
But I reject that, because all I do including this, is to sit at the edge of a cliff and wonder if I should jump or not. And that is all the world is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I guess that's why they call it "faith" ...

But is really that they have faith and not "faith". So you won't even acknowledge that as a part of the world?

 

[blü 2]

John Polkinghorne - Wikipedia

Thanks for the link.

"quotes with approval Anthony Kenny: "After all, if there is no God, then God is incalculably the greatest single creation of the human imagination." "​

Does he mean "gods"? The world has thousands of them, rather than just the god of the Anglicans.

Or does he mean the god of the triune Anglicans is the real deal? The trinity doctrine is acknowledged by the churches themselves to be incoherent ─ or as they prefer to phrase it "is a mystery in the strict sense".

"He suggests that God is the ultimate answer to Leibniz's great question "why is there something rather than nothing?""​

I stand by what I said in #127.

 

[Rival]

I guess that's why they call it "faith" ...

No, and it depends which definition of 'faith' you are using. Different theologians define it differently, but those who espouse fideism are in a category of their own. Faith is not a matter of 'belief without evidence' - this is not even in line with mainstream Christian thinking, which has a long tradition of faith and reason, knowledge and evidence. There's little acclaim for faith as fideism within most religious circles. The problem is scientism; a refusal to accept other forms of argument, or refusing to accept that those who accept them are not irrational. Theology has answers to the questions you raised, but many folks are not inclined to look them up or just see the answers as useless theology or philosophising because they can't be verified by naturalistic methods. This just leads to a stalemate with one side refusing to even acknowledge the arguments of the other.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, and it depends which definition of 'faith' you are using. Different theologians define it differently, but those who espouse fideism are in a category of their own. Faith is not a matter of 'belief without evidence' - this is not even in line with mainstream Christian thinking, which has a long tradition of faith and reason, knowledge and evidence. There's little acclaim for faith as fideism within most religious circles. The problem is scientism; a refusal to accept other forms of argument, or refusing to accept that those who accept them are not irrational. Theology has answers to the questions you raised, but many folks are not inclined to look them up or just see the answers as useless theology or philosophising because they can't be verified by naturalistic methods. This just leads to a stalemate with one side refusing to even acknowledge the arguments of the other.

Well, as a skeptic all I have is fideism as faith in a non-theistic sense.

 

[blü 2]

I reject that, because all I do including this, is to sit at the edge of a cliff and wonder if I should jump or not. And that is all the world is.

Well, I regard you as a friend, so I suggest you don't jump.

But is really that they have faith and not "faith". So you won't even acknowledge that as a part of the world?

Oh, I know what faith is ─ every day I accept and part with printed pieces of paper, stamped disks of metal, and (more and more) electronic signals whose details are opaque but whose effect is to conclude transactions and put larger or smaller numbers on my screen.

 

[blü 2]

No, and it depends which definition of 'faith' you are using. Different theologians define it differently, but those who espouse fideism are in a category of their own. Faith is not a matter of 'belief without evidence' - this is not even in line with mainstream Christian thinking, which has a long tradition of faith and reason, knowledge and evidence. There's little acclaim for faith as fideism within most religious circles. The problem is scientism; a refusal to accept other forms of argument, or refusing to accept that those who accept them are not irrational. Theology has answers to the questions you raised, but many folks are not inclined to look them up or just see the answers as useless theology or philosophising because they can't be verified by naturalistic methods. This just leads to a stalemate with one side refusing to even acknowledge the arguments of the other.

But isn't it fair, when faced with any claim you don't agree with, to reply "Show me"?

And yet no one shows me God. They say things which I interpret as meaning I have to invent the notion of God for myself and then commune with it.

It's not as if I haven't >tried that<.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well, I regard you as a friend, so I suggest you don't jump.
...

But not jumping and jumping are both real. So only using objective knowledge what should I do? I am so confused, both life and death are natural. I can't solve it with objective knowledge, so since I were born I have been sitting at the edge and wondering what the objective answer is. That is all I do and I am not even do this and making fun of you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But isn't it fair, when faced with any claim you don't agree with, to reply "Show me"?

And yet no one shows me God. They say things which I interpret as meaning I have to invent the notion of God for myself and then commune with it.

It's not as if I haven't >tried that<.

Go outside and find say a rock. Then find real, hold it, look at it and so on. Then take 2 pictures and upload them and show me a stone and real. Then I will listen to you.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Thanks for the link.

"quotes with approval Anthony Kenny: "After all, if there is no God, then God is incalculably the greatest single creation of the human imagination." "​

Does he mean "gods"? The world has thousands of them, rather than just the god of the Anglicans.

Or does he mean the god of the triune Anglicans is the real deal? The trinity doctrine is acknowledged by the churches themselves to be incoherent ─ or as they prefer to phrase it "is a mystery in the strict sense".

"He suggests that God is the ultimate answer to Leibniz's great question "why is there something rather than nothing?""​

I stand by what I said in #127.

To quote another of the 20th Century's great thinkers (and doers), Bill W. - Wikipedia, "Either God is everything, or he is nothing. Now which was it to be?". This, perhaps, is the nature and extent of the gulf between believer and non believer; a small matter of everything and nothing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

To quote another of the 20th Century's great thinkers (and doers), Bill W. - Wikipedia, "Either God is everything, or he is nothing. Now which was it to be?". This, perhaps, is the nature and extent of the gulf between believer and non believer; a small matter of everything and nothing.

Well, I don't know what everything is, because that is an abstract cognitive concept and I can't see it, just as I can't see God.
The same with real, rational, evidence, truth, logic, science, the world, the universe and so on. I can't see them and I can't show them to you.
Right @blü 2

 

[Kfox]

Would you agree that to be an atheist is to be a materialist?

No. Atheists just don't believe in God. Spirits, Fairies, Ghosts, and everything else is still on the table.

So many of the atheists one encounters today seem not only to reject God, but the idea of the 'other' as a whole.

That’s because the claims of God or “other” don’t sound realistic

 

[Kfox]

is not a matter of 'belief without evidence' - this is not even in line with mainstream Christian thinking,

I disagree. I believe it was Paul in one of his letters said “faith is substance of things hoped for, evidence of things unseen. I know of no place in the Bible where faith is mentioned and suggested empirical evidence should be involved because If such evidence were involved, it wouldn't be unseen. If such evidence were involved it would be proof; not faith

The problem is scientism; a refusal to accept other forms of argument, or refusing to accept that those who accept them are not irrational. Theology has answers to the questions you raised, but many folks are not inclined to look them up or just see the answers as useless theology or philosophising because they can't be verified by naturalistic methods.

As human beings, the only method we have of verifying things is through naturalistic methods.

 

[Kfox]

Go outside and find say a rock. Then find real, hold it, look at it and so on. Then take 2 pictures and upload them and show me a stone and real. Then I will listen to you.

The term "real" is a word used to describe something that does exist. Words don't exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The term "real" is a word used to describe something that does exist. Words don't exist.

So I can't read this and neither can you.

 

[Kfox]

Well, I don't know what everything is, because that is an abstract cognitive concept and I can't see it, just as I can't see God.
The same with real, rational, evidence, truth, logic, science, the world, the universe and so on. I can't see them and I can't show them to you.
Right @blü 2

The words real, rational, evidence, truth, logic, science, world, universe are all words that are applied to things that do exist. So they can be shown to you

 

[Kfox]

So I can't read this and neither can you.

What is it that you cannot read?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The words real, rational, evidence, truth, logic, science, world, universe are all words that are applied to things that do exist. So they can be shown to you

So show me as say a stone exist? I can tell you the properties of stone and show them. Do the same with exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is it that you cannot read?

There are no words as they don't exist.