|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 13, 2019 2:49:19 GMT
I would just point out that being an atheist is not about being convinced by an argument really, it’s just about the recognition that if you cannot use evidence of any kind to demonstrate that a claim is true or even just possible, then accepting that claim as true is an irrational position to take. So in the case of god, can anybody demonstrate that such a thing exists? I think most everybody, even those who believe it would agree they nobody has demonstrated that. And if you agree that nobody has demonstrated that, then I respectfully submit that you are admitting that there is no valid reason to believe it. But that's an argument, isn't it? It's basically: Premise 1: We should only believe in things that have been demonstrated Premise 2: God has not been demonstrated Conclusion: Therefore we should not believe in God It seems though that many find these premises uncontroversial while others argue against one, other or both. And I think that's because of differences in inclination rather than one side not getting the argument or the other side not seeing its flaws. I am honestly not sure what point you're trying to make exactly, but simply put, if something has not been demonstrated, then there is no valid reason to claim such a thing is true whether that thing is a god or the loch ness monster. Believing it in spite of the lack of evidence makes it an irrational belief. I don't hold irrational beliefs myself and I would advocate against it.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 13, 2019 2:52:05 GMT
Simple reason: there is no evidence. In fact, none has ever been presented in the entire history of mankind. When you produce it I’ll change my mind. Until then, I’ll consider it untrue.
But there is plausible evidence for those who can see...
-Eucharistic Miracles
-Our Lady of Gaudalupe image from the year 1531 -Our Lady of Las Lajas (image on a rock from the year 1754) -Our Lady of Fatima (the miracle of the sun from Oct 13th 1917) etc
so those who say there is no evidence in the slightest for God's (i.e. The Holy Trinity (Father/Son(Jesus Christ)/Holy Spirit)) existence are wrong
but like I always say it seems to boil down to the following quote for many...
"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." - St. Thomas Aquinas
or like one from the bible...
"Then Abraham said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’" - Luke 16:31
Those aren't evidence of anything. People use things like that to justify whatever they want to, but they aren't actually evidence leading to that conclusion.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Oct 13, 2019 5:43:47 GMT
For one moment, assuming that people didn't share the idea of an omnipotent deity that produced some sort of moral text, how powerful would a being have to be for you, whomever happens to be reading, to consider it a god?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,671
Likes: 1,296
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 13, 2019 6:26:32 GMT
I am honestly not sure what point you're trying to make exactly, but simply put, if something has not been demonstrated, then there is no valid reason to claim such a thing is true whether that thing is a god or the loch ness monster. Believing it in spite of the lack of evidence makes it an irrational belief. I don't hold irrational beliefs myself and I would advocate against it. I'm not debating your argument. I'm saying those with a religious inclination won't accept it while those who lack that inclination probably wouldn't see much of an issue with it. Belief (or lack thereof) seems to generally come first rather than be founded by argumentation.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 13, 2019 8:06:54 GMT
I am honestly not sure what point you're trying to make exactly, but simply put, if something has not been demonstrated, then there is no valid reason to claim such a thing is true whether that thing is a god or the loch ness monster. Believing it in spite of the lack of evidence makes it an irrational belief. I don't hold irrational beliefs myself and I would advocate against it. I'm not debating your argument. I'm saying those with a religious inclination won't accept it while those who lack that inclination probably wouldn't see much of an issue with it. Belief (or lack thereof) seems to generally come first rather than be founded by argumentation. 'Belief (or lack thereof) seems to generally come first'... comes from parental and environmental indoctrination. This whole concept neatly explains the variation in religious belief amongst different societies, including lack of belief.
|
|
Huxley
Sophomore
@huxley
Posts: 258
Likes: 86
|
Post by Huxley on Oct 13, 2019 8:14:54 GMT
Simple reason: there is no evidence. In fact, none has ever been presented in the entire history of mankind. When you produce it I’ll change my mind. Until then, I’ll consider it untrue. You would think after eons of human religious belief, they would have gotten tired of waiting and moved on by now. Well you would think that. Man is the only living creature that is aware of his mortality. We know we have an end. The smart thing would be to prepare for it.
|
|
Huxley
Sophomore
@huxley
Posts: 258
Likes: 86
|
Post by Huxley on Oct 13, 2019 8:19:44 GMT
Simple reason: there is no evidence. In fact, none has ever been presented in the entire history of mankind. When you produce it I’ll change my mind. Until then, I’ll consider it untrue.
But there is plausible evidence for those who can see...
-Eucharistic Miracles
-Our Lady of Gaudalupe image from the year 1531 -Our Lady of Las Lajas (image on a rock from the year 1754) -Our Lady of Fatima (the miracle of the sun from Oct 13th 1917) etc
so those who say there is no evidence in the slightest for God's (i.e. The Holy Trinity (Father/Son(Jesus Christ)/Holy Spirit)) existence are wrong
but like I always say it seems to boil down to the following quote for many...
"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible." - St. Thomas Aquinas
or like one from the bible...
"Then Abraham said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’" - Luke 16:31
Evidence? if you have evidence then you know it. Faith believes it with out seeing it. Faith is the evidence of things not seen.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 13, 2019 8:37:49 GMT
You would think after eons of human religious belief, they would have gotten tired of waiting and moved on by now. Well you would think that. Man is the only living creature that is aware of his mortality. We know we have an end. The smart thing would be to prepare for it. Exactly. This is done by living the best life you can for yourself and others around you. There is nothing more you can do, as none of us know when our end is nigh...and I mean END, as there can be no afterlife because our brain and body dies which is the seat of our consciousness, and everything that we are.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,671
Likes: 1,296
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 13, 2019 8:42:23 GMT
'Belief (or lack thereof) seems to generally come first'... comes from parental and environmental indoctrination I'd say that certainly plays a very large part, yes. I would hesitate to say it wholly explains the phenomenon though.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 13, 2019 8:43:54 GMT
'Belief (or lack thereof) seems to generally come first'... comes from parental and environmental indoctrination I'd say that certainly plays a very large part, yes. I would hesitate to say it wholly explains the phenomenon though. What else 'could' explain it?
|
|
Huxley
Sophomore
@huxley
Posts: 258
Likes: 86
|
Post by Huxley on Oct 13, 2019 9:34:46 GMT
Evidence? if you have evidence then you know it. Faith believes it with out seeing it. Faith is the evidence of things not seen. Copout. That way you can believe whatever you want and perhaps think you can get away with whatever you want too. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 13, 2019 10:14:04 GMT
I am honestly not sure what point you're trying to make exactly, but simply put, if something has not been demonstrated, then there is no valid reason to claim such a thing is true whether that thing is a god or the loch ness monster. Believing it in spite of the lack of evidence makes it an irrational belief. I don't hold irrational beliefs myself and I would advocate against it. I'm not debating your argument. I'm saying those with a religious inclination won't accept it while those who lack that inclination probably wouldn't see much of an issue with it. Belief (or lack thereof) seems to generally come first rather than be founded by argumentation. I see what you mean. What I would say is that I’m confident very few people would believe religious ideas if they were taught them after that were 20 for instance. Whereas almost everybody would believe any sort of discovery based in math/physics/chemistry/biology because you could present them with the findings. Religion IMO, largely only survives due to constant childhood indoctrination, so I don’t consider it something people are inclined to believe so much as they are tricked into accepting early on, and once their worldview is set, many of them will not allow themselves to be talked out of it. There is a principle for that but I can’t remember what it’s called right now. It’s the same thing as remembering a song lyric incorrectly for instance and being sure you are right even when somebody shows you the real lyrics.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Oct 13, 2019 10:14:48 GMT
Copout. That way you can believe whatever you want and perhaps think you can get away with whatever you want too. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
Faith is an excuse when you have no evidence.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,671
Likes: 1,296
|
Post by The Lost One on Oct 13, 2019 10:33:35 GMT
I'd say that certainly plays a very large part, yes. I would hesitate to say it wholly explains the phenomenon though. What else 'could' explain it? I imagine the following circumstances could perhaps play a part: Genetic predisposition Upbringing (not necessarily of a religious nature but might leave you more susceptible to religious thought from other sources) Intellectual interests (some might be drawn to theology) Personality (eg would a kind child be more drawn to certain aspects of Christianity?) Existential despair Trauma Urge to belong Urge to reject the status quo Reaction to oppression (eg "in the next life things will be better") Reinforcement of oppression, (eg "I am clearly meant to be at the top of society") If you look at it just as a case of indoctrination, that alone wouldn't explain the varieties of ways people react to that indoctrination. Some people buy into it as adults, some modify the belief, some don't think all that much about it, some reject it completely, some discard one set of religious beliefs but take up another (eg imagine a girl raised in a Christian household who becomes a Wiccan in her late teens). Then you have people who were not indoctrinated but become religious as adults. Of course cultures will often dictate the nature of that religious belief.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2019 12:15:12 GMT
Copout. That way you can believe whatever you want and perhaps think you can get away with whatever you want too. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
Faith is gullibility, and nothing more.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Oct 13, 2019 13:42:08 GMT
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
Faith is gullibility, and nothing more. Isn't it funny how they don't believe you though?
|
|
Huxley
Sophomore
@huxley
Posts: 258
Likes: 86
|
Post by Huxley on Oct 13, 2019 15:07:38 GMT
Faith is gullibility, and nothing more. Isn't it funny how they don't believe you though? Are they saying God is a liar?
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Oct 13, 2019 17:08:17 GMT
doom metal turned me from hansel into gretel
in my early thirties i started to analyze the insides of the popular music i was consuming and came to the forgone conclusion that i might be better off as a pole dancer in a strip club then chasing after this ever illusive one true love revolving around who gets to wear the dog mask as they pretend to be madly in love.
i'm not saying that beethoven didn't have his moments of unrequited love but at least he knew the difference between push and an all out shove.
sjw 10/13/19 inspired at this very moment in time by whatever was i drinking.
from the 'benevolent series' of poems
|
|
fatpaul
Sophomore
@fatpaul
Posts: 502
Likes: 193
|
Post by fatpaul on Oct 13, 2019 18:57:14 GMT
Belief (or lack thereof) seems to generally come first rather than be founded by argumentation. Even though I don't adhere to his philosophy, I like F. H. Bradley's quote - 'Metaphysics is the finding of bad reasons for what we believe upon instinct; but to find these reasons is no less an instinct.' ( Appearance and Reality: A Metaphysical Essay) I'd just like to say something though about the difference of having a belief and lacking a belief. Belief is a cognitive faculty that we have and to have no belief is to not have a cognitive faculty. To be cognitively aware of something is to have mental content of something. Lets call this something p: I lack a belief of something is not the same as I have a belief of no thing. I lack a cognitive faculty of p is not equivalent to I have a cognitive faculty of no p. I lack a cognitive faculty of pigs flying is not equivalent to I have a cognitive faculty of no pigs flying. I lack a belief of pigs flying is not the same as I have a belief of no pigs flying. I lack a cognitive faculty of deity existing is not equivalent to I have a cognitive faculty of no deity existing. I lack a belief of deity existing is not the same as I have a belief of no deity existing. I'm not implying that you don't understand this, albeit subtle, difference (I actually think you do) but people of the mentality that atheism is a belief system, or a religion even, tend to not understand the difference and by using the connective 'or' in your statement, people of this mentality tend to read it as belief and disbelief being two sides of the same coin when in fact is more a case of two separate coins.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Oct 13, 2019 19:58:36 GMT
Copout. That way you can believe whatever you want and perhaps think you can get away with whatever you want too. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
In other words 'faith is an irrational belief'.
|
|