On faith

[DaveC426913]

So extraordinary events on grand scales means God exists?

No.

Why put words in my mouth?

Let me pose an analogy.

Aliens landing on the white house lawn would be a particular extraordinary event that would lend very strong evidence to the existence of aliens.

A whirlpool opening up in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, or the sudden death of millions of whales would certainly be extraordinary events, but in-and-of-themselves, they would have little bearing on the existence of aliens.

Likewise, a one hundred mile tall guy appearing above Earth and turning it inside out while saying "I am God" and turning 7 billion of us into (intelligent) newts would be a particular extraordinary event that would lend strong evidence to the existence of God.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

"I'm not a perfect human by any stretch of the imagination, and am flawed in so many ways. Probably more so than some or many of my atheist brothers and sisters"

I wonder why people who are certan that God exists... still choose to continue to sin.???

 

[spidergoat]

People who believe in God, they have proof. Their proof could be their Bible, Torah or Qur'an. Or they could feel a sense of peace wash over them during prayer or meditation. Or the vast universe with all of its splendor and beauty, could be considered ''proof'' to a spiritual person. Just because an atheist doesn't accept these things as proof of a God's existence, doesn't mean that these things couldn't stand as proof for someone who believes. Subjective as it may be, it's proof enough for some. To say there's ''no proof'' of God's existence, has anyone met God, here? How would we even be able to agree on who or what it might appear like, sound like, or act like, if we were to visibly see it or hear it?

For some, for many - there is proof. Just of a different kind, and of course, of a subjective kind. But, subjectivity isn't only relegated to spirituality and religion, we all live by objective and subjective truths, whether we freely admit that or not. If I were to say ''Cheesecake is the best cake on the planet.'' You could answer me by saying ''No, chocolate cake is the best.'' Who is wrong? Neither is wrong, we just have our own opinions (subjective views) on what is the very best cake on the planet.

That same subjectivity continues on to how we all view politics, the economy, racism, sexism, marriage, love, beauty, sex, etc. We all have subjective ideas about something.

Something either exists or it doesn't. There is no such thing as subjective proof. Many things can provide a sense of peace, it doesn't mean they are real.

 

[spidergoat]

You do realise there is a difference between God and ghosts. Right?

The definitions are different, but in practice they are the same, an idea of a non-physical person for which there is no evidence.

 

[wegs]

Something either exists or it doesn't. There is no such thing as subjective proof. Many things can provide a sense of peace, it doesn't mean they are real.

You can't prove that God doesn't exist, anymore than a person of faith can prove one does. You don't believe in subjectivity? Your whole life is built around objectivity?

 

[spidergoat]

Not being able to prove it doesn't exist is no rational basis for belief.

 

[Tiassa]

You don't believe in subjectivity? Your whole life is built around objectivity?

This is an interesting fallacy that apparently I'm guilty of, as well; the "objectivity" of atheism applies only to the argument that there is no God, and has nothing to do with anything else. Yet even that phrasing is inappropriate. I know it sounds like a bad joke, but I've never figured how to address this part without offending identifying evangelical atheists. And, quite frankly, I'm of the opinion the question has some functional value. However, I am repeatedly advised I am in error, so as mocking as it might sound that is not my intent: You ask an inappropriate question; objectivity only applies to rejection of God.

In the end it's the weirdest thing; other fallacies subordinating "logic" to abstract mysterious authority are ... well, apparently some are just fine. It's just that the ones involving God must be rejected according to objectivity.

Except that isn't quite right, either.

Good luck.

 

[Seattle]

The Bible is proof that there is an author or several. It's not proof of its subject matter.

You can't prove that God doesn't exist, anymore than a person of faith can prove one does. You don't believe in subjectivity? Your whole life is built around objectivity?

He said there is no such thing as subject proof, not that there is no subjectivity in his life. Of course one can't disprove a negative but there is not specific to God in that regard. You can't disprove an outlandish claim (your choice as to the claim) and yet you live your life as if it's outlandish.

 

[wegs]

The Bible is proof that there is an author or several. It's not proof of its subject matter.


He said there is no such thing as subject proof, not that there is no subjectivity in his life. Of course one can't disprove a negative but there is not specific to God in that regard. You can't disprove an outlandish claim (your choice as to the claim) and yet you live your life as if it's outlandish.

I was speaking about subjectivity and objectivity, not related to atheism or religion. In general, we all live our lives ''governed'' by subjective and objective truths. Atheist or otherwise, that is true. That is why you are an atheist, and I'm not. That is why people have different political views, different views on life, different ways of looking at the same subject matter. I should have clarified but I was speaking in a general sense.

 

[Seattle]

I was speaking about subjectivity and objectivity, not related to atheism or religion. In general, we all live our lives ''governed'' by subjective and objective truths. Atheist or otherwise, that is true. That is why you are an atheist, and I'm not. That is why people have different political views, different views on life, different ways of looking at the same subject matter. I should have clarified but I was speaking in a general sense.

Yes, of course. I don't think anyone would disagree that much of life is subjective. Science doesn't even deal with those subjects that can't be falsified and tested.

Everything that has to do with feelings, perception, interests is largely subjective. No one is arguing that your favorite book, music or TV program is "wrong". Ghosts, aliens, and UFO could even be reality if there was any evidence for them. Generally, as long as there is no evidence we tend to live our lives as if these things don't exist until something changes.

When something is a subjective subject we all realize it and don't generally argue that it is objective. If someone says God is real, that's an objective statement and it can be argued. If someone says God is a feeling there is little argument.

If someone says there is objective power in crystals that is an objective statement that can be argued. If one says that when I hold pretty stones in my hand it makes me feel good...no problem. Paintings do that too, flowers, baby animals...

 

[wegs]

Yes, of course. I don't think anyone would disagree that much of life is subjective. Science doesn't even deal with those subjects that can't be falsified and tested.

Everything that has to do with feelings, perception, interests is largely subjective. No one is arguing that your favorite book, music or TV program is "wrong". Ghosts, aliens, and UFO could even be reality if there was any evidence for them. Generally, as long as there is no evidence we tend to live our lives as if these things don't exist until something changes.

When something is a subjective subject we all realize it and don't generally argue that it is objective. If someone says God is real, that's an objective statement and it can be argued. If someone says God is a feeling there is little argument.

If someone says there is objective power in crystals that is an objective statement that can be argued. If one says that when I hold pretty stones in my hand it makes me feel good...no problem. Paintings do that too, flowers, baby animals...

Very much agree. Think the problem doesn't begin and end with someone stating that God is real. If I say that I believe God is real, why would you care, right? It's in admonishing someone else for not believing that God is real, that becomes the issue. That always seems to be the general problem I've witnessed when atheists and theists begin these types of discussions. Tiassa used the phrase ''evangelical atheist'' above, so apparently, there are atheists who employ similar tactics.

 

[Seattle]

Very much agree. Think the problem doesn't begin and end with someone stating that God is real. If I say that I believe God is real, why would you care, right? It's in admonishing someone else for not believing that God is real, that becomes the issue. That always seems to be the general problem I've witnessed when atheists and theists begin these types of discussions. Tiassa used the phrase ''evangelical atheist'' above, so apparently, there are atheists who employ similar tactics.

What has happened, at least in the U.S., is that religion was a more private affair at least for many people. It was mainstream, you had to say you were religious but it stayed in church and politics stayed out of church.

Personal computers, the internet, Newt Gingrich all came along and organized the "religious" vote and brought politics into the mix. I think it was a matter of being careful what you wish for as you might just get it.

Organized religion got more power at the expense of shoving it down everyone's throat (family values, contact with America). More moderate people eventually got tired of this (religious and non-religious alike). People started to speak up. Many people who were nominally religious before weren't really that religious and many who weren't religious now began to speak up as well.

It backfired on the political organized religious right. Now the cat is out of the bag. People who got tired of religion being shoved down their throat are probably the "evangelical atheists" you are referring to.

If people get back to letting personal beliefs remain personal (private) there is no issue. School prayer isn't an issue. People can "pray" silently any time they want to. Don't teach religious non-sense (6,000 year old earth) in science classes and there is no problem.

Even on this forum, if everyone just stated their beliefs rather than tried to impose them on someone else then there would be nothing to argue about.

 

[Tiassa]

What has happened, at least in the U.S., is that religion was a more private affair at least for many people. It was mainstream, you had to say you were religious but it stayed in church and politics stayed out of church.

Personal computers, the internet, Newt Gingrich all came along and organized the "religious" vote and brought politics into the mix.

Historically speaking, that's a little late; the big awakening, for the purposes of what you're observing, came in 1980. What happened in 1994 is a product of that awakening, and they've pretty much been in an accelerating downward spiral ever since.

Organized religion got more power at the expense of shoving it down everyone's throat (family values, contact with America). More moderate people eventually got tired of this (religious and non-religious alike). People started to speak up. Many people who were nominally religious before weren't really that religious and many who weren't religious now began to speak up as well.

While I would suggest this part tracks back to 1962 and the Sexual Revolution, perhaps that generation would look back to flappers. Generally speaking, the traditional family values the current generation of conservatives appeals to is a gleaming propaganda postcard for the Long Decade, circa 1947-62. Romantic marriage, including the mere idea of a woman's satisfaction in her mate, were the thin edge of the wedge then. To that process, we might then simply note Clive Barker: Each age will want the tale told as if it were of its own making.

But even in the question of the Long Decade or the Republican Revolution of '94, the Reagan Awakening of 1980 is the relevant one insofar as we might figure the current American "religious right". Essentially, there existed a bloc of Christian holdouts who, when given a choice 'twixt the Devil they knew or the Devil they didn't know, chose to not vote for the Devil; Reagan mobilized them, convinced them to change their minds and turn out for the Devil. Their political influence has been growing.

You are correct that there was, once upon a time, greater separation, not simply 'twixt faith and public service, but also the mainstream and the conservative fringe. Once upon a time, the basic idea was that these people were voters, and would land somewhere, and the GOP knew how to pitch to them, and they were never actually getting their way. So it's the crazy dude on the corner; are they really supposed to say no we don't want your vote?

And now these people run the Party. It really is the same logical structure they used in the 1980s when arguing for censorship of the arts. And, remember, that's back when such nuttery wasn't considered so nutty, and was a bipartisan butter.

If people get back to letting personal beliefs remain personal (private) there is no issue. School prayer isn't an issue. People can "pray" silently any time they want to. Don't teach religious non-sense (6,000 year old earth) in science classes and there is no problem.

Once upon a time that's all there was to it.
___________________

Notes:

Barker, Clive. Weaveworld. New York: Poseidon, 1987.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Even on this forum, if everyone just stated their beliefs rather than tried to impose them on someone else then there would be nothing to argue about.

Who has imposed their beliefs, in this particular thread?

jan.

 

[Baldeee]

Not really because that could suggest that there is God, but you don't believe in Him. I doubt atheists would accept that.

From the theist's own point of view what the atheist accepts or not is irrelevant: the theist, as webs suggested, would consider even the atheist to be "with God" - or at least God to be with them.
And the only difference, from the theist perspective, is the belief.

Existence has to play a role in the definition of atheist, in order to argue against God.

Surely existence plays a role in the definition of atheist because it describes their position: lack of belief in the existence of God.
You make it sound as though atheists were looking for an argument against God and couldn't find one until someone suggested putting the issue of existence within their label.
This seems... an odd view.
The label was coined to describe their position, not formed "in order to argue against God".

It is more plausible to argue against the existence of God.

More plausible for who?
Than what?

It levels the playing field, as the theist will never be able to prove that God exists in the way that atheists define existence. So existence plays a very important role for the atheist.

You seem to see it as an "us against them"?
Your view seems to be that people see theism and think "I need to argue against that, against the God they believe in, but I need to find a reason to do so... Hmmm, let's use the colour of the theist's hair against him... No, that won't work... What about the inability of God to perform parlour tricks on demand? No... That won't work... What about existence? Yes! That's it! I'll incorporate matters of existence into my beliefs and arguments so that I can level the playing field!"
This is absurdist nonsense, I'm sure you'd agree, yet this is what you are suggesting has happened.

Tell you what, why not debate the position that the person holds rather than the label they use (which you might well understand differently to them: why you think they use it, how you think they have changed it to try to get one over on the theist etc).
The atheist's position is what it is, and the label just happens to fit.
It simply means that they lack belief in the existence of God.
Everything else about them is up for grabs.

It just seems natural to believe in God.
,..
Sorry for not giving more detail, but I don't think there is more that I can say that would give you a better sense of why I believe.

It also seems natural to breathe, and takes no intelligence to do so.
We do, however, know why we breathe, and that knowledge takes intelligence to understand.

So why do you believe, Jan?
Is it just a non-intelligent instinct on your part, something that "seems natural"?
Or is there some intelligence behind why you believe, and if so, what is it?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Aliens landing on the white house lawn would be a particular extraordinary event that would lend very strong evidence to the existence of aliens.

What if you weren't there to see it, but you managed to catch it on you tube. Would that still be regarded as very strong evidence?

Likewise, a one hundred mile tall guy appearing above Earth and turning it inside out while saying "I am God" and turning 7 billion of us into (intelligent) newts would be a particular extraordinary event that would lend strong evidence to the existence of God.

Should the people who didn't happen to see the aliens with their own eyes, accept it as evidence also?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

From the theist's own point of view what the atheist accepts or not is irrelevant: the theist, as webs suggested, would consider even the atheist to be "with God" - or at least God to be with them.
And the only difference, from the theist perspective, is the belief.

If the theist has a point of view about the atheist accepts, then it is relevant. Why would you think otherwise?
Wegs (I assume you mean), described 'a person of faith'.
That may mean theist to you, but not necessarily to me.
How would you know the perspective of a theist?

Surely existence plays a role in the definition of atheist because it describes their position: lack of belief in the existence of God.

A-theist literally means without God. 'Existence' or lack of, can be seen as a reason why one is without God. 'Existence' (lack) has become synonymous with atheism, but it isn't the true definition of atheism.

You make it sound as though atheists were looking for an argument against God and couldn't find one until someone suggested putting the issue of existence within their label.

It doesn't matter, existence is a reason for being without God.
In that light,God wearing crappy shoes could also be a reason.

More plausible for who?
Than what?

For the atheist.
You tell me.

You seem to see it as an "us against them"?

Do I?

Your view seems to be that people see theism and think "I need to argue against that, against the God they believe in, but I need to find a reason to do so... Hmmm, let's use the colour of the theist's hair against him... No, that won't work... What about the inability of God to perform parlour tricks on demand? No... That won't work... What about existence? Yes! That's it! I'll incorporate matters of existence into my beliefs and arguments so that I can level the playing field!"
This is absurdist nonsense, I'm sure you'd agree, yet this is what you are suggesting has happened.

Why is that nonsense, and why is it absurd?

Tell you what, why not debate the position that the person holds rather than the label they use (which you might well understand differently to them: why you think they use it, how you think they have changed it to try to get one over on the theist etc).
The atheist's position is what it is, and the label just happens to fit.
It simply means that they lack belief in the existence of God.
Everything else about them is up for grabs.

Because that's not the actual meaning of the word atheist.

Tell you what, why not debate the position that the person holds rather than the label they use (which you might well understand differently to them: why you think they use it, how you think they have changed it to try to get one over on the theist etc).

I do.
The position the atheist holds is one of being without God. The reason, they claim, is a lack a belief in Gods existence.

It also seems natural to breathe, and takes no intelligence to do so.
We do, however, know why we breathe, and that knowledge takes intelligence to understand.

We are no less intelligent if we don't understand why we breath.

So why do you believe, Jan?
Is it just a non-intelligent instinct on your part, something that "seems natural"?
Or is there some intelligence behind why you believe, and if so, what is it?

Let's go with the first option.
Why do you ask?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

I wonder why people who are certan that God exists... still choose to continue to sin.???

Why do married people choose to cheat?

jan.

 

[Tiassa]

Hypnopompic Callistan Piggy Loop (Always a Bridesmaid, Never a Moneyshot)

Click for Wind of Space and Time.​

Should the people who didn't happen to see the accept it as evidence also?

You know, I remember sitting in the chapel, listening to a woman explain how she played peek-a-boo with Jesus, and I can accept that this idea in her mind is recognized and filed as some manner of memory, but I can't tell you exactly what it means; as testimonial evidence goes, I cannot tell you it means Mother Mary sat there with Baby Jesus while a bunch of schoolkids gawked and played peek-a-boo.

Nor can I tell you that the convicted child molester who begged the court for mercy because he, too, had been abused as a child, actually wasn't, but I'm as goddamn good and sure as I can be he wasn't actually raped by a goddamn sasquatch.

I can't always tell you what the evidence means.

When Satan offered me the world?

When Jesus shook His head and said He had no idea why anyone was fighting?

Okay, those last couple I classify as dreams. But that should not be taken to suggest I have any idea what the dreams mean. And, you know, they really were dreams. Satan does not really look like Anton LaVey; nor Christ Himself resemble Robert Powell. Still, though, someone else might have taken them for the real deal.

Hey, I got one, and this is, like the dreams, actually true: When my head would buzz like someone was running a drill inside it, and the photograph of Saturn that was my bedroom wall gave way to the hidden mystery of Orson the Pig and Sheldon, was I possessed by a poltergeist, abducted by aliens, or simply having a seizure? Note for the record, I have never been observed by anyone else having a seizure. I do have a waning history with sleep paralysis, though, and these events only ever occurred in my room, in my bed. Must be aliens, right? Seriously, though, I don't know why the buzzing noise or cast of U.S. Acres, but it wasn't ghosts or aliens. What such a tale is evidence of is unclear, but most likely a neurological event, and probably less uncommon than we might guess.

Meanwhile, Hell will be an eternity spent in a hypnopompic slow-motion loop trying to get out of bed at Callistan gravity while Orson the Pig laughs like Drill at Zero Hour and no aliens are actually trying to probe me.

Wouldn't mind so much if my head just exploded whenever Beelzebub came in my mouth, but the Devil is always in the detail.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Not being able to prove it doesn't exist is no rational basis for belief.

So not being able to prove it does exist is a rational basis for lacking belief?

Jan.