Monique D. Davis - a bigot

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Does everone understand that it's grammatically correct to spell the singular, monotheistic God with an uppercase G? Lowwercase is reserved when talking about the many different gods.

 

No, it is only "God" when talking about the idea that is named "God." For example, I would not say "I do not believe in a God" - for I said I do not believe in a general deity and not the specific one named "God."

 

uh...what? I have no clue what you mean.

 

I should not capitalize the "god" in the above statement because I was not talking about the particular thing called God.

[Gorgon]

No, no, no. An atheist is a person who does not believe in a god or gods, not one who says there is no god or gods. You are asking me to refute a stawman.

It's a zero sum game isn't it. If an atheist doesn't believe in god then from his perspective god doesn't exist. God only exists for those who believe.

[random n00b]

Unfortunately, Faith is, by definition, a God-inspired certainty that God exists. Certainty, not belief.

 

Are you implying that more than a belief that one has internalised unto himself, faith has a specific divine element that makes it clearly distinguishable from other kinds of beliefs? If so, how would you tell?

According to Christian doctrine, yes. It requires of a degree of divine intervention to attain (Divine Grace). And regarding how could you tell, well. If you have to ask, you are already doomed.

 

No, really. Theoretically you would just know.

 

I'm not making this up, btw. Look it up if you have to.

[Humodour]

To be honest, Nightshade is correct; an atheist in the common (and often technical) sense does not mean a confirmed non-existence of god (any god), it means no belief in god. This could take the form of a delusional certainty that there is no god (faith), but more often it takes the form of scientific certainty that there is no god (i.e. as far as science goes, we can truthly say god doesn't exist. But obviously this isn't perfect knowledge on such a large scale, so we won't absolutely rule it out).

 

In contrast, an agnostic is somebody who doesn't want to be called an atheist because it upsets his religious friends. It's also possible, but rare, that they are agnostic because they really do have a semi-strong belief in the possibility of a god. If they don't really believe in the possibility of god, but won't rule it out with certainty, that's more an atheist stance.

 

I've had this discussion with some people on other forums before. People will always disagree, though.

 

No, no, no. An atheist is a person who does not believe in a god or gods, not one who says there is no god or gods. You are asking me to refute a stawman.

It's a zero sum game isn't it. If an atheist doesn't believe in god then from his perspective god doesn't exist. God only exists for those who believe.

 

Nice cop out, but no. I'm pretty sure most religious people will confirm god is all-encompassing, and that simply disbelieving him doesn't make him go away. This isn't Planescape: Torment.

 

Likewise, just because I don't believe in the validity of a concept, that doesn't mean I poke my head in the sand and pretend it (the concept) doesn't exist as an idea.

Edited April 15, 2008 by Krezack

[Deadly_Nightshade]

No, no, no. An atheist is a person who does not believe in a god or gods, not one who says there is no god or gods. You are asking me to refute a stawman.

If an atheist doesn't believe in god then from his perspective god doesn't exist.

 

No. I might not believe there is a god or gods, but I do not claim to know with absolute certainty that there is no such beings.

[Gorgon]

And thus from your subjectivity god does not exist, only a hypothetical allowance for the fact that you might be wrong in that assumption.

 

Which brings me back to my original statement that atheism is absolutist, well, maybe it isn't. You win.

Edited April 15, 2008 by Gorgon

[Deadly_Nightshade]

And thus from your subjectivity god does not exist, only a hypothetical allowance for the fact that you might be wrong in that assumption.

 

Does a belief make a fact - no it does not. If I were wrong, there would still be a god or gods even if I do not believe in them. They might not exist in my mind, but other than that you cannot say that something would go away just because someone does not believe in it.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Which brings me back to my original statement that atheism is absolutist, well, maybe it isn't. You win.

 

I thank you good sir.

[Humodour]

End. END! NO MORE METAPHYSICS.

[Xard]

I think Berkeley made perfect, unbeatable proof for God's existence back in the day

 

 

enjoy ur hell

Edited April 15, 2008 by Xard

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Humm... Are you talking about "esse est percipi (aut percipere)" et cetera?

[J.E. Sawyer]

I think there is a practical cutoff between genuine ambivalence ("I am not sure what to believe") and belief that allows for the possibility of error ("I believe this, but it is possible I am wrong"). You may posit that there is a silent, invisible, and otherwise undetectable attack helicopter outside my window that tracks my movements everywhere without disrupting the environment. This seems pretty silly to me and I would not believe it. Of course, part of the scenario you have described involves assertions that I cannot refute using the senses available to me. I am so sure that the scenario described is false that I will continue to live my life as though it is false. However, I must admit that I could be wrong because, even if the scenario were true, it lies beyond my ability to perceive and comprehend.

 

Deities are often described as possessing similar "out of the understood world" properties, which leads to people asserting that they do not believe any god(s) exist but admitting that supernatural beings may exist outside of their ability to rationally perceive and comprehend -- because how the heck are you supposed to argue against that?

 

IS THERE ARGON IN THE ROOM ON THE TELEVISION?!

[Tigranes]

Just a friendly prune, we'll see if there's life left in the old horse.

 

Regarding Sawyer's post above, and random noob's that I quote here-

 

According to Christian doctrine, yes. It requires of a degree of divine intervention to attain (Divine Grace). And regarding how could you tell, well. If you have to ask, you are already doomed.

 

No, really. Theoretically you would just know.

 

I'm not making this up, btw. Look it up if you have to.

 

It's interesting because for the last couple of years I've been quite heavily involved in my local church, but gallivanting around unsure how I really feel towards the actual 'faith' bit of the equation. The rest of the religion I can see myself getting into, but this is a kicker. The general logic from people I talk to seems to be that yeah, because there's a divine intervention involved, it's not a question of me going "Hrm, I guess I'll believe", 'decide to believe' and find myself certainly faithful. We humans don't work like that. The big question is whether the certainty that comes, for many people, from a cathartic event, is actually the complete internalisation of the religious discourse (which others would variously describe as brainwashing or Pascal's logic (Pensees I)), or really Godly intervention. Hard to know, which is why I'm burning my arse on the fence.

 

More in line with Josh's comment, let's look at good old Moses, in Exodus 7: 8-13. Now most of us are familiar with things like God appearning as a non-burning burning bush, the various disasters he brings on Egypt, the parting of the sea, etc. But this particular passage is very interesting because it actually says, NIV version:

 

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 9 "When Pharaoh says to you, 'Perform a miracle,' then say to Aaron, 'Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,' and it will become a snake." 10 So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and did just as the LORD commanded. Aaron threw his staff down in front of Pharaoh and his officials, and it became a snake. 11 Pharaoh then summoned wise men and sorcerers, and the Egyptian magicians also did the same things by their secret arts: 12 Each one threw down his staff and it became a snake. But Aaron's staff swallowed up their staffs. 13 Yet Pharaoh's heart became hard and he would not listen to them, just as the LORD had said.

 

The key point is that the 'miracle' Moses performs by the power of God, is actually performed by the Egyptian magicians too, apparently. Completely ignoring whether arboreal metamorphosis is scientifically possible, and the rather weak follow-up that "Aaron's one can eat theirs", the Bible doesn't even claim a monopoly on miraculous manifestations for God. It would be pretty damn flimsy ground to claim that God exists because he does things we can't explain, anyway, for me. So if science improves and one day nanobots can imitate this metamorphosis, or we can find synthetic material to make a bush that doesn't burn/etc, are we God, or does that disprove God? I don't think it makes sense to think we have proof of God in that. The question then becomes, what purpose do these miracles serve? And what has to happen for someone to get that 'dead-cert' faith about God? If it really is the divine spark, what are we supposed to do before that?

 

The common answer is "keep trying and God will open the door" or something, but what you have to be careful of is simply training yourself to faith. Pascal was right; get someone to kneel, get someone to go through the ritualistic motions, and eventually, you will instil faith in him; or rather, you will find he has internalised it so much that he believes he has faith, when he may not. A quandary.

[random n00b]

In contrast, an agnostic is somebody who doesn't want to be called an atheist because it upsets his religious friends. It's also possible, but rare, that they are agnostic because they really do have a semi-strong belief in the possibility of a god. If they don't really believe in the possibility of god, but won't rule it out with certainty, that's more an atheist stance.

That is a misrepresentation and a caricature. Several other different stances that are often categorised as agnosticism (but differ fundamentally from what agnosticism is commonly understood as, such as ignosticism and skepticism) also exist, and are, in many ways, more internally consistent and less based on contradictions and arbitrary assumptions than (a)theism.

 

Please don't try to oversimplify things.

 

 

It's interesting because for the last couple of years I've been quite heavily involved in my local church, but gallivanting around unsure how I really feel towards the actual 'faith' bit of the equation. The rest of the religion I can see myself getting into, but this is a kicker. The general logic from people I talk to seems to be that yeah, because there's a divine intervention involved, it's not a question of me going "Hrm, I guess I'll believe", 'decide to believe' and find myself certainly faithful. We humans don't work like that. The big question is whether the certainty that comes, for many people, from a cathartic event, is actually the complete internalisation of the religious discourse (which others would variously describe as brainwashing or Pascal's logic (Pensees I)), or really Godly intervention. Hard to know, which is why I'm burning my arse on the fence.

God from a philosophical perspective, and the sociopolitical construct called religion aren't the same thing. I was just pointing out how "faith" is defined in the Christian dogma, and how that dogma might affect the mindset of people that hold orthodoxy above reason. The Bible is *not* the work of "God", as it's been verified to have been authored, translated and edited by different people at different times. This alone (but not exclusively) is enough to question the value of its theological contents.

 

Now, trying to analyse dogmatic postulates from a non-dogmatic stance is a futile exercise. Can one achieve true faith without divine intervention? Not from a dogmatic standpoint, that much is pretty clear. From a non-dogmatic standpoint, there's no answer because any reasoning you build can't integrate irrational (dogmatic) premises if it intends to remain consistent and reach a valid conclusion. There's simply not enough to work with.

 

 

The key point is that the 'miracle' Moses performs by the power of God, is actually performed by the Egyptian magicians too, apparently. Completely ignoring whether arboreal metamorphosis is scientifically possible, and the rather weak follow-up that "Aaron's one can eat theirs", the Bible doesn't even claim a monopoly on miraculous manifestations for God. It would be pretty damn flimsy ground to claim that God exists because he does things we can't explain, anyway, for me. So if science improves and one day nanobots can imitate this metamorphosis, or we can find synthetic material to make a bush that doesn't burn/etc, are we God, or does that disprove God? I don't think it makes sense to think we have proof of God in that. The question then becomes, what purpose do these miracles serve? And what has to happen for someone to get that 'dead-cert' faith about God? If it really is the divine spark, what are we supposed to do before that?

 

The common answer is "keep trying and God will open the door" or something, but what you have to be careful of is simply training yourself to faith. Pascal was right; get someone to kneel, get someone to go through the ritualistic motions, and eventually, you will instil faith in him; or rather, you will find he has internalised it so much that he believes he has faith, when he may not. A quandary.

Theology is the ultimate mind game. If it could be clarified (solved?) by means of empirical reasoning, being a holy man would have never been a living. It was built around logical loopholes... you gotta admit, it's quite crafty.

 

Meta, where are you

Edited April 15, 2008 by random n00b

[alanschu]

Since I am bored:

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/atheism

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

 

 

Looks like there is Faith and faith.