Reason To be athiest?

[Crunchy Cat]

I'm quite aware that you didn't intend to say that, but, that is written into the language you use.
For example, here you say.. ''Basically psychological games that don't by any means have a correlation to reality.

If as you agreed, reality = everything, how is it possible not to corelate with reality, unless it is separate.

The answer is that there is an error in your thought process that appears to be a result of an unclear definition of the word "truth". I'll explain. Truth is when an idea / notion in your mind matches actual reality. For example, if you see that I am holding an apple and you think "Crunchy Cat is holding an apple" then that idea in your head matches reality (i.e. it is true). In the same exact scenario, if you think "Crunchy Cat is holding a slice of cheese" then that idea in your head does not match reality (i.e. it is false). Simply put, your brain can represent information incorrectly; thus, breaking any correlation to actual reality.

If reality is everything, then reality must also be a person. Does this make sense to you?

jan.

It might make sense under the context of "reality is everything" (i.e. an "is-a" assertion); however, we are operating under the context of "reality = everything" (i.e. an "equality" assertion).

Edit: I double checked the "is-a" standard in knowledge representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-a). The assertion "reality is everything" *could* qualify as an equality assertion (it's context dependent); howevever, "reality is a person" is most definitely an is-a relationship. If we assume the first assertion is equality then the second assertion "reality is a person" is equal to "everything is a person" and we can use either for analysis. The "is-a" hierarchy for relating a person to any superclass will never utilize "everything" as a superclass because it is out of scope as there is never any kind bridge to get from say... "a person is a homo-sapien" to "a person is a super-nova"; therefore, the assertion "everything is a person" is incorrect. A "has-a" hierarchy on the other hand does not share this limitation; however, that relationship is not a part of the assertions we are analyzing.

 

[The Marquis]

Like the other poster noted, I think arguments about the feral child are tricky - as to what exactly is "instinct" and what is "merely learned."

It seems to me that feral children would have the same kind of "problem with God" as those people have who don't grow up in a religious family/setting and who are later (as young adults or older) preached to to believe in God.
This is simply because there are concepts which, if not internalized early enough, are next to impossible to internalize later in life. God, karma, reincarnation are such concepts, for example. There are also more prosaic concepts, such as about the acceptability of cheating and some other moral issues, that, unless a person internalizes them early on, are next to impossible to internalize later.

So I'd conclude that the feral child's absence of a faith in God that would be communicable in some usual way to other humans, is not yet proof that there is no God.

Not quite. It's not an absence of faith, it's an absence of the ability to even conceptualize. You need to think very carefully about that difference, because it is far more profound than it might appear from a few written words on a forum.

Side note - that the concept of god in the form of one religion or another is almost entirely dependent on where one happens to be raised is yet another argument pointing to learned behaviour.

 

[kx000]

Then he is not First and Fundamental, but proposed to be an alien life form. Forever things can't exist because they have no definition points for how they are.

He had a starting point, not a finishing point.

'Faith' has no reason. Opposites often clash.

FAITH IS REASON. My reason is FAITH.

 

[wynn]

Not quite. It's not an absence of faith, it's an absence of the ability to even conceptualize. You need to think very carefully about that difference, because it is far more profound than it might appear from a few written words on a forum.

I am skeptical about that.

Going by my own apparent inability to believe in God, and the discoveries I have made in the process of trying to get myself to believe in God (all unsuccessful), I dare say that I have a grasp on the issue that many who are primarily using (mainstream) Christianity as a reference point, do not have.


I think that the Abrahamic religions have an ontological and epistemological framework that is almost inaccessible to those who were not born and raised into it.
To me, the Abrahamic religions are foreign; although I intellectually, theoretically understand quite a bit of their theology, it nevertheless remains foreign to me.

Now I, unlike feral children, have the meta-communicative knowledge and abilities to talk about all this, so I can express my concerns and discuss them with other people. Feral children don't seem to have that - and I think this is crucial about them.
Perhaps feral children believe in God - but do so in a way that the average Abrahamist couldn't relate to (the average Abrahamist doesn't relate to me either, and look how well-spoken I am!).

Side note - that the concept of god in the form of one religion or another is almost entirely dependent on where one happens to be raised is yet another argument pointing to learned behaviour.

The same goes for verbal language, and countless other things. Does that make language(s) and those other things false?

 

[wynn]

Yet for some theists there is persuasive evidence, so it boils down to what is accepted as evidence. Your acceptence of evidence insures you that there is no God, because you have set the bar as to what IS to be accepted as evidence to each and every individual. This IS a definiate conclusion.

Why is my argument faulty?

Your line of reasoning is faulty because you accept the implicit premise in their reasoning: and that is that belief is, even in the ideal case, a gamble, a matter of odds, a wager.

The whole notion of there being a "reason to believe" in something, or "evidence of something" is probabilistic reasoning, which is, essentially, gambling.
As long as you work with concepts like "reason to believe," "evidence of," you're in the gambling mindset.


This -

Atheism isn't a definite conclusion, at least not for most atheists. Most atheists say "There's no persuasive evidence that any gods exist, so I am justified in believing that gods do not exist unless and until such evidence comes to light."

- is an example of a gambling mindset.

A statistical possibility does not make something acceptable or rejectable, other than in the mind of a person who gambles.
Some atheists, as well as some theists, take for granted that gambling is a good basis for making choices.
But it is not: gambling is an active denial of free will; we resort to gambling when we try to make a decision which is beyond our scope to make (ie. when we are trying to decide about something that is too abstract, too foreign, too general, too big for us). (The momentum here is then to try to understand why we took on such a decision in the first place.)

 

[Balerion]

I am skeptical about that.

Going by my own apparent inability to believe in God, and the discoveries I have made in the process of trying to get myself to believe in God (all unsuccessful), I dare say that I have a grasp on the issue that many who are primarily using (mainstream) Christianity as a reference point, do not have.

In what way?

I think that the Abrahamic religions have an ontological and epistemological framework that is almost inaccessible to those who were not born and raised into it.

I would disagree with this as general statement. While there certainly many people who would not have otherwise become religious if not born into it, the Abrahamic monotheisms are arguably the most approachable. They offer concrete answers to the important questions, and offer peace, stability and eternal life. Granted, those answers are unsatisfactory to anyone wiling to think for themselves, and there's no way to deliver on the promise of eternal life, but the offer is very tempting to the kind of person susceptible to that sort thing.

To me, the Abrahamic religions are foreign; although I intellectually, theoretically understand quite a bit of their theology, it nevertheless remains foreign to me.

If you understand them, how can they be foreign to you?

Now I, unlike feral children, have the meta-communicative knowledge and abilities to talk about all this, so I can express my concerns and discuss them with other people. Feral children don't seem to have that - and I think this is crucial about them.
Perhaps feral children believe in God - but do so in a way that the average Abrahamist couldn't relate to (the average Abrahamist doesn't relate to me either, and look how well-spoken I am!).

Doubtful. First, there's no reason to assume that any sort of belief they held intuitively would amount to a singular "God" entity. The first human religions were polytheistic, so if anything, a feral child would likely view the unknown forces around it as separate entities, rather than the work of one single being. However, I'm not inclined to believe that belief in and of itself is natural and spontaneous. I think inquisitiveness is natural and spontaneous, and belief in deities was the first solution. But this was doubtless the result of cooperation; I doubt that a single feral child would even be able to conceptualize the questions, let alone the answer.

The same goes for verbal language, and countless other things. Does that make language(s) and those other things false?

False dichotomy. Language makes no divine claims for itself. That it arises independently and varies so greatly indicates that it is natural to us and that there is no one "correct" version. The same could be said of religion, except that the claims of religion are that there is one correct way, that all life sprung from this source or sources at this given place at this given time. Their claims all contradict each other. If religion is a learned behavior, then it invalidates those claims, because none could possibly be true. And if none of the claims of religion are true, then what reason is there to believe in their gods?

 

[SciWriter]

FAITH IS REASON. My reason is FAITH.

So, your reason of knowing is the 'unknown' of faith?

 

[Balerion]

FAITH IS REASON. My reason is FAITH.

Faith is not reason. Faith is belief in the absence of reason.

Typing it in all caps won't change that.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Faith is not reason. Faith is belief in the absence of reason.

Typing it in all caps won't change that.

Faith is unconditional acceptance that some assertion is true regardless of supportive / contradictory evidence. Faith is also unconditional trust regardless of supportive / contradictory information. The context of how its used determines the definition of course.

 

[Balerion]

Faith is unconditional acceptance that some assertion is true regardless of supportive / contradictory evidence. Faith is also unconditional trust regardless of supportive / contradictory information. The context of how its used determines the definition of course.

I think I pretty much had it covered.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Faith is belief in the absence of reason.

I think I pretty much had it covered.

The statement doesn't mention what happens in the presence of reason, the presence or absence of evidence, and the presence or absence of trust. That is why I provided an updated definition.

 

[Balerion]

The statement doesn't mention what happens in the presence of reason, the presence or absence of evidence, and the presence or absence of trust. That is why I provided an updated definition.

Ah, I see. Thanks.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

He had a starting point, not a finishing point.



FAITH IS REASON. My reason is FAITH.

At last, someone who gets it. Faith and reason should be one thing, you need both legs to walk, and you are walking. You are authentic.

 

[kx000]

So, your reason of knowing is the 'unknown' of faith?

I have faith in God. Do I know God? No. Do I know faith as good tool to approach science to achieve knowledge? Yes. Do I have faith in a free God? Yes. Does my faith of a God free of any one religion signify that it would be wise to move on with a scientific approach to show this God I present, that he exist?

We have no idea what 'God' would be, but he can be infinity to the universe, or a ant walking on the ground never aging, or a pine cone, a blue pine cone.

Would a 'God' of a afterlife or anything important like the truth of faith, hope, science, and knowledge be a blue pine cone. Would 'God' nature >> to us?

How does one test the great abilities of the universe? Invisibility is certainly on the way. Maybe God evolved to appear as the twin of thin air.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Crunchy Cat,

The answer is that there is an error in your thought process that appears to be a result of an unclear definition of the word "truth". I'll explain. Truth is when an idea / notion in your mind matches actual reality.

For example, if you see that I am holding an apple and you think "Crunchy Cat is holding an apple" then that idea in your head matches reality (i.e. it is true). In the same exact scenario, if you think "Crunchy Cat is holding a slice of cheese" then that idea in your head does not match reality (i.e. it is false). Simply put, your brain can represent information incorrectly; thus, breaking any correlation to actual reality.

I think there is more to truth than that, but I hear you.

In philosophy, reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still more broad definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.

Taken from..

It might make sense under the context of "reality is everything" (i.e. an "is-a" assertion); however, we are operating under the context of "reality = everything" (i.e. an "equality" assertion).

Edit: I double checked the "is-a" standard in knowledge representation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-a). The assertion "reality is everything" *could* qualify as an equality assertion (it's context dependent); howevever, "reality is a person" is most definitely an is-a relationship. If we assume the first assertion is equality then the second assertion "reality is a person" is equal to "everything is a person" and we can use either for analysis. The "is-a" hierarchy for relating a person to any superclass will never utilize "everything" as a superclass because it is out of scope as there is never any kind bridge to get from say... "a person is a homo-sapien" to "a person is a super-nova"; therefore, the assertion "everything is a person" is incorrect. A "has-a" hierarchy on the other hand does not share this limitation; however, that relationship is not a part of the assertions we are analyzing.

I was under the impression we were just talking about reality, period. Not sections and sub-sections.
If people are a part of reality, and reality is everything, then it must contain everything, including the essential properties that make people ie consciousness/intelligence. Don't you think?


jan.

 

[kx000]

Faith is not reason. Faith is belief in the absence of reason.

Typing it in all caps won't change that.

This is the most asinine post I have seen on this site.

I want to report you on grounds of personal offense.

Faith is indeed a synonym for belief.

 

[SciWriter]

…it would be wise to move on with a scientific approach to show this God I present, that he exist?

And 'God' the Deity would be the greatest scientist of all, foreseeing all the reactions, so I interviewed him…

The Deity

Another God appeared, a mere Deity,
(Meaning no intervention, so He’s not a Theity),
And thusly said, “Forget the Theity solution.
I am the Smart God that seeded Evolution.

“It was I that set the whole universal notion
And all of life’s evolution into motion;
That was My elegant and foreseeing way
Of creating the kind of life that would stay.”

“I thought You were all powerful;
Why not just make 20-40 million species
All fully formed, as immutable as Thee,
Along with their usable natural habitats,
For this is how most Gods would do it?
What energy loss could that be to You?
Your infinity could all this in an instant do.”

“I’m not so Great, plus, since Evolution is too stable
For some creationists to scoff at, as a fable,
They have assigned the job to Me, the Creator,
As all of Nature’s natural Instigator,
Because, they must take retreat from the first ID God
Who zooms souls into humans at birth—it’s so odd.
So, now I am not a Theity any more of proof
And thus I must ever remain aloof.

“Of course now I have very little to do
And so I am not much needed, true,
For I can’t even muddle with their lives;
They are all stuck now with their wives.

“I might really just as well retire,
For I am superfluous and tired.”

…

to be con't​

 

[SciWriter]

“Well, You’re still kind of close to our Universe,
Not completely outside it, maybe, the place the worst,
As I suppose your successor will have to be placed,
Absolutely, totally invisible to the human race.

“At least You made some
Basic primordial substance
And foresaw the billion years
Of combinatorial chance,
Predicting every turn,
Or at least knowing that something neat
Might probably come out of it,
Which was still quite a feat.”

“Thank you, but it was nothing.”

“On the contrary—
I say verily—
You’re the Super Scientist,
An Engineer Par Excellence—
The Ultimate Inventor of All Time—
Much better than than the old God of ID.”

“Yes, I am a Scientist, making all that’s real—
I HAD to be, but it was really no big deal.”

“You’re too modest.”

“It was just some little quarks
And some electrons that I sparked
And some forces that arose
As reality was composed.”

“But look what became of its simplicity—
Through its stages to astounding complexity
Over billions of years of circumstances;
We’ve traced the composites to simple substances.”

“Well, um, it did really take that long for My intention,
By some coincidence the same as that for evolution;
However, I guess I’m just as surprised as you, frown,
That when some examine substance and get down
To these simple subatomic levels of unadorned things,
That they then take a giant leap back, of all things,
To the composite complexity of Me, the Ultimate.”

…

(to be con't)​

 

[Balerion]

This is the most asinine post I have seen on this site.

I sincerely doubt that.

I want to report you on grounds of personal offense.

Feel free. It won't get you anywhere. I can't control whether or not you take offense.

Faith is indeed a synonym for belief.

Yes, it is. Glad we agree.

 

[SciWriter]

Yes, it is. Glad we agree.

KW didn't notice. Got his 'belief' synonym('faith') and antonym('reason') mixed up.