To the Anti-Religious

[Madhuri]

People generally believe the things they have experiences of if they know/trust someone who claims to have had such an experience. A lot of people claim to have experienced ghosts and witches but I think the percentage of people who claim to see pixies and unicorns are much lower.

 

[Commoner]

If he spoke to YOU, why were you asking ME the question?

I told him you probably wouldn't believe me if I told you that he existed. So he commanded me to ask you: "Do you have faith that Ugothoplkoty exists or do you have faith that Ugothoplkoty does not exist?"

 

[PureX]

The faith you're talking about is not the same faith that I'm talking about.

I'm curious about this. I'm talking about faith as a choice. When I'm lacking the pertinent information to make a reasonably 'informed' choice, yet I must choose now, then I must choose by faith. In my case that usually means that I'll choose the course of action that will result in the outcome that I most HOPE for.

I choose to believe in the existence of "God" for two reasons. One is that I lack the pertinent information to make a reasonably informed choice one way or the other, and the other is that I have found that holding such a belief "works" for me in a number of positive ways.

I consider this choice regarding the existence of "God" an act of faith. But I have to make lots of choices based on faith that have nothing to do with the existence of God, or with religion. A simple example might be that every time I drive my car, I'm acting on my faith in my fellow drivers: that they will obey the traffic laws, today. At any given time I don't KNOW they will do so. But I still have to get around, so I choose to believe that they will based on hope, and I drive among them, anyway.

This is what I mean by we humans having to live on faith most of the time.

 

[Madhuri]

I told him you probably wouldn't believe me if I told you that he existed. So he commanded me to ask you: "Do you have faith that Ugothoplkoty exists or do you have faith that Ugothoplkoty does not exist?"

We all have faith in things. I will admit that I have faith that Ugo... does not exist. I'm fine with that

 

[PureX]

I told him you probably wouldn't believe me if I told you that he existed. So he commanded me to ask you: "Do you have faith that Ugothoplkoty exists or do you have faith that Ugothoplkoty does not exist?"

The existence of Ugothoplkoty is not an issue for me.

 

[Commoner]

The existence of Ugothoplkoty is not an issue or me.

Are you saying you have faith that the existence of Ugothoplkoty is not an issue for you?

 

[Commoner]

We all have faith in things. I will admit that I have faith that Ugo... does not exist. I'm fine with that

Are you questioning my evidence? :sarcastic

 

[PureX]

Are you saying you have faith that the existence of Ugothoplkoty is not an issue for you?

Give it up, Dude, you lost this round.

 

[Commoner]

I'm curious about this. I'm talking about faith as a choice. When I'm lacking the pertinent information to make a reasonably 'informed' choice, yet I must choose now, then I must choose by faith. In my case that usually means that I'll choose the course of action that will result in the outcome that I most HOPE for.

I choose to believe in the existence of "God" for two reasons. One is that I lack the pertinent information to make a reasonably informed choice one way or the other, and the other is that I have found that holding such a belief "works" for me in a number of positive ways.

I consider this choice regarding the existence of "God" an act of faith. But I have to make lots of choices based on faith that have nothing to do with the existence of God, or with religion. A simple example might be that every time I drive my car, I'm acting on my faith in my fellow drivers: that they will obey the traffic laws, today. At any given time I don't KNOW they will do so. But I still have to get around, so I choose to believe that they will based on hope, and I drive among them, anyway.

This is what I mean by we humans having to live on faith most of the time.

Can you give a practical example of a decision not based on this "faith" of yours?

 

[Commoner]

Give it up, Dude, you lost this round.

I think you're avoiding the obvious answer. Dude.

 

[DarkSun]

I agree that in casual conversation, there's no need to distinguish between the two points. But when you're trying to imply that the fact that I don't believe in a god is somehow "the same as faith" because I simply "have faith" that there is no god, then I feel obligated to explain why that's not the case.

You can feel as obligated as you like, but that doesn't change the facts. There is absolutely no evidence at all that God doesn't exist. Likewise, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that He does. THEREFORE, since faith is the ability to believe something without proof, belief or disbelief in God are both acts of faith, by definition of the word.

I'm not trying to change your opinion, by the way. I'm just trying to help you understand that an atheist's view is supported by just as much empirical evidence as a theists view. That is to say - there is no evidence for either view - and both groups of people base their opinions on their own subjective experiences alone.

In that sense, no "belief" is any more valid than another "belief" because each and every one of us are equally justified in feeling the way we do.

Does that make sense?

You used a bad analogy.

You can see the sky from Earth seems blue, you can come to the logical conclusion that it is not "not blue". Green is not blue - so the sky isn't green. I'm sure the sky on some planets seems green(ish) and on others seems red(ish), but I don't really know. So if you wanted to apply that to your analogy - you would have to claim there is no such thing as a green sky. See the difference?

No, it is a very good analogy. Some people actually do see the sky as green and the grass as blue. That doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means they have a different perception of the same world.

Exactly - no evidence, no belief.

How is not believing something a belief? If that's the case, each of us has an infinite number of beliefs. How is that practical in any way?

It's not impractical at all. Every view in itself is a belief.





Definitions of belief on the Web:

• any cognitive content held as true
• impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

And faith is the act of believing something without proof.

Since there is no proof of God's inexistence, by believing that God does not exist, you are performing an act of faith - by definitions of the words faith and belief. This is no different from what a theist does.

I'm not attacking you, I'm just stating things as they are.

How many more times do I have to repeat myself?

 

[PureX]

Can you give a practical example of a decision not based on this "faith" of yours?

The more information (evidence) I have, the less faith is involved. An example might be that although I do not actually KNOW that gravity will be in effect on Earth tomorrow, I believe with near certainty that it will be. And I believe this because it has been in effect every day of my life, and of the lives of all those who came before me. So I will make decisions today based on the assumption that gravity will be in effect on Earth tomorrow. (This is a ridiculous over-simplification, but you get the idea.)

I know nothing with absolute certainty, but I can establish a reasonable probability for most things, and the more this probability is based on knowledge and evidence, the less faith I need to follow a course of action based on it.

 

[DarkSun]

Why can't I frubal the same person multiple times? Why?

 

[Madhuri]

Why can't I frubal the same person multiple times? Why?

Haha, I've been having the same frustration today as well!

 

[Commoner]

You can feel as obligated as you like, but that doesn't change the facts. There is absolutely no evidence at all that God doesn't exist. Likewise, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that He does. THEREFORE, since faith is the ability to believe something without proof, belief or disbelief in God are both acts of faith, by definition of the word.

Well, I don't know, PureX seems to be hiding some evidence somewhere, so as soon as he tell us what it is, we can all forget abouth "faith".

You are making a logical fallacy when equating two opposite things - belief and disbelief. It doesn't take faith to reject a positive claim made by someone who can't produce sufficient (or any) evidence for that claim.

No, it is a very good analogy. Some people actually do see the sky as green and the grass as blue. That doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means they have a different perception of the same world.

You might not see "green" the same way that I do. But we still agree that the grass is green. Anyone of the oppinion that grass is blue is wrong (well, if we're talking normal grass, under normal circumstances). Of course it means they're wrong - I can measure the spectrum of light being deflected off the surface of the grass and explain why they're wrong.

And faith is the act of believing something without proof.

I agree, but this is not the same as disbelieving it because of a lack of evidence.

 

[Commoner]

The more information (evidence) I have, the less faith is involved. An example might be that although I do not actually KNOW that gravity will be in effect on Earth tomorrow, I believe with near certainty that it will be. And I believe this because it has been in effect every day of my life, and of the lives of all those who came before me. So I will make decisions today based on the assumption that gravity will be in effect on Earth tomorrow. (This is a ridiculous over-simplification, but you get the idea.)

I know nothing with absolute certainty, but I can establish a reasonable probability for most things, and the more this probability is based on knowledge and evidence, the less faith I need to follow a course of action based on it.

I don't see decisions in situations with imperfect information as "acts of faith". Faith would be claiming with certainty that the course of action that you took based on the imperfect information is the optimal one. But that doesn't mean that your decision was faith based.

 

[DarkSun]

I agree, but this is not the same as disbelieving it because of a lack of evidence.

Yes it is, because to show disbelief in God because of lack of evidence, you would in turn have to reject God without evidence as well. :slap:

That's not a logical fallacy at all. It's a fact. There is no evidence against God's existence, so to show disbelief in Him is an act of faith - ie, you have a view with no evidence to support it. That is faith, by definition.

Why is it so hard to accept that? It's not as if believing something without any proof is a bad thing or anything.

Sorry, but this is the last time I'm going to say that. I'm getting tired of repeating myself, sorry.

 

[Madhuri]

I feel like a total traitor saying this but I actually might agree with Commoner on this. At least, I think that it is correct to say that one neither believes nor disbelieves in something without implying faith. It would imply faith only if the person said that they believe God doesn't exist and that really isn't the same as having no opinion on God. The only comment that I would like to add here is that we all love speaking philosophically to prove a point but probably most of hte atheists I have talked to at some point let it stip that they actually strongly believe that a God does not exist. So I wonder if our atheists here actually have a -belief- that there is no God or will stand by their argument that they neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a God.

 

[Commoner]

I feel like a total traitor saying this but I actually might agree with Commoner on this. At least, I think that it is correct to say that one neither believes nor disbelieves in something without implying faith. It would imply faith only if the person said that they believe God doesn't exist and that really isn't the same as having no opinion on God. The only comment that I would like to add here is that we all love speaking philosophically to prove a point but probably most of hte atheists I have talked to at some point let it stip that they actually strongly believe that a God does not exist. So I wonder if our atheists here actually have a -belief- that there is no God or will stand by their argument that they neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of a God.

Come over to the dark side, Madhuri! :tribal:

I would have no problem arguing against a specific "god idea". The christian god is always an easy target.

As for arguing that no gods exist/have existed, I think that's a bit too much to ask of one person. There are, after all, more than 10.000 distinct religions in the world.

 

[Madhuri]

Come over to the dark side, Madhuri! :tribal:

I would have no problem arguing against a specific "god idea". The christian god is always an easy target.

As for arguing that no gods exist/have existed, I think that's a bit too much to ask of one person.

Lol! Sorry, I like my side :angel2:
But I can be friends with everyone :yes: