-
Zilch,
Atheism is not a belief but rather a lack of belief in gods, the default position we all come into the world with.
Christian theism is not a belief but rather a lack of belief in the non-existence of God.
Stop wearing that neutral hat, it doesn't fit. I don't have enough faith to believe what you believe.
To boil down what you are telling me, is that unless I see the causer of something...I must not believe it was caused.
But children come into this world with the basic understanding of cause and effect which then is the basic understanding of God and the universe.
Stan,
No matter what you believe about god, the inclined plane behaves the way it does. No matter what you think about god, light refraction behaves per Snell's law
How do you know that light will always behave as light behaves? by faith?
Your worldview does not tell me that it was designed and made to always be that way, but to me it was designed.
Just as a car. I can have faith in a car to work because it was designed (I also trust the designer of the car :)).
However for you, no one made the car. How do know it will work consistently enough to test and use the different mechanisms in it.
Just because it has does not necessarily mean it will.
And yet atheists try to map out the beginning of the universe...such faith they have in undesigned mechanisms.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Belief and influence
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteSlight correction. It should be;
"
Christian theism is not a belief but rather a lack of belief in the non-existence of any proposed god or gods other than the Christian God".
Fair enough?
"However for you, no one made the car".
False analogy. The universe is not a car - we cannot go to the Universe Factory (no matter how well Douglas Adams describes it) or otherwise observe or infer anything about the inception of our, or any other potential, universe.
"And yet atheists try to map out the beginning of the universe...such faith they have in undesigned mechanisms".
That would be cosmologists, not atheists (though I'm sure there is a wide mix of beliefs among the cosmology community) and they map the beginning of the universe based on data. What else do you suggest they use?
Cheers,
How do you know that light will always behave as light behaves? by faith?
ReplyDeleteAh, no. By repeated experiment and observation, and by solving for the shortest travel time if a particle's velocity is specified in different regions in terms of the angle across those regions the particle travels.
Of course, "light will always behave as light behaves" because if it ceased to behave as it behaved, it would cease to be light, by definition. Your question would better be stated thusly:
How do you know that light will always behave as light [has been observed to behave]?
But this is an example of the 'complex question' fallacy -- I do not know that light will behave as it has been observed to behave, but I expect that it will behave as it has been observed to behave, which, if you like, raises the issue of induction, but you'll be hard-pressed to show that the expectation is unreasonable, and returning to the point, light refraction behaves per Snell's law irrespective of any proposed deity.
Now, then...
Christian theism is not a belief but rather a lack of belief in the non-existence of God.
This is untrue, and blatant dishonesty. EPM has assisted in correcting it, but it is still incomplete. Christian theism affirms the existence of a particular deity, and denies the existence of any other deities, ergo it is a belief (in that respect). Atheism (that is, 'weak atheism') does not affirm the existence of a particular deity, and does not deny the existence of any other deities, ergo it is an absence of belief (in that respect).
Twiddling with the words to suggest otherwise is nothing short of dishonesty, which I should think is something you'd strive to avoid.
Just because [a car] has [functioned in a manner conducive to testing, which tests exhibit consistent behavior] does not necessarily mean it will.
And yet atheists try to map out the beginning of the universe...
Coherency issues much? As EPM pointed out, cosmologists seek to detail the development of our universe, not atheists. Some cosmologists are atheists, to be sure, but it does not follow that all cosmologists are atheists, and clearly some cosmologists are not atheists. Your uncoupled assertion is false.
Even were it not, however, the implication that 'mapping out the beginning of the universe' somehow requires an assumption of deity is absurd. As with light refraction, the mapping of the universe -- by cosmologists -- is independent of the existence of any deity. The cartography takes place irrespective of the existence of any deity.
Do you have a point?
--
Stan
"Christian theism affirms the existence of a particular deity, and denies the existence of any other deities, ergo it is a belief (in that respect). Atheism (that is, 'weak atheism') does not affirm the existence of a particular deity, and does not deny the existence of any other deities, ergo it is an absence of belief (in that respect)".
ReplyDeleteQuite right, Stan. I was just going one step at a time is all. Da Bomb has been flogging this bit of rhetoric for a while now and I'm not entirely sure what his point or purpose is in continuing with it.
It must be something to do with equating atheism as a 'faith-based' position out of some understanding that a faith-based position is inherently less defensible than a 'reality-based' position?
Who knows.
Whatever it is, it's childish and inane. Even if we granted him the claim that atheism is a faith-based position (which I would even be willing to do in the case of 'strong atheism,' but not even close with 'weak atheism'), so what? It's as though he's trying to say that belief in a magical deity is more reasonable than the denial of all magical deities, but this doesn't follow in any way -- at the very least, he hasn't even attempted to argue that point.
ReplyDeleteReally, pure agnosticism -- the position that is is impossible to know which set, if any, of deities one should acknowledge -- is just as radically "faith-based" as any theism or of 'strong atheism,' and 'strong atheism' is, while "faith-based," tied with various universalist theisms as the most logical "faith-based" choice available, assuming every [coherent, internally consistent] theism is equally likely.
Whatever. If DB wants to actually make a point, and put together a series of related sentences to form a coherent statement, let him. Thus far, that's not what he's done at all.
--
Stan
Hey guys,
ReplyDeleteThat would be cosmologists, not atheists (though I'm sure there is a wide mix of beliefs among the cosmology community) and they map the beginning of the universe based on data. What else do you suggest they use?
Where did I say cosmologists? Many people map out the beginning of the universe but some a more justified to do so...that is my point.
False analogy. The universe is not a car
Actually, it is not about whether the universe is or is not like a car. Read it again and you will see my point.
Christian theism affirms the existence of a particular deity, and denies the existence of any other deities, ergo it is a belief (in that respect). Atheism (that is, 'weak atheism') does not affirm the existence of a particular deity, and does not deny the existence of any other deities, ergo it is an absence of belief (in that respect).
One reason why I flog this is because weak atheists use it as a whip all the time by using it to flog with and hide behind.
I am simply pointing out where I think they are wrong and that it is nothing to hide behind.
If someone came up to you and claimed that he had been visited by aleins and that they told him to warn the world of its coming invasion. He also gave intstructions as to how to be safe from this invasion.
There are two options, stances, replies to take make this.
1."I believe you are right"
2."I believe you are wrong"
Option atheists atttempt to use.
3."I don't know if you are right but I accept that you could be."
Options one and two require faith.
Technically it is unseen for response one but the person accepts his word by faith.
It is also unseen for response two because it is unseen that there are no aleins. He could be wrong.
Stance three attempts to be neutral, but if the story about the aleins were true and still completely unseen to the people responding...which side of faith would the person with the third response be on?
Will they be saved from the coming invasion if it happened?
By their attempted default, they act by faith that there is no such invasion until more notice.
DB
Da Bomb,
ReplyDelete"Where did I say cosmologists?".
You didn't. That's the point. You should have said cosmologists, but you said atheists instead.
"Many people map out the beginning of the universe but some a more justified to do so...that is my point".
No...your 'point' was;
"And yet atheists try to map out the beginning of the universe...such faith they have in undesigned mechanisms"
Well, I say 'point'.....
"Actually, it is not about whether the universe is or is not like a car. Read it again and you will see my point".
It's your analogy! You were comparing the faith people put into the correct workings of a car to the faith in the consistent workings of the universe - yes, it was totally about comparing a car to the universe; don't you know how analogies work?
And, as I said, it is a false analogy for the reason I stated (which you totally ignored).
Then you go on to completely refute your own position with your 'alien argument'. Well done.
Cheers,
Then you go on to completely refute your own position with your 'alien argument'. Well done.
ReplyDeleteHeh. I figured that juicy morsel would be devoured before I got to campus...
I don't understand anymore, EPM -- it used to be that at least some "apologists" tried, and were occasionally capable of forming coherent statements complete with ostensibly cogent arguments, but lately it seems like all of them are just unoriginal LPs. 8-tracks, even. They have a specific album, the quality is pretty bad, the whole thing is on an endless loop, and you can't even rewind the stupid thing.
DB, you may very well become a bona fide 'truth-seeker,' but right now you're only embarrassing yourself. If you cannot see that you just effectively argued that we should take alien abduction accounts seriously, and that you equated your claims regarding Christianity with alien abduction claims, then I harbor little hope for you. On the plus side, if you really can't see that, your life will not be boring -- I should think that everything would be a challenge to such a person...
--
Stan
So much for replying to my alien scenario. You guys obviously have no answer and willfully miss the point.
ReplyDeleteI made it simple for you guys and yet you miss and miss and miss the point.
You really have no idea why I used the alien scenario do you!
Though, maybe you do, but you refuse to address it because it annihilates your "neutral stance".
Still waiting for it to be addressed...
It's your analogy! You were comparing the faith people put into the correct workings of a car to the faith in the consistent workings of the universe - yes, it was totally about comparing a car to the universe; don't you know how analogies work?
Ok, listening this time?
It is about consequence of belief. Not whether the universe was actually "made", like a car, as in the argument for it being made (another topic).
The point is:
Christians believe it was designed like a car.
Atheists believe that it was not designed.
Which one according to you has more justified faith to trust the mechanisms in this universe to accurately portray science? Both worldviews affect their scientific outlook.
I said: "Where did I say cosmologists?".
You didn't. That's the point. You should have said cosmologists, but you said atheists instead.
Why should of I said cosmologists? We are talking about atheists attempting to map out the universe.
I have no need to mention other cosmologists on this topic! Stop dodging.
I made [the alien abduction analogy] simple for you guys and yet you miss and miss and miss the point.
ReplyDeleteHeh. Someone is missing the point, that's true...
You really have no idea why I used the alien scenario do you!
Though, maybe you do, but you refuse to address it because it annihilates your "neutral stance".
Still waiting for it to be addressed...
We didn't "address" it because it's stupid. It doesn't annihilate our "neutral stance," but it shows how absurd your own position is, and by using it, you unwittingly embarrass yourself.
Your 'scenario' effectively stated that some quack claims aliens have abducted him, and returned him with a message of pending doom. You detail three responses, and the conclusion you draw is apparently that we should all accept the word of the quack, as a safety measure just in case his claim turns out to be correct.
That's absurd.
Rather, the third option, to which you evidently object mightily, is the most appropriate, even if you mis-characterized it. The appropriate response to such a claim is to admit of its possibility, yet carry on as though it is fiction, until real, tangible evidence is produced in its support. This is all the more appropriate because we are virtually inundated with such claims by obvious quacks every day, and every day they fail to reach fruition.
I understand the "point" you tried to make, but the method you used was so devastating to your own position as to be laughable. Even though there is an outside chance that a particular claim may turn out to be true, we should not necessarily proceed as though it will be true, and this does not imply an acceptance or denial of the veracity of the claim -- it merely means that an unsupported, extraordinary claim does not merit action...
...or do you follow the instructions for safety as passed down by alien abductees?
Whether you realize it or not, you've equated your position with that of the alien abductee, and if you ever disregard the warnings of an alien abductee, then you implicitly agree that we are right in disregarding your warnings. It's not our fault if that's too complicated for you to see.
--
Stan
We didn't "address" it because it's stupid. It doesn't annihilate our "neutral stance," but it shows how absurd your own position is, and by using it, you unwittingly embarrass yourself.
ReplyDeleteBut if you truly understood my point you would have attempted to address it, yet you focus on points I was not trying to make. My point had nothing to do with my position in regard to aliens (that we should believe alien stories) but in regard to God. I don't believe in aliens, but I believe in God and because of very different reasons. My analogy was for a different purpose.
You detail three responses, and the conclusion you draw is apparently that we should all accept the word of the quack, as a safety measure just in case his claim turns out to be correct.
That's absurd.
I am an atheist in regard to aliens. I don't believe in them because I do not believe the testimonies.
My analogy was simply to point out that a weak or strong atheist are actually basically the same. The weak atheist ACTIVELY BELIEVES THE OPPOSITE BELIEF TO THE BELIEF IN GOD even though he may be more "open" than a closed one. I tried to find something we agreed upon so that my analogy would not run void. But you twisted it to emphasize a point I was not trying to make.
I believe and have faith in the Christian God. I do not believe and have faith in the non-existence of the Christian God.
I hope you guys will be honest enough in the future to never claim "a sitting on the fence "disbelief"" when talking to people like most atheists do (including Dawkins).
EVERYONE HAS FAITH IN SOMETHING WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT.
Gottta go.
cheers,
Dan
I believe and have faith in the Christian God. I do not believe and have faith in the non-existence of the Christian God.
ReplyDeleteI am an atheist. I self-identify as a "weak atheist," and a "strong anti-theist." I do not believe in the non-existence of any gods, but I lack a belief in any gods. If you want to discuss the Christian god -- that is, the version which is specified in the bible, and by most general Christian theologies -- then you could say that I specifically deny the existence of that god, but that is not atheism -- it is non-Christianity, or perhaps anti-Christianity.
I do indeed deny the existence of the [generalized] Christian god, but that in and of itself is not atheism, weak or strong. I lack a belief in any gods, and specifically I deny the existence of the [generalized] Christian variety.
In spite of the fact that you sought to show that we deny your specific god -- which was not lost on us -- you nonetheless also made a direct comparison between your claims and those claims made by erstwhile alien abductees. You also seem to think that "weak atheists" specifically deny each and every possible deity, but this is patently false. Indeed, the only reason you might say that you deny every deity other than your own is because you are a member of an exclusive religion -- this is necessarily an uninformed position, then, and as you rightly point out, it is roughly equivalent to the "strong atheist" position.
To most effectively assist you in understanding, we'd have to consider something outside the realm of religion. Take exoplanetary liquid water, for instance. Neither of us has any dog in that particular hunt -- would you say that you believe there is exoplanetary liquid water, that there is not exoplanetary liquid water, or that the possibility exists, but as it has not bearing on your life (or philosophical position), you'll proceed indifferently to the existence of exoplanetary water?
When an extraordinary claim is made, which may challenge preconceived notions, but does not challenge a specific position (dogmatically held or otherwise), it is perfectly valid to say that the veracity of the claim is neither confirmed nor denied -- and this is precisely what "weak atheists" do with respect to the existence of any possible deity.
--
Stan
Yes, regarding the water I would be "in the middle". But you already pointed out the false comparison of this analogy.
ReplyDeleteThis water does not have any bearing on us unlike God. If you are unsure of God, then you deny God; just as, if I am unsure if NZ will be invaded and I do nothing because of my un-surety, then I am actively going against the idea of NZ being invaded.
Now, regarding you as a weak atheist but yet a strong anti-christian atheist...I ask: "Why on earth do atheists like you put on a front saying that you simply "disbelieve" when talking to Christians; but when you are talking to them you are actually strong atheists in regard to them?"
Very misleading. We leave you with no doubt where we stand. Why can't you do the same?
Are all you atheists here SURE that there is no Christians God?
If so, then I am really wasting my time. Its been fun but I hoped to find people who would seek and I could help to find God if I could.
I mean well.
But I do not care if you hate me as a christian theist. If Yeshua was hated and cursed, then so will I.
I do care that you do not know the Christian God; I hope you do find Him Stan.
cheers bro,
Dan
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf you want to discuss the Christian god -- that is, the version which is specified in the bible, and by most general Christian theologies -- then you could say that I specifically deny the existence of that god, but that is not atheism -- it is non-Christianity, or perhaps anti-Christianity.
ReplyDeleteI said: "Very misleading. We leave you with no doubt where we stand. Why can't you do the same?"
Though stan, you have been the most upfront about being anti towards the God of the Bible in comparison to others.
"But I do not care if you hate me as a christian theist".
ReplyDeletePersecution complex much?
Da Bomb,
Just as a favour to me, could you please define 'faith' as you have been using it in this thread?
Thanks,
"Faith": Evidence of things unseen.
ReplyDeleteI believe in God because I see evidence of Him around me even though I do not see Him.
I have never seen you, but I see the evidence pointing toward you being a real person.
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteWould you say that the faith you have in me being a real person is of the same type or degree as the faith you have that there is a God?
Some other definitions that I think are appropriate (there are other uses, of course, but these seem the closest to what we are talking about)
Answers.com
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
Merriam-Webster
firm belief in something for which there is no proof
Would you agree with these definitions?
Cheers,
Would you say that the faith you have in me being a real person is of the same type or degree as the faith you have that there is a God?
ReplyDeleteNot the same type...as in I can go find you and prod you with test tubes (if I can find you) :). But then again, yes in the same type because I see your design of the words on the screen and I assume they have a designer...they are so ordered.
"Merriam-Webster
firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
I agree with this one but not the other.
I also like this statement from wiki:
"Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true.[5] It is the belief and the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, based on his or her authority and truthfulness.[6]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
"by another" I take this to mean anything... whether person or thing. Truth that science tells us or truth that someone tells us.
E.G.
Just because the police find DNA of someone in a building after a robbery, it does not mean they did it, and there is no way for us to be sure...it must be taken by faith that they were there and stole from that building.
Just because you may tell me that you ate dinner, does not mean that you ate dinner. It must be taken by faith that your word is correct.
"Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteBy your current use of the word faith, I will agree that yes, everyone has faith in something.
So?
Statements like these become invalid and dishonest:
ReplyDeleteAtheism is not a belief but rather a lack of belief in gods
Atheists need to show me why it is so probable that there is no God and I need to show why it is probable that there is a God.
Your logic is flawed.
ReplyDeleteYour current definition of faith is so all-encompassing that it can be used to describe any acceptance of anything - with or without evidence (supporting, circumstantial, inferred or otherwise)
I have faith that my car will start
I have faith that my chair won't disappear when I sit down
I have faith that I exist
I have faith that New Zealand exists
I have faith that there are no aliens on Mars
I have faith that there is a god
I have faith that there is no god
It applies to anything and so means nothing.
'atheism' is a word used to describe those people who do not accept the proposition of 'theism'. Theism being the belief in a deity for which there is no physical evidence.
Without theism, atheism wouldn't even exist as a concept.
The way you would have it; if I propose any new worldview - let's say; 'the world is made of banana' and I call myself a bananist - then everyone else that rejects or does not accept my proposition (the abananists, as I have called them) they all do so on a faith-based platform. They have to have faith that the world is not made of banana. not only that, they have to demonstrate to me that the world is indeed not made of banana.
Can you not see how useless the term 'faith' becomes when you define it so broadly and then twist that to fit a very specific usage?
Stan was very clear, and I agree, we lack belief in gods...all gods, any gods. If you want to talk about a specific deity, with specific attributes then a stronger position can be taken as is necessary.
Seriously, the horse was dead a long time ago...
"It applies to anything and so means nothing."
ReplyDeleteSo since "Belief" applies to everything it then means nothing?
I don't think so.
'atheism' is a word used to describe those people who do not accept the proposition of 'theism'.
True.
Theism being the belief in a deity for which there is no physical evidence.
False.
The letters I am reading from you is physical evidence of you.
The world around me is just one physical evidence of God...a designer like you.
Without theism, atheism wouldn't even exist as a concept.
Without atheism, theism would not even exist as a concept.
The way you would have it; if I propose any new worldview - let's say; 'the world is made of banana' and I call myself a bananist - then everyone else that rejects or does not accept my proposition (the abananists, as I have called them) they all do so on a faith-based platform. They have to have faith that the world is not made of banana. not only that, they have to demonstrate to me that the world is indeed not made of banana.
You've got it!
Some faiths are stronger than others...some would be classed as blind faith and others as reasonable faith.
Our universe is made up of inferences and we need to take the best inferences that make the most sense.
I know God requires this of us and common sense requires this of us.
we lack belief in gods
I lack a belief in a Godless universe.
"lack of belief" is useless isn't it?
Why not say "I believe in atheism thus far"??
cheers,
DB
I believe in non-belief? That's silly...
ReplyDeleteI have faith in my skepticism, but that's not believing in non-belief. At best, it's believing that testing of claims is necessary before belief or non-belief can be established.
As a non-atheist, I'll put my cards on the table: as described to me by the Bible and by believers in general, I believe the Christian God to be pure fiction. I've met atheists who feel the same way, as well as atheists who are unwilling to make a positive claim.
You're trying to generalize a group, and failing to do so, because the common denominator to this group is "lack of belief". It is not "belief of lack".
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteAtheists need to show me why it is so probable that there is no God and I need to show why it is probable that there is a God.
That's a useless venture because they can't. This blog is a perfect example. Most atheist can't put forth a straight forward answer or they say stupid things like:
"the universe is not a car"
which is one of the most absurd statements I've read. No...you idiot, it's not a car. It's far more complex than a car. You wouldn't say a car just happen to come into being. How can you say that the universe popped into existence or human beings, with all its intricacies, just came into being.
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteSorry, I wasn't calling you an idiot. I was calling the one who made the "universe is a car" statement.
"Sorry, I wasn't calling you an idiot. I was calling the one who made the "universe is a car" statement".
ReplyDeleteThat would be me (although you misquoted me in this comment).
Try reading the whole of that conversation.
Da Bomb was claiming that he can have faith in a car working because it is designed and he trusts the designer.
He was comparing it to the universe because he then said; "However for you [the atheist], no one made the car". Are you following so far?
My comment that 'the universe is not a car' was followed by a careful explanation as to why Da Bomb's analogy fails - we don't know anything about how universes are designed (or if they are at all) so the faith you put in the universe working is different to the faith you put in a car working. That's why the analogy is false.
Am I getting through to you yet, boy?
If you think for a second that I thought that Da Bomb was saying that the universe is a car then I think you may have to consider the possibility that it is you who are stupid - too stupid to follow a fairly basic conversation at any rate.
Idiot.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteAnd yet atheists try to map out the beginning of the universe...such faith they have in undesigned mechanisms.
That would be scientists, who are not necessarily atheists. They would not be pushed by faith in "undesigned mechanisms," but rather by curiosity about how much can we learn about the origins of the Universe, curiosity at how far can science lead us in understanding these over-the-border problems.
G.E.
GE,
ReplyDeleteWe've been through that one - confusingly enough. Here's the whole conversation, see if you can parse anything from it.
Da Bomb: "And yet atheists try to map out the beginning of the universe...such faith they have in undesigned mechanisms".
ExPat: "That would be cosmologists, not atheists (though I'm sure there is a wide mix of beliefs among the cosmology community) and they map the beginning of the universe based on data. What else do you suggest they use?".
Da Bomb: "Where did I say cosmologists? Many people map out the beginning of the universe but some a more justified to do so...that is my point.?".
ExPat: "You didn't. That's the point. You should have said cosmologists, but you said atheists instead".
Da Bomb: "Why should of I said cosmologists? We are talking about atheists attempting to map out the universe.
I have no need to mention other cosmologists on this topic! Stop dodging".
No, I have no idea what he's talking about either!
Cheers,
I am talking about atheist cosmologists or even ordinary atheists.
ReplyDeleteNot about christian cosmologists, Hindu cosmologists ETC!
So I just said atheists and not "cosmologists". Because I am not talking about cosmologists in general.
If you cannot get that then I am confused with why you cannot get it... :)
My comment that 'the universe is not a car' was followed by a careful explanation as to why Da Bomb's analogy fails - we don't know anything about how universes are designed (or if they are at all) so the faith you put in the universe working is different to the faith you put in a car working. That's why the analogy is false.
I AM NOT ARGUING FOR THE UNIVERSE BEING DESIGNED. Which you tried to argue against.
I am talking about our worldview as to whether it was designed or not. It affects the type and measure of faith we put into science.
Like a car...a person who believes it was made can put more faith in it because it was designed to be made and work together.
A person who believes it was not made needs more faith (or a stronger, far reaching belief) to believe that the components working together will work together as he expects.
HikerBoy,
It's far more complex than a car. You wouldn't say a car just happen to come into being. How can you say that the universe popped into existence or human beings, with all its intricacies, just came into being.
I quite agree, quite agree.
When arguing design with a comparison between a car and the universe being complex it is really being nice to atheists.
A car is no comparison to the universe. The universe is far more complex...which would require a greater, more infinite mind to design compared a little car.
Whateverman,
I'll make it easy for you guys.
Atheism could be called a Godlessuniversism.
What would be a theist's relation to Godlessuniversism?
It would be "A-godlessuniversism". I could say (like a typical weak atheist) "I simply disbelieve in "Godlessuniversism",
I don't believe "A-godlessuniversism", I just disbelieve in "Godlessuniversism"".
I am asking for you to be honest and consider your non-belief as a belief.
Which is being more honest I believe.
cheers,
Dan
But Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteSo I just said atheists and not "cosmologists". Because I am not talking about cosmologists in general.
You can't say atheists anyway. In any event, it would be atheist cosmologists, otherwise you are generalizing and not every atheist is interested in cosmology. Also, you would still be wrong because, for instance, the guy proposing the BigBang was a Christian.
So, no. Cosmologists do want to know how far can our knowledge increase about how the Universe began. Whether they are atheists or not.
As of the non-belief. Come on! Should you then declare that everything you don't believe is a belief? Do you believe in the non-existence of Thor? Do you believe in the non-existence of teapots orbiting Mars? I think you are just playing with semantics.
As for:
A car is no comparison to the universe. The universe is far more complex...which would require a greater, more infinite mind to design compared a little car.
Why should complex things be designed?
I have a mess in my desk. It looks quite complex, so complex that I can hardly figure out if I will be able to find a particular article I should read for next Monday's meeting with other members of the lab. Since finding this article will be a very complex task, I conclude that my desk is far more complex than a car. Thus, since I cannot comprehend this mess, the mess must have been designed by a far higher intelligence than the one designing the car.
There! The God of the desk messes exists!
G.E.
Hey ya G.E.
ReplyDeleteNow I think we are getting somewhere.
"Do you believe in the non-existence of Thor? Do you believe in the non-existence of teapots orbiting Mars?"
Exactly, I believe in the non-existence of Thor. It may sound negative as in "non" but really when you think about it a belief about a world without Thor is positively believing in a world without Thor.
I have no problems claiming that I believe Thor is not real or teapots orbiting Mars.
There is a chance I could be wrong and mislead by the evidence that brings me to believe in God and believe these other characters are not real.
But then Maths is the only area we can speak of proof.
I think you are just playing with semantics."
I'm not. Quit with this "neutral" dis-belief and stand up for what you believe in.
OR
Don't get upset when I claim to simply disbelieve in atheism...as in I am unconvinced.
I cannot answer your next part of your comment at the moment...
I have to go...
cheers,
Daniel
But this is ridiculous Daniel, look a it. Now should I quit all my neutral stances, even those I have no idea about and accept the responsibility of not believing in whatever any person could come up with? When will I finish such a titanic task?
ReplyDeleteNot believing is a neutral position. Even if your God existed, since there is nothing to indicate it does, then I can only assume it does not. Thus, I cannot say I believe in no-God. I can only say, since I do not see any reason, as far as I can see this God does not exist. Period. It is not a belief. I stay put where I started, a neutral position. Give me proof, I will change. Just as when I lie in the bed, I am not dismoving. This is my neutral position. If there is any reason to move, I move and there you are. If not, well, leave me alone!
G.E.
G.E.
ReplyDeleteTake flipping a coin and asking me whether it is heads or tails. I do not know whether it is heads or tails and nor can I have any idea whether it is heads or tails. Nor does the coin affect me in anyway.
I would grant this position a "neutral position".
Take the existence of God.
You said: Even if your God existed, since there is nothing to indicate it does, then I can only assume it does not.
Do you honestly think that people believe in God for NO reason!!!!
If there were no evidence for God then I would not believe in Him, nor would anyone that I know of. The existence or non-existence of God affects the way we live and perceive life unlike the coin. So you are actively standing on one side or the other unlike the coin situation.
I stay put where I started, a neutral position. Give me proof
Proof can only be given in mathematics. Prove to me that Pluto exists!
None of us have been there, we only put our trust in a telescope...or text books. But I do weigh the evidence for it being a real place by understanding that the telescope is reliable...but that is my assumption (with evidence) and my belief...not proof.
Now should I quit all my neutral stances, even those I have no idea about and accept the responsibility of not believing in whatever any person could come up with? When will I finish such a titanic task?
Actually. What is the problem with believing against everything put forth by man? If you don't follow something...then you are going against it. It is that simple. Why is it such a huge task?
Why should complex things be designed?
I have a mess in my desk. It looks quite complex, so complex that I can hardly figure out if I will be able to find a particular article I should read for next Monday's meeting with other members of the lab. Since finding this article will be a very complex task, I conclude that my desk is far more complex than a car. Thus, since I cannot comprehend this mess, the mess must have been designed by a far higher intelligence than the one designing the car.
There! The God of the desk messes exists!
Actually, you have shifted the meaning of "complex" from what I was using it for. I used complex as in working together and fitting together...order.
A desk mess is not complex as in orderly. I have no need to believe in the God of the desk mess because there is no evidence of design, only mess.
Now if you could demonstrate to me that you simultaneously throwed all the bits of paper mess into the bin and it formed into an orderly paper house by itself then yes...I would believe in accidental order and design.
A car is more complex and orderly than a desk mess.
cheers,
DB
Actually the coin toss example came up on a recent episode of the Atheist Experience. I can't remember the exact details.
ReplyDeleteYou toss a coin, do you believe it's heads?
No.
Does that mean you believe it's 'not heads?'
No.
You don't have enough information.
There was more, I wish I could remember the episode number.
So because I don't believe it's heads doesn't mean I believe in 'not heads' either.
Da Bomb,
ReplyDeleteI'll try one more time.
We all accept that the universe exists. We all accept reality as we perceive it, right? Aside from a few people who may argue, to be awkward, that we're in the Matrix or whatever, for the most part everyone accepts that the universe exists and we live in it - no belief or faith required; it just is.
So 'Premise 1: The universe exists' is universally accepted and need not be subject to any measure of belief or disbelief. Sound fair enough?
We use a variety of methods to learn things about this universe and many of those things are considered to be as 'true' as the universe itself existing. Gravity, for instance; although not fully understood, its existence is without question and no faith is required to accept it.
In terms of origins. Our best methods of determining some information about the origins of the universe fall short some time shortly after the big bang, so we can't claim to know anything about that - we can believe what we want about that, but there's no supporting evidence to base that belief on so the honest position is one of patient agnosticism.
Now, you're adding a new element to the equation, one that not everyone accepts as being self-evident and that many people (Hindus, Scientologists, etc,) have their own versions of too.
You are adding something new to what everyone accepts and it's up to you to demonstrate that what you are asserting is true. Actually, you don't even have to do that. You just have to show that there's sufficient reason to believe that your assertion is worth considering, that's all you really have to do. And that's fine - good luck to you.
In the mean time, the atheist, who is not espousing an addition factor to the initial premise, is under no obligation to support or defend that initial premise 'as is' because we're all agreed that it's true. So no belief is necessary because nothing is being asserted that everyone doesn't agree on.
I don't have to believe that you're wrong, or the Hindu is wrong or the Scientologist is wring. I accept the reality of the universe as it is and will only change my position on this when sufficient evidence is provided to make it a reasonable choice to do so.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
Regards,
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHey ya BT,
ReplyDeleteI used the coin analogy because an atheist used it against me once :), must be another one of those "invisable pink unicorn" cliche arguments.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
Ok,
I don't have to believe that you're wrong, or the Hindu is wrong or the Scientologist is wring. I accept the reality of the universe as it is and will only change my position on this when sufficient evidence is provided to make it a reasonable choice to do so.
Here is where I stick:
I don't have to believe that you're Atheism is wrong, or the Hindu is wrong or the Scientologist is wrong. I accept the reality of the universe and the Christian God as they are and will only change my position on this when sufficient evidence is provided to make it a reasonable choice to do so.
Why is it so hard to say "I currently believe atheism!?"
"I don't have to believe that you're Atheism is wrong, or the Hindu is wrong or the Scientologist is wrong. I accept the reality of the universe and the Christian God as they are and will only change my position on this when sufficient evidence is provided to make it a reasonable choice to do so".
ReplyDeleteYou either ignored or didn't understand the rest of what I wrote? Because most of the rest of what I wrote explained how the quote above doesn't work.
Ah well.
"Why is it so hard to say "I currently believe atheism!?".
Because I don't believe atheism. If anything, you might say that I 'believe' naturalism or materialism or, at a stretch, humanism. To say; 'I believe atheism' doesn't even make sense grammatically.
Seriously dude, give it a rest.
Cheers,
The coin analogy is awfully flawed.
ReplyDeleteMy analogy about being in bed in much better. I am not unmoving. I am in my neutral state. Give me reason, then I will move.
Of course people do believe in a God for a reason, but the reason is not reasonable. For the great majority of people reason is indoctrination. In other words, you get convinced about God before you can even make your own reasoning. Later on, you use confirmation bias, disguised as reasoning, to convince yourself that you believe for a real reason, which is false.
G.E.
Seriously dude, give it a rest.
ReplyDeleteHmmm, I will try to point out where I believe people are wrong, just you are doing to me on this post.
Give it a rest :)
My reasoning is as follows: If someone is unconvinced of any God then he must be convinced of no God...until further notice.
And how does that not fall right into the coin example?
ReplyDeleteThe reality of heads or tails does not affect me whether I am convinced or not.
ReplyDeleteThe reality of God or no God affects me whether I am convinced or not.
If DB wants to continue to play this silly game, that's his prerogative, but he's not fooling anyone, and the only thing he accomplishes is continued self-embarrassment.
ReplyDeleteAs BathTub has shown, just because we know a coin has been flipped -- an analogy I don't find especially tasteful, as tools like DB will latch on to its binary status to trot out obviously false dichotomies -- does not mean we have any particular leaning toward, or away from, any possible outcome. You may well say "I believe the coin has landed 'tails'," but when I respond, "I don't harbor a belief one way or another," my response does not indicate support for 'heads.' If, however, the coin in question is known (by me) to be two-headed, I may well simultaneously deny your claim of 'tails,' and affirm my own claim of 'not-tails,' which in this case does indeed entail a claim of 'heads.'
I prefer an odds-based analogy using a many-sided die, however, for it is clearer -- even with a standard six-sided die -- that denying an outcome of '1' is not the same as affirming an outcome of '2.' With a fair coin, sure, denying one is affirming another, but with a fair die of n sides, one must deny n - 1 outcomes before one can be accused of affirming any particular option. Insofar as I have personally denied the fundamentalist, evangelical Christian deity (more accurately, the set of deities which satisfy the various versions of fundamentalist and/or evangelical Christian theologies), I have not necessarily made a positive claim that no deity of any kind could possibly exist.
Indeed, a friend of mine is a self-described 'Christian,' yet he is a Theistic Evolutionist, and a Universalist. If you'd like to argue the title, or other aspects of his theology with him, you'll find yourself in a bit of a tough spot, however -- he's a grad student of Philosophy, and teaches introductory logic. Suffice it to say, he can defend his position, and his version of deity is not one which I can honestly deny, even though I do not affirm it.
Non-affirmation is not necessarily the same as denial. It is only by virtue of the attached theology that this may be true for a specific type of deity. If you would insist that atheists actively believe that your version of the Christian god does not exist, perhaps many of us will agree with you, but if you would generalize this to claim that atheists actively believe that no gods exist, this is missing the point (as in, the informal fallacy). Speaking for myself only, I very much deny the Christian god that you seem to describe, but this does not mean I deny the Christian god my Theistic Evolutionist / Universalist friend describes. I lack a belief in his god, but I cannot dismiss it as easily as I can yours.
G.E. - It doesn't really matter whether we use the coin/die analogy, or the moving-from-one's-bed analogy: DB refuses to admit that his position on this matter is absurd, and until he does, we're all wasting our time.
I do think, though, that a glimmer of truth poked its head out in DB's latest:
If someone is unconvinced of any God then he must be convinced of no God...until further notice.
"Until further notice" is the key component -- it means that the person in DB's statement is in fact not "convinced of no God." If he were, no further notice would be needed -- at best, such a person would be conditionally convinced of no god, but even so, this is not a position held by myself, and does not appear to be a position held by any of DB's commenters.
--
Stan
DB crapped on his keyboard:
ReplyDeleteThe reality of heads or tails does not affect me whether I am convinced or not.
The reality of God or no God affects me whether I am convinced or not.
Except this is absurd. Did the 'Gas Station Proprietor' in No Country for Old Men have the luxury of DB's hand-waving dismissal? Had the coin tossed by Anton Chigurh come up differently than called, just what do you think would have happened? Did the proprietor 'actively believe' the coin had turned up 'heads,' and did he 'actively believe' the coin had not turned up non-heads?
Stop being a jackass. The reality of god or no god only affects you if god exists, and even then, it would only affect you if your sort of god existed, as opposed to the plethora of other proposed god. The reality of the fact that lacking a belief in a coin turning up 'heads' is not the same as harboring a belief in a coin turning up non-'heads,' just as a lack of belief in god is not the same as harboring a belief in the non-existence of god. Not even close.
I will happily deny the sort of god you seem to have described -- that sort is an imbecile, a general prick, and an immoral ass -- but I do not deny the existence of any and every proposed type of god. For you to insist otherwise is pure dishonesty.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDeleteWhen you talk to me about whether there is a God or not...I am talking about THE God and no other, that is, the Christian God. I can quite happily accept that you guys are unsure if there is a God. But by the way you act and live and by your stance, all of you actively are not neutral to the Christian God.
Statements made to me and other Christians such as "I just dis-believe in God" run void. It may apply to a god that has no relation or expectation from us, but it definitely is not compatible with the Christian God.
If you would insist that atheists actively believe that your version of the Christian god does not exist, perhaps many of us will agree with you, but if you would generalize this to claim that atheists actively believe that no gods exist, this is missing the point (as in, the informal fallacy)
I quite agree. What you said in bold is all I am trying to point out.
The reality of god or no god only affects you if god exists, and even then, it would only affect you if your sort of god existed,
Irrelevant.
Coin analogy is not a fob off and you know it.
We are talking about two people with two world views. Me and you.
It is about our view about God and about what type of God (one that affects us or not) which determines our stance regarding Him.
I may be unsure about whether global warming is true but if it is true then I am actively going against it by not pushing to support it or choosing to support it by buying a bicycle instead of a car :)
DB