hehe if anyone has found god here, i challenge you to show him to me... or to anyone else. im not talking about showing him in words either. point him out. take me there. lets all have a listen.
What or whom do atheists posit as their highest authority?
- Thread starter water
- Start date
That depends on your understanding of faith. You say it's not required, but it's really not a question of whether faith is *required* or not, just how you've come to take it for granted.Crunchy Cat said:
You believe that the sun will come up tomorrow because it's done so since you were born. You accept the evidence of other people's existence and testimony that it's done so in a similar fashion in the past, and because of all of this, you have faith that it will continue doing so. It's a justifiable, reasonable faith, based on acceptable evidence, but it's faith nontheless. You do not know how many revolutions the earth will turn into the future, just as you do not know how many it has turned since the beginning of creation.
Science observes that the universe is expanding, and had a beginning. It shows that the unverse is winding down, and will end in some way. Things have not always been the way they are now, and will not always stay the way they are now. We may project our current data into the past and the future, but statistics doesn't prove anything, they just represent the best data we have. Your intellect creates such a projection for tomorrow, and you believe it. You have faith in that projection. And that you take it for granted just shows how strong that faith is.
Of course you are an integral part of reality - that's one of the reasons why its fundamental uncertainty applies to you as well: you're a miniature universe yourself. You don't know that you will live to see the sun come up tomorrow (or that someone won't snatch the soda from your hands before you can open it). Based on how things have been going, you may make a safe prediction, but someone else might make another prediction based on the same observation, with the same probability of being right. It just depends on what one thinks things are evidence of, what they point to. Beliefs.
Intellectually, things can behave predictably, according to observed patterns, and based on your beliefs and the statistics, that's how you'll expect them to behave - but this reality you are part of doesn't operate on your beliefs and your conclusions. You take every moment of your existence by faith, and this is where water's question becomes relevant: what do you align your construct of reality with? What do you trust for your way of predicting the future and interpreting the past?
VossistArts said:
bingo
Jenyar said:
I don't think I represent the message the way I intended. Faith is simply not
a part of the picture (and this exludes it from being taken for granted).
Jenyar said:
This is not true in the least. The paragraph above substitutes knowledge
and expectations with 'Belief' and 'Faith'. I expect that the earth will continue
its rotation about the sun in a manner that exposes and blocks it's energy
output for predictable cycles. I know that this behavior has existed before
I existed in the past due to agreement of data source such as historical accounts, geological observation, and paleontological progression, and
mathematical simulation.
Jenyar said:
It's expectation and knowledge working together. Faith is an unconditional
trust in *something* that fantastic expectations will be met. That
*something* in most cases is 'God' and that's where belief comes into play.
I personally don't know exacly how many revolutions the earth has undergone
since it's inception or will undergo until it is destroyed. It's also irrelevant.
Jenyar said:
The first part is true. The second part is inconclusive. There was a point
where the universe was maximally deflated and then rapidly inflated
(frequently referred to as the 'big bang' and inappropriately implied as
an explosion). The inflation / deflation process may have been around for
a very long time (possibly it has always been there). Whether the universe
is maximally inflated, maximally deflated, or anywhere in between, it still
is the universe (ours anyway).
Jenyar said:
There is evidence to suggest that the universe may expand and rip, expand
in indefinately small increments towards a mathematical asymptote (did I
spell that right?), or simply maximally deflate.
Jenyar said:
Again, no faith or belief is involved.
Jenyar said:
Hey, now theres that expectation word showing its head! Get rid of
the 'belief' component and you're there!
Jenyar said:
You're right about the first half. The second half is all about whether my
conclusions are true or false (assuming there is a conclusion that was
formed). For example, I can conclude that force is the multiplication of
mass and acceleration... and guess what? Reality agrees.
Jenyar said:
Nope.
Jenyar said:
Umm... reality?
Jenyar said:
Heathen fortune tellers!!! Opps sorry, i just couldn't resist...
Kovacs said:
Oooooh so emotional and spicey. Anthropomorphics at its best!
like a being greater than you would ever know would bother with you, you dont bother with a single fly do you.
That would make prayer little more than mental masturbation.
And if a fly came up to me and wanted to meet with me and talk, yes, I would bother with it.
That would make prayer little more than mental masturbation.
And if a fly came up to me and wanted to meet with me and talk, yes, I would bother with it.
I have pointed to some things that you can do.
You have done nothing of the sort, so stop pretending.
Why are you discussing about God? What is your motivation for this?
Why do you live a fantasy.
It is an essential question.
No, it means you weren't paying attention the first time.
Were they indeed looking for the One who has created the universe and to Whom all beings are made to serve?
Are you completely stupid or just incredibly stupid?
Pray. Speak as you would to a person. Say what you want
That does not work. You have already been told that several times from several members here. Pay attention.
I suggest you find a pastor or priest whom you can speak with face to face, in real time; this time-delayed communication is exasperating.
In other words, you are completely impotent to do anything asked of you regardless of what you profess. As I suspected.
If you can't find anyone in your area, let me know and we'll find a way for you.
Pastors and priests make careers of spreading lies and propagating ignorance. They are as impotent as you in doing what is asked of them.
You have done nothing of the sort, so stop pretending.
Why are you discussing about God? What is your motivation for this?
Why do you live a fantasy.
It is an essential question.
No, it means you weren't paying attention the first time.
Were they indeed looking for the One who has created the universe and to Whom all beings are made to serve?
Are you completely stupid or just incredibly stupid?
Pray. Speak as you would to a person. Say what you want
That does not work. You have already been told that several times from several members here. Pay attention.
I suggest you find a pastor or priest whom you can speak with face to face, in real time; this time-delayed communication is exasperating.
In other words, you are completely impotent to do anything asked of you regardless of what you profess. As I suspected.
If you can't find anyone in your area, let me know and we'll find a way for you.
Pastors and priests make careers of spreading lies and propagating ignorance. They are as impotent as you in doing what is asked of them.
Quote Satyr,
"Whoever does not truly love self, needs a God to love them unconditionally, a new more sublime parent to make up for their imperfect real ones.
Whoever does not respect self needs a dogma to feel pride and to sense that they deserve dignity and respect.
Whoever cannot be just and good, in accordance to his/her own standards and justifications and sensibilities, needs a supposed external authority to force them to be so.
Whoever cannot discipline himself/herself to ones own long-term self-interests and to ones own reason, needs threats and promises and a dogma or rules and regulations to find pathways.
Whoever cannot create meaning and purpose on ones own and feels anxiety and solitude in following the meanings and purposes of self, needs these to be told to them and to be offered in books or through institutions, where the shared goal and meaning becomes comforting and the anxiety of free choice is replaced by commonality and conformity."
* That is how I understand it. Thanks for laying it out so clearly.
"Whoever does not truly love self, needs a God to love them unconditionally, a new more sublime parent to make up for their imperfect real ones.
Whoever does not respect self needs a dogma to feel pride and to sense that they deserve dignity and respect.
Whoever cannot be just and good, in accordance to his/her own standards and justifications and sensibilities, needs a supposed external authority to force them to be so.
Whoever cannot discipline himself/herself to ones own long-term self-interests and to ones own reason, needs threats and promises and a dogma or rules and regulations to find pathways.
Whoever cannot create meaning and purpose on ones own and feels anxiety and solitude in following the meanings and purposes of self, needs these to be told to them and to be offered in books or through institutions, where the shared goal and meaning becomes comforting and the anxiety of free choice is replaced by commonality and conformity."
* That is how I understand it. Thanks for laying it out so clearly.
Quote w:
“Justification of your pursuits.”
* You assume they require justification.
Quote w:
“For example, one of your justifications for having sex is "finding out what life can offer", or "the yin and yang". Such justifications are extremely broad, and apply to many more activities than just sex -- so the justifications for it yet has to be presented.”
* Finding out what life can offer is called: “living”. If sex falls into that broad description, why does it need justification. It is enough to just “be”. I do not require or desire justification.
“Justification of your pursuits.”
* You assume they require justification.
Quote w:
“For example, one of your justifications for having sex is "finding out what life can offer", or "the yin and yang". Such justifications are extremely broad, and apply to many more activities than just sex -- so the justifications for it yet has to be presented.”
* Finding out what life can offer is called: “living”. If sex falls into that broad description, why does it need justification. It is enough to just “be”. I do not require or desire justification.
Then this is an understanding of faith that believes it exists only in other people.Crunchy Cat said:
Knowledge? How did you come by this "knowledge"? You believe the "historical accounts, geological observation, and paleontological progression, and mathematical simulation", which is why you consider it knowledge. Doesn't it occur to you that what you take for common knowledge has only existed in this form for a few hundred years at most?
It's not irrelevant. Both figures are finite, which means what you consider "knowledge" today might be false tomorrow. For example, the earth's revolution is already a limited perspective, because it doesn't include all the data:
All frames moving with constant velocity relative to a given inertial frame are themselves inertial frames.
In investigating the motion of a body on earth, if the effect of the rotation of the earth can be neglected, the earth can be considered to be a fairly good inertial frame. For example, if an ice skater is pushed onto a frozen lake, in the absence of any external forces she moves in a straight line with constant speed. Sometimes the assumption that the earth is an inertial frame clearly breaks down. For example, typhoons owe their existence to the rotational acceleration of the earth. In such cases a better approximation to an inertial frame (e.g. the sun) must be used to describe the motion.
The frame, or context you assume, may in fact be be quite relevant.In investigating the motion of a body on earth, if the effect of the rotation of the earth can be neglected, the earth can be considered to be a fairly good inertial frame. For example, if an ice skater is pushed onto a frozen lake, in the absence of any external forces she moves in a straight line with constant speed. Sometimes the assumption that the earth is an inertial frame clearly breaks down. For example, typhoons owe their existence to the rotational acceleration of the earth. In such cases a better approximation to an inertial frame (e.g. the sun) must be used to describe the motion.
What underlies your faith is the belief that the universe acts uniformly, and this belief cannot be based on experience. You just haven't experienced the universe since its inception and seen it through to the end, to know. You just project your beliefs onto it - which happens to correspnd to the current consensus of historians, mathematicians, geologists and paleontologists.
Don't get me wrong: as I've said, this is a justifiable and reasonable faith. But it's faith nontheless. Ultimately, it's a faith in the uniformity of nature: that it will continue playing by the same rules we have observed and deduced. My point with pointing out the beginning, and the possibility of some kind of entropic end, is that the universe hasn't always played by these rules. At least not in the form you currently take for granted.
And you are 100% certain, without a doubt, that this inflation / deflation theory is untouchable? Or is it your belief, your decision to trust it? Would you have supported the steady state theory of 50 years ago with the same confidence?
Statistically. Which is based on a projection of our best interpretation of current data. But it's still a projection. Which you believe. It's perhaps an easy decision, because you probably will have faith in whatever science discovers. If you're wrong, at least you will share the mistake with earth's finest minds. But none of this removes the fact that it's still faith.
Despite what you may believe, "faith" not a word that only has meaning when talking about religion.
Here's something from CS Lewis' book, Miracles:
Our observation about nature would be of no use unless we felt sure that nature when we are not watching her behaves in the same way as when we are (the Uniformity of Nature). Experience therefore cannot prove uniformity, because uniformity has to be assumed before experience proves anything. ...
Unless nature is uniform, nothing is either probable or improbable. And the assumption which you have to make before there is any such thing as probability cannot itself be probable.
In other words, there is faith involved - or at least some assumptions that precede faith.Unless nature is uniform, nothing is either probable or improbable. And the assumption which you have to make before there is any such thing as probability cannot itself be probable.
That expectation relies on faith in the patterns you have observed. You believe they will hold true.
Yes, but it's you who conform to reality, not the other way around. As a matter of fact, F=ma will not hold under certain conditions. I picked this up from a forum for physics educators:
When we teach any approximate law, we run some risk of causing misconceptions. But that's what we do for a living. Remember, F=ma is only an approximation, which we teach without feeling guilty.
We need to explain the _limits of validity_ of the laws we teach. --) It is relatively easy to say that F=ma breaks down when the velocities are not small compared to c.
Still so confident in your faith? No doubt - because it isn't based on the specific details, but on general assumptions.We need to explain the _limits of validity_ of the laws we teach. --) It is relatively easy to say that F=ma breaks down when the velocities are not small compared to c.
Then you're in denial
. "Faith" is a stigmatized word in your vocabulary, signifying anything that you consider nebulous or untrustworthy, but that doesn't mean the word doesn't apply in your life as well, just because your faith is so solid that you don't question it for a moment.And I hope you realize that is a circular justification.
If not yourself, then perhaps the current consensus of historians, mathematicians, geologists and paleontologists? Who do they trust?
Last edited:
stretched said:
They do require justifications, if you are to be a rational agent.
Bite your tail, you're running in circles. "Life is for living" and such.
Circularities do not work in a rational discourse.
You may not require or desire justification, but a state can't be run that way.
The state has to provide justifications for what it does and for what it demands (sanctions according to the law, collecting taxes, elections, ...).
Humanistic and atheistic world-views are fine -- but a state cannot be run with them.
Why I bring up the state: Some people can pursuit humanism and relativism (ie. without providing justifications) only if there are also enough of those in society who justify their pursuits.
Your world-view is unfair because ALL of humanity cannot follow it; you promote social differentiation. Is that humane?
Crunchy Cat,
Then why not apply the same method when it comes to seeking God?
Do it yourself.
God can be everywhere.
Communication with God is possible once you get rid of your illusions of God and yourself, and the world, or when you speak with recognition of these illusions.
Then why say:
You have spoken this as if you were speaking about a person.
Unless you are speaking about a person, it is pointless to make statements like "Anyhow there is evidence to suggest that Yorda has multiple personality disorder ..."
If Yorda is of no concern to you, then you can't speak of his/her personality.
Yorda might be a construct made by someone whose intention is to see how people respond to an entity which keeps making contradictory claims.
Then why not apply the same method when it comes to seeking God?
Do it yourself.
God can be everywhere.
Communication with God is possible once you get rid of your illusions of God and yourself, and the world, or when you speak with recognition of these illusions.
Then why say:
You have spoken this as if you were speaking about a person.
Unless you are speaking about a person, it is pointless to make statements like "Anyhow there is evidence to suggest that Yorda has multiple personality disorder ..."
If Yorda is of no concern to you, then you can't speak of his/her personality.
Yorda might be a construct made by someone whose intention is to see how people respond to an entity which keeps making contradictory claims.
Rosnet said:
I haven't been hearing it from childhood.
Belief is not about truth/lie (even though such is the popular understanding); belief is about being devoted to a certain set of values and preferences, or to a person.
This devotion is a matter of choice.
Quote w:
“They do require justifications, if you are to be a rational agent.”
* Then they require justification only in my eyes. Myself being the rational agent.
Quote w:
“Bite your tail, you're running in circles. "Life is for living" and such.
Circularities do not work in a rational discourse.”
* I disagree. With or without justification, life is lived.
Quote w:
“You may not require or desire justification, but a state can't be run that way.”
* I am not concerned about that state. It is my state of being that I am talking about.
Quote w:
“Humanistic and atheistic world-views are fine -- but a state cannot be run with them.”
* I am not sure what you mean, like a secular state?
Quote w:
“Why I bring up the state: Some people can pursuit humanism and relativism (ie. without providing justifications) only if there are also enough of those in society who justify their pursuits.”
* Heh. Nope, I’m a lone wolf by choice.
Quote w:
“Your world-view is unfair because ALL of humanity cannot follow it; you promote social differentiation. Is that humane?”
* Why not. Can ALL humanity follow Christianity? Does Christianity not cause social DIVISION? (yes, yes, not legal debating tender, but a point nonetheless)
“They do require justifications, if you are to be a rational agent.”
* Then they require justification only in my eyes. Myself being the rational agent.
Quote w:
“Bite your tail, you're running in circles. "Life is for living" and such.
Circularities do not work in a rational discourse.”
* I disagree. With or without justification, life is lived.
Quote w:
“You may not require or desire justification, but a state can't be run that way.”
* I am not concerned about that state. It is my state of being that I am talking about.
Quote w:
“Humanistic and atheistic world-views are fine -- but a state cannot be run with them.”
* I am not sure what you mean, like a secular state?
Quote w:
“Why I bring up the state: Some people can pursuit humanism and relativism (ie. without providing justifications) only if there are also enough of those in society who justify their pursuits.”
* Heh. Nope, I’m a lone wolf by choice.
Quote w:
“Your world-view is unfair because ALL of humanity cannot follow it; you promote social differentiation. Is that humane?”
* Why not. Can ALL humanity follow Christianity? Does Christianity not cause social DIVISION? (yes, yes, not legal debating tender, but a point nonetheless)
water said:
Would you rather believe in something, which you think is <I>possibly </I> a lie, rather than try to find the truth? And in some cases, in order to find the truth, it is important to question how you came to know certain things, which you think are true.
What made you think that there is God? I mean the first time you thought that there was. did someone tell you? And where did you get the idea of what God was?