| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/21/2007 01:03:26 PM · #801 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
These are apples and oranges. |
Don't go there. It has been shown that Christians can't be trusted with apples. ;-) |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:05:40 PM · #802 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
For the atheist, the evidence is what drives his or her understanding (not belief) and his or her determination that the evidence favors the lack of a divine entity. |
I did not say the term non-belief. Non-belief cannot equal belief. What I said was belief in the non-existence of God(s). Please be accurate. |
I am being accurate, you are the one who is conflating the concepts. Please reread my post. "Belief" as you are using the term, does not mean a "reasoned conclusion." These are apples and oranges. |
You are not being accurate. Please show me the term in my post that reads "non-belief". It does not exist, because I did not put it there. I specifically typed "belief in the non-existence".
Again, Please argue that atheists have NO beliefs, if that is your position. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:07:51 PM · #803 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
For the atheist, the evidence is what drives his or her understanding (not belief) and his or her determination that the evidence favors the lack of a divine entity. |
I did not say the term non-belief. Non-belief cannot equal belief. What I said was belief in the non-existence of God(s). Please be accurate. |
I am being accurate, you are the one who is conflating the concepts. Please reread my post. "Belief" as you are using the term, does not mean a "reasoned conclusion." These are apples and oranges. |
You cannot simply say that accepting the existence of God is "belief" while denying his existence is "reasoned conclusion". Neither side has enough information to make a "reasoned conclusion" any more than the other. While there is no direct evidence for God, questions like the origin of the universe require leaps of faith on both sides of the coin.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:07:57 PM · #804 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
For the atheist, the evidence is what drives his or her understanding (not belief) and his or her determination that the evidence favors the lack of a divine entity. |
I did not say the term non-belief. Non-belief cannot equal belief. What I said was belief in the non-existence of God(s). Please be accurate. |
I am being accurate, you are the one who is conflating the concepts. Please reread my post. "Belief" as you are using the term, does not mean a "reasoned conclusion." These are apples and oranges. |
You are not being accurate. Please show me the term in my post that reads "non-belief". It does not exist, because I did not put it there. I specifically typed "belief in the non-existence".
Again, Please argue that atheists have NO beliefs, if that is your position. |
If all your arguments so depend on these kinds of semantic gymnastics, I think you'll find that you really have nothing of substance to talk about. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:11:07 PM · #805 |
"Atheism" is not the same as "believes in no god"; atheism is the denial that any god exists. There is a difference.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:13:42 PM · #806 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
For the atheist, the evidence is what drives his or her understanding (not belief) and his or her determination that the evidence favors the lack of a divine entity. |
I did not say the term non-belief. Non-belief cannot equal belief. What I said was belief in the non-existence of God(s). Please be accurate. |
I am being accurate, you are the one who is conflating the concepts. Please reread my post. "Belief" as you are using the term, does not mean a "reasoned conclusion." These are apples and oranges. |
You are not being accurate. Please show me the term in my post that reads "non-belief". It does not exist, because I did not put it there. I specifically typed "belief in the non-existence".
Again, Please argue that atheists have NO beliefs, if that is your position. |
If all your arguments so depend on these kinds of semantic gymnastics, I think you'll find that you really have nothing of substance to talk about. |
My experience on these posts (with you in particular), has taught me, that without CLEAR definitions, you twist and manipulate to suit your point. My forthcoming and openess in these threads has been met with ridicule and acidic commentary. To prevent that, I will hold you to clear definitions. Ones, that either you can or cannot provide. But a "pass" out of discourse politness is gone. Your colors are too evident. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:16:06 PM · #807 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"Atheism" is not the same as "believes in no god"; atheism is the denial that any god exists. There is a difference.
R. |
Believe
a conviction or certainty, often regarding God or a supreme being
The atheist has a "conviction regarding a god or supreme being".
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 13:17:54. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:17:02 PM · #808 |
Originally posted by Flash:
No. I may or may not have any knowledge/understanding of "other" god(s). You have now changed your point presentation to include the term believer. Before we were just discussing atheist vs theist. Now you add believer. Please define believer as you intend it. The atheist is also a "believer". A believer in the non-existance of any god(s). |
Flash - the point is that you do not believe in Thor, Wotan, Zeus, Mercury, Bel, Baal, or any of thousands of ancient gods. You do not believe in Gaanesh, Shiiva or a host of modern gods, save for one: Yahweh, and in particular you belong to a specific branch of believers who believe that one of hundreds of people claiming to be so was in fact the messiah.
You do not believe in those thousands of gods. In the unlikely event that one of those gods exists, your non-belief would be to them exactly the same as that of an atheist. Luckily for you, the odds of those gods existing is exactly the same as the odds of your god existing - almost zero - meaning that you will almost certainly die a peaceful death and almost certainly won't need to suffer eternal damnation (do you see how attractive that concept might be?).
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:18:07 PM · #809 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
For the atheist, the evidence is what drives his or her understanding (not belief) and his or her determination that the evidence favors the lack of a divine entity. |
Kind of like how the lack of a dead body favors the "innocence" of those associated with Hollaway. |
I quite like the notion of innocent until proven guilty really, but you seem to at least be strongly implying that you don't. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:20:16 PM · #810 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
No. I may or may not have any knowledge/understanding of "other" god(s). You have now changed your point presentation to include the term believer. Before we were just discussing atheist vs theist. Now you add believer. Please define believer as you intend it. The atheist is also a "believer". A believer in the non-existance of any god(s). |
Flash - the point is that you do not believe in Thor, Wotan, Zeus, Mercury, Bel, Baal, or any of thousands of ancient gods. You do not believe in Gaanesh, Shiiva or a host of modern gods, save for one: Yahweh, and in particular you belong to a specific branch of believers who believe that one of hundreds of people claiming to be so was in fact the messiah.
You do not believe in those thousands of gods. In the unlikely event that one of those gods exists, your non-belief would be to them exactly the same as that of an atheist. Luckily for you, the odds of those gods existing is exactly the same as the odds of your god existing - almost zero - meaning that you will almost certainly die a peaceful death and almost certainly won't need to suffer eternal damnation (do you see how attractive that concept might be?). |
No. This is only true if all gods are listed and I deny belief in All of them. That is atheism. As long as I believe in at least one of them, then I, by definition are a theist. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:20:48 PM · #811 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
I am being accurate, you are the one who is conflating the concepts. Please reread my post. "Belief" as you are using the term, does not mean a "reasoned conclusion." These are apples and oranges. |
You are not being accurate. Please show me the term in my post that reads "non-belief". It does not exist, because I did not put it there. I specifically typed "belief in the non-existence".
Again, Please argue that atheists have NO beliefs, if that is your position. |
I am not arguing that you used the term "non-belief", I saying that your use of "belief in the non-existence" is inaccurate. Atheists do not "believe" in no god(s) in the way that religious people "believe" in a/some god(s). I understand that this would make your arguments easier, but that's not my job. ;)
Atheists have no belief in god(s). This non-belief is based on the available evidence for the existence of a/some god(s). Theists believe in a/some god(s). This belief is based on faith (non-evidence-based proclamations).
For the religious "believer" this reliance on faith is a good thing. For the atheist a reliance on faith is unsatisfactory. Note that this doesn't, necessarily, say anything either way on whether "faith" in the abstract is a positive or negative.
Whether atheists have other "beliefs" is something that you would have to ask individual atheists. For example, I "believe" that my cat loves me, even though all the evidence might suggest that he only likes a roof over his head and a full bowl of kibble.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:21:31 PM · #812 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You cannot simply say that accepting the existence of God is "belief" while denying his existence is "reasoned conclusion". Neither side has enough information to make a "reasoned conclusion" any more than the other. |
Sure he can. You determine that one god is the correct one without any greater evidence for one over another and even if it conflicts with tangible evidence. That's belief. We don't "believe" that Thor's Hammer doesn't exist, we know that static electricity offers a far more plausible and testable explanation even if we don't yet know all the tiny details. We don't have to "believe" a giant turtle isn't supporting the earth, either. We discovered that gravity offered a better explanation even before we could send up satellites to check it out. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:21:59 PM · #813 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
For the atheist, the evidence is what drives his or her understanding (not belief) and his or her determination that the evidence favors the lack of a divine entity. |
Kind of like how the lack of a dead body favors the "innocence" of those associated with Hollaway. |
I quite like the notion of innocent until proven guilty really, but you seem to at least be strongly implying that you don't. |
No. If you would read my earlier post, it was used as an example, illustrating the differences between an atheist and a christian. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:24:22 PM · #814 |
Originally posted by Flash:
No. If you would read my earlier post, it was used as an example, illustrating the differences between an atheist and a christian. |
I did read your example. It read as if a Christian would assume they were guilty given the circumstantial evidence. I'm just saying I'd prefer to not convict them until some actual proof is available.
This one certainly looks bleak for John Darwin[*] too. Washed out to sea. His kayak smashed up. Authorities say the chances of his survival are bleak. Looks like a death. Smells like a death. The circumstantial evidence certainly points that way. I'm sure a Christian would assume he was dead.
* and no, the John Darwin name isn't made up for effect... Life is stranger than fiction after all.
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 13:30:19. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:28:16 PM · #815 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You cannot simply say that accepting the existence of God is "belief" while denying his existence is "reasoned conclusion". Neither side has enough information to make a "reasoned conclusion" any more than the other. While there is no direct evidence for God, questions like the origin of the universe require leaps of faith on both sides of the coin. |
I thought that this argument had been put to bed as fallacious once and for all by Bertrand Russell and the invisible Martian teapot.
If we only need "god" to explain the first point of the universe's existence, then I would quite happily accept the existence of "god". Because "god" would be nothing more than the word used to describe whatever was the first cause of the universe's first existence - whatever unknowable thing that might be.
However, I suspect that you ascribe certain atributes to "god" greater than being a complicated physical chemistry equation. That's the point when you lose me.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:30:19 PM · #816 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
For example, I "believe" that my cat loves me, even though all the evidence might suggest that he only likes a roof over his head and a full bowl of kibble. |
This is outrageous. My cats love me, irrefutably. On this there can be no debate. Please demonstrate my cats' lack of love for me, if you dare! This is bullshit! I am so out of here! |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:32:24 PM · #817 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
No. If you would read my earlier post, it was used as an example, illustrating the differences between an atheist and a christian. |
I did read your example. It read as if a Christian would assume they were guilty given the circumstantial evidence. I'm just saying I'd prefer to not convict them until some actual proof is available. |
There is no convicting going on. They are free. The apparent difference bewteen us, is that you think they should be free, while I do not. The investigation continues. Just as archeology is finding more and more evidence about the life and times of biblical recorded events. You may choose to ignore until it is irrefutable. I may chose to believe, based on (what I consider) overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Like my example with Hollaway. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:34:55 PM · #818 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
No. If you would read my earlier post, it was used as an example, illustrating the differences between an atheist and a christian. |
I did read your example. It read as if a Christian would assume they were guilty given the circumstantial evidence. I'm just saying I'd prefer to not convict them until some actual proof is available. |
There is no convicting going on. They are free. The apparent difference bewteen us, is that you think they should be free, while I do not. |
Exactly. You'd personally like to convict them on circumstantial evidence. I'd prefer the truth be held to a higher standard than 'well smells like they are guilty'
The rest of my post is actually more interesting apropos to this discussion than the bit you responded to.
This one certainly looks bleak for John Darwin[*] too. Washed out to sea. His kayak smashed up. Authorities say the chances of his survival are bleak. Looks like a death. Smells like a death. The circumstantial evidence certainly points that way. I'm sure a Christian would assume he was dead.
* and no, the John Darwin name isn't made up for effect... Life is stranger than fiction after all.
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 13:37:30. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:39:47 PM · #819 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
"Atheism" is not the same as "believes in no god"; atheism is the denial that any god exists. There is a difference.
R. |
Believe
a conviction or certainty, often regarding God or a supreme being
The atheist has a "conviction regarding a god or supreme being". |
The point is, to say "I believe in no god" is to say, in effect, I have never "seen" a god I believe in. The atheist says "I believe no god exists."
R.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:42:08 PM · #820 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Luckily for you, the odds of those gods existing is exactly the same as the odds of your god existing - almost zero |
Almost zero?
Lloyd: What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?
Mary: Well, that's pretty difficult to say.
Lloyd: Hit me with it! I've come a long way to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
[pause]
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:43:45 PM · #821 |
I am going to quote from one of these long threads from almost exactly a year ago. This is my reasoning for why I am a theist and Christian. I post it to demonstrate that Christianity can be a "reasoned conclusion". You do not have to agree, but you should see the logical progression.
Originally posted by DrAchoo, in one of these arguments a year ago:
OK, Iâll try to keep this short, but itâs going to be more than 100 wordsâ¦
Why I am a Christian:
Rational reasons:
1) The natural world.
I am a scientist. I have spent years and years learning about the universe, our world, life, and ourselves. The more I learn, the more I conclude that it is a larger leap to believe it is all random chance than it is to believe there was a Creator. From the idea that the universe has a beginning to the complexity of the human cell, I see signs of The Watchmaker.
2) Natural Law.
CS Lewis does a far better job with this argument than I could. Anybody who wants to hear it in an eloquent way should read the first 25 pages of Mere Christianity. Basically it can be summed in the argument in the posts above. I sense the world is broken. It is not as it ought to be. Instead of driving me away from God, this drives me to Him because I realize if there were no God I would have no basis to suppose the world had âgone wrongâ at all.
The above two arguments are why I am not an atheist.
3) The historical Jesus.
I could never come to grips with the idea that if Jesus was a fraud, 10 of his closest friends either knew it and chose to go to their own horrid deaths to perpetuate the lie or they were so duped by him to do so in belief (only John died a natural death). I would think at least one of them would have âfessed upâ under the tortures they endured. I also find it hard to explain that the person after Jesus most responsible for spreading Christianity to the world, Paul, was originally hell-bent on stopping it by all means necessary. I cannot rationally explain such a conversion.
Personal reasons:
4) Grace
I fully accept that much, if not all of the reasons I am a Christian are out of my control. I was born in a time, place, and position to hear about Jesus. I was given the intelligence and personality to hear and accept it. This is all from God. I am blessed.
5) The hole in my heart.
After all the rational arguments above, I am acutely aware that my heart yearns and longs for something it cannot find on Earth. Nothing I have tried has satisfied it. Being an American, I have had my fill of pleasure and possessions. They do nothing for me. One of my favorite quotes is by Albert Camus and greets people on my personal blog. âBecause I longed for eternal life, I went to bed with harlots and drank for nights on end. I slept in bliss, but awoke with the bitter taste of the mortal state.â To me, this is Truth. You can rip away each and every argument above and I would still know in a way more intense than anything else that I am incomplete.
|
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 13:44:37.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:43:50 PM · #822 |
Originally posted by jhonan:
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
[pause]
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance. |
Well one in a million chances happen every day... |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:45:33 PM · #823 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Flash:
No. If you would read my earlier post, it was used as an example, illustrating the differences between an atheist and a christian. |
I did read your example. It read as if a Christian would assume they were guilty given the circumstantial evidence. I'm just saying I'd prefer to not convict them until some actual proof is available. |
There is no convicting going on. They are free. The apparent difference bewteen us, is that you think they should be free, while I do not. |
Exactly. You'd personally like to convict them on circumstantial evidence. I'd prefer the truth be held to a higher standard than 'well smells like they are guilty'
The rest of my post is actually more interesting apropos to this discussion than the bit you responded to.
This one certainly looks bleak for John Darwin[*] too. Washed out to sea. His kayak smashed up. Authorities say the chances of his survival are bleak. Looks like a death. Smells like a death. The circumstantial evidence certainly points that way. I'm sure a Christian would assume he was dead.
* and no, the John Darwin name isn't made up for effect... Life is stranger than fiction after all. |
I believe that you are referencing the UK Kayaker that recently resurfaced after defrauding the insurance company. Obviously several people believed it was a death, including the insurance investigators. The part you may have missed in my earlier post on Hollaway, was the the last sentnece where I wrote "until it was proven to be NOT true", or something quite similar. Meaning, that I chose to believe many things based upon circumstantial evidence. Some of them are wrong. When they are proven wrong, I change my belief. After 30 years of being lied to (in my line of work), I have learned much. Namely, that if it smells, walks, talks like...then a closer look is required. Usually (but not always), it is what the circumstantial evidence suggested it was. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:47:53 PM · #824 |
| There's no giant turtle supporting the earth??? I KNOW I didn't get that memo... Now what do we do? This is very disconcerting... |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:50:38 PM · #825 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I believe that you are referencing the UK Kayaker that recently resurfaced after defrauding the insurance company. Obviously several people believed it was a death, including the insurance investigators. The part you may have missed in my earlier post on Hollaway, was the the last sentnece where I wrote "until it was proven to be NOT true", or something quite similar. Meaning, that I chose to believe many things based upon circumstantial evidence. Some of them are wrong. When they are proven wrong, I change my belief. After 30 years of being lied to (in my line of work), I have learned much. Namely, that if it smells, walks, talks like...then a closer look is required. Usually (but not always), it is what the circumstantial evidence suggested it was. |
Yup, many people believed he was dead. Many people were wrong and made bad decisions in the interim period, based on their belief.
and I read what you wrote on the Hollaway posts. You keep confirming it. You'd prefer to convict them on the circumstantial evidence, until they can prove it isn't true. Guilty until proven innocent. Like I said before, I prefer the higher standard. It is up to you if you prefer rumor and innuendo to truth, but you shouldn't expect everyone else to buy in to it. Particularly if you choose to believe things that are by their very nature unprovable or disprovable.
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 13:52:37. |
|
