Definitions: Atheism and Agnosticsm.

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
Faith is a subset of belief, not the other way around. You can have belief without faith, but faith always requires belief. Therefore having belief does not always require faith and is therefore not religious by nature.

Maybe my math is screwed... seriously... but as far as I know, if faith is a subset of belief doesn't it mean that wherever belief occurs; after examination of it's various elements, the subset of faith would be found in the collection of elements? In which case that would mean whereever the 'set' of belief occurs the 'subset' of faith will be found hidden within it? That's what I got when you said faith is a subset of belief. That's always what I mean when I refer to that statement.

If that evidence is good enough for them personally, then that's all they need. But this type of evidence is useless to anyone other than the person experiencing it.

Is there any situation regarding evidence which is contrary to this? I don't think so. The fact is that we all 'experience' evidence on an individual scale, and it is, in effect, useful to me as I experience it. Mind you, I don't know of any religion in the world with one person as member... so... if they claim evidence... each individual experiences it.

I never stated that I was sure, only what I believe.

Yeah, but that's what you believe... then what? I cannot agree with the notion where a stated lack of belief [disbelief] can be an expression of uncertainty [absolute uncertainty]. It just doesn't compute in my '1MHz CPU, irrational, illogical'... but hopefully Godly mind. There has to be some degree of certitude no matter how small. There has to be doubt, no matter how small. A total lack of bias is illustrated in agnosticism. That's how you believe or disbelieve. If you aren't sure you just say you aren't sure. Or are you implying that there are levels of certitude like the electromagnetic spectrum? If you disbelieve something you cannot be absolutely unsure, but even if there is uncertainty, why bring it up? What is the importance of the distinction? What problem does it solve? Please tell me because it seems I'm just blind to the concept.

I don't see a distinction in what you just typed. Perhaps you missed a word?

Glad you noticed... that was my intention.

I'm not sure I could make the claim that there must be an ultimate truth, so to speak.

I can't see how you can avoid it except to just... well... ignore it like you see a dog begging for beef and you ignore it.

 

[okinrus]

As atheroy says that without the Adam and Eve story Christianity loses its basis. It was their original sins that condemned mankind to death and which triggered the need and justification for a savior, i.e. Jesus. If God didn’t create these two originals and we all evolved from simpler forms then Christianity is gibberish.

If you accept the existance of heaven, then man must have fallen because this is clearly not heaven. We don't have a full understanding of what happened or even the author's intent of the story. The word day in the hebrew version means a period of time so the story may just have been using evening and day to demarcate some logical structure. There are other places in the bible such as when the sun stood still(or appeared to stand still) and when the sun backtracked in Isaiah. So the justification for a savior is implicit in our fallen state.

i don't find god useful to my morals. my morals are perfectly fine without him. i never had god to throw out in the first place- i didn't even now about god till i was about 10.

Well I wasn't speaking of you personally. A complete moral system requires that what we wil do unto others will be done to us. The problem is that someone like Hitler was never really punished in this life for what he did. There's no fairness or equality in a atheist's system of morals. This is huge problem because a moral system must be what it teaches, that is fairness and equality.

 

[okinrus]

Well I think someone could be completely without belief by not knowing the doctrin, but this could never happen to someone who investigates or fully understands the doctrin. Another possibility is that you could be double minded and believe in God and disbelieve in God at the same time. This might be a psychological disorder though.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Cris
Okinrus,

As atheroy says that without the Adam and Eve story Christianity loses its basis. It was their original sins that condemned mankind to death and which triggered the need and justification for a savior, i.e. Jesus. If God didn’t create these two originals and we all evolved from simpler forms then Christianity is gibberish.

Christianity does not need Adam and Eve as a man and woman who were originally created to vindicate it. The story can be taken either symbolically or literally though most prefer the literal sense - either way it has no significant bearing on the outcome of 'original sin' and no significant bearing on Christianity as it is today.

Since biological evolution is fact then Christianity is gibberish.

Just a note... the term gibberish is totally dependent on the understanding of the person who reads the gibberish. Gibberish can be fact, just difficult to understand

 

[Cris]

Marcac,

Christianity does not need Adam and Eve as a man and woman who were originally created to vindicate it. The story can be taken either symbolically or literally though most prefer the literal sense - either way it has no significant bearing on the outcome of 'original sin' and no significant bearing on Christianity as it is today.

OK. But –

At what point in evolutionary history did man go astray that he would need a savior?

Or is it that evolution produced a naturally sinful man?

In Genesis man was created without sin and therefore fit to be in the company of God. As soon as he sinned he was expelled from God’s sight and hence was born the need for a savior.

How would an evolutionary path for man fit with the biblical symbolism and a justification for a savior?

 

[okinrus]

At what point in evolutionary history did man go astray that he would need a savior?

This really does not matter. We were not humans until we were planted with a human soul. Whatever was before that, does not really matter so far as the text and God is concerned.

Or is it that evolution produced a naturally sinful man?

Maybe. The fallen world could have been produced by Satan so far as the text is concerned.

In Genesis man was created without sin and therefore fit to be in the company of God. As soon as he sinned he was expelled from God’s sight and hence was born the need for a savior.

Everyone needs a savior even the angels because it is only by God that they do not sin. The main difference is that we must also be saved from our guilt because we have sinned.

How would an evolutionary path for man fit with the biblical symbolism and a justification for a savior?

The text sort of assumes that God knew what death was before creating Adam.

 

[Cris]

Okinrus,

We were not humans until we were planted with a human soul.

So a soul is just a parasite then.

Homo heidelbergensis is currently categorized as our immediate predecessor, http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/heid.htm

and would not have appeared or behaved too different to modern homo-sapiens.

So what you seem to be implying is that a particular genetic mutation and/or adaptation triggered a signal for God to start implanting parasitic souls into innocent homo-sapiens who corrupted them and made their hosts terrible sinners.

Just what does a soul do? Since up until that last fatal genetic mutation homo-h were doing just fine, with brain capability very similar to homo-sapiens.

Or is it that evolution produced a naturally sinful man?

Maybe. The fallen world could have been produced by Satan so far as the text is concerned.

OK so are you saying the Satan god implanted the souls in homo-sapiens?

Everyone needs a savior even the angels because it is only by God that they do not sin.

What was the evolutionary path for angels then?

The main difference is that we must also be saved from our guilt because we have sinned.

Who is the ‘we’ here? Is it the innocent home-sapien, or the evil parasitic soul? I assume you mean the soul.

How would an evolutionary path for man fit with the biblical symbolism and a justification for a savior?

The text sort of assumes that God knew what death was before creating Adam.

Your answer seems unconnected with my question.

 

[okinrus]

Just what does a soul do? Since up until that last fatal genetic mutation homo-h were doing just fine, with brain capability very similar to homo-sapiens.

The classification into homo-sapiens and non-homo-sapiens here is purely that: classification. Brain capability does not have anything to do with the soul, and so homo heidelbergensis may well have had an animal soul. Since there's no way to date tihs fossil, for all we know, he could have been a deformed human. You also have to wonder why these prehistoric creatures still exist. There are many primates that still exist. So if these creatures were like us, why don't we see their civilization? One million years would surely have been enough time correct? And how are we able to evolve so fast into a civilized being if all other evidence states that we would have remained fine in an inbetween chimp state.

 

[atheroy]

hey chris, i reckon your onto it here, it's most hard to put forward an idea against a belief someone holds if they can change it whenever they want to.

The word day in the hebrew version means a period of time so the story may just have been using evening and day to demarcate some logical structure.

so easily is the story modified to accomodate things, it's crazy desparate. how far before you remove your belief from the roots it is set in? god didn't create adam and eve as said so in the bible? you guys may as well not be christian.

 

[Cris]

Okinrus,

The classification into homo-sapiens and non-homo-sapiens here is purely that: classification.

OK.

Brain capability does not have anything to do with the soul, and so homo heidelbergensis may well have had an animal soul.

OK, but it is brain capabilities, generally from larger brains, that led to higher intelligence that primarily differentiates homo-sapiens from his predecessors.

What you are saying is that modern man (homo-sapiens) have souls, which just happen to directly correlate to physically more complex brains. But now you are claiming there are lesser types of soul. Does all life therefore have souls? Does bacteria have souls?

So if these creatures were like us, why don't we see their civilization?

Not quite enough brain power. I said similar but clearly they were not quite intelligent enough.

 

[Cris]

Atheroy,

it's most hard to put forward an idea against a belief someone holds if they can change it whenever they want to.

Right on. But then of course there can be no way to win against human imagination where there appear to be no limits. This fully supports the observation that religions have no basis in reality.

 

[okinrus]

hey chris, i reckon your onto it here, it's most hard to put forward an idea against a belief someone holds if they can change it whenever they want to.

Aren't you speaking about science here? No one knows every single detail of the creation account in Genesis or the entire meaning of it.

so easily is the story modified to accomodate things, it's crazy desparate. how far before you remove your belief from the roots it is set in? god didn't create adam and eve as said so in the bible? you guys may as well not be christian.

The root is faith and there is no other but weeds. I'm not crazy nor desperate, I'm just suggesting other interpretations. Personally I think the entire issue is futile. I don't have a belief either way because I don't really care. All forms of belief require faith. If every belief is based upon observation, we'd have to have faith that our observation is correct and not biased. So faith is not a proper subset of belief. Of course you can try to say that some things require more faith, but at the end all your doing is giving a list of observations that require faith to believe are accurate.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by okinrus
No one knows every single detail of the creation account in Genesis or the entire meaning of it.

What a remarkably sophomoric statement. Genesis is as "knowable" as any other myth; no more, no less.

 

[okinrus]

It's not sophomoric. If there is a God, would it really make sense that we could completely understand him?

 

[Cris]

Okinrus,

If every belief is based upon observation, we'd have to have faith that our observation is correct and not biased.

But when observations consistently show reality then there is every reason to trust observations rather than not. This is not faith but evidence.

So faith is not a proper subset of belief.

Faith is simply a belief without a factual basis.

Of course you can try to say that some things require more faith, but at the end all your doing is giving a list of observations that require faith to believe are accurate.

Differing quantities of faith indicate no more than degrees of irrationality. If facts are absent then little faith is little different to great faith.

A single simple fact removes any need for faith, and any rational person never has a need for faith under any conditions.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by okinrus
If there is a God, would it really make sense that we could completely understand him?

What, if anything, does this have to do with Genesis? Does Kali imply an unknowable Genesis? What about Mithras or Ba'al?

It is simply pretense to insist that "if there is a God" it would necessarily suggest anything whatsoever about your Bible.

 

[okinrus]

But when observations consistently show reality then there is every reason to trust observations rather than not. This is not faith but evidence.

Observations only consistently show a reality that we have never observe or completely know. This is no different then flipping a coin 10,000 times, having it come up heads, and then claiming that the 10,001 time will certainly come up heads. There is no evidence here simply because having the coin come up heads is independant of the actual coin flip. So it would require some faith to make this claim.

Faith implies a sort of hope and trust different than just belief.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Originally posted by okinrus
There is no evidence here simply because having the coin come up heads is independant of the actual coin flip.

Bullpuckie. What happened to the coin had everything to do with the actual coin flip, i.e., with the physical forces that put it in motion and brought it to rest. Learn to distinguish between the a priori and the a posteriori.

 

[Cris]

Okinrus,

Sorry but you are way off. You are confusing inductive reasoning with blind faith.

 

[okinrus]

Bullpuckie. What happened to the coin had everything to do with the actual coin flip, i.e., with the physical forces that put it in motion and brought it to rest. Learn to distinguish between the a priori and the a posteriori.

I mean other coin flips. Anyways it's a fairly common example and you've probably heard of it.

Sorry but you are way off. You are confusing inductive reasoning with blind faith.

Our whole entire reality is built upon inductive reasoning and because inductive reasoning requires an amount of blind faith, we all have to have some amount of irrational faith.