-
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!
If Atheism is a religion, what is *not* a religion?
- Thread starter stemann
- Start date
gnomon
Well-Known Member
Twas not the point.divine said:forgive me for being precise, but not everyone agrees that native americans had little to do with the founding of the united states :
[SIZE=+1]Indian influences on European philosophy
[/SIZE] From On Americas Pathological Behavior Toward Native Peoples by Steven Newcomb. In Indian Country Today, 9/10/04: One clear example of how indigenous societies have influenced the world in the political realm is the extent to which the model of the Iroquois Confederacy influenced many of the founders of the United States such as Benjamin Franklin. "From America have emerged the cornerstones of the political philosophy that has transformed the world," wrote German Arciniegas in his book "America in Europe" (1980). The indigenous worlds - concepts, technologies, medicines, foodstuffs, etc. - of the Americas had a transforming effect on the dank and oppressive medieval culture of Christendom. Seeing examples of indigenous democracies of North America, eventually led European intellectuals to envision the possibility of a different kind of political order based on "liberty," without monarchy.
source
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
joeboonda said,
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
- Treaty of Tripoli, ratified June 7, 1797; crafted under the term of George Washington, signed by then president John Adams
"We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition ... "
-- George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793
"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country."
-- George Washington, responding to a group of clergymen who complained that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, in 1789
Ya know, you could have simply referenced such a "list" instead, or provided some bit of compelling evidence to support your opinion that Washington was a Christian.
Just to save you some "all-night" google time, you should know that in all of Washington's personal (known) diaries and hundreds of letters of personal correspondence (including to family), he never once, ever, acknowledged or even mentioned the name of Jesus or Christ.
Washington never once publicly declared himself to be a Christian.
Ever.
He kept his faith and religious views very private (not something that most Christians do...).
Kind of unusual, don't you think?
What say the ministers that knew Washington personally?
"Sir, Washington was a Deist."
- Rev. Dr. Abercrombie (rector of the church Washington had attended with his wife)
"I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more."
- The Rev. Bird. Wilson; in an interview with Mr. Robert Dale Owen written on November 13, 1831
"I do not believe that any degree of recollection will bring to my mind any fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in the Christian revelation further than as may be hoped from his constant attendance upon Christian worship, in connection with the general reserve of his character."
- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, in a letter to the Rev. B. C. C. Parker, dated December 31, 1832
"In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that General Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister."
-- The Right Reverend William White, friend of Washington and bishop of Christ's Church in Philadelphia, which Washington attended for about 25 years (when he happened to be in that city), in a letter to Colonel Mercer of Fredericksberg, Virginia, on August 15, 1835
Hmmm...
Were these guys in denial, or within their "right mind"when they said...?
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788]
["In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
- Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.. . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
- Thomas Jefferson, in letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814
Perhaps if you could outline the "Biblical principles" resident within the U.S. Constitution or its attendant Amendments (you know, the only "founding" document that establishes how laws are to be crafted, by whom, and by/under what limitations those laws must consider), it would be easier for us "wrong-minded" skeptics to accept your claims and protestations as being rightfully legitimate (and solid refutation of those wooly-headed "founders" views), and beyond that of some facile loyalty to petrified opinion alone. [ALL CAPS MEANS IT'S TRUE!!!]
[Pssst. I have got all night, and I can google up some other fine quotable dandies (straight from the founder's mouths (or quills) that readily support the notion that both our constitutionally-based form of government, and that all laws derived therefrom must ultimately abide and conform to foundational constitutional principles (not "Chrisitian" or "Biblical" principles)...are purposefully, intentionally, and unmistakably secular and non-sectarian in both origin and design. As Jefferson suggests, any extant Chrisitian claims/assertions that the laws (or government) of this nation are founded upon specifically Chrisitian "values"or religion...that the burden of proof is incumbent upon the claimant to bear in sufficiently and compellingly refuting Jefferson's own assertion that "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
Google that.]
[Note: boldface added for pointed emphasis]
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
- Treaty of Tripoli, ratified June 7, 1797; crafted under the term of George Washington, signed by then president John Adams
"We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition ... "
-- George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793
"I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country."
-- George Washington, responding to a group of clergymen who complained that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, in 1789
Translation: "I can't reasonably provide authenticated support for my opinion."
Ya know, you could have simply referenced such a "list" instead, or provided some bit of compelling evidence to support your opinion that Washington was a Christian.
Just to save you some "all-night" google time, you should know that in all of Washington's personal (known) diaries and hundreds of letters of personal correspondence (including to family), he never once, ever, acknowledged or even mentioned the name of Jesus or Christ.
Washington never once publicly declared himself to be a Christian.
Ever.
He kept his faith and religious views very private (not something that most Christians do...).
Kind of unusual, don't you think?
What say the ministers that knew Washington personally?
"Sir, Washington was a Deist."
- Rev. Dr. Abercrombie (rector of the church Washington had attended with his wife)
"I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges, himself as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more."
- The Rev. Bird. Wilson; in an interview with Mr. Robert Dale Owen written on November 13, 1831
"I do not believe that any degree of recollection will bring to my mind any fact which would prove General Washington to have been a believer in the Christian revelation further than as may be hoped from his constant attendance upon Christian worship, in connection with the general reserve of his character."
- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, in a letter to the Rev. B. C. C. Parker, dated December 31, 1832
"In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that General Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister."
-- The Right Reverend William White, friend of Washington and bishop of Christ's Church in Philadelphia, which Washington attended for about 25 years (when he happened to be in that city), in a letter to Colonel Mercer of Fredericksberg, Virginia, on August 15, 1835
Hmmm...
Were these guys in denial, or within their "right mind"when they said...?
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788]
["In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."
- Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.. . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
- Thomas Jefferson, in letter to Thomas Cooper on February 10, 1814
Perhaps if you could outline the "Biblical principles" resident within the U.S. Constitution or its attendant Amendments (you know, the only "founding" document that establishes how laws are to be crafted, by whom, and by/under what limitations those laws must consider), it would be easier for us "wrong-minded" skeptics to accept your claims and protestations as being rightfully legitimate (and solid refutation of those wooly-headed "founders" views), and beyond that of some facile loyalty to petrified opinion alone. [ALL CAPS MEANS IT'S TRUE!!!]
[Pssst. I have got all night, and I can google up some other fine quotable dandies (straight from the founder's mouths (or quills) that readily support the notion that both our constitutionally-based form of government, and that all laws derived therefrom must ultimately abide and conform to foundational constitutional principles (not "Chrisitian" or "Biblical" principles)...are purposefully, intentionally, and unmistakably secular and non-sectarian in both origin and design. As Jefferson suggests, any extant Chrisitian claims/assertions that the laws (or government) of this nation are founded upon specifically Chrisitian "values"or religion...that the burden of proof is incumbent upon the claimant to bear in sufficiently and compellingly refuting Jefferson's own assertion that "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
Google that.]
stemann
Time Bandit
joeboonda said:
That is true, except, you are an idiot and it is an idiotic statement. Plus, it isn't true (I was lying about that before).
First: many, many, atheists believe in some form of morality (as you concede later on). Prejudice against the morality of atheists is my favourite form of American fundamentalist Christian neo-nazism (no offence meant to any un-prejudiced fundamentalists out there).
Second, I am an atheist, and I do not believe in morality, but if someone stole my wallet i wouldn't say, "hmmm i suddenly believe in morality because my belief that morality does not exist- the belief that I debated over with myself for many years, attempting to take into consideration all the known facts- is shambolic enough to be destroyed by the taking of my wallet (apart from the fact that this is an example of one of the things I would have taken into consideration before coming to the belief that morality does not exist);" I would say, "some b*st*rd stole my wallet."
PureX said:
Italics mine.
The problem I have with the belief that there is no china teacup orbiting mars is that it's based on the PEOPLE-WHO-DO-BELIEVE-THERE-IS-A-CHINA-TEACUP-ORBITING-MARS' LACK of supporting evidence to support the PEOPLE-WHO-DON'T-BELIEVE-THERE-IS-A-CHINA-TEACUP-ORBITING-MARS' assertion, rather then on any actual supporting evidence. I understand why this is: that there can be no actual supporting evidence for something NOT existing, but it still leaves the assertion unsupported. And this is why I remain agnostic about the question of the existence of the china teacup orbiting Mars.
I would point out, however, that just because we can't prove the nature or existence of the china teacup orbiting Mars doesn't mean that it's illogical or irrational to choose to hope that a china teacup orbiting Mars does exist, or to live by that hope. There are logical and rational benefits of holding and living by such a hope, whether that darn china teacup orbiting Mars actually exists or not.
joeboonda said:
Good job too, I was worried after I shot and killed that guy, but Jesus covered for me. Great man.
joeboonda said:
If you use capitals, you win the argument.
joeboonda said:
How dare people brainwash my kids into that evil sin, thinking for themselves. I know for a fact that God absolutely loathes people who think for themselves. That's why indoctrination of children is so big in the USA, because it is higher above sea level and so those folks are closer to God. Fact.
logician said:
You won the argument (by joeboonda's methods, clever play).
joeboonda said:
Let me ask you this: YES.
joeboonda said:
Also: YES. If by 'letting them decide' you mean 'putting incessant moral, social, theological and anything-else-you-can-use-al pressure on them until they decide, then you are starting to understand the truth.
joeboonda said:
Humans are animals. Scientific fact. In the classification of life, they are part of the Kingdom known as Animals.
And then:
From: <A href="http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_teaches_that_we_are_animals_and_to_behave_as_such" target=_blank>http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_teaches_that_we_are_animals_and_to_behave_as_such
Right on.
logician said:
You won again. I must start using the capital method....
mr.guy said:
But we waaaaaaant to. This is the most fun I can have without being forced to cuddle afterwards (quoted from: Scrubs).
joeboonda said:
I get it, you are trying to "unsettle" me by telling me that God loves me. I am very happy to know that if God does exist, he still loves me, even after I killed that guy. So you kind of failed. Sorry *shrug*.
joeboonda said:
FREEDOM OF WORSHIP = FREEDOM FROM WORSHIP.
That is a logical fact. Except if you are forced to worship in some choice of ways; but then you don't have absolute freedom.
joeboonda said:
That kind of logic got Columbine shot up! Well done!
MaddLlama said:
Like I said before, it's fun showing people where they are not being logical. Except if they don't answer...... </challenge>
PureX
Veteran Member
If you claim to know that there are no teacups orbiting Mars, when in fact you don't know if there are or not, then you are lying. It's that simple.stemann said:
Also, it's a poor (and rude) debate tactic to mischaracterize the other person's position so as to make it appear absurd. Your point is that if we have to rely on positive proof that something doesn't exist, we'll be leaving ourselves open to all sorts of absurd assertions, because the only way we can be certain that something does not exist is to know the sum total of all that does exist. This is a valid point, and this is the point you should have made.
However, a positive assertion does require positive proof, whether you like it or not. And if we don't have the positive proof, we should not be making the positive assertion. For example; we don't know that there are no teacups orbiting Mars. What we do know is that it's extremely unlikely that there could be any teacups orbiting Mars. So that's what we should assert: that given the current lack of evidence to support the proposal that there are teacups orbiting Mars, we conclude that it is very unlikely that there are any teacups orbiting Mars. This is an honest and logical assertion.
And this is why atheists are lying when they assert that the evidence proves that "God" does not exist. In reality, they have no evidence but the lack of evidence. And a lack of evidence only proves a lack of knowledge, it does not prove any knowledge that one could positively assert one way or another.
If you wish to respond to this post, please be polite and to the point, and leave off the cheap mischaracterizations.
Thanks.
Ãsahættr
Active Member
PureX said:
But, if there is no evidence for the existance of God, and some evidence for things that would appear to contradict the existance of God, then that means that you effectively have evidence against the existance of God. Whether it "proves" it is a case of how strict you are being in your definition of proof, and how strong the evidence is.
Note - obviously people disagree on what constitutes evidence for the existance of God, and what things appear to contradict the existane of God. But you can't say that it is fundamentally impossible for atheists to claim that the evidence...suggests, if you want a softer word than proof...that God does not exist.
PureX said:
We shouldn't require ourselves to be 100% certain of a statement before stating that it is true. The reason for that is that there is a fundamental aspect here - it is fundamentally impossible to prove the existance or non-existance of anything with 100% certainty. Even if you see something with your own eyes, there's no reason in theory why your eyes or brain could be showing you something that isn't there. They do it all the time after all. No, proof for something in reality means having evidence beyond a certain threshold. With the teapot orbitting the Sun, I would say that the evidence against its existance is enough to warrant an assertion.
PureX
Veteran Member
There is an essential and fundamental difference between something I know to be true, and something that I think is probably true. And because these are essentially and fundamentally different conditions, they should not be treated as synonymous conditions.Æsahættr said:
An atheist can say that he'she believe that God does not exist. An atheist can say that according to the evidence as tyhey understand it, God probably does not exist. What they can't say, and remain honest, is that they know that God does not exist, or that they can prove it, because no atheist knows this, and no atheist can prove it.
The word "know" doesn't just imply that one thinks something is true, it implied direct experience of the truth being posited. That still doesn't define absolute certainty, but it does at least justify the use of the term "know". An atheist, however, can't have direct experience of the non-existence of anything, including God. So they can't "know" that God does not exist. They can assume it, they can propose it, and they can defend it, but they can't actually know it.
I agree wth you fully when you say that we can't be absolutely certain of any proposed truth. As human beings, we simp[ly don't have the luxury (or curse) of certainty. The best we can have is a high probability.Æsahættr said:
But I disagree that because we can't ever really be certain of anything, that we should just pretend that we're certain, anyway. I believe this sort of dishonest self-delusion leads us to all sorts of unhealthy thoughts and behaviors. Once we accept dishonesty as truth, no matter how probably true it may be, we've become willfully dishonest, and this path only leads to disaster. We humans have a hard enough time being honest in the face of everwhelming evidence, let alone in the face of our own ignorance.
Ãsahættr
Active Member
PureX said:
I dispute that there is that fundamental difference. The whole thing is a scale. A certain thing is more or less likely to be true than something else. When the probability of it being true gets high enough, we can start to say that we know that it is true, but there isn't a magic borderline.
PureX said:
Hmm...I wouldn't say that I "know" that God doesn't exist, because I don't think that there is enough evidence to make a statement quite so assured. But I would say that "I am sure that God does not exist." No atheist can "prove" that God does not exist in the pure sense, but they might be able to say "if you accept these given starting points, then the non-existance of God can be proved beyond reasonable doubt."
PureX said:
What do you mean by "direct experience"? I could argue that even when you experience something through the senses, that is indirect experience, not direct. If you look through a telescope and see something, is that direct or indirect? What about if you see something on a radar display? What if you see a picture? There are different types of obtaining knowledge, but there are not two categories of "direct" and "indirect."
Also, is something obtained from pure knowledge, with no experiences, somehow invalid as a means of obtaining truth? If you give me a simple arithmatic sum, I can work it out in my head without needing to find objects to count to experience it. Does that mean I can't know the answer?
PureX said:
It's not "pretending that we're certain." It's a case of being realistic with our use of words. People each have their own specific styles for using the words, but by and large, if you say you know something, you mean the probability of it being true is very high, if you are confident of something, it means still quite high but not as high, if you suspect something it is lower still and so on.
PureX
Veteran Member
Then I will explain the fundamental difference. When I say I "know" (because I have direct objective experience of it) that something is true, I am not doubting the truthfulness of what I claim, because my direct objective experience of it is my proof. But when I say that I believe that something is probably true, but don't actually know it to be true for myself, then I'm aware that I could be wrong even though I don't feel that I am, because I have no direct objective experience of the truthfulness of the claim.Æsahættr said:
The fundamental difference is the possibility of my being wrong, and of my being open to that possibility.
I am typing on this keyboard. I "know" that this is so, because I'm experiencing it directly. You believe that I'm typing on this keyboard because the evidence suggests to you that it's probably true. But you don't actually know it's true as you aren't experiencing it directly (I may have typed this an hour ago, for example). I don't doubt that I'm typing on this keyboard. You do have doubts. This is the difference.
Exactly. That's all I was pointing out.Æsahættr said:
Correction, you FEEL sure that God does not exist. You just got done stating that you are not "quite so assured".Æsahættr said:
Yes, but so can the deist. I'll give you a overly simple example: if I define "God" as wetness, then every time it rains I can experience God directly, and KNOW that God exists. I realize this is a simplistic and absurd example, as no one defines God as wetness, but many theists prove that God exists to themselves in a similar way. They define God as an anthropomorphized unknown. That is, they turn the unknown (fate, chance, happenstance, coincidence, etc.) into a kind of magical personage, they name that personage "God", and then when they experience these unknown conditions in their lives, they believe they are experiencing God - and they are, according to their concept of "God". So when an atheist argues with them, all there really is to argue about is their concept/definition of God, because the rest of their "God-experience" is valid.Æsahættr said:
The definitions are everything. The way we define the world dictates to a large degree the way we experience it. And the same goes for "God", and for most of what we call "evidence". That's why I think it's vitally important that we be as clear and honest as we possibly can be about what we can actually know, and what we only THINK we know because of how we define the evidence and establish probability.
"We" are locked inside a human body and mind. All we can experience of the world around us has to come into us through that body and is expressed to us as that mind is able to express it. The degree of abstraction in this inflow of information we call "experience" is always relative to the bio-machinery conveying it to us. I agree with you. But there are still direct and indirect inflows of information. And the word "know" implies direct inflow, as opposed to indirect. Here-say, for example, is an indirect inflow of information.Æsahættr said:
No, indirect inflow of information is not invalid, but is less valid. Just as here-say evidence is not invalid, but is less valid than a direct witness in a courtroom.Æsahættr said:
Mathematics is a meaningless idealized abstraction until it's applied to the objective world. Interestingly, when it is applied, it becomes only relatively accurate, whereas it was perfectly accurate as an unapplied but meaningless abstraction. (I'm digressing, sorry *smile*)Æsahættr said:
The purpose of language is to convey information from one person to another as accurately as possible. For this to happen, we need to choose our words carefully, and abide by the definitions as they have been agreed upon. Sloppy speaking, writing, and thinking, only add to the general confusion. I will accept that it happens all the time, and is more or less inevitable for we human beings, but I won't make excuses for it, or condone it, or encourage it.Æsahættr said:
Honesty isn't just a word, it's a way of life. I think it's a superior way of life because it greatly reduces unnecessary human suffering.
stemann
Time Bandit
PureX said:
I agree whole-heartedly. I never claimed to know that one did/did not exist.
PureX said:
I did not mischaracterize your position. I believe your assertion of
PureX said:
to be absurd; in the sense that I believe it to be logically incorrect. I don't claim that belief in God is necessarily absurd in itself, since it is the reasons behind this belief that determine its absurdity or otherwise. Reasons such as: you may as well believe in heaven if it makes you happy.
PureX said:
Not quite my point; my argument was: just because there is no infallible evidence for or against God, it does not necessarily make it logical to believe that He exists for other reasons, such as 'to live in hope.'
However, my analogy between the teacup and God was flawed (no, really), and I now concede that. This is because we could scientifically prove the non-existence of the teacup (by such outlandish methods as destroying Mars, and thus making there no Mars around which for it to orbit) but it is impossible to scientifically prove or disprove the God of classical theism.
From this correction: because God lies outside the realm of probability, and the teacup does not, you could theoretically calculate the probability of the existence of the teacup, and base your beliefs on that probability, whereas with God, one can do no such thing.
However: if the idea of God could be shown to have been invented solely by man, and the entire universe could be explained by scientific laws and principles, then (I think) there would be a lot less theism around. This is not because it has been shown that God is less likely to exist and have created an entirely science-based universe (since, as above, you cannot measure the probability of God existing), just that people would have no need for a Creator God to fill in the gaps of science.
Of course, there would still be a lot of belief through morality and ethics, but since they too lie outside the realm of calculable probabilities or scientific facts, you still cannot change the fact that God cannot be empirically tested.
PureX said:
I would strongly hope that my beliefs are fully influenced by logic (at least as I perceive it) and not in any way whatsoever by what I like/dislike. I agree that a positive assertion requires positive proof, for whatever definition of 'proof' scientists need.
PureX said:
Again, this point arises due to my careless analogizing. Of course, as you say, we can conclude that it is unlikely that teacups are orbiting Mars. However, we can do no such thing with respect to evidence about the existence of God.
PureX said:
If an atheist says this, they are not necessarily lying per se (because they may believe it), but they are incorrect. Not all atheists assert this view, however.
PureX said:
So, as I must have said before, the theists' lack of evidence for God is equal to the atheists' lack of evidence against God, since God lies outside the realm of probability. This still does not make actions carried out in His name (worship, leading a 'good' life, etc.) logical.
PureX said:
If I did offend you or your beliefs, then I apologise and hope that you will understand me when I say that that was not the intention (and I hope this does not seem like frenetic backpedalling....).
AEsahaettr said:
Can you prove that statement as 100% true? If not, then you have faith in it, as theists have faith in God. If yes, then you have created a paradox, since the statement claiming nothing is proveable was actually proved.
PureX said:
No they can't, God lies outside the realm of probability (I think I have started to overuse that phrase).
PureX said:
But does this make an absolute unconditional belief in God and actions related thereto logical??
PureX said:
But how can we be certain that we have a high probability?
PureX said:
Of course, you are correct. I don't think anybody on the whole of rf.com would disagree with you here.
PureX said:
Oh PureX, if only everybody knew what we knew!
PureX said:
I don't think that in the entire history of language has one person ever inferred perfectly the meaning which another person implied when communicating. That is the problem of language in general, it is a sketchy way of conveying meaning, and thus the meaning is different for the transmitter and the receiver.
PureX said:
1) Define "superior".
2) Define "unnecessary".
3) Define "suffering".
4) Define how superiority leads to reduction of "unnecessary human suffering". I really don't see how ethics has anything whatsoever to do with logic.
PureX
Veteran Member
Stemann, that was a pretty long post, so I'll try to just address the many good points that you're making, here.
If we don't know that a kind and loving and forgiving God does not exist, and hoping that such a God does exist helps someone to live a calm and happy life, then what's illogical about their holding on to such hope, and living accordingly?
If human beings are frightened by what they don't understand and therefor can't control (which we are), and we can mitigate that fear by imagining that "God" controls the unknown for us, and the result of this belief is that we function better in the face of our own fears, what's illogical about choosing to trust in this "God" even if this God doesn't actually exist?
You seem to be implying that it's illogical to make any assumptions about the unknown, even if those assumptions can help us function positively, and even though we can make them while still remaining aware that they are assumptions (and we can choose to drop them at any time). Yet I don't really see how we humans can do much of anything else. Isn't establishing probability just making an assumption about something unknown, based on what we think we do know? And isn't even what we think we do know still subject to error?
Yes, we humans did invent the idea of "God" (as far as we know). But that doesn't lead to the conclusion that the idea of "God" is invalid, or that the divine phenomenon we imply by that idea does not exist.
But that doesn't mean that the phenomena of infinity does not occur. Nor does it mean that it does. Nor does it mean that it's probable one way or another. It simply means that we do not know.
I would say that it's illogical to assume that you should NOT be biased, or that it's even possible for you not to be biased. The whole scientific process is based on the realization that we humans are always biased.
I would think, too, that logic dictates that we acknowledge our bias, and accept it as an inevitable part of the human condition, and then remain skeptical of ourselves and our opinions as a result of this realization of our bias.
Same goes for theists who also make unverifiable positive assertions about the nature and existence of "God".
If we don't know that "heaven" does not exist, and hoping that heaven does exist helps someone to live a calm and happy life, what's illogical about their hoping that heaven does exist, and living according to that hope?stemann said:
If we don't know that a kind and loving and forgiving God does not exist, and hoping that such a God does exist helps someone to live a calm and happy life, then what's illogical about their holding on to such hope, and living accordingly?
If human beings are frightened by what they don't understand and therefor can't control (which we are), and we can mitigate that fear by imagining that "God" controls the unknown for us, and the result of this belief is that we function better in the face of our own fears, what's illogical about choosing to trust in this "God" even if this God doesn't actually exist?
You seem to be implying that it's illogical to make any assumptions about the unknown, even if those assumptions can help us function positively, and even though we can make them while still remaining aware that they are assumptions (and we can choose to drop them at any time). Yet I don't really see how we humans can do much of anything else. Isn't establishing probability just making an assumption about something unknown, based on what we think we do know? And isn't even what we think we do know still subject to error?
It doesn't necessarily make it illogical, either. What's illogical about making assumptions about the unknown, and then trusting in those assumptions as long as doing so delivers positive results? ... Especially when there is no evidence to prove the assumption wrong.stemann said:
Probably, but there is no logical reason why the universe being governed by physical laws should preclude the existence of "God". Also, I think it's pretty obvious that the idea of "God" is a human invention. But that's not necessarily a relevant point. The idea of a "tree" is also a human invention, based on human experience of a particular objective phenomena, but that doesn't make the tree any less "real", or the idea of a tree any less valid.stemann said:
Yes, we humans did invent the idea of "God" (as far as we know). But that doesn't lead to the conclusion that the idea of "God" is invalid, or that the divine phenomenon we imply by that idea does not exist.
I agree. Most people define "God" using the concept of the infinite (perfect, eternal, omni... etc.). And we humans can't quantify, qualify, or verify the phenomena of infinity. So we can't verify any concept that includes the ideal of the infinite, either. We can't even establish probabilities for it.stemann said:
But that doesn't mean that the phenomena of infinity does not occur. Nor does it mean that it does. Nor does it mean that it's probable one way or another. It simply means that we do not know.
What's not logical about your likes and dislikes?stemann said:
I would say that it's illogical to assume that you should NOT be biased, or that it's even possible for you not to be biased. The whole scientific process is based on the realization that we humans are always biased.
I would think, too, that logic dictates that we acknowledge our bias, and accept it as an inevitable part of the human condition, and then remain skeptical of ourselves and our opinions as a result of this realization of our bias.
They are being dishonest, it doesn't matter to me much whether they mean to be, or not. I'm not here to judge them, or their motives, only to judge the validity of their assertions.stemann said:
Same goes for theists who also make unverifiable positive assertions about the nature and existence of "God".
Not at all, you're making some very good points, here, and doing so clearly, honestly, and logically.stemann said:
But the statement would include itself, which both removes the contradiction that you're inferring, and lends credibility to itself, but does not prove itself true.stemann said:
I would say that it's both illogical and dangerous for we human beings to believe anything absolutely and unconditionally. In fact, I would consider this is a form of insanity.stemann said:
logician
Well-Known Member
"If we don't know that "heaven" does not exist, and hoping that heaven does exist helps someone to live a calm and happy life, what's illogical about their hoping that heaven does exist, and living according to that hope?"
What about the converse, those that have been taught that hell exists, and live a "good life" only because they live in fear of death. This sort of morality is not logical, it's based upon emotion, and these people often have many mental problems using this fundamentalist type of approach..
What about the converse, those that have been taught that hell exists, and live a "good life" only because they live in fear of death. This sort of morality is not logical, it's based upon emotion, and these people often have many mental problems using this fundamentalist type of approach..
eudaimonia
Fellowship of Reason
logician said:No god would create Bush.
Why not? He loves burning them.
eudaimonia,
Mark