|
|
#61
02-01-2007, 10:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] See, being an atheist means I don't have to disprove a god-damned thing. [/ QUOTE ] Being an atheist means you don't believe in the existence of God. If you can't prove God doesn't existence but believe he doesn't anyway you've made a leap of faith. [/ QUOTE ] It seems pretty common for people to confuse atheism and agnosticism. Saying you "don't believe in God and that it's not a leap of faith" is like saying you "believe in Heaven but not Hell" or something...unless you have a mono-polar religion that has only Heaven. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] 
|
|
#62
02-01-2007, 10:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
[ QUOTE ]
Being an atheist means you don't believe in the existence of God. If you can't prove God doesn't existence but believe he doesn't anyway you've made a leap of faith. [/ QUOTE ] Your argument keeps more useless the more you repeat it. There is of course no scientific way to prove or disprove the existence of the divine. Assuming you believe in a benevolent deity (and if you believe in a random and capricious one then who gives a crap what's real anyway) then there are certainly a lot of injustices and problems in the world that are very difficult to rationalize with the existence of a god. There are a lot of contradictions between religious doctrines, and almost as many within single doctrines. How do you explain these things? If you are going to use the argument that God is beyond our knowing and our limited reasoning, then don't bother having a discussion in the first place because there's really no way to respond to that from any direction, whether you are for or against it. It's not a leap of faith to not believe in God - it's a conclusion reached logically based on repeated observations of reality. Could my observations be faulty or misintrepreted? Of course. However, based upon my knowledge it seems the most reasonable conclusion. That's all scientific theory is anyway - the most likely answer based on experimentation and calculation. No one can be 100% certain there is no God (or of anything, really), but it sure seems plausible to me. To call that a "leap of faith" equivalent to that of believing in God is being obtuse. The burden of proof is on those who believe in God, not the other way around.
|
|
#63
02-01-2007, 10:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
[ QUOTE ]
It seems pretty common for people to confuse atheism and agnosticism. [/ QUOTE ] I think you could define any rational atheist as a sort of agnostic. I don't see how to prove things one way or another personally, but I tend to believe there isn't a God. Still, if I saw some proof or at least convincing circumstantial evidence my view would certainly be open to change. Edit: You know, this thread has been totally hijacked. Sorry to Dids and anyone who was considering the original point of the OP. I'll shut up now.
|
|
#64
02-01-2007, 10:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] But is it possible for logic, rationality and facts to exist outside of and be uninfluenced by faith? Does this not itself require a leap of faith? [/ QUOTE ] You keep saying this and I just don't understand your point. I believe that what I see and hear and feel are real. [/ QUOTE ] The point is that the interpretation of facts is influenced by faith. The people's perception of reality is influenced by their faith and presuppositions. This doesn't necessarily mean that everything is relative, just that our perception of the world is relative. Nor does is mean everything is up for dispute. One person looks at the world around him and believes there's a God. Another person looks at the same world and determines there is no God. That one believes it's possible to logically and rationally interpret facts unencumbered by the influence of faith and presuppositions requires a leap of faith.
|
|
#65
02-01-2007, 10:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the biggest flaw in our society (and perhaps the history of mankind, although I don't know nearly enough to make that claim) is our utter inability to accept that there are things that we do not know. We suffer such discomfort in these situations, that we grasp for explanations that may not make the most sense, but make us feel the best. Thoughts? [/ QUOTE ] I don't particularly think that any of this is true. First, it isn't our biggest flaw and second, it isn't true anyway. The only reason people believe this topic is important is because it is the ultimate question (existence, etc). For the most part the average human could not care less how things work or why they work/happen, etc. People don't care how the weather happens, or how televisions work, or anything else. In general, they only care about what affects them and usually what is affecting them at that moment. Which brings me to the other part: If it were true, it wouldn't be our worst flaw. Our worst flaw is that we are ultimately selfish and that will be the downfall of our society. It may have helped us get where we are, but it will kill us in the end.
|
|
#66
02-01-2007, 10:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the biggest flaw in our society (and perhaps the history of mankind, although I don't know nearly enough to make that claim) is our utter inability to accept that there are things that we do not know. We suffer such discomfort in these situations, that we grasp for explanations that may not make the most sense, but make us feel the best. [/ QUOTE ] I think you're way off here. I think a huge problem that mankind in general has is an obsession with things we can't describe that often leads us to find them where they aren't.
|
|
#67
02-01-2007, 10:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] See, being an atheist means I don't have to disprove a god-damned thing. [/ QUOTE ] Being an atheist means you don't believe in the existence of God. If you can't prove God doesn't existence but believe he doesn't anyway you've made a leap of faith. [/ QUOTE ] No, absence of belief is not the same as belief of absence. Get what I'm saying? The burden of proof is on those who believe, not those who don't.
|
|
#68
02-01-2007, 10:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
[ QUOTE ]
I think you could define any rational atheist as a sort of agnostic. [/ QUOTE ] Most people that say they are atheists are really agnostics by a different name.
|
|
#69
02-01-2007, 10:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
Dids:
[ QUOTE ] Perhaps the biggest flaw in our society (and perhaps the history of mankind, although I don't know nearly enough to make that claim) is our utter inability to accept that there are things that we do not know. We suffer such discomfort in these situations, that we grasp for explanations that may not make the most sense, but make us feel the best. [/ QUOTE ] Since I was one of the primary hijackers... to your OP. I am having a little trouble understanding your reasoning - at first blush, [censored] gave, imo, the correct answer early on in the thread: [ QUOTE ] I see it as the complete opposite. its the desire of mankind to explain the things that we do not know which has driven us towards science, exploring space, understanding how the human body works,creating great pieces of art and yes creating religion. I also don't agree that people who are religious have grasped for the explanation that makes them feel the best. [/ QUOTE ] For things we cannot possibly know or truly prove in an empirical sense (e.g. why are we here, is there a God etc., etc.) man has fashioned a solution evidenced in our philosophic heritage and creation of religion. If you're arguing that this is bad - I would disagree in that many great thinkers, in attempting to wrap their minds around that which discomforts them, advance thought and create important cultural tradition. Also - we need to address our individual discomforts - otherwise we as people are not functioning optimally if we're dragged down by our pain. So if one needs to invent a "Unicorn in the sky" to be a happy person, and lead a more productive life, and your net contribution to society is a net gain... that's prolly a good idea. -Al
|
|
#70
02-01-2007, 10:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Dids theory of human [censored]-upery.
[ QUOTE ]
It's not a leap of faith to not believe in God - it's a conclusion reached logically based on repeated observations of reality. Could my observations be faulty or misintrepreted? Of course. [/ QUOTE ] if it's not a leap of faith what is it? [ QUOTE ] Could my observations be faulty or misintrepreted? Of course. However, based upon my knowledge it seems the most reasonable conclusion. That's all scientific theory is anyway - the most likely answer based on experimentation and calculation. No one can be 100% certain there is no God (or of anything, really), but it sure seems plausible to me. To call that a "leap of faith" equivalent to that of believing in God is being obtuse. The burden of proof is on those who believe in God, not the other way around. [/ QUOTE ] So since your conclusion seems most reasonable to you the burden of proof is on those who believe in God? Consider that to believers the conclusion that there is a God seems most reasonable to them. They are looking at the same evidence as you. They see the beauty and design of nature, that day follows night follows day etc., that the seasons come and go, the birth of new life, they see someone come back from the brink of death. They see this and other evidence and can't come to any other conclusion that there is a God. Yes your observations certainly do point to the non-existence of God. However, you have neglected to include any observations that point to the existence of God. Are these not that significant? Who decided what importance to attach to these observations? On what basis does one determine the importance of these observations?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
