Faith in no God

[McBell]

Okay, all the way down the "rabbit hole" we go.
I am doing a lot a thing besides believing a god. So are you. You are reading this and so on.
So forget god or no-god.
What about the rest, the rest of human behavior and the rest of the world.
I do more that just a belief in god and you do more that just no belief in a god.
All this "I do more that just a belief in god and you do more that just no belief in a god." only tells us that there is more for both of us, when we look at the world as such.
So say I believe in a god tells us nothing more, just as that you don't believe in a god, tells us nothing more in practice.
You know nothing of me other than my belief and I know nothing of you other than your lack of a belief in a god.

Thank you for the explanation.

What is next???
Is that it??? Nothing more. Somehow I don't believe that is all there is.

Um...
How can that be it if you have already stated a small portion of the something more?

And I am still not understanding your declaration of nothing....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So people have been lacking a belief in gods just as long as people have been proclaiming that there are gods. You haven't in effect solved anything by pointing out this fact. Because nothing follows from that.

What I've solved by pointing out that fact is to get you to admit that your claim that atheism is somehow younger than theism is absolutely ridiculous, which is precisely what I was hoping to do. What SHOULD have followed is that you say: Yeah, it WAS pretty silly of me to try and claim that atheism is somehow younger than theism. Instead you go into a rant about cognitive relativism.

Then the fun starts, because people lacking a belief in gods can't in effect to agree about what to do next.

That's because there isn't anything to do next. If you and someone else share a lack of belief that Elvis Presley is still alive, is there something that you need to agree on about what to do 'next'? Until there's some new evidence to suggest that Elvis actually is still alive, all you need to do is continue lacking a belief that he's still alive.

Atheism isn't a belief system. It's not about solving anything or determining humanities place in the world. It is nothing more than a lack of belief in any gods. Whereas theist turn to their holy books to solve problems and determine humanities place in the world, each individual atheist develops their own systems for making such decisions. Some atheists may develop similar systems and others may not. The only thing for certain that we agree on is that we lack a belief in any gods.

Okay, I agree with most of what you wrote.
One minor point. I am not a theist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I assume you are Danish?

Så goddav med dig

The premise that you are using is not correct. And basically what you do, is trying to switch the burden of proof.

If you say to me, "God exist" then you have made a claim. For me to say that I don't, is just to say, that I do not think you are providing any evidence to why I should accept your claim.

But that doesn't put a burden on me to proof why your claim doesn't hold up. If I on the other side had made my own claim that "God doesn't exists", then sure you would be able to demand me to provide proof for that as well, and the burden of proof would be on me.

Do you think its up to you, to proof those wrong that claim ghosts or Big foot etc are real?

The default position you ought to take in regards to any claim for which you have no idea. Is that it is not true, based on the lack of evidence presented for the claim. This is basically just what it means to sceptic.

No, I believe in God, not that God exists. If you use proof, then the burden is on you to show the proof works and what it is.
Since I am a cognitive relativist I don't believe in proof at the core of what reality really is. I believe and that seems to work.

Here is one you can ponder: There are humans who believe without proof. What follows if anything?

 

[Revoltingest]

Would it be hard to convince you that your keyboard is not @PopeADope or @Revoltingest ? Or are you wondering if there are any strings attached to being one my forum gods? I don’t call on them very often, and they only come if they want to. For example, PopeADope doesn’t always come when I call, and I have no problem with that. You can always resign if I call on you too often.

I need a new forum god to replace the one that resigned, so I can have a triad.

I’ve never seen anyone denying or even questioning the reality or existence of my forum gods. There’s a very simple algorithm for deciding if someone or something is one of my forum gods or not. Ask me, and I’ll tell you.

Some of my own "forum gods" have left the forum.
I hope they return...& that health issues aren't the cause.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Thank you for the explanation.


Um...
How can that be it if you have already stated a small portion of the something more?

And I am still not understanding your declaration of nothing....

Nothing is in practice always something else than something.

We started debating beyond belief in gods or no belief in gods. We got hung up on nothing. If we are lucky, someone comes along and claims that nothing is non-existence, for which I will claim that nothing is unknowable and that I don't believe in existence.
That is how fast we go from gods or not to something else.

 

[Audie]

When I was younger, mid to late teen, I used to read it and took it at face value, and when I did have questions with the narratives, I was given Christian or church interpretations, so often I read it from the churches’ perspectives, and never questions the churches’ views.

But since 2000 (I was 34 then), where I became increasingly agnostic, I tried to read from the perspective of the author, the Old Testament from Jewish perspective and the New Testament from Christian perspective. At that time, I was working on Timeless Myths website (from 1999 to 2019), where I gained experiences from cross-checking and verifying what I read from multiple sources and multiple translations.

From my other website Dark Mirrors Of Heaven (2016-2019, Dark Mirrors Of The Heavens), I did research on multiple sources (eg Masoretic Text, Septuagint, Samaritan Torah, Vulgate, Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha (eg Book of Jubilees, the Enochian books), Nag Hammadi codices (Gnosticism), rabbinic literature (eg Midrash, Aggadah, etc), with their multiple translations (eg KJV, NRSV, NJPS, NETS, etc).

Btw. Note that I have been having money trouble of late, couldn’t afford to pay for web hosting, so I was forced to sell both website plus my domain name (www.timelessmyths.com), to an Italian buyer. I am still listed as the original creator and they have the contents intact, but they did a facelift on how it look.

Anyway, since becoming agnostic, I have to read the Old Testament, I have to read from Jewish perspective instead of Christian perspective.

One of the reasons why I became agnostic, was due to my disagreement with Matthew 1:23 when I compared against Isaiah 7:14. I no longer believe Isaiah 7:14 to be Messianic prophecy, and viewed Matthew 1:23 as Christian propaganda.

When I first read both passages independently from the KJV, I was 15, so I was young and inexperienced, and didn’t do any researching and cross-referencing, didn’t compare the 2 passages together. I had believed that Matthew 1:23 was about Mary and Jesus.

But because of my time with working on Timeless Myths, I have learned to cross-reference different passages, verify the sources. I see it now, that Isaiah’s original sign had nothing to do with the messianic prophecy, and nothing to do with Mary and Jesus.

I have also learned that the KJV, normally used and translated the Old Testament with the Masoretic Text as primary source, but in the cases where OT passages delved with Christian version of the messianic signs, the KJV translations often switched to Greek sources, eg the Septuagint or whatever Greek translations that the gospel author had used back then.

So the Hebrew almah or more precisely hā·‘al·māh “the young woman”, became Greek parthenos παρθένος “virgin”.

If you read the whole chapter, especially 7:14-17, as well as the next chapter (Isaiah 8:1-4), you will see that the sign had to do with the war Ahaz had against Pekah of Israel and the Aram Rezin of Damascus, and the sign had to do with the Assyrian intervention.

According to Jews, Isaiah’s original sign had nothing to do with the messiah, nothing to do with the Virgin Mary and Jesus.

From I see at Isaiah 8, the sign is very similar in tone, which means, we know the identity of Immanuel, to be Isaiah’s son Maher-shalal-hash-baz...therefore the unnamed pregnant “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14 is most likely Isaiah’s own wife.

This is the complete sign, here from KJV translation:


Now compared with New Jewish Society Publication (NJPS), 1985:



NJPS used only the Masoretic Text as it’s source, while the KJV jump to Greek LXX source only for verse 14, but back to the Hebrew Masoretic Text for verses 15, 16 & 17. Why would KJV translators to do that.

Below, is the translation from the Dead Sea Scrolls:



(Sources:
Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, 1985, Jewish Society Publication.

Martin Abegg Jr, Peter Flint & Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible, 2002, Harper.)

Given that who ever wrote the Gospel of Matthew (1:22-23), quoting and interpreting Isaiah’s passage, BUT omitting 3 original verses that are vital in understanding the sign, I don’t trust any NT author citing from the OT.

Both the newer translations provide more accurate contexts to the original, translating the young woman already being pregnant, so it cannot be Mary:

“...the young woman is with child and about to give birth to a son.“ (NJPS)

“the young woman has conceived and is bearing a son” (DSSB)​

As I read other New Testament signs, I came to see that gospels are cherry picking supposed Messianic signs, that weren’t Messianic in Jewish sources.

There huge differences between Jewish and Christian perspectives.

Such a wonderful gift a freedom for me,
being born and raised completely outside
Christian influence, not having to go through
these agonizing reappraisals.

I do feel for you.

 

[Audie]

Really? I suspect many atheists look at the bigger picture rather better than many of the religious, who might accept their beliefs because it was handed down from their parents or is part of their culture. They also might look at various other fields of knowledge that might explain why so many believe and why there is so much disagreement between the various religious beliefs.

No spirituality coming over the hill in my life, and I suspect you don't mix with atheists that much.

He just makes things up. Pay no mind.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

He just makes things up. Pay no mind.

Well, spiritual could just mean, what for which you can't use science.
Mental, inner, psychological and so on.

It does to me. I accept the limits of the physical and material and use other views than science.

 

[Mock Turtle]

He just makes things up. Pay no mind.

It can be irritating, when some seem to think the non-believers are all lacking something in their lives - obviously their particular religion or perhaps morals, which is often the usual piece of mud-slinging. But such usually passes like a five minute shower.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It can be irritating, when some seem to think the non-believers are all lacking something in their lives - obviously their particular religion or perhaps morals, which is often the usual piece of mud-slinging. But such usually passes like a five minute shower.

No, the non-believers are not lacking anything. They are just that, non-believers.
The fun starts beyond believers and non-believers as per religion.
Both sides are as diverse as the other side and all are humans. And generally humans fight over resources, power and prestige. That has nothing to do with believers and non-believers as such.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No, the non-believers are not lacking anything. They are just that, non-believers.
The fun starts beyond believers and non-believers as per religion.
Both sides are as diverse as the other side and all are humans. And generally humans fight over resources, power and prestige. That has nothing to do with believers and non-believers as such.

I know we are not lacking but so many here seem to assume such. One has only to browse the threads to see it.

 

[Nimos]

No, I believe in God, not that God exists.

Not sure how that is suppose to work? How do you believe in something that you don't think exists?

If you use proof, then the burden is on you to show the proof works and what it is.

Yes, but if you don't use proof then you are just making a claim, so why should anyone care then?

"I think before the big bang, the Universe were held together by the strong grip of Zeus, but as he released it, it all just expanded into the Universe that we see today. Not that I think Zeus exists at all, but that is just what I believe."

Why should you care about that claim?

Since I am a cognitive relativist I don't believe in proof at the core of what reality really is. I believe and that seems to work.

If you don't believe in proof or lack there off. How did you reach the conclusion that God exists, compared to him not existing? Shouldn't you hold both option as being equally valid, in some sort of cognitive dissonance?

Here is one you can ponder: There are humans who believe without proof. What follows if anything?

That is what it means to have faith, not sure if that were what you meant with your question?

 

[Aupmanyav]

What is Y to be replaced with?

If you ask me, Brahman, "physical energy".
You are all confused because you are disregarding science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I know we are not lacking but so many here seem to assume such. One has only to browse the threads to see it.

I know that too. But that position of some on the one side against all of the other side works in both directions.
I have observed it from some on both side.

 

[Valjean]

I refer you back to my previous post. To repeat: the complexity and order of nature and the cosmos, and the existence of natural law/first principles. Feel free to Google

But if the order and complexity is explainable by the ordinary laws of chemistry, physics, &c; and these natural laws are just the random, emergent properties of our particular universe?

I think when people say it takes faith to not believe in God, what they mean is that it takes faith to believe in the spontaneous, seemingly "magical" way the universe just happened to come together in the perfect set of circumstances that just happened to create optimal conditions for life.

But it's not reasonable to make up magical stories about an invisible being 'speaking' the world into existence. It's an argument from ignorance/incredulity. It just dodges the question by shifting the responsibility to a third person -- and it doesn't answer "How?"

The reasonable answer to an unknown process is "I don't know." I'm comfortable with that.
Moreover, supernatural myths and folklore have a poor record for accuracy. Myriad phenomena once ascribed to supernatural causes or entities -- thunder, disease, earthquakes, floods, eclipses, &c -- are now understood as natural non-magical and non-intentional.

Optimal conditions for life?
Life adapted to existing conditions. Conditions weren't created to accommodate life.
Had some other constellation of natural laws emerged from the Big Bang, life might not have been possible and no-one would be around to comment on how remarkable it was to have a world so well adapted to us.

The universe only seems magical. Once you dissect the parts and processes, the non-magical mechanisms become clear.

Belief in such happenstance takes faith. Because usually when we come across something complex and well organized, we assume (correctly) that something caused it to come into being. To overlook this is to have faith, because there's no evidence in our daily lives of things just magically coalescing themselves into existence without being promoted by something outside of themselves first.

Yet we now know that, at a quantum level, this cause and effect breaks down. Things happen with no apparent cause, for no apparent reason..

Btw, faith is not a dirty word I have faith other drivers on the road will stop at a red light when it's my turn to go. Usually I'm right, sometimes I'm not. I assume atheists have similar expectations about the rules of the road. It's ok to have faith. It doesn't make you less intelligent or more gullible It's what you have faith in that makes a difference.

Faith is unevidenced belief. Faith that the sun will rise or a driver will stop at a red light is experientially evidenced. It's a question of evidence -- quantity and quality. What we're discussing is where to draw the line. I believe the quantity of evidence for God is vanishingly scant, and what evidence is cited is invalid, inasmuch as a robust, alternative "explanation" exists, plus much of it is logically flawed.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not sure how that is suppose to work? How do you believe in something that you don't think exists?


Yes, but if you don't use proof then you are just making a claim, so why should anyone care then?

"I think before the big bang, the Universe were held together by the strong grip of Zeus, but as he released it, it all just expanded into the Universe that we see today. Not that I think Zeus exists at all, but that is just what I believe."

Why should you care about that claim?


If you don't believe in proof or lack there off. How did you reach the conclusion that God exists, compared to him not existing? Shouldn't you hold both option as being equally valid, in some sort of cognitive dissonance?


That is what it means to have faith, not sure if that were what you meant with your question?

We need to go down the "rabbit hole" of a Boltzmann Brain and all the other variants and look at different versions of solipsism.
In epistemological terms nobody have ever solved the problem of that objective reality other then as independent of the mind.
There is always science and religion and then philosophy.
You don't know what is independent of the mind, nor do I. I just say it aloud.

 

[Audie]

It can be irritating, when some seem to think the non-believers are all lacking something in their lives - obviously their particular religion or perhaps morals, which is often the usual piece of mud-slinging. But such usually passes like a five minute shower.

Folloeed by another and another, unfortunately.
I was having a tiff with so)meone yesterday about just
that, the claim of atheists lacking the capacity to
understand that believers cannot see god.

Personally, I think the believers are the ones are the
ones lacking something, but that is for some
other discussion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Folloeed by another and another, unfortunately.
I was having a tiff with simeone yesterday about just
that, the claim of atheists lacking the capacity to
understand that believers cannot see god.

Personally, I think the believers are the ones are the
ones lacking something, but that is for some
other discussion.

As long as you just think you can think all you like. But please do start that thread and then give me a PM. Or stay quiet.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Faith is not a bad thing. I just sat down in my chair with complete faith it would not fall apart.

Unjustified belief is a bad thing, and that is what is meant by religious faith.

Justified belief is also called faith as you have just demonstrated. You have the evidence of prior acts sitting in the chair to support your belief that the chair will probably support you. If your faith that it would support you was literally complete, or 100% certain, then you have added a bit of unjustified belief to the justified part.

These two things are radically different, but unfortunately, are often called by the same word, a huge source of ambiguity equivalent to naming and calling both of your daughters Faith. Why do that?

So, to prevent that problem, I never use the word faith to mean justified belief in discussions like these.

Another definitions of faith (we don't need a dictionary for this) is a religion, such as the Christian faith.

Also, in the phrases good faith and bad faith, faith means intention. Acting in good faith means acting toward a good outcome.

And fiinally, the word is used in the US Constitution in the phrase "full faith and credit," meaning which each state must recognize the "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings" of each other state.

Too bad you can't ask Galileo, DeVinci, Newton, Faraday, et. al. that question. They all believed in God as the author of the marvels they studied. All irrational men? I think not!

It was more reasonable to believe in gods before we knew that the universe could assemble and operate itself naturalistically.

To believe in a god today is more irrational. Once, there was no explanation conceivable for the universe we find ourselves living in. I'm sure that I would have been a theist in the days of DaVinci and Galileo. By Faraday's time, after the first wave of scientists revealed the clockwork universe, I'd have been a deist, since dismissing the ruler god still leaves us requiring a builder god.

Then came the second wave of scientists like Darwin and Hubble, who showed us that we didn't need a builder god, either, except possibly for the first life, although we have a viable and promising naturalistic hypothesis for that as well, abiogenesis.

To continue believing in gods today is purely faith-based.

I see people denouncing blind faith in “what God says” when they have exactly the same blind faith in “what science says.” I denounce both.

No. Faith in science is not like religious faith. It is not blind. It is evidence-based, and therefore justified belief.

This is a perfect example of the ambiguity I referred to above using the word faith to mean both justified and unjustified belief. Belief in gods is religious-type faith, or blind faith, or unjustified belief. One has no evidentiary reason to believe, just the will to believe.

The evidence supporting the belief that science is a valid and trustworthy method which has generated useful truisms about our world is robust. Just that fact that we are able to have this discussion worldwide in seconds due to the scientific method and its fruits is evidence that the guys in the labs and observatories have given us valid ideas about reality.

By contrast, religious beliefs like creationism are sterile. Nothing useful comes from them. Just as the success of science is a strong indicator that its methods and conclusions are correct, the failures of so-called creation science tell us that it is a wrong idea, just as the failure of astrology to generate anything useful tells us that it is based on false premises.

Incidentally, your comment is a classic equivocation fallacy, which occurs when the same word with two different meanings is used as if they had the same meaning. A more glaring example would be that banks are safe places to keep your money, rivers have banks, so it is safe to put your money in a river.

I think that campaigning against all belief in God and all trust in scriptures, indiscriminately, is reckless and irresponsible.

I believe that the less organized, politicized religion in the world, the better the world.

I don't campaign against god belief, since though I consider it a mistake for me, others may need it, especially those who have never lived without it and have reached the last third of their lives. One can mature without religion and never need it, but if he hasn't done that by 60, he probably can't any longer. It would be too disruptive to upend his worldview and social situation.

But I would campaign to a young audience that they learn to live without god beliefs and religion. There are no advantages to needing that, but there are advantages to avoiding it.

 

[Valjean]

Where do the natural laws come from? Why do all people seem to agree that it's better to behave a certain way even when it's difficult and inconvenient? Why wouldn't we all naturally desire to look out for number one? Why do people, without religious obligations pressing on them, choose to do good for others? Even when it's not in the best interest of themselves? Why do people sacrifice for their families? Why do people join social movements to help the oppressed even when their own group will lose some of its power and control in the process? Why do we not simply act on instinct, like animals? What exactly "programmed" us to value selflessness, even if we don't always live up to it?

The natural laws are just how the dice rolled at the "creation" of the universe. They weren't created for our benefit. The "designed-for-life argument is like a puddle marvelling at how remarkable it is that the bottom of the pool so perfectly cradles its exact form.

Our altruism is explained by natural selection. Individually we were weak, slow, incompetent hunter-gatherers. But in co-operative, altruistic bands we thrived. Altruism became hard-wired into our brains. All the rugged individualists starved or were eaten by leopards, and didn't pass their genes into the general population.

I believe computer programs have programmers, art has artists, music has composers, poetry has poets, watches have watchmakers, children have parents, and therefore the universe, which likewise is a creation, has a Creator. I don't think this Creator is an old man in the sky. I don't think we can know many details about this Source, but that it's there seems undeniable to me. I can only base my beliefs on my experience of the world, which tells me all things have a Cause.

See, here's the problem. Square peg in round hole. You're overextending your experience with human society and technology to apply to evolution and creation. This is a "watchmaker argument." It's been thoroughly debunked for a long time

They're not comparable. There are reasonable, known, well evidenced, observable, natural mechanisms that account for them. A 'maker' is not needed.
You're proposing a "watchmaker argument," which has been thoroughly debunked for a long time.

Then there's a reductio argument of who created the creator....

A world without God would be a world without natural law. No one would take any offence at the malicious acts of anyone else because there wouldn't be anything ingrained on our hearts that tells us something beyond ourselves had value. So the very existence of natural laws eliminates the possibility of there being no "lawmaker" that programmed all of us to know the difference between basic right and wrong.

This doesn't follow.
What does God have to do with physics? Why must natural laws or constants be intentionally designed and installed? Why is a god needed?