Did the Red Sea Part?
-
Le Centriste wrote:
If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Atheists don't simply reject religion. They actively have a working theology, which makes that analogy a poor one. Saying "If atheism is a religion, then collecting coins is a hobby" would be more along the lines of reality.
You are absoltely correct. Otherwise, on what basis would they be able to differentiate right from wrong. That has to be based upon some kind of moral authority, and that moral authority can only come from the state. Thereby turning the state into an institution promoting one particular interpretation of morality - that of atheism.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Perhaps this conversation is pointless. I was not aware that we were discussing the personal implications of a belief in god. I thought we were talking about "atheism as religion" and in that context, the questions retain their similarity. -- modified at 17:55 Tuesday 3rd April, 2007
I was responding to your assertion that a disbelief in unicorns is the same as a disbelief in God. I was simply making the point that even though on a simple level they are in someways similar, that one question has more serious implications that the other. So, although in some ways they are similar, in others they are very different. That's all. Also, I don't think I claimed that atheism is a religion (I suppose it would depend on the agreed-upon definitions of both words) but that it is a faith-based belief. Again, I suppose this depends on your definition of atheism.
-
oilFactotum wrote:
Perhaps. But not believing in the existence of god is the same as not believing in the existence of unicorns.
Consider the implications of the answers to the questions "does God exists?" and "do unicorns exist?" and they suddenly lose their simmilarity.
oilFactotum wrote:
There is none. I happen to believe in god. Atheists do not believe god exists which is not the same as believing that god does not exists.
Atheism is not merely a lack of belief in God. Atheism is an active belief that God does not exist. I'm not sure what word best describes someone who neither believes that God exists or that he does not exist, but I think "agnostic" is what most people use to describe this position. Whatever it's called, it is not the same as atheism.
Edmundisme wrote:
Atheism is not merely a lack of belief in God. Atheism is an active belief that God does not exist.
Atheism can describe either position. a = without; theism = belief in god/gods Those who merely lack the belief in God are called weak atheists or atheist agnostics, those with an active disbelief are called strong atheists.
-
I was responding to your assertion that a disbelief in unicorns is the same as a disbelief in God. I was simply making the point that even though on a simple level they are in someways similar, that one question has more serious implications that the other. So, although in some ways they are similar, in others they are very different. That's all. Also, I don't think I claimed that atheism is a religion (I suppose it would depend on the agreed-upon definitions of both words) but that it is a faith-based belief. Again, I suppose this depends on your definition of atheism.
Edmundisme wrote:
I was responding to your assertion that a disbelief in unicorns is the same as a disbelief in God.
In the context of atheism as faith based the two are the same.
Edmundisme wrote:
Also, I don't think I claimed that atheism is a religion (I suppose it would depend on the agreed-upon definitions of both words) but that it is a faith-based belief
I did misstate your position.
Edmundisme wrote:
Again, I suppose this depends on your definition of atheism.
I don't think it does. There is more than on definition and strong atheism may be considered faith based. But that is not the only definition. And we are have that discussion elsewhere, if you wish to continue it.
-
Edmundisme wrote:
Atheism is not merely a lack of belief in God. Atheism is an active belief that God does not exist.
Atheism can describe either position. a = without; theism = belief in god/gods Those who merely lack the belief in God are called weak atheists or atheist agnostics, those with an active disbelief are called strong atheists.
I have been educated on this point in this thread. I thought "weak atheism" had its own word: agnosticism. It seems unfortunate that atheism is overloaded. But now that I know that, I can ask whether someone is a weak atheist or a strong atheist before entering into a discussion (these two positions seem drastically different to me). :)
-
Edmundisme wrote:
I was responding to your assertion that a disbelief in unicorns is the same as a disbelief in God.
In the context of atheism as faith based the two are the same.
Edmundisme wrote:
Also, I don't think I claimed that atheism is a religion (I suppose it would depend on the agreed-upon definitions of both words) but that it is a faith-based belief
I did misstate your position.
Edmundisme wrote:
Again, I suppose this depends on your definition of atheism.
I don't think it does. There is more than on definition and strong atheism may be considered faith based. But that is not the only definition. And we are have that discussion elsewhere, if you wish to continue it.
Well, whether or not atheism is faith-based does depend (I think) on whether it is weak or strong atheism. I would assert that strong atheism is most definately faith-based, but that weak atheism may not be (is weak atheism ever faith based? I'm not sure I'll have to think about this). I'm assuming the strong atheist would say "There is no God!" and the weak atheist would say "I don't know if there is a God or not." If that's not the case, then I still don't understand the difference between the two. If it is the case, then I'm not sure why weak atheism is used instead of agnosticism.
-
Well, whether or not atheism is faith-based does depend (I think) on whether it is weak or strong atheism. I would assert that strong atheism is most definately faith-based, but that weak atheism may not be (is weak atheism ever faith based? I'm not sure I'll have to think about this). I'm assuming the strong atheist would say "There is no God!" and the weak atheist would say "I don't know if there is a God or not." If that's not the case, then I still don't understand the difference between the two. If it is the case, then I'm not sure why weak atheism is used instead of agnosticism.
I think that the atheist web site l linked you to earlier does a pretty good job of differentiating between weak and strong atheism and agnosticism. I also think it does a good job in showing the difference between 'I don't believe god exists' and 'I believe that god does not exist'.
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Edmundisme wrote: Would you put $500 on it? What if someone drove into the hills and dumped snow on your lawn as a practical joke? (Admittedly this is contrived, but it makes my point.) No it does not make your point. You see, this is all testable. It is science. You can challenge my theory! I cannot challenge yours, no matte how hard I try. Not because your logic is super tight, but rather because you've got short circuits in your logic.
It does make my point. My point is that evidence and proof are not the same thing. You have strong evidence that there is no snow on the ground. However, you can't prove it until you actually look at the ground.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Do you have any evidence for your believing that those are evidence? See what I mean with short circuit logic?
How is it any different for you? Do you have evidence that these things are not evidence? How is your position different than mine? I say these things are evidence, you say they are not. We each interpret the implication of these things differently. We've taken the same data and have drawn different conclusions. Regardless of whether or not his existence can be proven, what is illogical about God? How does God short-circuit my logic? If I say that God exists, that He wasn't created, and that He created all things - and I take this as my axiom on which all other beliefs depend, where does the logic break down? You may not think I'm right, but being right and being logical are not the same. You can logically draw a conclusion and still find that your conclusion is wrong.
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
Frooobleknoooooblebabump does not exist!!!!!! No matter what someone in the future might say!!! How can you claim something not to exist if you don't believe in it, before anybody proposed its existence? Do you see the flaw in your logic?
To directly assert that God does not exist does indeed require an existing idea of God. However, could the one who first thought of God been the one to first assert his non-existence? Furthermore, you can indirectly assert the non-existence of God with an assertion that does not require the idea of God. You could assert that Man is the greatest intelligence in the universe. This assertion is mutually exclusive to the assertion that God exists but does not first require the asserting that
Edmundisme wrote:
what is illogical about God? How does God short-circuit my logic? If I say that God exists, that He wasn't created, and that He created all things - and I take this as my axiom on which all other beliefs depend, where does the logic break down?
It is illogical that, at least, in the past thousand years God has not performed miracles, has not helped his chosen people, has not guided mankind, has not sent missives, has not shown his face, has not parted seas. It is illogical that God chose a period of pre 2007* years ago to impose his will and then chose to do nothing since. It is illogical that the Christian God chose one small area in what is now called the Middle East to spread his word. Why not the multitudes of Asia and North & South America and Africa? It is illogical that so much changed in his message from the Old to New Testament unless one considers the thoughts of politicians of the ages to be logical; ever changing to retain power. It is illogical that he allows so much wrong to be said in his name. Faith? I have faith. I have faith in the human spirit, in life itself and the splendor of the universe. In the scales, from the smallest to biggest from the most generic to the most varied from the strangest to the most logical to the simple fact that I am here and so are you. I have faith that should a god exist he is not your sea-parting, tribe-smiting, clause-demanding diety. That he is benevolent to the point of non-existance; a sea to live in, air to breathe in, atoms to live by. But really, there is no need for god. Life is god, atoms and everything that makes up the beautiful chaos that is our multiverse is god. As a plainly intelligent man, you, you should see that. You should feel that in everything you do, in the children you rear in the wife you love. Praise life, not some Bible bound, apostle abused figure-head for a church that has forsaken all that is good in the life that Jesus led. He, Jesus, did good, no denying it. Argh! Can't you see? Love, life, the universe; it is so much greater than this god we talk of. * rough to a few decades at best
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute,
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
That is impossible. Every religious person believes absolutely in his or her religion and no other. But they cannot all be absolute truths..
I didn't say my beliefs are absolutes. I said absolutes exist. If a thing is true, it is so regardless of personal opinion on the matter. I stated that lack of proof is not itself proof. You dismissed that as merely my belief. I suggest it is a logical certainty. Furthermore, when Columbus theorized that the world was round, was that absolutely true even though most others were "absolutely" certain it was flat?
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Belief and absolute are contradictory
I'm not sure what you're saying here. They are contradictory? So if something is absolute it cannot be believed in? Or if something is believed in it cannot be absolute?
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Go read about Cantor sets and uncountability and all. That should prove to be an interesting read for you. Theirs also an Axion of Choice in mathematics that holds true in some sets and not in others. Unfortunately, this is one area of mathematics that deals with no proof but choice.
I have no idea what you're talking about. However, based on logic, I would highly doubt that even in this context lack of proof is itself proof.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
An atheist is someone who is not a theist. Nothing more.
By your definition of the word, I suppose you are correct. However, your definition is not the prevalent one in my experience. At this point, understanding we mean different things, it is no longer worthwhile to debate the definition of the word.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
That's only because you're picking where your definitions come from
I picked a dictionary. That seemed like the best place to get an unbiased definition. I didn't scour the net looking for a definition that fit my purpose. You, however, got your definition from an atheist's website. So which of us is "picking" where our definitions come from?
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
if an atheist tells you he doesn't believe in God for lack of proof, then don't make it out to be a religion. Otherwise, there's no such thing as having no religion
I don't think
Edmundisme wrote:
Furthermore, when Columbus theorized that the world was round, was that absolutely true even though most others were "absolutely" certain it was flat?
Oh sure, use the fact as the basis of your argument. What if I said if atheists believe that the world is round even though you are claiming that they are wrong because you and or the majority say it is so? As for the absolutes exist clause, only in mathematics, everything else is a science. When it comes to God, there are those who claim one side and those who claim the other. That is a personal decision. You can't make someone believe in God without some sort of proof (that they have to accept which in this case alone is a near impossibility) since they cannot believe in something that is abstract. However, them not believing in God does not mean they have a faith-based belief. All of them may not believe for different reasons. Maybe they (think they) have proof that God doesn't exist, that would would negate the fact that it's a faith-based belief since they're going on "fact" even if you don't see it as "fact".
Edmundisme wrote:
I picked a dictionary.
Too many dictionaries are open to interpretation, Here's the one I use. Atheism: 1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Since both are valid, you cannot claim it is a faith-based belief since the latter is what I've seen. I'm not sure if the numbering is significant, but if one person claims to be of type two, then it is not a faith-based belief. Unless you can absolutely say no type two's exist, then you're basic your argument on your belief and interpretation.
Edmundisme wrote:
I don't think I claimed that atheism is a religion. I did claim that atheism is a faith-based belief. But again, it seems that we have different definitions of the word.
Fair enough, but the argument still holds. Again, since no definition is absolute, you cannot impose your definition on the supposedly 2 billion atheist population.
"There are II kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who understand Roman numerals." - Bassam Abdul-Baki Web -[](</x-turndown)
-
Edmundisme wrote:
what is illogical about God? How does God short-circuit my logic? If I say that God exists, that He wasn't created, and that He created all things - and I take this as my axiom on which all other beliefs depend, where does the logic break down?
It is illogical that, at least, in the past thousand years God has not performed miracles, has not helped his chosen people, has not guided mankind, has not sent missives, has not shown his face, has not parted seas. It is illogical that God chose a period of pre 2007* years ago to impose his will and then chose to do nothing since. It is illogical that the Christian God chose one small area in what is now called the Middle East to spread his word. Why not the multitudes of Asia and North & South America and Africa? It is illogical that so much changed in his message from the Old to New Testament unless one considers the thoughts of politicians of the ages to be logical; ever changing to retain power. It is illogical that he allows so much wrong to be said in his name. Faith? I have faith. I have faith in the human spirit, in life itself and the splendor of the universe. In the scales, from the smallest to biggest from the most generic to the most varied from the strangest to the most logical to the simple fact that I am here and so are you. I have faith that should a god exist he is not your sea-parting, tribe-smiting, clause-demanding diety. That he is benevolent to the point of non-existance; a sea to live in, air to breathe in, atoms to live by. But really, there is no need for god. Life is god, atoms and everything that makes up the beautiful chaos that is our multiverse is god. As a plainly intelligent man, you, you should see that. You should feel that in everything you do, in the children you rear in the wife you love. Praise life, not some Bible bound, apostle abused figure-head for a church that has forsaken all that is good in the life that Jesus led. He, Jesus, did good, no denying it. Argh! Can't you see? Love, life, the universe; it is so much greater than this god we talk of. * rough to a few decades at best
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute,
-
Edmundisme wrote:
Furthermore, when Columbus theorized that the world was round, was that absolutely true even though most others were "absolutely" certain it was flat?
Oh sure, use the fact as the basis of your argument. What if I said if atheists believe that the world is round even though you are claiming that they are wrong because you and or the majority say it is so? As for the absolutes exist clause, only in mathematics, everything else is a science. When it comes to God, there are those who claim one side and those who claim the other. That is a personal decision. You can't make someone believe in God without some sort of proof (that they have to accept which in this case alone is a near impossibility) since they cannot believe in something that is abstract. However, them not believing in God does not mean they have a faith-based belief. All of them may not believe for different reasons. Maybe they (think they) have proof that God doesn't exist, that would would negate the fact that it's a faith-based belief since they're going on "fact" even if you don't see it as "fact".
Edmundisme wrote:
I picked a dictionary.
Too many dictionaries are open to interpretation, Here's the one I use. Atheism: 1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. Since both are valid, you cannot claim it is a faith-based belief since the latter is what I've seen. I'm not sure if the numbering is significant, but if one person claims to be of type two, then it is not a faith-based belief. Unless you can absolutely say no type two's exist, then you're basic your argument on your belief and interpretation.
Edmundisme wrote:
I don't think I claimed that atheism is a religion. I did claim that atheism is a faith-based belief. But again, it seems that we have different definitions of the word.
Fair enough, but the argument still holds. Again, since no definition is absolute, you cannot impose your definition on the supposedly 2 billion atheist population.
"There are II kinds of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who understand Roman numerals." - Bassam Abdul-Baki Web -[](</x-turndown)
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Oh sure, use the fact as the basis of your argument. What if I said if atheists believe that the world is round even though you are claiming that they are wrong because you and or the majority say it is so?
I don't understand these two sentences. My point is that the world is absolutely round regardless of a particular person's belief on the matter. The fact that there are differing beliefs does not suggest that none of the beliefs can be the "correct" one.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Since both are valid, you cannot claim it is a faith-based belief since the latter is what I've seen
I'll admit that I was unaware of the second definition. The one that I come across most often seems to fit the first definition and I was assuming that all atheists held this position. I agree with you that the second definition does not indicate a faith-based belief.
Ian
-
Edmundisme wrote:
what is illogical about God? How does God short-circuit my logic? If I say that God exists, that He wasn't created, and that He created all things - and I take this as my axiom on which all other beliefs depend, where does the logic break down?
It is illogical that, at least, in the past thousand years God has not performed miracles, has not helped his chosen people, has not guided mankind, has not sent missives, has not shown his face, has not parted seas. It is illogical that God chose a period of pre 2007* years ago to impose his will and then chose to do nothing since. It is illogical that the Christian God chose one small area in what is now called the Middle East to spread his word. Why not the multitudes of Asia and North & South America and Africa? It is illogical that so much changed in his message from the Old to New Testament unless one considers the thoughts of politicians of the ages to be logical; ever changing to retain power. It is illogical that he allows so much wrong to be said in his name. Faith? I have faith. I have faith in the human spirit, in life itself and the splendor of the universe. In the scales, from the smallest to biggest from the most generic to the most varied from the strangest to the most logical to the simple fact that I am here and so are you. I have faith that should a god exist he is not your sea-parting, tribe-smiting, clause-demanding diety. That he is benevolent to the point of non-existance; a sea to live in, air to breathe in, atoms to live by. But really, there is no need for god. Life is god, atoms and everything that makes up the beautiful chaos that is our multiverse is god. As a plainly intelligent man, you, you should see that. You should feel that in everything you do, in the children you rear in the wife you love. Praise life, not some Bible bound, apostle abused figure-head for a church that has forsaken all that is good in the life that Jesus led. He, Jesus, did good, no denying it. Argh! Can't you see? Love, life, the universe; it is so much greater than this god we talk of. * rough to a few decades at best
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute,
Paul Watson wrote:
It is illogical that he allows so much wrong to be said in his name. Faith? I have faith. I have faith in the human spirit, in life itself and the splendor of the universe.
"Illogical" implies a contradiction, or at least, a flawed reasoning of some sort. Which implies that the action/inaction conflicts with a known motivation. But there is no known motivation. I don't know why i'm here. You don't know why you're there. You might know, at least to some degree, how you got there, but that isn't a reason. Strictly speaking, in the absence of some sort of intelligent Creator / Controller it isn't even logical to assume there is a reason. Either way, it's hardly a given that you would ever be able to discover or prove the validity of a reason for your own existence in any fundamental way. Not that it should stop you from looking... just don't be disappointed if the search isn't terribly easy. I have little faith in the human spirit. If anything, it has proved to be as elusive as any spirit, as difficult to grasp as the faintest will-o'-the-wisp. We are what we are, for good or for bad, and i see nothing great or noble about attributing greatness or nobility to ourselves. Life, that precious yet all-to-often snubbed gift, requires no faith either. It is, after all, our dearest and most fragile possession, no matter how weak our grasp on it becomes. The day faith becomes applicable is the day it finally slips away from us, and we can do nothing but trust in the ability of another to restore it. The Universe, full of splendor indeed. But if that was not plain to you, would you really still hold out hope that, beyond the range of your own perception, beauty still exists? You have tasted Life, been awed by our Universe, and accepted your own Spirit for the crazy powerful foolish dangerous thing that it is. The only real difference between you and i is that i have faith in a Creator behind these terrible, wonderful Creations. A Creator who, for reasons of His own, constantly shapes and tweaks his Creation. Who, so completely unlike myself, actually has reason to be proud of His works, and yet still allows and encourages that creative spark in each of us, temporal and flawed though our little creations are. And you don't see it that way. You see my beliefs as foolish and as damaging as i see yours naive. You're probably wondering why i even bothered to type out such an absurd little post here, when i've made it plain that i
-
You are absoltely correct. Otherwise, on what basis would they be able to differentiate right from wrong. That has to be based upon some kind of moral authority, and that moral authority can only come from the state. Thereby turning the state into an institution promoting one particular interpretation of morality - that of atheism.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
You are absoltely correct. Otherwise, on what basis would they be able to differentiate right from wrong. That has to be based upon some kind of moral authority, and that moral authority can only come from the state.
Total rubbish. The basis of the morality of atheists is the moral judgement of individual atheists.
John Carson
-
Edmundisme wrote:
what is illogical about God? How does God short-circuit my logic? If I say that God exists, that He wasn't created, and that He created all things - and I take this as my axiom on which all other beliefs depend, where does the logic break down?
It is illogical that, at least, in the past thousand years God has not performed miracles, has not helped his chosen people, has not guided mankind, has not sent missives, has not shown his face, has not parted seas. It is illogical that God chose a period of pre 2007* years ago to impose his will and then chose to do nothing since. It is illogical that the Christian God chose one small area in what is now called the Middle East to spread his word. Why not the multitudes of Asia and North & South America and Africa? It is illogical that so much changed in his message from the Old to New Testament unless one considers the thoughts of politicians of the ages to be logical; ever changing to retain power. It is illogical that he allows so much wrong to be said in his name. Faith? I have faith. I have faith in the human spirit, in life itself and the splendor of the universe. In the scales, from the smallest to biggest from the most generic to the most varied from the strangest to the most logical to the simple fact that I am here and so are you. I have faith that should a god exist he is not your sea-parting, tribe-smiting, clause-demanding diety. That he is benevolent to the point of non-existance; a sea to live in, air to breathe in, atoms to live by. But really, there is no need for god. Life is god, atoms and everything that makes up the beautiful chaos that is our multiverse is god. As a plainly intelligent man, you, you should see that. You should feel that in everything you do, in the children you rear in the wife you love. Praise life, not some Bible bound, apostle abused figure-head for a church that has forsaken all that is good in the life that Jesus led. He, Jesus, did good, no denying it. Argh! Can't you see? Love, life, the universe; it is so much greater than this god we talk of. * rough to a few decades at best
regards, Paul Watson Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote:
And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute,
Paul Watson wrote:
in the past thousand years God has not performed miracles
That's quite a claim. Even if it's true how is it a contradiction of logic? I think you are surmising that this is not how God would behave if he existed and I'm not sure what qualifies you to make such a claim. If God does exist, do you think that he would be subject to your judgement? What kind of a God would that make Him? The idea that God is subject to man is a logical fallacy whether you believe in God or not. The rest of your claims are equally flawed and are borne of a mind that conceives of God to be like it imagines him. Again, what kind of God is subject to your imagination? How can what you conceive of be God at all? The mere fact that you are conceiving him out of your own mind nullifies the possibility that what you conceive of is God. You are conceiving of a God that you imagine and then claiming that he does not exist. To this you are correct: the God you conceive of does not exist.
Paul Watson wrote:
It is illogical that so much changed in his message from the Old to New Testament unless one considers the thoughts of politicians of the ages to be logical; ever changing to retain power.
God does not change. To change implies becoming more or less like something. God is not like anything, and sinse he is perfect (this being the only rational idea of God) he cannot become more or less perfect. The message of the bible has not changed. The entire Old Testament points to the fullfillment of the New Testament.
Paul Watson wrote:
It is illogical that he allows so much wrong to be said in his name.
This has nothing whatever to do with logic. If you want to claim otherwise, you'll need to point out the logical components of your assertion.
Paul Watson wrote:
Faith? I have faith. I have faith in the human spirit, in life itself and the splendor of the universe. In the scales, from the smallest to biggest from the most generic to the most varied from the strangest to the most logical to the simple fact that I am here and so are you.
This is gibberish. What is faith to you? And what does this faith of yours accomplish? What does it mean to have faith in the human spirit? Or in life? What is the difference between having faith in the universe and not having faith in the universe? Yo
-
Proof and evidence are not the same thing. I believe there is considerable evidence of God but I cannot prove his existence. I consider nature and life, and the laws of morality and things that to me are unimaginable as being the result of mere chance. I consider personal experience. The evidence, in my opinion, greatly favors God. A belief in God is not the same as a belief in unicorns. What, in the nature of existence, suggests that there must be unicorns? However, the very nature of existence suggests to me that God exists. I am not trying to prove His existence. I'm merely pointing to the things that I consider evidence to His existence. If you feel that this isn't evidence, then I understand your unwillingness to believe in God. However, not believing in God, and believing that He does not exist are different. What is your evidence that he does not exist?
Edmundisme wrote:
I believe there is considerable evidence of God but I cannot prove his existence. I consider nature and life, and the laws of morality and things that to me are unimaginable as being the result of mere chance.
1. Evolution involved chance and natural selection. The latter is non-random. 2. Your argument from personal incredulity is of no value. The power of your imaginings is beside the point. What matters is the evidence and it overwhelmingly points to evolution.
Edmundisme wrote:
A belief in God is not the same as a belief in unicorns. What, in the nature of existence, suggests that there must be unicorns? However, the very nature of existence suggests to me that God exists.
It may suggest that to you, but it doesn't suggest it to me or to others like me. The point is that, to the scientifically minded, one should (provisonally) believe things for which there is compelling evidence and (provisionally) not believe anything for which evidence is lacking. Atheists don't believe in God because of a lack of evidence in favour of God's existence and because of evidence contradicting the existence of some versions of God --- the same reason they (and most people) don't believe in unicorns or teapots orbiting Mars. Scientifically minded atheists don't have any special rules regarding belief in God. They assess the merits of belief in God the same way they assess the merits of belief in anything else. If the evidence is lacking, they don't believe in it.
Edmundisme wrote:
However, not believing in God, and believing that He does not exist are different.
Not fundamentally. It is just a matter of the level of confidence. If you think that the evidence in favour is sufficiently weak, then you will be willing to (provisionally) declare that God doesn't exist, just as you will declare that unicorns don't exist. If you are less sure of the evidence, you will merely declare that you are not convinced of God's existence.
Edmundisme wrote:
What is your evidence that he does not exist?
In order for evidence for or against God's existence to be possible, God's existence must have empirical implications. For evidence in favour of God's existence to be persuasive, those empircal implications need to be more than ex post rationalisation of observed fact
-
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Oh sure, use the fact as the basis of your argument. What if I said if atheists believe that the world is round even though you are claiming that they are wrong because you and or the majority say it is so?
I don't understand these two sentences. My point is that the world is absolutely round regardless of a particular person's belief on the matter. The fact that there are differing beliefs does not suggest that none of the beliefs can be the "correct" one.
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
Since both are valid, you cannot claim it is a faith-based belief since the latter is what I've seen
I'll admit that I was unaware of the second definition. The one that I come across most often seems to fit the first definition and I was assuming that all atheists held this position. I agree with you that the second definition does not indicate a faith-based belief.
Ian
ibowler wrote:
My point is that the world is absolutely round regardless of a particular person's belief on the matter. The fact that there are differing beliefs does not suggest that none of the beliefs can be the "correct" one.
But absolute fact has to be proven. Let's say you claimed it was a cube and I claimed it was a tetrahedral. We'd both be wrong, but both arguing that we're right. When it comes to God, it is faith that makes us believe, but not doubt that makes us disbelieve. Doubt is not lack of faith, doubt is lack of proof.
ibowler wrote:
I'll admit that I was unaware of the second definition. The one that I come across most often seems to fit the first definition and I was assuming that all atheists held this position. I agree with you that the second definition does not indicate a faith-based belief.
That's what we've been trying to say. Therefore, it cannot be absolutely faith-based atheism. QED.
"If only one person knows the truth, it is still the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
-
Likewise, the good doctor certainly isn't Jewish or Christian; most likely Islamic. Of course such a person isn't going to find evidence for something patently Jewish. :) *edit* oh, he's the chief archaeologist of Egypt? Come on, Bassam - you really think that's an unbiased opinion? :rolleyes:
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: Passover: Do this in remembrance of Me The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Judah Himango wrote:
Likewise, the good doctor certainly isn't Jewish or Christian; most likely Islamic. Of course such a person isn't going to find evidence for something patently Jewish. *edit* oh, he's the chief archaeologist of Egypt? Come on, Bassam - you really think that's an unbiased opinion?
The proposition that there is no good evidence for the Jewish captivity and exodus is pretty standard among archaelogists, notwithstanding the mythology that lives on in Christian circles. It is interesting but unsurprising that you appear to be unaware of this. Perhaps Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman will have more credibility with you than Zahi Hawass. http://www.theosophical.org.uk/Biblunsbd.htm[^]
John Carson
-
Judah Himango wrote:
Maybe they're looking in the wrong place - Yam Suf in Hebrew is not the "Red Sea", it's the Reed Sea.
There was a show about biblical battles on the History Channel that claimed it was the Reed Sea[^] and not the Red sea. They suggested that the Reed sea was a shallow swamp and Moses nipped across during the night while the tide was out. By the time the Egyptians realized they'd gone the tide was coming back in hence blocking their pursuit.
Wjousts wrote:
There was a show about biblical battles on the History Channel that claimed it was the Reed Sea[^] and not the Red sea. They suggested that the Reed sea was a shallow swamp and Moses nipped across during the night while the tide was out. By the time the Egyptians realized they'd gone the tide was coming back in hence blocking their pursuit.
There is no good evidence that the Jews were ever captive in Egypt nor for the exodus. Moses never existed.
John Carson
-
Edmundisme wrote:
I believe there is considerable evidence of God but I cannot prove his existence. I consider nature and life, and the laws of morality and things that to me are unimaginable as being the result of mere chance.
1. Evolution involved chance and natural selection. The latter is non-random. 2. Your argument from personal incredulity is of no value. The power of your imaginings is beside the point. What matters is the evidence and it overwhelmingly points to evolution.
Edmundisme wrote:
A belief in God is not the same as a belief in unicorns. What, in the nature of existence, suggests that there must be unicorns? However, the very nature of existence suggests to me that God exists.
It may suggest that to you, but it doesn't suggest it to me or to others like me. The point is that, to the scientifically minded, one should (provisonally) believe things for which there is compelling evidence and (provisionally) not believe anything for which evidence is lacking. Atheists don't believe in God because of a lack of evidence in favour of God's existence and because of evidence contradicting the existence of some versions of God --- the same reason they (and most people) don't believe in unicorns or teapots orbiting Mars. Scientifically minded atheists don't have any special rules regarding belief in God. They assess the merits of belief in God the same way they assess the merits of belief in anything else. If the evidence is lacking, they don't believe in it.
Edmundisme wrote:
However, not believing in God, and believing that He does not exist are different.
Not fundamentally. It is just a matter of the level of confidence. If you think that the evidence in favour is sufficiently weak, then you will be willing to (provisionally) declare that God doesn't exist, just as you will declare that unicorns don't exist. If you are less sure of the evidence, you will merely declare that you are not convinced of God's existence.
Edmundisme wrote:
What is your evidence that he does not exist?
In order for evidence for or against God's existence to be possible, God's existence must have empirical implications. For evidence in favour of God's existence to be persuasive, those empircal implications need to be more than ex post rationalisation of observed fact
John Carson wrote:
1. Evolution involved chance and natural selection. The latter is non-random.
And it all came from what? What is the origin of life? It can't be non-life. Life can't just spring into being and over the course of time become man (I don't care how many millions or trillions of years you want to give it). And where are the transitional species in the fossil record? This is neither here nor there. Whether or not evolution is in some way involved in our history does not shed any light whatsoever on whether or not God exists.
John Carson wrote:
2. Your argument from personal incredulity is of no value. The power of your imaginings is beside the point. What matters is the evidence and it overwhelmingly points to evolution.
Science in all its pomposity has failed to explain how life can simply "become" without there being an intelligent power behind it. Where did the big bang come from? Certainly not nothing. Does absolute origin of life and universe not puzzle you?
John Carson wrote:
and because of evidence contradicting the existence of some versions of God
Such as?
John Carson wrote:
Fundamentalist Christianity tells us that the universe was created ex nihilo less than 10,000 years ago. Mountains of scientific evidence show that to be nonsense. If you want to discuss the evidence for your version of God, tell us what that version is and what empirical predictions follow from that version.
If I believe God exists, why would the apparent age of the earth bother or confound me? Nobody knows whether the six day creation in Genesis is literal or not. But the bible teaches (and I believe) that God created time and is not himself subject to it. It also states that to God, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day. The purported age of the earth doesn't concern me or challenge my faith.
John Carson wrote:
In order for evidence for or against God's existence to be possible, God's existence must have empirical implications. For evidence in favour of God's existence to be persuasive, those empircal implications need to be more than ex post rationalisation of observed facts. They need to be ex ante predictions that could turn out to be wrong but in fact turn out to be right. Fundamentalis
-
ibowler wrote:
My point is that the world is absolutely round regardless of a particular person's belief on the matter. The fact that there are differing beliefs does not suggest that none of the beliefs can be the "correct" one.
But absolute fact has to be proven. Let's say you claimed it was a cube and I claimed it was a tetrahedral. We'd both be wrong, but both arguing that we're right. When it comes to God, it is faith that makes us believe, but not doubt that makes us disbelieve. Doubt is not lack of faith, doubt is lack of proof.
ibowler wrote:
I'll admit that I was unaware of the second definition. The one that I come across most often seems to fit the first definition and I was assuming that all atheists held this position. I agree with you that the second definition does not indicate a faith-based belief.
That's what we've been trying to say. Therefore, it cannot be absolutely faith-based atheism. QED.
"If only one person knows the truth, it is still the truth." - Mahatma Gandhi Web - Blog - RSS - Math - LinkedIn - BM
Bassam Abdul-Baki wrote:
But absolute fact has to be proven
So the roundness of the earth was not an absolute truth until it was proven to be so? Absolute truth is (by definition) true regardless of whether or not it has been proven. Now deteriming what truths are absolute is a different matter altogether
Ian