T
Techno2000
Guest
Because, I believe deep down, in some way, everyone is looking for Heaven.
- Status
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
Some I suppose, perhaps those whom believe but don’t practice. But honestly I’m not sure imminent doom is a great motivator towards faith anymore. Obviously, I could link to pictures of various atheist soliders but that doesn’t seem like the right thing to do.
Interesting. Oddly, one thing I’m certain of is my uncertainty of everything.
T
Techno2000
Guest
That’s a good start, we can work with that…do you ever wonder how you and the Universe came to be?
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
Yes, as do many others. I do not claim to have the answer and accept it will continue to be a mystery for a long time. The answers or theories I’ve encountered (religious and otherwise) aren’t convincing.
R
Russell_SA
Guest
Would you be so kind as to educate me
On what basis do you either doubt the existence of God [gods] or deny the existence of GOD [gods]?
Thank you,
Patrick
As I understand it, Belief is the same as “to be convinced of”. You are either convinced or not convinced. There is not middle ground. Same with belief, you either believe or you do not believe. It’s not a choice you can make as well. Ex: sit in a chair and then, based on all the information you have about reality and your understanding of logic, then choose to believe you are not sitting in a chair. You can’t. No one can. You can lie to people and tell them you believe you are not sitting in a chair, but you can not lie to yourself.Would you be so kind as to educate me
On what basis do you either doubt the existence of God [gods] or deny the existence of GOD [gods]?
Thank you,
Patrick
Lets say someone presents the argument 3+1=2. The 3+1 is logically correct and consistent with how we know to use mathematics. But the conclusion that someone presented there as 2, does not follow. So you would be justified in not believing that 2 is there based on that logical presentation but the conclusion seems flawed. Now if the presentation was 3-1=2, then you would believe that 2 is there. But the theists go further. They claim that 3-1 = magic. Well, sorry as an atheist I don’t see how that logically consistent argument necessarily concludes magic because at this point we can not investigate that magic is actually any different than being ignorant of how this reality actually came into existence. Since we have no way yet of determining which is correct, we have to stay with the default position of, “I don’t know” and we’re pretty sure you don’t know either regardless of what conspiracy theory you come up with because we can not investigate that claim or falsify it yet.
Atheist are only saying we don’t believe your claim. By not believing someone’s claim, have they by default agreed to a counter claim or presented any claim about what they do think about this topic’s solution at all? No, no they haven’t. Do you understand the difference between “I don’t believe you” and “I believe you claim is wrong.”? The second has a burden of proof, the first does not because it is not a positive claim about reality.
P
PJM
Guest
R
Russell_SA
Guest
Sure, present your arguments, evidence, etc. I may not be qualified to make a judgment on them, but plenty of other people are. There is the James Randi foundation, where for the last 40 years has offered a 1,000,000.00 prize for anyone able to present what you are claiming to have. Also there is the peer-review process of the scientific community as well and gaining the Nobel prize for revealing what other’s have not been able to demonstrate for the past 100,000 years. Just trying to make sure you gain all the notoriety for your claims that you have come to conclude and your research gets rewarded. Your time isn’t free after all.So MY friend, would YOU care to see “the burden of proof?”
Blessings,
Patrick
V
Vonsalza
Guest
There are not degrees of surety??? Degrees of belief???
Per you, I know my wife loves me with the same certainty I know my mailbox is black, with the same certainty I know quarks are real?
Total nonsense. Any argument flowing from that inane premise is, by rule, nonsense as well.
Good grief man, read what you write before hitting “submit”.
R
Russell_SA
Guest
I’ll use your wife’s story to clarify. She says she loves you. All her actions indicate that sometimes she loves you and sometimes she doesn’t but for the entire story you know about your relationship with her, you conclude that she loves you. You do have examples where you can point to where you could conclude that she didn’t love at that point, but over all, she loves you. The “love” is the conclusion to the story. Belief and disbelief is the conclusion to the story, the equation. It’s the resulting point the story was arguing for. You can have varying levels of certainty about the conclusion you reached that she loves you but it is definitely a logical disconnect to say you believe and disbelieve that she loves you. It’s one or the other. There are varying levels of one or the other, but it can never be both.
Or this one works as well. Someone presents an idea, they have weak arguments you don’t believe justify the point of their presentations and strong arguments you do believe justify the point of their presentation. After 50 points presented you have a varying degree of believing the point of the presentation, what it was arguing for. But you can’t disbelieve something you currently hold as a belief at the same time. You can change from disbelief to belief and vice versa, but you can’t hold both at the same time about the same idea. IE: to believe your wife, over-all, loves you and doesn’t love you at the same time.
P
PJM
Guest
My friend, If the Randi foundation were truly objective, they would be Bankrupt by now for paying out so many evidences. So it is MY opinion that it not a lack of evidence, but TRUTHINESS, that like a plague in our time, has subjectively insisted on some “right” [authority never provided] to redefine TRUTH to what I have come to term “MEISM”” What I Want, What I think, what I choose to accept and believe. Each of which is only subjective personal unsupported opinions.
I don’t overlook YOUR irony my friend, but because I’m dialoging with you; and it is your Soul that hangs in the balance, I will nevertheless respond to “your” challenge. If and when they pay up, I’ll split it with you for sharing the challenge.
So my friend; you’re an atheist; and choose NOT to believe in God
Perhaps you can tell us then the Origin and the discipline of the so called “Natural Laws?’ Laws like motion [every cause has an effect]; or gravity; what goes up will come down. Or the Origin of the MORAL Laws: “Good” & “Evil”? What is their origin?
Here ear more complex and perplexing facts:
FACT: In the universe [which BTW exist precisely so that man CAN [COULD] know God exist]; are BILLIONS of planets; stars and galaxies. BUT only one; only planet earth can be PROVEN to sustain the life forms on it. Science sent a man to the moon and back, yet can’t OBJECTIVELY disprove this reality.
FACT: If you choose what you’re wearing this morning and then dressed yourself I can prove to you not only that God DOES exist AND that you emulate Him just as the Bible claims in Genesis 1:26-27 & John 4:23-24
FACT: On planet earth with its many-MILLIONS of living things; only one; only man is RATIONAL and can freely choose to love and or to hate. Only man can make other complex things from less complex things; such as your computer.
FACT: In order for man to be able to do ANY of the above; in an absolute sense requires ALL of these attributes: [1] **a mind **not meaning here one’s brain] [2] **an intellect **[not referencing here one’s “I.Q.”] and [3] a freewill. Each of which LIKE God: is SPIRITS & immortal: can’t be killed and never die.
FACT: Each of these God-like attributes are “spiritual realities” And are permanently attached to man’s SOUL [for this discussion defined as “that which animates all life forms”. Just as the universe has a hierarchy of complexity and significance; so too does earths “living things” and so do “souls.” In each of these cases; man; Created [means to make something out of nothing] in God’s own Image; are the pinnacle; the top; & the most complex
FACT: What I have shared is FACTS. But you no doubt; are doubting this; so allow me to ask you to prove it to yourself: Quantify for us your “freewill.” [Which only a fool would attempt to disprove]. What is YOUR freewill’s size, weight, color or shape? WHERE did it come from? Your parents are human so it can’t be from them.
This can’t be determined and yet a freewill exist in each human person. So then a science question: Science teaches that “like things” come from “like things”. So then where do man’s mind; intellect and freewill come from?
Friend your denial of God [which is the name I choose to give] this undeniable; most Powerful and Complex “GOOD-thing” in existence; is both illogical AND unprovable.
Heaven and hell are REAL; eternity is forever so you may wish to reconsider your position.
CONTINUED ON NEXT POST
P
PJM
Guest
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
DISCOVERING GOD THROUGH HIS CREATED UNIVERSE
[10] St. Thomas Aquinas:
The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.
Argument Analysis of the Five Ways
**web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm]
The First Way: Argument from Motion
IS IT THE NORM FOR ATHEIST TO REPLY ON OTHERS TO “DO THEIR THINKING” FOR THEM?
Certainly others HAVE taught me my FAITH; BUT I was able to PROVE for myself what they taught as TRUTH. Is that not a reasonable response?
God Bless,
PJM**
DISCOVERING GOD THROUGH HIS CREATED UNIVERSE
[10] St. Thomas Aquinas:
The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.
Argument Analysis of the Five Ways
**web.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publishing/aquinasFiveWays_ArgumentAnalysis.htm]
The First Way: Argument from Motion
- Our senses prove that some things are in motion.
- Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.
- Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
- Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).
- Therefore nothing can move itself.
- Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.
- The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.
- Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.
- We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.
- Nothing exists prior to itself.
- Therefore nothing [in the world of things we perceive] is the efficient cause of itself.
- If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results (the effect).
- Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.
- If the series of efficient causes extends ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.
- That is plainly false (i.e., there are things existing now that came about through efficient causes).
- Therefore efficient causes do not extend ad infinitum into the past.
- **Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.
**
- We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.
- Assume that every being is a contingent being.
- For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.
- Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.
- Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.
- Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.
- Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.
- We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.
- Therefore not every being is a contingent being.
- Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.
- There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.
- Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).
- The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.
- Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.
- We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.
- Most natural things lack knowledge.
- But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.
- Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. END QUOTES
IS IT THE NORM FOR ATHEIST TO REPLY ON OTHERS TO “DO THEIR THINKING” FOR THEM?
Certainly others HAVE taught me my FAITH; BUT I was able to PROVE for myself what they taught as TRUTH. Is that not a reasonable response?
God Bless,
PJM**
R
Russell_SA
Guest
This will take some time to respond to each point, so I’ll start here. As I understand it, belief is not a choice. It is the result of applying data/knowledge about reality and applying a logic process to that data to come to an understanding/belief/conclusion about it. Such as A + B = C. The “A” and “B” are just data of reality we experience, ie: knowledge/facts/etc. The “+” and “=” are our application of logic to that data. The “C” is the concluded result, the belief, what we are convinced about the data. IE: A person can sit in a chair + I am a person = I am currently sitting in a chair. Everything I understand about reality from it’s (name removed by moderator)ut and my understanding of how reality works all makes me conclude/believe that I am actually sitting in a chair. It’s not a choice I can make. If someone comes by with more information about reality in the next minute that I can understand and convinces me I am not sitting in a chair, then my belief will change to not believing I am sitting in a chair. Beliefs are just the conclusion, the results of being convinced. There is no middle ground between I believe X and I do not believe X. You can believe and disbelieve to varying degrees, but you can’t hold both belief and disbelief about the same idea at the same time.
Everything I have ever presented about what I believe about a deity is 0. I have only ever responded to the positive claims of what deists are making about justified belief in a deity and why that does not convince me. There is a difference between “I don’t believe X.” and “I believe X to be false.” So if person A comes to me and gives bad reasons for believing in a deity, I’ll say I don’t believe they are correct for that argument. Also if person B comes to me and gives me bad reasons for not believing in a deity, I’ll also say, I don’t believe they are correct for that argument. I haven’t told anyone what my position is on the topic of a deity’s existence, only ever pointed out their reasons seem to be insufficient for the claim they are making. Example: Jar of gumballs that no one is allowed to investigate. There can only be an even or odd number of gumballs. The theist is claiming there is an Even number of gumballs. I’ll tell them I don’t believe them. Some else comes along and says there’s an odd number of gumballs. I’ll, also, tell them I don’t believe them. Now, what is my position on the even or odd number of gumballs? I never made one. Everyone else did though. Same thing with the idea of a deity. It is either the case that a deity exists or does not exist. But since I believe no one can know this, I don’t see how anyone can make a claim to know that it exists or does not exist. As I understand it, we can not investigate the supernatural in any way, so we are not justified in making any conclusions about how it can interact with reality and how we can determine a causal justified link of event in our reality leads back to the supernatural.
Feel free to respond here, but I’m going to continue on with the rest of your points and it may take a while to pick back up at this point.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
This is nonsense.
R
Russell_SA
Guest
I disagree.
V
Vonsalza
Guest
Synonyms for “belief” from Oxford:
opinion, view, viewpoint, point of view, attitude, stance, stand, standpoint, position, perspective, contention, conviction, judgement, thinking, way of thinking, thought, idea, theory, hypothesis, thesis, interpretation, assumption, presumption, supposition, surmise, postulation, conclusion, deduction, inference, notion, impression, sense, feeling, fancy, hunch
faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence, freedom from doubt, optimism, hopefulness, hope
ideology, principle, ideal, ethic, conviction, doctrine, teaching, dogma, tenet, canon, article of faith, credence, creed, credo, code of belief
So I take it that you think these things lack an element of choice.
I’m assuming that you got this idea in your reading of Dawkins, as is the popular source for this line of thought. I think you should give fair air to the critiques of the idea as well - even those from fellow atheists.
The notion that “belief is not a choice” is nonsense. The existence of conversion between religions and sects within a religion (or, really, the notion of conversion between ANY set of ideologies) refutes the errant notion pretty flatly.
I’ve been registered as a Republican and as a Democrat. I was an evangelical Baptist, then reformed, now Catholic. I’ve believed Mercedes made the best car, now I believe Toyota does. And others disagree on all points while looking at the same data.
Belief is absolutely a choice. The Dawkins-esque, deterministic assertion otherwise is axiomatic and absurd. It is an internally consistent system that is void of absolutely any independent and external proof - just like most “religion”.
R
Russell_SA
Guest
I described my understanding of how belief is used and gave the scenario of where I apply that descriptor for that scenario as I understand it. If you don’t like that label for what I am describing, fine. Tell me the label you would use and I’ll use that so you know what I am trying to communicate. I don’t care how people use that word differently from me, I’m just trying to communicate my understanding of how I understand the world. Use what ever label you want for those ideas I presented.
As to the car point, you do know that people assess the same data differently correct? Otherwise, we would only need judges, not an entire panel of jury members. Data A presented to person B and C. Person B may value that data, on a scale of importance from 1-10, as a level 9 but person C may value it as a level 2. Do I really need to point this out? I’m pretty sure you know this.
I haven’t read a single book from Dawkins. So sorry, that point doesn’t really apply to me.
As to the choice point, I’ll use my chair analogy - I am experiencing what I understand is the idea of sitting in a chair, so therefore, I have no choice but to conclude (ie believe) I am sitting in a chair. Belief is the conclusion about the event as I experience it. I could be mistaken, but since I don’t know what I am mistaken about, I can not change my current conclusion/belief without new information. What ever you conclude about your experiences is your belief about those experiences. Once you get a new understanding about that experience or understanding about reality, then your conclusion may change or it may stay the same because that data reinforced your current conclusion. But the conclusion is not something you choose. IE: eat an apple, then choose to believe you are not eating an apple. You can’t, it’s the conclusion that describes that event as you currently understand it. I really don’t know how to explain this better since you are stuck on my label of “belief” as I use it to describe the conclusion of the eating an apple event. What other word should I use for you then?
P
PJM
Guest
Russell_SA;14787498 said:
WOW
Of course it’s a choice. A multiplicity of options are open to you
Read or don’t read
Comprehend or don’t comprehend
Agree or disagree
Stand rather than sit
Choose this char or that chair.
Life my friend is ALL about our choices
You’re speaking of “applied LOGIC” and that is exactly what I hope you will do with the information I provided.
I will point out here that CONVERSIONS are not my aim, or for that matter even in my control. Only God can cause a conversion; and even then, God relies on one’s openness and willingness to actually accept OBJECTIVE Truths. … God does not FORCE one to believe; BUT does make it possible if one is open to LOGICAL Truths.
I suppose some could be convinced that Brown is Black or Grey is Blue, if they are not open to OBJECTIVE reality, as ones often evidences these days.[MEISM: What I want; What I choose to belief: What I; What I……ect.]
You are correct on one point though; “there is no middle ground” ……what is True remains true even if denied my many; and what is a lie remains a lie even if many choose to subjectively accept it.
.
OK; PROVE IT!
Please take my arguments point by point and OBJECTIVELY-PROVE I’m wrong.
The first position is weak; to the second, if you disbelieve only because you want that to be your position; with no OBJECTIVE evidence to support your position; you’re not being true to yourself
.Everyone else did though. Same thing with the idea of a deity. It is either the case that a deity exists or does not exist. But since I believe no one can know this, I don’t see how anyone can make a claim to know that it exists or does not exist
.Not “one” but countless BILLIONS have and Do over the years. WHY is that? OBVIOUSLY far more do belief in a deity, than do not. WHY is that? And the believers CAN, and I HAVE clearly demonstrated REASONS for my beliefs; and “you” react by trying to change OBJECTIVE FACTS into some sort of philosophical, make believe discussion, unsupported by anything other than what you choose to believe or NOT believe despite seemingly being unable to refute the evidence presented.
And WHERE my friend did you come up with that idea? Believers in God by and large have for “ever” insisted on evidence of their beliefs. YES some beliefs do require FAITH, [through grace alone] as miracles and mysteries are just that….miracles and mysteries…. BUT through the history of humanity GOD has made it possible to know that at least a superior and GOOD “Power” that we choose to “our God” exist, that is why “gods” have been found in every land, no matter how primitive.
THANK YOU
Perhaps consider copy & paste to WORDS; I’ll send you an E-mail address we can use by Private Message
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Blessings,
PJM
V
Vonsalza
Guest
As the expression of those ideas are dependent upon the very words you use, I’m still trying to figure out what exactly it is you’re saying.
Precisely! In the example, they form differing beliefs from a common source!
Fair enough. But most of the traction I’ve seen for it was after Dawkins’ publication. He’s not the originator of the idea (very little new under the sun), but I’d about bet my socks that your source is a secondary of Dawkins. He made it far less obscure, unfortunately.
Fine. My objection here is that you also “know” that you’re sitting in a chair. The attempt to divide “know” from “believe” as it pertains to you being in your chair strikes me as completely arbitrary and, thus, of little truth value.
“Knowing” and “believing” are simply two different points on a continuum between ambiguity and certainty on “what is real?”, as the Gettier Problem thoroughly teaches us.
If what you’re saying is true, then that’s a world where “bias” wouldn’t exist. In this one, however, it does.
As the proposition you’re trying to describe strikes me as nonsensical, “nonsensical” would be the best I could come up with. That’s not intended as a “shot” at you, personally.
I think your ideological forebears are trying to construct a scaffold/gambit from things nebulous. Impossible without irrational axiomatic concessions, in my view. I think the effort continues in a sometimes deliberate, sometimes subconscious attempt to either dismantle or materialize the metaphysical aspects of humanity that necessitate the “blight” of religion as a concept. One such aspect is the juxtaposition of contemptible “belief” vs sacred “knowledge”, as though one can readily tell them apart with consistency (the certain sheep not actually being a sheep).
P
PJM
Guest
A REPLY TO RUSSELL on definition of God, god and deity
GOD defined
“god” [Small “g”]
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
“a moon god” end dictionary quote
“god’s” are self-made or at least self identified
“gods” reflect what each individual has self- determined to be of exaggerated importance to “the self” [MEISM personified] What I want, what I think, What I choose to believe or disbelieve.
They can be a self- induced propensity to a food, a drink, a person a life style, money, sex, fame, power; objects such as a certain type of car, or a home is a special neighborhood, or certain kinds of apparel, and so on. And one can and often does have multiple “gods’; as many as one “needs” and can afford to feel fulfilled and satiated.
DEITY. God, conceived in theological terms as the divine nature or essence. Deity expresses what God is, normally the infinite Being whose essence is to exist. It therefore identifies the Trinity as one God. (Etym. Latin deitas, godhead.)
FROM FATHER HARDON’S catholic dictionary
“God” [Large “G”]
GOD. The one absolutely and infinitely perfect spirit who is the Creator {AND SUSTAINER} of all. In the definition of the First Vatican Council, fifteen internal attributes of God are affirmed, besides his role as Creator of the universe: “The holy, Catholic, apostolic Roman Church believes and professes that there is one true, living God, the Creator and Lord of heaven and earth. He is almighty, eternal, beyond measure, incomprehensible, and infinite in intellect, will and in every perfection. Since He is one unique spiritual substance, entirely simple and unchangeable, He must be declared really and essentially distinct from the world, perfectly happy in Himself and by his very nature, and inexpressibly exalted over all things that exist or can be conceived other than Himself” (Denzinger 3001).
Reflecting on the nature of God, theology has variously identified what may be called his metaphysical essence, i.e., what is God. It is commonly said to be his self-subsistence. God is Being Itself. In God essence and existence coincide. He is the Being who cannot not exist. God alone must be. All other beings exist only because of the will of God.
FROM FATHER HARDON’S catholic dictionary
- Status