POLL: One Statement

Remove all ads!

This is false. As an atheist I would be the first person in line to renounce my atheism if there were rational justification to do so. Your generalization above implies that God has (by your beliefs) created me impervious to reason and unable to discern truth(if it were in fact true that God existed). If this is how God planned for a large segment of humanity to be then he must not want to be known.

I have no idea what "faith" is really and I am not interested in causing you or anyone else to lose whatever it is you say you have. "Atheism" is NOT "anti-theism". It is without theism. We have no Gods ourselves. We are not out to take YOUR belief in gods away.

This is, at the very BEST, an oversimplification of what a relatviely small number of atheists would hold to. Teh overwhelming majority of atheists do not say "God does not exist" and certainly do not claim to have "proof".

I, as a strong atheist, am the exception, but I deny the possibility on the grounds of logical inconsistency. God is impossible, in my view, for the same reason that round squares are impossible.

Anecdotal evidence and personal revelation is only good evidence to the person citing such evidence. I have no way to scrutinise your alleged communique with the divine and by Occam's Razor, i must conclude that it is more likely that you are either being deceptive or delusional if you claim to have spoken with God.

 

Misunderstanding. "If there were rational justification" all rationally thinking people would be believers. After few thousands of years, such justification still doesn't exist, and I guess it will never do.
I didn't say that this is becouse atheists ignore things they don't like, or are created by God that way. Faith is sometimes illogical, and is also a gift. But this gift can be obtained if one asks...

If one finds doubtless proof of God nonexistance, all rationally thinking christians (like me...) would lose faith. But luckily for me such proof can't exist......
Unfortunately, "atheism" is SOMETIMES "anti-theism".

My little provocation......Logic is nothing without good axioms...so your "logical incosistency of faith" must be based on some. I wonder what they could be...and you are going to "prove" them ....

No. In fact many true conversions were becouse of someone's else testimony, words, actions...

You are allowed to say something like that only if you gain full knowledge and understanding about universe, and everything that happens...You cannot deny something only becouse you didn't experience that...

 

Circular reasoning. You are implying that I should ask God for this "faith" you seemingly cannot define which itself entails the presupposition of God's existence. You are basically saying "If you believe then you will believe.".

Look at what you wrote there . That is EXACTLY why such evidence cannot exist for you. Because even if it DOES exist, you as a believer, will rationalize it away. It is no different for conspiracy theorists, UFOlogists or believers in psychics. All irrational(note that "irrational" is not a put down. it simply indicates a belief that is not rooted in rational justification but instead grounded in something else like "faith") beliefs are immune to "doubtless proof" because of the human belief mechanism being what it is. As pattern-seeking animals we often come to a conclusion first then work backwards supporting it with evidence or viewing the evidence which contradicts our conclusion through these filters of belief. That is why John Edward can be caught red handed cheating or James Randi can demonstrate conclusively how Edward performs his mentalism tricks and it will not even faze believers in psychics.

To put it simply, it is not that conclusive evidence against illogical or extraodrinary claims does not exist so much as it is that believers are nigh-incapable of aknowledging it.

False. Atheism itself is NEVER "anti-theism". Some individual atheists may well be anti-theists but that says nothing of atheism. The word atheism simply means "without gods" and nothing more. We are all born atheists in that we do not have God-concepts as toddlers and must be taught such things.

Yes. Materialism is the axiom I adopt. From that axiom I employ the methods rooted in that axiom(science and logic) to answer all questions about reality.

You do not "prove" such axioms as they are irreducible foundations. Some call them "necessary assumptions". If you do not have such an axiom from which to base your search for knowledge & truth, then you are stuck in a cycle of sitting on your hands and saying "I cannot say that I cannot say that I cannot say that I cannot say that anything is true or real! I cannot even say that statement is true!" ad infinitum.

You misunderstand. I was not talking about how the religious are converted. I was talking about how the critical thinker/skeptic is convinced[/i]. In a rational discussion, anecdotal evidence is inadmissable and of no value because it cannot be scrutinized. If you say you spoke with God and I counter that I just spoke with the all-knowing Invisible Pink Unicorn who told me that no gods exist, we are at a stalemate. You either accept what I say is true without any jsutification for doing so or you call me a liar or simply reason that, by Occam's razor, there are more likely explanations for my claim than it being literally true.

Same goes for YOUR anecdotes.

Again, you are misunderstanding and mistating my position. And your assertion here is false. I do not have to examine every automobile on the planet to know with certainty that there are no street legal automobiles made entirely of fog or gelatin. I can say with 100% certainty that no street legal "fog-mobiles" exist because I have a rudimentary understanding of physics.
Likewise, I say that supernatural things do not exist(including gods). Everything in our universe is natural or nothing can be said to be natural. If there are physical laws(gravity/relativity, energy conservation etc.) then these cannot be violated by some entity's whim without invalidating the laws themselves. If God is not subject to gravity then we have no reason to think anything is bound by gravity because anything could become infused with divine essence at any moment and become immune to gravitational pull.

This would lead to the "anything is possible" model of the universe. We do not live in that universe. If we DID live in such a place then we could not ever know anything or make sense of anything. We could not say whether we were typing an internet post or slaughtering children at any given moment.

 

RuneQuester - we can talk this way endlessly....

As for me this is the most important thing you wrote. I guess, we are both believers. Only I believe in God, you believe in materialism. This is discussion of axioms. But there is absolutely no way to prove that yours are better than mine.
Also I'm not going to try to prove that mine are better than yours, and it's also impossible.

Strangely, word "misunderstanding" happens much too often in our discussion. Explanation is that you are very strongly bound to what you believe, as I am. We use the same, or similar words, but understand them differently. It comes to conclusion I know from some time, that absolute neutrality, and objectivity is not possible.

 

I don't "believe" in materialism. Axiomatic foundations are not subject to "belief" really. We have no choice but to adopt such foundations. You literally cannot function without these "necessary assumptions".
Your axiom is not God itself but rather one of "non-materialism"(for lack of a specific identifier as I do not know enough to say you are an idealist, a solopsist, or what have you). God-belief simply arises from your non-materialist axiom. Since your foundational basis does not preclude such things as being independently existent, belief in God is a not unexpected consequence.

The only way to evaluate the worth of our axioms is to note what sort of progress can be made assuming them as true. From materialism, we get science and all the discoveries made using that methodology. We have materialism to thank for every bit of understanding we have about our universe. That is pretty good!

I see nothing of value coming from non-materialist axioms. It seems to be all faith to justify faith to justify faith to justify faith in things we cannot warrant rationally. It does not hurt ME that anyone adheres to such but I cannot see any value in it either.

Granted(aside from what i said above) but then again I am not interested in proving any such thing either.

I would not go so far as to say "impossible" but yes, unlikely. Axioms are like sports. Materialism rules out the supernatural the way that baseball rules out touchdowns. Where this analogy fails, in my mind, is that non-materialism does not resmble "football" so much as it resembles a random grouping of people in various types of uniforms all carrying different balls and scoring random amo8nts of points for doing just about anything from sneezing to to chanting. When I ask about how their game is played I get no definitive answers and instead am beset with invocations of "faith" and other things nonsensical to me.

This is again, a strawman on your part. You are mischaracterizing my materialism as "faith" and trying to excuse your own reliance on such by painting me as "just as bad" as you which makes little sense as it seems to indicate that you do not hold "faith" in very high esteem.

I do not have "faith" in anything. I never touch the stuff. I have no "beliefs" (in the way that one "believes" in God or somesuch) either. There are things I Accept and things I reject based on the methods I employ for examining reality. Science and logic rule out your gods but you are free to rule out science and logic as a non-materialist.

Probably right. I am not concerned with achieving absolute neutrality" or "perfect non-bias". I have made the long journey from non-skeptical atheist, to non-skeptical THEIST, to skeptical weak atheist and now I am a skeptical strong atheist. Can't say where I will be in 5 years(if I am alive) but wherever it is, it won't be amongst the "faithful" of any sect.

 

It seems, as I wrote, that we have many different definitions of words. "Belief" in this example. If I understand correctly, you have very strict definition, connected to religion. It has much wider meaning for me, something like "will to accept something without proof". In fact it is only "translation" of mathematical anxiom term to something you "assume" in real life .

Word 'adopt' seems not much different to me in this case than 'believe'.
I'm still trying to put it as simple as posible, to prevent as many 'misunderstandings' as I can.

I disagree that science counts on your side......whether scientist is atheist or believer (I know many...) doesn't make much difference, only that the latter assumes that universe was created by God, but nonetheless uses the same logic, and tools to examine it. I'm really unable to tell how many there were believers of somekind that helped with creation of this tools, but I disagree that they all were atheists or materialists.

Look above. We have different definitions. From my point of view, each of us has different "faith".

Never. I meant "just as good" - if you are very true to your belief, I simply respect that.

Look above and above... ...I don't rule out logic and science, only know that there are things that are beyond abilities of this 'tools'.

If you are really open-minded, you can't rule out religion as one of the posible endings. It seems that you are searching and looking for truth, and that can't ever be wrong. Good luck !

 

No. Not specifically connected to religion. People also have "beliefs" in things like the Loch Ness Monster, UFOs, psychics and Sasquatch. I have no such beliefs. "Belief" occurs when you cannot rationally infer the truth or falsity of a statement/claim.

By this definition, materialism is not a belief because it is warranted by every observation we make. We see that matter exists adn is the primary stuff of the universe. We do not see "spirit" or "magic".

It is different. "Beliefs" that we hold, such as belief in the Loch ness monster or UFOs can(at least theoretically) be falsified with convincing evidence revealed through rational inquiry OR they can be substantiated by the same(if true).
Axioms are not subject to these considerations. They are the base from which all attempts to aquire knowledge and understanding begin. Also, to equate these axioms with "beliefs" which ARE subject to consideration of evidence and falsification is to take away their axiomatic status which leads to us seeking another foundation from which materialism emerges which you will then demand proof for and we will be caught in an endless cycle of "You cannot say that you cannot say that you cannot say that *that* is true!".

The Matrix-nonsense nightmare.

Here is something you can do that will be far more valuable than trying to redefine me as a "believer" or "faithist": Show me the value of "faith" or "belief" in a search for truth. Do not use "reason" to explain it to me though. "Faith me" some knowledge/understanding. "Intuit me" some facts about the universe. "Belief me" some evidence.

When you try to use reason or rationality to explain how reason and rationality are not the only means of knowing or understanding then you are not doing anything to make your case.

Atheism has nothing to do with materialism. I did not say that science was founded in atheism. Science IS founded on materialist foundations. We accept that the matter we observe is real and behaving as we observe it to. The scientific method emerges from this "assumption"/axiom.

Even those relatively few scientists who say they are not materialists must assume materialism as a foundation to get any science done. The scientific method is impossible to observe without doing this.

I never said they were all atheists. And really, they are not all materialists...EXCEPT when they are doing science which demands materialist assumptions to make any sense.
Show me a single scientist, using the scientific method who is NOT adopting the position that matter exists and everything in existence reduces to matter.

That is why it is wrong for people to go around defining others. You define YOURSELF and I will define MYSELF. That is how we avoid the frustrations that would come about if I were allowed to define Christianity for all Christians or what have you.

I don't have "faith" and cannot make sense of it. I do not have "beliefs" either.

I don't have any "belief" to be true to.

If you have a contention with my reliance on logic adn rationality then so be it. We can discuss that. But you will not get far trying to redefine me as one of your own.

Like what things? And how do you "know" them? Remember, these things are 'beyond the abilities of the tools of science and logic' so don't use such reason to explain this to me. Use "faith" or whatever it is you rely on to "know" these things.

You will quickly find that this is impossible. Human minds are not wired for non-logical thinking or non-reasoning whatever that may be. I will say right now that you cannot even give me a mechanism by which faith(or whatever you want to call it) might work.

What do you mean by "religion"? Which religion? There are many religious atheists you know(re: buddhists). I am not one of them but this is all irrelevant anyway.

I do not rule out "religion" out of hand. I rule out the non-rational and nonsensical. It just so happens that I have never encountered a sensible or rational religion.

I rule out transcendent gods because logic rules them out. I rule out the supernatural because science rules it out.


Edit: Ah! The "I won't be amongst the faithful of any sect" bit is what you were referencing.
What I meant was that I, as a materialist, won't be employing this "faith" that no one is able to define or describe, to seek answers to questions I have. Thus far science and logic has worked where things like wishing or hoping did not.

 

I think trying to describe God with reason is equivalent to a blind man describing color.

Let me explain it this way...

Have you ever tried to take the square root of a negative number?

You will find that you cannot without the use of an imaginary number "i". You cannot grasp this number because it does not exist...at least within the confines of your logic.

When mathmaticians first started using this tool, many said it was pointless because nature did not use "i"...after all, this number did not exist so how could it be found in nature? It is sort of like saying infinity plus one...you'll never find that number in nature.

But guess what? It was found that to model electricity, "i" was required. Electricity behaves in such a way that it can only be modeled by taking the square root of a negative number. How can nature do this?

The simple fact is human reason has blind spots that will never allow us to logically describe the world around us.

I think God might lie in one of those blind spots.

Would you say electricity does not exist because you cannot logically explain it? Of course not...

To do so would deprive yourself of the incredibly powerful practical benefits that electricity offers.

God is the same way...

Having a belief and a relationship with God has incredibly practical benefits.

In my own life, I have found myself incapable of getting through a couple days without getting drunk or high unless I say a prayer every morning asking for a sober day.

I don't pray...I get drunk...and then all the insanity crops up again...

Don't let reason get in the way of your soul...it knows things that you will never be able to prove.

 

LNT, sometimes you are among the most eloquent people here. This is one of those times.

I believe because it feels right to me to do so. That feeling is all the proof of God that I need.

 

LNT, I think this is the best post on this subject I have seen. It isn't going to prove the existance of God to non-believers but nothing will.

 

A poor(and all too common) analogy. Things which have an independent existence(that is an existence which is independent of our imaginings/conceptualizing) can always be described via reason.
The "blind man anaology" is invalid(a false analogy) because it describes someone with a physical defect being unable to percieve a known phenomenom(color) because opf his defect.
"God" is not a known phenomenom and huamns arte not known to have this 'faith-sense' you are alluding to, which might percieve God.

If we accept this analogy as justification for God-belief then we must accept it as justification for ALL beliefgs including fairies, 300' dragons, other gods etc. After all, the only reason you do not believe in genies is because you are like a blind man...

Another invalid analogy. Numbers only have a conceptual existence. If you are saying that God only exists as a concept in our minds then you will get no argument from atheists.
But theists generall;y claim that God has an independent existence, meaning he exists as his own entity, with his own mind etc. and would so whether we know or believe it.

The only analogy you can pull that would have any merit in this context would be for something which has an known and independent existence and yet was not known through reason.

Also, even the "imaginary number" was figured out using reason. It was not deduced through 'faith-logic' or 'spirit-sense' somesuch.

Gap argument.

Also an unqualified assertion(that human reason has "blind spots").

Along with every other imaginary thing ever dreamed up? Imaginary things are the only things that "exist" but cannot be concurrently observed and scrutinized via reason.

Prove otherwise by "faithing" me some knowledge or otherwise making me understand some truth by a means other than reason.

I would say electricity did not exist if...

a)There was no observed phenomenom resembling what "electricitists" claimed existed.

b) The inference for the existence of electricity was completely unwarranted.

c)No one anywhere was able to demonstrate electricity under controlled conditions.

d)There were logical inconsistencies with the concept itself.

e)Electricity bore a strong resemblance to a long line of similarly impossible "electric things" worshipped by primitive nhomads for thousands of years prior.


But fortunately, electricity is nothing like that. God however, fits every one of those qualifiers.

First demonstrate that God exists. THEN go about showing us that his existence provides powerful practical benefits.

I am no more deprived of "God's practical benefits" than I am deprived of the powerful practical benefits of superheroes.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument that there are possible benefits to believing in God. What does that have to do with whether God exists? There are practical benefits to believing a sugar cube(or an "herbal extract") is a cure for arthritis also. They call it "the placebo effect". The placebo does not make "alternative medicine" valid. You can take all the shark cartiledge you want but it won't have any effect on your chance of remission if you have cancer but you MAY feel a lot better(and fight harder) if you believe in such nonsense.

See, I know that you guys think this sounds like a compelling anecdote but to many rationalists it sounds pitiful. Like a child who cannot go to sleep unless he chants "Boogeyman be gone!" three times before getting under the covers.

If a muslim or hindu told you that tehy could not have a "sober day" unless they started each moring with a prayer would it convicned you of their gods' existence? Would you start worshipping hindu or muslim gods?

Yeah, I hear these anecdotes pretty often. My experience was the exact opposite. With God I could not stay sober or out of jail and at the time I REALLY wanted, not only to get sober and stay out of trouble, but I wanted a loving relationship with God!(actually this was a bit of projecting on my behalf. I projected onto the imaginary God a sort of all powerful and all-loving father figure) I could have kept up with that nonsense and blamed myself for not doing something right or not having faith the right way but in the end I had to get honest. There were no Gods that I could discern(and eventually I had to admit there simply were no gods).

As an atheist I had little trouble getting and staying sober and being as honest and decent a person you could hope to meet(false modesty aside). When I threw out the BS nonsense of A.A. it was amazing how easy staying sober became!
When one throws out the nonsense that is theism, it is amazing how much easier it is to be a human being...to learn about *THIS* reality and appreciate *THIS LIFE*.

What "soul"? For once I would just like to hear a sensible explanation of what this "soul" is and why you think it exists? We can detect and measure electricity, radiation, heat, cold, light and magnetism through technology and our senses. That is how we know these things exist. So what is it that leads you to think a "soul"(whatever that is) exists?

[ March 25, 2005, 15:47: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

 

@Runequester

I know you want me to prove to you God exists and that you have a soul. But I cannot. You are going to have to find your own way there...or not, if that is your wish.

Belief in God in no way depreciates this reality or this life...it just fills them with love...at least for me.

Your reasoning mind is the most powerful force you know...or perhaps another person whom is more intelligent than you is the most powerful force you know...either way you are going to run into a lot of fear.

There is just so much of our lives that is up to chance. I just choose to see love in the randomness.

I am a much better human being when I see that love. But that is just my truth...perhaps you are correct...*shrug*...

 

Think about the question - am I supposed to prove the existence of God to MYSELF or to someone else? If the former, the answer is False. If the latter, the answer is True.

 

@Late-night Thinker

Stop you right there because I already see where this is going. No where in ANY thread, ANYWHERE did I invite you or request of you to come into this thread and prove anything. Someone else started this thread with bald assertions about it being impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God. He did not bother to define "God" or tell us WHICH God he was talking about and never did qualify the assertion(actually demonstrating that it was logically impossible).
Furthermore, he had a misconeption about agnosticism(thinking it a "middle road" between atheism and theism) and implied that atheism was wrong/incorrect because of his assertions.

YOU came into this thread, just as I did, of your own volition as a counterpoint to MY POV(whether you intended this specifically or not). This means that your assertions about God's existence adn everything else related are just as subject to substantiation. It is NOT a question of me making unreasonable demands on YOU(and besides, the only way it would be unreasonable to think that God should be justified rationally is if God is obviously an imaginary thing).

This statement makes no sense. First of all, we do not "choose" what we believe or do not believe. If that were so then I could just flip and switch in my head and believe in Santa Claus and gain all the "practical benefits" of having such a belief.
When we hear existential claims, our minds react with either "That sounds about right" or "That sounds like a bunch of crap!". We cannot "choose" otherwise(we can choose to lie about this but that is as close as we can come).
To YOU, based on what YOU know, God sounds "about right". To ME, with what I know, God sounds like one in a long line of similar imagined things that violate physical laws and logic in the way that Warner Bros. cartoon characters do(Zeus, Odin, Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu...all in the same group).
Also, your statement implies that I SHOULD be wandering your "path". When you say something like "You will have to find your own way there." this sounds like the consultation of a policeman to a drug addicted hooker on teh streets where he is saying "I can't make you get off drugs and stop living like this. You have to do this yourself...".

The thing is that I am NOT somebody who is lacking something you have(other than an irrational belief in something called a "God"). I am not someone wandering aimlessly whose life is a shambles becuase he hasn't found God.

I realise you were not intending to insult or berate me. Most theists don't realise when they are doing this. But just imagine for a second that I approached you at a bus stop adn started talking up atheism adn all of the alleged benefits of my atheism(this is a hypothetical BTW so don't tatke it too seriously). To your mind this sounds like bollocks and you answer me by stating your reasons for belief in God. I fire back with "I can't prove to you have belief in God is wrong and harmful. You will have to figure this out on your own...or not if that is the way you want to end up."

That is how your statement came off to me. Like you thought God was a foregone conclusion and people who did not buy into it were simply in denial for whatever reason(hedonism? we get that one a lot for some reason).

Here is something you MAY find offensive(though you should not as it is simply a logical statemetn of fact): God is not more rational and no more substantiated than belief in fairies or Santa Claus. Therefore, one's belief in God adn simultaneous disbelief in fairies and what not is at LEAST inconsistent adn arbitrary.

Now if you weant to convince skeptics of the "truth" of your beliefs(and since you are here i must assume you do) then you have to start by providing at least ONE reason for God being more likely than Santa Claus or the Invisible Pink Unicorn in my pocket. I am not even demanding conclusive proof here. Just show me that God is more rational than other claims which both of us likely disbelieve.

That MAY be so...for you. And I apologise if I made a blacket generalization about all believers depreciating life. My position on this issue is that if you conclude that there is an "afterlife" and further that this afterlife is far superior to this physical life we live(for whatever reason), then logically you MUST have less regard for this life.

For example: Someone gives me an all expenses paid summer-long vacation in the Carribean, provided I buy three things from three different vendors within three days. Another guy grants me a two weeks in August vacation at his uncle's cabin in Hicksville(over in "Deliverance county"), provided I buy three things from three vendors in three days.

Naturally, I am going to be more attentive to achieving the first vendor's qualification than I am for the second(unless I have a bizarre fondness for unwashed rednecks and the hillbilly lifestyle). If in my zeal to collect the things I need to get the Carribean vacation I lose the list of items I am supposed to get for the Hicksville sabbatical, no great shakes.

But what if the first offer is not even real? WHat if there is no Carribean vacation? To say that I do not lose something by focusing attention on trying to obtain that non-prize is wrong.

Explain please. Define "powerful" as you are using it above adn then tell me why I am going to run into a lot of fear(and also why this is important).

Non-sequitor. You either "see love" or you don't and this has nothing to do with whether you believe in a specific existential claim or not. I do not reject psychics because I choose not to see love and I reject God for the same reasons I reject psychics.

So you are saying that IF you, hypothetically, found conclusive evidence or proof that God did not exist tomorrow, you would become a worse human being? You would start treating others with less respect or you would feel less love? My experience is the opposite. I find that theistic religious beliefs most often get in the way of loving our fellow man.

 

@ RuneQuester

I must be honest RuneQuester...you are speaking over my head a bit. I get the feeling you have taken philosophy classes or perhaps read books on the subject...I have not and I can see you are using esoteric notions that I have not encountered.

For example...what is existentialism? I have heard of this a few times...mostly in regard to the guy pushing the rock up the incline (art) and another time one of my English professors mentioned that an existentialist must ultimately conclude suicide is the only reasonable option...but that sounds as if he was misrepresenting something...

Secondly...what does Non-sequitor mean?

If you would not mind educating me I will certainly return the favor...

I must disagree with your point that we do not choose what we believe or not...

In fact, a belief in God that was not reached through a fully conscious decision is not really a belief at all, rather it is something measured and that is the domain of logic...

Another point I must disagree with (although I am pulling a point made by you from another thread) is the notion that love is nothing more than chemical reactions...

Any neurologist will tell you that the brain does not work in the manner that lets say proteins operate by or some other easily measured chemical reaction...

Each cell in the brain is connected by filaments called dendrites (I hope I am getting this right...I am certainly not a neurologist) to an astronomically large number of other nerve cells. Within the brain there are a very large number of these cells (i'm thinking trillions, but again...i'm not an expert). The concerted symphony of electical impulses relayed amongst these cells is the physical nature of thought.

As a rational man, you must see that quantum physics allows all sorts of random things to occur during this process.

I just choose to see love in the randomness. (edit...perhaps Providence is a better word)


But here is a far more telling experiment.

Look your mother in the eye and tell her that all that lies between you is chemistry and electrical impulses, nothing more, nothing less...

If your mother is not a valid subject, then try it with someone else whom you love dearly...

In fact, don't do the experiment as it will only hurt their feelings...but visualize it and see how the results feel...

To quote one of my favorite books 'The Princess Bride'..."Love is many things, none of them rational..."

[ March 27, 2005, 05:39: Message edited by: Late-Night Thinker ]

 

The existance of God cannot be proven.

However, I will not accept that as proof that He doesn't exist.

I have Faith that God Lives, and His son Jesus Christ died so that our sins may be forgiven. This cannot be proven, but I choose to live by faith, in hopes that I may return to His presence.

Those of you who think I'm foolish for this belief need to remember one thing. If I really am wrong, I won't find out until it really doesn't matter. I'm happy living by faith and invite all of you to do likewise. All you have to lose is your addictions, vices, but you gain a sence of purpose and a joy in something other than simply fulfilling your own desires...

 

It's good to know that there are many other like-minded individuals on this forum.

I do not believe that logic can explain everything. As great a tool as logic and reason are, they're still restricted to the confines of this reality. Beliefs and faith aren't bound like the former two, they allow for those who are willing to discover more than many people can imagine.

I can pretty much say that if God didn't exist then I'd question the purpose of this life. I'd probably commit suicide because it's completely meaningless. Since the existence of God CANNOT be proven or disproven I will accept (and embrace) the possibility that he does. After all... if there is nothing to look forward to then all is vanity. Ecclesiastes has a lot of good lessons.

 

@Late-night

I am not an existentialist(at least not as you are employing the term above). Existentialism, like Rationalism is a philosophy that has nothing to do with the term "existential" (or "rational" for 'Rationalism') as I am using the term(s). The Rationalists of the ancient world actually believed ina ton of irrational things but were adept at "rationalizing" the evidence to suit them(IIRC).

I could not tell you much about Existentialism you don't already know.

When I say something like "Making an existential claim...", I mean that one is making a fundemental claim about the independent existence of something within reality(i.e. "Sasquatch exists." or "UFOs are visiting our planet.").

Basically, a statement that doesn't logically follow from the preceding statement. For example: A politician argues that women should ultimately be the ones to choose whether they should have an abortion within the first trimester. His opponent replies "Well, if we are going to allow abortions to be performed then why don't we also allow psychopaths to torture and kill innocent women?!". This is a non-sequitor because it does not logically follow that allowing women the choice in medical procedures involving their own bodies(and a fetus) leads to allowing sick-minded people to torture and murder human beings.

This is wrong. The ONLY way you have to contend what I said in regards to choosing what one believes is to try choosing yourself to believe in something(like Santa Claus or elves) you do not believe in(try it sometime and tell me how well it works for you ). If you truly believed something was fact then you would not even have the capacity to simply "decide" to think otherwise. Try choosing to believe your mother never existed or that YOU do not exist. It is impossible.

In essence, that is all love objectively is. That YOU or I can attach a multitude of subjective qualifiers to "love" is irrelevent.

I did not understand what you were trying to say with the above. Do you mean that teh brain is more complex than simple proteins? If so then yeah but this is another non-sequitor. Simple proteins are just that...simple. They do not have complex chemical reactions that result in manifest emotions.

What is your point though? None of this changes the fact that emotions are chemical reactions to (usually external) stimuli.

*Sigh* Okay, I do not mean to be offensive here but you guys need to lay off the "quantum physics" balogney. It has gone way beyond tiresome. Just because there are still areas of science that are, to one degree or another mysterious does not mean that genies exist and grant wishes when you rub their lamps. Again, you are advocating an "anything is possible" universe(which is, ironically an IMPOSSIBILITY) and trying to justify it by invoking quantum physics/mechanics.
That is no better than saying "I don't know what sorts of planets exist far beyond Alpha Centauri. Maybe they are all made of cheese!!".

Invoking Quantum Physics in a discussion about whether God exists is like brionging binary aristhmentic into a debate about how many peaches it takes to make a good peach cobbler.

Either way it is irrational. The universe itself is cold and impersonal. Meteors do not strike planets out of anger or hatred and stars do not go nova because they are depressed. Likewise, lifeforms such as our own do not evolve on one particular rock because some alien entity was feeling "love". Life developed here because of cosmological, physical reasons and circumstances too numerous to get into here. "Love" was not required(in other words, we have no need of the "god hypothesis" to explain anything).

You are pulling a bait-and-switch. I never said that I don't feel love or that I do not love my mother. But both I and my mother are aware of what these feelings are at the fundemental level. That we wax poetic about such things and romanticise physical processes that are important to us is irrelevant.

That YOU choose to ignore the phsyical reasons/orgins of your emtions in favor of romantic ideas is neither good or bad. You are, to put it bluntly, even LESS knowledgeable than I am about these matters of science is all, and you are more inclined towards religious ideals.

Again, this is another example of a non-sequitor. You are stating things which do not logically follow from MY statements. Love, joy, peace, happiness, anger, frustration...these things are NO LESS important for me than they are for YOU! Knowing how things work removes some mystery yes but it does not render you incapable of appreciating them! Do you know someone who knows how a combustion engine works? Does this person walk up to his car with a frown and say "I don't want to drive this thing anymore. The only reason it runs is because the carbuerator regulates the fuel to air intake yada, yada, yada..." ?

THE author is speaking of love from a non-scientific and romantic/poetic POV. When Jimi Hendrix sang " And the Wind, whispers...."Mary"(Wind Cries Mary). " He was not saying that the wind was a sentient being with a larnyx and tongue similar to our own. And when scientists describe how we are able to speek as we do, they are not saying "Hendrix was wrong!".

Let's try and stay away from the silliness shall we?


@Gnarfflinger

No one said you should. This is a strawman on your part(www.datanation.com/fallacies).

I have NEVER in my ENTIRE LIFE offered that "God cannot be proven so that proves he does not exist!" How stupid would that be??

There is only ONE type of thing whose existence cannot be proven and that is imaginary things. If something exists, independently, then there is no reason we cannot discern and measure it's effects on our reality. If it does not effect our reality, then it does not exist for us.

No one is trying to take that faith away from you. I personally have no stake in what you believe. "It would neither pick my pocket nor break my leg" if you believed that my shoes were forged by elven cobblers. Your above is a preponderance of presupposition and bald assertion. You presume, for no reason other than this being what you were made to believe(probably from a very young age) that you are a "sinner", that a deity named Yaweh, who is allegedly all-powerful and all-knowing, had to go through the Rube Goldbergian process of impregnating a mortal woman, allowing her son to reach 30 some years of age before giving up his life as a carpenter and meandering around performing what would appear to be simple stage magic of the day(pullling coins from a fishes' mouths) using shills, but was actually (alleged) divine miracles before finally becoming one in a long line of would-be messiahs tried for sedition and cricifued by the Romans.

You are free to believe the whole shebang for all I care. But if you are going to do that then just do it and don't come here contesting non-believers because they use logic to reveal that these beliefs do not make sense.

To my mind it does not even matter much that your God does not exist because even if he DID, he would not be much of a God. He creates an allegedly "perfect" garden. Places his first couple humans there whom he equips with human brains/minds. Somehow allows for an evil talking snake to slither into his "perfect" garden and run a con on his two humans. And when they, using the poor equipment God alleged gave them, fall for the con, what does he do?

Punishes ALL HUMANITY(and even nonhuman life by many accounts) for eternity and furthermore employs the above noted mechanism of offering the sacrifice of his human son to pay off OUR debt(He could not, in all his omnipotence simply forgive Adam and Eve, let alone ME?!? Does that make me more powerful than God since I don't have to kill my children to forgive them for being taken advantage of when I don't give them the tools to avoid being so conned?) but seemingly renegs even on THAT "deal" because we still are subject to diseases, shorter lifespans, etc. that was allegedly a result of our "fall"?!?

You are free to disregard logic and reason(you pretty much have no other choice if you are going to believe all THAT!), even if you don't do this in all other facets of your life. I do not care.

Just don't come here misrepresenting or even contending those of us who DO use reason and logic consistently.


BTW, I know the above stuff will sound "mean spirited" to some. Unfortunately there is no easy way of revealing nonsense without hurting feelings.

You won't find out AT ALL! If death is exactly what it appears to be, ceasing to exist, then you will not be sitting around in a state of non-existence going "Shucks! Boy was I an idiot!". You will simply be as you were before you were born. Not around. No thoughts. No memories.

Nothing scarier than that so I understand WHY people want to believe in gods adn afterlives. I just don't think reality gives a damn what we want it to be.

You show me someone who has lost all of his addictions and vices and I will show you a corpse. Vices are a subjective notion. To many Christians I have met, I have no vices and represent Christianity's ideal. I do not drink, do drugs, smoke, have sex of any kind(let alone non-marital or casual sex), do violence, lie or steal etc.

Also, I HAVE a sense of purpose(not that one SHOULD but I do) and I am NOT out to simply "fulfill my own desires.", ***hole.

You expect people to take you seriously when you cannot even manage basic respect and courtesy towards others? If your religion compells you to come insult and make baseless allegations about people who do not share your belief then I am one of MANY who want nothing to do with your cult of bigotry.

[ March 27, 2005, 19:19: Message edited by: RuneQuester ]

 

Probably off-topic

I agree with this. What is it, Newton's 3rd law? Except I apply it to everything. I am almost convinced that this might be the single most important thing/set of equations/rules/laws in this universe. I call it "The Greater Equilibrium".

 

@Runequester

Well...you know what? I had this whole thing planned with quantum physics...but you probably would have reasoned your way through it with ease and in fact, probably have already done so with some other sucker...

What will you do when you don't have someone to argue with? Well...that will never happen anyway...

You know what I am going to go do instead?

My girlfriend is stopping over tonight. A late night visit. And we are going to have sex. Probably great sex. And we are going to tell each other how much we love one another. It is going to be silly and poetic.

It is going to be fun. And simple.