Does Atheism Require More Faith?

[Patriot]

Book review by David Limbaugh which brings out several important points worthy of discussion.

I want to tell you about an important new book I hope will be widely disseminated. Though its subject is the truth of Christianity, it needs to be read by far more than just "the choir."

I didn't come to faith in Christ effortlessly. I began my adult spiritual journey as a skeptic seeking answers for life's ultimate questions. In the process I did a great deal of reading on Christian theology and apologetics (defense of the faith).

I discovered, to my initial surprise, that there is an extensive body of evidence supporting Christianity's exclusive truth claims. Knowledge of this evidence doesn't automatically lead one to faith, but it certainly helps to remove obstacles we sometimes unwittingly use as excuses for neglecting our spiritual "business" or flat out rejecting the truth.

Some Christians seem threatened by the very idea of marshaling evidence in support of their faith. But the Bible itself tells us that we should "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15).

It is healthy to have doubts and work through resolving them, which only fortifies your faith and better positions you to withstand challenges you may encounter along the way.

Christianity has nothing to fear from a thorough investigation of the evidence. That's why I was fascinated when I happened onto a column by Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr. a few weeks ago, wherein Dionne discussed a recent article he'd enjoyed in the New Republic by Leon Wieseltier.

In the article, Wieseltier "praises atheists for taking the question of God's existence so seriously that they force believers to do the same … There is no greater insult to religion than to expel strictness of thought from it."

I certainly agree that a Christian's faith must hold up to intellectual scrutiny. But do atheists actually take the question of God's existence as seriously as Wieseltier and Dionne suggest? I have my doubts.

Indeed, widely respected Christian apologists Norman Geisler and Frank Turek dispute that notion in their new book, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist." Geisler and Turek confront the conventional wisdom that Christians are an unthinking lot whose faith is devoid of intellect and that atheists need no faith to sustain their belief system.

The authors show that Christian faith and reason are not mutually exclusive, but complementary and that there is an abundance of evidence for the truth of Christianity. Conversely, they show that it is impossible to be an atheist without a substantial amount of faith.

They note, for example, that naturalistic biologists claim "that life generated spontaneously from nonliving chemicals by natural laws without any intelligent intervention."

These scientists believe that a "one-celled animal known as an amoeba (or something like it) came together by spontaneous generation…" But we now know there is incredible complexity in "the message found in the DNA of a one-celled amoeba (a creature so small, several hundred could be lined up in an inch)."

"The message found in just the cell nucleus of a tiny amoeba is more than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica combined, and the entire amoeba has as much information in its DNA as 1,000 complete sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica." And "we must emphasize that these 1,000 encyclopedias do not consist of random letters but of letters in a very specific order -- just like real encyclopedias."

You get the point: Atheists have to have enormous faith to believe that such complex messages exist in the absence of intelligent design.

But when you closely examine the evidence supporting many Christian claims, you'll find that they "are certain beyond reasonable doubt." As such, "it's not faith in Christianity that's difficult but faith in atheism or any other religion. That is, once one looks at the evidence, we think it takes more faith to be a non-Christian than it does to be a Christian."

The authors admit there are obstacles to a belief in Christianity. In the course of the book, they systematically address the perceived intellectual objections, emotional obstacles and volitional reasons to reject Christianity. The authors' treatment of these issues is compelling.

I felt so strongly about the value of "I Don't Have Enough Faith …" that when the authors honored me with a request to write the foreword for it I readily agreed. This is the ideal all-in-one book for you to share with your doubting friends and to bolster your faith in Truth. You owe yourself a read.

http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/

[DeathMonkey]

Huh. A Pro-Christian book by a bunch of Christians. Yup, I'll be sure to pick that one up.

I almost appreciate the premise, but not quite. Cellular biology, organic chemistry, etc do contain vast amounts of information, but at their core are mindblowingly simple. Four amino acids make up DNA. Only two separate bonds (reversable) are allowed. And with this we have evolved. The trail that has led us here seems complex, but when viewed in the context of the Universe, it all makes perfect sense, more sense the more we learn. To cloud the issue with some guiding intelligence is an admission of intellectual defeat, IMHO. The more we learn, the more we should hunger to learn, not ascribe that which we dont understand to some external intelligence.

For me, at every turn, tho I have spent my whole live believing in something religious/spiritual, from Islam (5 years) to Buddhism (3) to various Christian disciplines (10 years), even a year spent bringing back the Greek gods, lol, the only thing that has sustained every question, or allowed the freedom to ask without penalty, which has embraced my wonder and amazement at this jewel that is the Universe, is Atheism. In that sense, yes, I am a person in faith, of faith in the abscence of a Divine Intelligence, among other things. I have faith in gravity, the speed of light, and my cheerful scientific agnosticism (lack of knowlege). I know in my heart that there is no God, and I have finally accepted it in my head as well. This seems to be analogous to an article of faith for religious types.

Its an interesting question, the issue of faith as it related to Atheism, but it seems that the bulk of the book is more Christian propaganda and apologetics, rather than a serious discussion of the nature of faith as it applies to Atheism.

[MikeD4o7]

You can't just arbitrarily tack on beliefs to atheism and claim that's what all atheists believe. You could ask an atheist how life began and one could just shrug and say "i have no idea". The fact of the matter is that atheism vs theism comes down to this... atheists do not believe in a powerful supernatural entity, theists do believe in a powerful supernatural entity. It takes faith to believe that... not to believe it is the natural state of things.

As far as the theory of evolution and emergence of life IS concerned... it's a scientific debate, and that's all it should be. We have a theory which can't be proved, but is the best explanation we have a la science so far. So as reasonable people, we should take that for what it's worth... as far as we know, that's how it probably went down, but new evidence could steer us in another direction, as always.

From a personal stand point, I have seen revelation after revelation in science... I have seen new scientific evidence come to light constantly. I have seen with my own eyes, some of the processes of physics, biology, chemistry, etc. I have NOT ever seen any supernatural phenomenon. Some of you claim to have seen it... fine. But personally, believing in science comes from personal experiences...believing in supernatural things would have to be through faith.

[Craig]

It is perhaps one of the greatest ironies of the Christian teleological argument that while it is may seem improbable for the universe to arose on its own, equally improbable is the possibility of a supreme, maximally perfect omniscient, omnipotent, omnibeneveloent, supremely just being created everything that exists around us.

[mataj]

They note, for example, that naturalistic biologists claim "that life generated spontaneously from nonliving chemicals by natural laws without any intelligent intervention." . . . But we now know there is incredible complexity . . .You get the point: Atheists have to have enormous faith to believe that such complex messages exist in the absence of intelligent design.Another straw man burning creationist... :rolleyes:

[cpwill]

i would say that atheism in that athiesm believes no God exists requries more faith than religion. religion gaining it's faith from evidedence, and the thus defined atheism gaining its faith from lack of evidence....

[Jard]

i would say that atheism in that athiesm believes no God exists requries more faith than religion. religion gaining it's faith from evidedence, and the thus defined atheism gaining its faith from lack of evidence....

I would say the opposite, atheism is based on evidence and hence has a more scientifique/fact edge to it where as religion is based on hope/faith (where is all your evidence?).

However atheism may require more faith in the sense that if you are atheist then there is no hidden spiritual meaning behind life. Death must also be hard to accept/prepare for. Max Duo has started a thread on a oblivion of nothingness after death, this is a lot harder to accept then the life after death associated with most religions.

[mataj]

Prooving something requires effort, and money. Decision about what to prove, and what not, is therefore, in the essence, political. Why bother bother proving, that God doesn't exist? Why not try and prove, that flying pigs don't exist? And, BTW, how could anyone prove something like this?

[cpwill]

I would say the opposite, atheism is based on evidence and hence has a more scientifique/fact edge to it where as religion is based on hope/faith (where is all your evidence?).

again, i refer you to my definition of atheism.
attempting to prove a negative is always more difficult than attempting to prove a positive. for instance, were i to say "there is a mouse in this building", then all i have to do to prove my point is to search through the building until i find a mouse and presto, i have evidence. however, were i to attempt to say "there is no mouse in this building", then i would have to have intimate knowledge of every space within the building in which a mouse could fit. i between walls, ceilings, floors, piping, foundation, you name it, i'd have to know and be able to show you every square inch of the building in order to have my evidence/proof that "there is no mouse."

in short, in my attempt to point out where i feel the evidence lies on God's existance, i can point to anything i wish, whether it be nature, things i have witnessed, things others have witnessed, etc. as evidence of God. someone who wishes to argue the negative in order to have evidence needs to be able to search through all of creation and find no God anywhere before they have their evidence.

(of course, having knowledge of all of creation would make one, by definition, God themself, so it's a tricky point (one could even make the argument that by saying "there is no God" one is semantically saying the same as "i am God", but as that's not the intent i don't really see the benifite in pushing it.)

However atheism may require more faith in the sense that if you are atheist then there is no hidden spiritual meaning behind life. Death must also be hard to accept/prepare for. Max Duo has started a thread on a oblivion of nothingness after death, this is a lot harder to accept then the life after death associated with most religions.

i stated there and i will repeat here, the idea of oblivion is in no way threatning. the idea that some of us might be doomed eternally is. if there were no heaven/hell then it would be better for some individuals if we simply ceased to be.

[MikeD4o7]

again, i refer you to my definition of atheism.
attempting to prove a negative is always more difficult than attempting to prove a positive. for instance, were i to say "there is a mouse in this building", then all i have to do to prove my point is to search through the building until i find a mouse and presto, i have evidence. however, were i to attempt to say "there is no mouse in this building", then i would have to have intimate knowledge of every space within the building in which a mouse could fit. i between walls, ceilings, floors, piping, foundation, you name it, i'd have to know and be able to show you every square inch of the building in order to have my evidence/proof that "there is no mouse."

in short, in my attempt to point out where i feel the evidence lies on God's existance, i can point to anything i wish, whether it be nature, things i have witnessed, things others have witnessed, etc. as evidence of God. someone who wishes to argue the negative in order to have evidence needs to be able to search through all of creation and find no God anywhere before they have their evidence.

(of course, having knowledge of all of creation would make one, by definition, God themself, so it's a tricky point (one could even make the argument that by saying "there is no God" one is semantically saying the same as "i am God", but as that's not the intent i don't really see the benifite in pushing it.)



Theist: there's a mouse in this house
Atheist: prove it
Theist: I can't, but there is a mouse in this house
Atheist: prove it
Theist: I can't, but there is a mouse in this house
Atheist: prove it

etc etc etc. until finally out of frustration

Atheist: there is no mouse damnit!
Theist: prove it!

I think this fake dialogue pretty much sums up the history of the argument, as well as the confusion as to why so many theists think that atheists believe in the positive affirmation "there is no God", when the actual stance most atheists take is more along the lines of "I see no reason to believe God exists". The beauty of the negative position that atheists take is that we don't have to make any claims... if somebody is isolated on some small island somewhere his whole life and he never says to himself "I think there's some supernatural entity that created the universe", or something along those lines, then he is an atheist. The burden of proof lies with the party making the positive claim, and it's not atheists.

i stated there and i will repeat here, the idea of oblivion is in no way threatning. the idea that some of us might be doomed eternally is. if there were no heaven/hell then it would be better for some individuals if we simply ceased to be.


I disagree... at least at this early point in my life, I fear oblivion and non-existence more than any image of hell I've ever been able to conceive of. There is nothing worse in my mind than not existing at all. Of course I hope I can come to grips with it better as I get older, or my elderly years are going to be nerve-racking.

[earth]

Theist: there's a mouse in this house
Atheist: prove it
Theist: I can't, but there is a mouse in this house
Atheist: prove it
Theist: I can't, but there is a mouse in this house
Atheist: prove it

etc etc etc. until finally out of frustration

Atheist: there is no mouse damnit!
Theist: prove it!

I think this fake dialogue pretty much sums up the history of the argument, as well as the confusion as to why so many theists think that atheists believe in the positive affirmation "there is no God", when the actual stance most atheists take is more along the lines of "I see no reason to believe God exists". The beauty of the negative position that atheists take is that we don't have to make any claims... if somebody is isolated on some small island somewhere his whole life and he never says to himself "I think there's some supernatural entity that created the universe", or something along those lines, then he is an atheist. The burden of proof lies with the party making the positive claim, and it's not atheists.



I disagree... at least at this early point in my life, I fear oblivion and non-existence more than any image of hell I've ever been able to conceive of. There is nothing worse in my mind than not existing at all. Of course I hope I can come to grips with it better as I get older, or my elderly years are going to be nerve-racking.

Very poignantly put and true. Concerning death + it's issues I will continue to await it with open arms. Frankly the sooner I get off this hell-hole by natural causes the better :)

[mahayana]

I had to laugh a little at this discussion, forgive me. Faith is a serious subject.

I recall an incident where I was approached by an evangelist in a bar. He demanded "what do you believe in?" and I replied "yesterday, today, and maybe tomorrow."

At this point in life, I have an abiding interest in peoples' evidence that god and spirit exist. But I get no answers, just the sound of om.

Do you know Paul Simon's "The Boxer?"

"I have squandered my existence on a pocketful of mumbles...such are promises...all lies and jest. Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

Just a thought.

[skibum8]

Atheism in my opinion requires no faith. Its just plain old common sense. The same people who gave us the idea of spirits, witches, a flat earth you could fall off, the earth revolving around the sun etc., brought us a belief in God and organized religion. It makes no sense to me and when taken in historical context it seems ridiculous to believe in God. P.S. if there is a god s/he needs to be impeached for doing a lousy job.

[mataj]

If atheism is some sort of belief, baldpates are some sort of blondes.

[Texsand]

How about this..atheists believe the bible isn't adequate proof there is god. I'm inclined to say the bibical god is about as schizophrenic as it gets. First God tells Moses in the 10 big ones not to kill. He then turns right around and tells Joshua to kill every living thing in the land they are about enter including all animals. This is of course after God has promised never to wipe out life on earth again.

I can see why any sane person would say they don't believe. Thank God Galileo and others decided to keep an open mind. We'd still be stuck in Europe with the earth is flat contingent had it been left up to the church.

I see there is a Mormon on the board. My advice is run for your life. My journey began after walking away from it. Let's see baptism and marriage for the dead, people becoming god, make that men only, leaders that advocated the overthrow of the US government, blood atonement (your own) are just a few of the ideas the LDS church that have been taught at one time or another. Excommunication for anyone that takes a differing view politically from the church. Yes it's a regular bastion of free thought.

[Fox]

Cellular biology, organic chemistry, etc do contain vast amounts of information, but at their core are mindblowingly simple. Four amino acids make up DNA. Only two separate bonds (reversable) are allowed.Although I agree with your basic point, I must disagree with these statements. Four nucleic acids make up DNA. While it is true that only two types of bonds between nucleic acids are allowed adenine-thymine, and cytosine-guanine, I've never heard that these bonds are reversible. And there are numerous other inter- and intra-molecular bonds in DNA. There are 20+ kinds of amino acids that go together to make up nearly an infinite number of possible proteins.

I have taken courses in both cellular biology and organic chemistry and can attest to the fact that there is nothing mindblowing simple about them. In organic chemistry, a carbon backbone can have a nearly infinite number of other carbon chains and chemical groups attached to it. Each resulting molecule has its own physical and chemical properties. And anybody who has taken cellular biology and thinks it's a mindblowingly simple field should be able to rule the planet with no problem.

The way to counteract the "biological complexity" argument of creationists is certainly not to argue that life is simple. The way to explain the mindblowing complexity of life is to invoke the twin forces of time and chance.

[mataj]

Fox,

Don't waste time & electrons over such details. :) Each & every creationist's claim has been scientifically refuted a looong time ago, to no avail. An US univertity (i forgot the name) even organized hiking trips to that famous nonexistant human & dinosaur fossiles (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html) during the 1980, but it didn't helped a bit. Creationists still happily use them to proove their theories.

I guess we just have to give theese guys some time. After all, The Flat Earth society only recently admitted that they were wrong, and corrected their interpretation of the Bible accordingly.

[DeathMonkey]

Although I agree with your basic point, I must disagree with these statements. Four nucleic acids make up DNA. While it is true that only two types of bonds between nucleic acids are allowed adenine-thymine, and cytosine-guanine, I've never heard that these bonds are reversible. And there are numerous other inter- and intra-molecular bonds in DNA. There are 20+ kinds of amino acids that go together to make up nearly an infinite number of possible proteins.

I have taken courses in both cellular biology and organic chemistry and can attest to the fact that there is nothing mindblowing simple about them. In organic chemistry, a carbon backbone can have a nearly infinite number of other carbon chains and chemical groups attached to it. Each resulting molecule has its own physical and chemical properties. And anybody who has taken cellular biology and thinks it's a mindblowingly simple field should be able to rule the planet with no problem.

The way to counteract the "biological complexity" argument of creationists is certainly not to argue that life is simple. The way to explain the mindblowing complexity of life is to invoke the twin forces of time and chance.

Sorry, I meant that you can have A-T or T-A in your string. Thats what I meant by reversible. Yeah, nucleic. My bad.

As far as the rest of this goes, the understanding we have is complex, but the mechanism itself is simple. Four units. Which only go together two ways. How much more simple can you get?? Yes, each layer up the ladder gets more complex, but at the heart of most scientific disciplines there are simple, easily expressed, basic tenents. I refer to the amazing things we can do with computers, vastly complex machines, which rely on the simplicity of the binary system.

cpwill seems to be the only one addressing my actual point, however, that the basic premise and question raised makes religious belief in God etc far more similar to atheism than one might think. We are all, in fact (not in belief) agnostic (without knowlege) in the strictest sense. So either way we go on faith. I have more evidence in my personal experience that God does NOT exist, ergo my FAITH tells me that Atheism is correct. cpwill's experience contains more evidence that God DOES exist, ergo, his FAITH in God. Although diametrically opposed, the mechanism is the same, which I found interesting.

[cpwill]

Theist: there's a mouse in this house
Atheist: prove it
Theist: I can't, but there is a mouse in this house
Atheist: prove it
Theist: I can't, but there is a mouse in this house
Atheist: prove it

etc etc etc. until finally out of frustration

Atheist: there is no mouse damnit!
Theist: prove it!

hmmm.....

Theist: we have a mouse

Athiest: okay, prove it

Theist: well, here's some holes in the wall, like the kind mice would do

Athiest: that doesn't prove anything

Theist: well, here are some chewed into bags of food, like what mice would do

Atheist: that doesn't prove anything either

Theist: okay, the people who owned the house last said that they saw the mouse several times, look, they even mentioned it in this nice note they left us.

Athiest: hah. that doesn't prove anything either, after all, those folks were old and didn't have modern scientific eyeglasses

Theist: look, i hear this mouse at night scurrying around at night, okay?

Athiest: you "hear" the mouse? you must be hallucinagenic.

Theist: what?!

Athiest: that or you just "want" to hear the mouse so you do, after all, there's no mouse.

Theist: there's no mouse?

Atheist: there's no mouse.

Theist: where's your evidence

Athiest: i don't have any. that proves there is no mouse.

Theist: you're giving me a headache, i think i need to sit down.

Atheist: well i'd offer you something to eat, but all of our cheese seems to have oddly dissapeared.

when the actual stance most atheists take is more along the lines of "I see no reason to believe God exists".

alright, that i can take as legitimate; but i would personally classify that as more leaning into the agnostic camp.

I disagree... at least at this early point in my life, I fear oblivion and non-existence more than any image of hell I've ever been able to conceive of. There is nothing worse in my mind than not existing at all. Of course I hope I can come to grips with it better as I get older, or my elderly years are going to be nerve-racking.

why? if you didn't exist, you would have no sensation of non-existance. it's sort of like trying to remember what you were like back when your grandparents were kids; there's nothing because you were nothing.

[MikeD4o7]

cpwill... i think the difference here is that if you ask an atheist, there are no "mouse holes" or any of this evidence. What we've seen throughout history is a pattern. God is accredited to such and such until the scientific reason for it is discovered... then God is no longer accredited for that, but moves on to other places where we're ignorant. It's the God of the gaps and the gaps are always eventually closed... God used to be accredited with the rising of the sun everyday, now its gravity. The only things God still takes credit for are the beginning of life and the beginning of the universe... science even HAS viable theories for both of these, but until they can be proven, that's where God will stay.

Personally I have never seen any supernatural phenomenon. I've seen various processes of science at work.. biology, physics, chemistry... but never once in my life have I seen something that would indicate the doing of a supernatural being. I may be wrong, but I think most peoples' experiences are in line with mine.

[Fox]

God used to be accredited with the rising of the sun everyday, now its gravity.Gravity holds the Earth close to the Sun, but the Earth's rotation is what causes the Sun to rise in the east every day. The Earth and the Sun could have formed with the same masses and distance from each other and, therefore, the same gravitational attraction between them but with no rotation of the Earth, more rapid rotation, or even a retrograde rotation (which would cause the Sun to rise in the west.)

[Patriot]

But personally, believing in science comes from personal experiences...believing in supernatural things would have to be through faith.

...believing in supernatural things would have to be through faith.

Until you had your own personal supernatural experience happen, right?

[Patriot]

the only thing that has sustained every question, or allowed the freedom to ask without penalty, which has embraced my wonder and amazement at this jewel that is the Universe, is Atheism. In that sense, yes, I am a person in faith, of faith in the abscence of a Divine Intelligence, among other things. I have faith in gravity, the speed of light, and my cheerful scientific agnosticism (lack of knowlege). I know in my heart that there is no God, and I have finally accepted it in my head as well. This seems to be analogous to an article of faith for religious types.

Its an interesting question, the issue of faith as it related to Atheism, but it seems that the bulk of the book is more Christian propaganda and apologetics, rather than a serious discussion of the nature of faith as it applies to Atheism.

Good feedback. How do you "know in my heart that there is no God." Isn't that pure faith as opposed to pure knowledge?

[Patriot]

It is perhaps one of the greatest ironies of the Christian teleological argument that while it is may seem improbable for the universe to arose on its own, equally improbable is the possibility of a supreme, maximally perfect omniscient, omnipotent, omnibeneveloent, supremely just being created everything that exists around us.

Craig, I don't get what you are saying. Can you please restate.

[Patriot]

Another straw man burning creationist... :rolleyes:

Yeah, but who created the straw man? :lol:

[Patriot]

i would say that atheism in that athiesm believes no God exists requries more faith than religion. religion gaining it's faith from evidedence, and the thus defined atheism gaining its faith from lack of evidence....

I'd disagree with "lack of evidence." I don't believe that at all. I believe this is amble evidence and the atheist rejects it. There was amble evidence OJ was guilty, that evidence was dismissed for what ever reason.

Likewise, atheist simply reject the evidence for what ever reason.

Faith requires evidence. Where there is no evidence, there can be no faith. The greater the evidence, the greater the faith.

So the formual for faith is: faith = reason + evidence + assurance

[Thermopylae]

No, it doesn't. Atheists have physical evidence all around them, whenever there is a scientific breakthrough, it is just another step taken of disproving an idiotic idea of two-thousand years ago.

[Patriot]

Fox,

Don't waste time & electrons over such details. :) Each & every creationist's claim has been scientifically refuted a looong time ago, to no avail. An US univertity (i forgot the name) even organized hiking trips to that famous nonexistant human & dinosaur fossiles (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html) during the 1980, but it didn't helped a bit. Creationists still happily use them to proove their theories.

I guess we just have to give theese guys some time. After all, The Flat Earth society only recently admitted that they were wrong, and corrected their interpretation of the Bible accordingly.

That's funny, mataj, you jive talk like evolution is fact. Every day science refutes the theory of evolution. Time to let the science you love so much speak for itself; why aren't you listening?

[Platypus]

No, it doesn't. Atheists have physical evidence all around them, whenever there is a scientific breakthrough, it is just another step taken of disproving an idiotic idea of two-thousand years ago.

While I disagree that faith gains its strength from evidence, I also know that you can't prove a negative. Faith is faith. It is not reason. By definition, the two are distinct. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with faith - and I say that as a hard-core empiricist - but only that it's separate from reason. Faith is not subject to proof or disproof by rational means. No matter how remote the possibility might seem, an all-powerful God would be able to remain hidden if that were part of His plan. The "intelligent design" theory doesn't change any of that. For someone who understands chaos/complexity or has studied other self-organizing systems, ascribing the meta-evolution of DNA to natural processes does not require a greater leap of faith than ascribing it to a supreme being.

Atheism (distinct from agnosticism) is just as much a matter of faith as religion is. It claims an answer is known when in fact it is not possible to know by rational means, so the only kind of knowledge that remains is faith-based knowledge. Atheism and religion are two sides of the same coin, requiring exactly the same degree of faith.

[mataj]

Yeah, but who created the straw man? :lol:Creationists, who else. They invented their very own special, easily refutable version of evolution theory.
Every day science refutes the theory of evolution. Time to let the science you love so much speak for itself; why aren't you listening?Yea, creationist "science". "Usual" science on the other hand, refutes creationistic refutations in each case, and finds new proofs for evolution theory every day. But, the real Christian shouldn't pay attention to this, right? As Bible says:

Be careful that you don’t let anyone rob you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the elements of the world, and not after Christ. (Col 2,8)

[DeathMonkey]

Gravity holds the Earth close to the Sun, but the Earth's rotation is what causes the Sun to rise in the east every day. The Earth and the Sun could have formed with the same masses and distance from each other and, therefore, the same gravitational attraction between them but with no rotation of the Earth, more rapid rotation, or even a retrograde rotation (which would cause the Sun to rise in the west.)


OK, who called the Science Police to a religious discussion???

[DeathMonkey]

Good feedback. How do you "know in my heart that there is no God." Isn't that pure faith as opposed to pure knowledge?

Yes, it is. Thats the point I was trying to make, that my faith in science is just as valid as a personal faith as other religious beliefs, and relies ulimately on my faith. Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc may all be diametrically opposed, but none of us actually know, so I posit that Atheism IS a faith, as opposed to Agnosticism, which is more of a state of crisis of faith. I have a positive belief, in natural laws and science, in cause and effect. Just as Christians dont believe in Bramha, I dont believe in ANY Supreme Being. Just because its a part of my belief to disbelieve in any Gods, doesnt mean that it is totally a negative belief. That, I would place more in an Agnostic camp.

[JustinH]

hmmm.....

Theist: we have a mouse

Athiest: okay, prove it

Theist: well, here's some holes in the wall, like the kind mice would do

Athiest: that doesn't prove anything

Theist: well, here are some chewed into bags of food, like what mice would do

Atheist: that doesn't prove anything either

Theist: okay, the people who owned the house last said that they saw the mouse several times, look, they even mentioned it in this nice note they left us.

Athiest: hah. that doesn't prove anything either, after all, those folks were old and didn't have modern scientific eyeglasses

Theist: look, i hear this mouse at night scurrying around at night, okay?

Athiest: you "hear" the mouse? you must be hallucinagenic.

Theist: what?!

Athiest: that or you just "want" to hear the mouse so you do, after all, there's no mouse.

Theist: there's no mouse?

Atheist: there's no mouse.

Theist: where's your evidence

Athiest: i don't have any. that proves there is no mouse.

Theist: you're giving me a headache, i think i need to sit down.

Atheist: well i'd offer you something to eat, but all of our cheese seems to have oddly dissapeared.

Hmm... yourself. Let's actually make this argument much like a true argument would be:

Theist: There's a mouse in the room.
Atheist: How do you know?
Theist: This book told me.
Atheist: And how could a book know if there is a mouse in the room?
Theist: The people that wrote the book saw the mouse.
Atheist: Who are the authors?
Theist: Oh, they've all been dead for a few thousand years.
Atheist: So how the heck do we know for sure that there is a mouse, if the only evidence is a 2000 year old book?
Theist: I've felt the mouse.
Atheist: What do you mean you "felt" the mouse?
Theist: I felt the the mouses presense.
Atheist: You're nuts if you think I'm going to believe that.
Theist: But look, there's a whole in the wall right there, only a mouse could do that.
Atheist: Actually, that whole could have been caused by a number of things... (cut off)
Theist (Shrill Voice): Now you are going to burn in an evil place for all eternity because you don't believe there's a mouse in the room.

*Atheist backs to the nearest exit and runs*

[Patriot]

Yes, it is. Thats the point I was trying to make, that my faith in science is just as valid as a personal faith as other religious beliefs, and relies ulimately on my faith. Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc may all be diametrically opposed, but none of us actually know, so I posit that Atheism IS a faith, as opposed to Agnosticism, which is more of a state of crisis of faith. I have a positive belief, in natural laws and science, in cause and effect. Just as Christians dont believe in Bramha, I dont believe in ANY Supreme Being. Just because its a part of my belief to disbelieve in any Gods, doesnt mean that it is totally a negative belief. That, I would place more in an Agnostic camp.

Sure, your faith in science is valid, but that doesn't necessitate exclusion is spiritual experiements anymore than belief in God requires the exclusion of science. I believe there are at least three spheres of true, each needed different methods to arrive at truths; spiritual, physical, and moral.

I do disagree with none of us actually know. In one context you are saying, "If God is real, he is powerless to manifest or reveal himself to his children to that they may know Him." So on that merit, it's flawed reasoning given a God who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

Secondly, suppose God came and visited me like he did with Adam, or Abraham, or Moses or Joseph Smith, then I'd "know" wouldn't I? However, notwithstaning my knowledged of God, how can I make you know what I know? I can't, agreed?

I can share with you my experience or knowledge, and you can choose to believe or not. I think in large measure this is the type of faith non-believers label believers with..."they don't really know, they just believe mearly on dead prophets or living fools who claim they 'know' but really don't know."

Such a label of "faith" is only a superficial understanding of faith. Faith is not understood by most people, non-believers and believers alike. Faith is a topic I'd like to discuss in greater detail if you are interested; let me know, otherwise I will not begin a thread on faith, what it is, the object on which it rests, and the effects which flow from it.

DeathMonkey, I know that God lives.

[MikeD4o7]

Atheism (distinct from agnosticism) is just as much a matter of faith as religion is. It claims an answer is known when in fact it is not possible to know by rational means, so the only kind of knowledge that remains is faith-based knowledge. Atheism and religion are two sides of the same coin, requiring exactly the same degree of faith.


It may only be a matter of semantics, but I disagree. I consider myself an atheist, and I make no positive assertions about the absence of a God. I only state that there's no good reason that I've ever seen to believe that God exists... If atheists are to be defined only as people that make a positive claim about a negative... then you can simply categorically debunk atheism as a whole. I think if you talk to or look at any of the writings of any prominent self-proclaimed atheists, you'll see that they make no such claims... they simply beleive as I do, that there's no good reason to believe, so we shouldn't. I think we need to keep in mind that agnosticism wasn't even a word until the mid 19th century.

Patriot:

You asked me if experiencing a supernatural phenomenon myself would change my view. Well as long as it wasn't immediately after a head injury or while on medication, then yes... if I personally experience something supernatural I may change my position.

One thing is for sure, If God does talk to me sometime, one of the first thing I'm going to ask him is why he let some of the brightest minds that humanity has ever seen come and go without giving them the same privelage. Einstein, Twain, Edison, and many others died never believing in the supernatural.

[cpwill]

Hmm... yourself. Let's actually make this argument much like a true argument would be:

Theist: There's a mouse in the room.
Atheist: How do you know?
Theist: This book told me.
Atheist: And how could a book know if there is a mouse in the room?
Theist: The people that wrote the book saw the mouse.
Atheist: Who are the authors?
Theist: Oh, they've all been dead for a few thousand years.
Atheist: So how the heck do we know for sure that there is a mouse, if the only evidence is a 2000 year old book?
Theist: I've felt the mouse.
Atheist: What do you mean you "felt" the mouse?
Theist: I felt the the mouses presense.
Atheist: You're nuts if you think I'm going to believe that.
Theist: But look, there's a whole in the wall right there, only a mouse could do that.
Atheist: Actually, that whole could have been caused by a number of things... (cut off)
Theist (Shrill Voice): Now you are going to burn in an evil place for all eternity because you don't believe there's a mouse in the room.

*Atheist backs to the nearest exit and runs*

slight problem, actually; you've got it backwards.
we don't believe in God because of the Bible, we believe in the Bible because of God.

God comes first, both chronologically and spiritually.

[mataj]

. . .
Theist: I've felt the mouse.
Atheist: What do you mean you "felt" the mouse?
Theist: I felt the the mouses presense.
Atheist: You're nuts if you think I'm going to believe that.
. . .

Hmmm... What about spiritual blindness? Spiritual... Mousetual? Mousenial blindness should definitely appear in this dialogue.

[JustinH]

slight problem, actually; you've got it backwards.
we don't believe in God because of the Bible, we believe in the Bible because of God.

God comes first, both chronologically and spiritually.

Incorrect, without the Bible, the existance of God wouldn't be known. You can make the claim that you would "know" that God was here, regardless of the Bibile, but that's already covered when the person said he "felt" the mouses presense.

Your little "fake chat" had several fundmental flaws, primarily, the fact that you acted as if there is more evidence of God then there is that the sky is blue, when in fact, there is NO evidence of God, except the personal experience of individuals.

[Craig]

Mike,

Good point, and this brings in the distinction between so called "Strong" and "Weak" atheists. Strong atheists are those who firmly deny the existence of God. Usually these people have had some sort of experience that causes them to become strong atheists, and they tend to outright dislike or even hate God. Unfortunately, these people are little better than those who claim with absolute certainty that God exists, namely because they have no way of knowing for certain that He does not exist.

Weak atheists, on the other hand, are exactly as you describe. They are capable of intellectually entertaining the idea of God, and admit that there is a possibility for His existence, but given the circumstances they see no good reason to believe He exists. Most if not all the noted atheist thinkers are weak atheists, if I am not mistaken.

[DeathMonkey]

Sure, your faith in science is valid, but that doesn't necessitate exclusion is spiritual experiements anymore than belief in God requires the exclusion of science. I believe there are at least three spheres of true, each needed different methods to arrive at truths; spiritual, physical, and moral.

I do disagree with none of us actually know. In one context you are saying, "If God is real, he is powerless to manifest or reveal himself to his children to that they may know Him." So on that merit, it's flawed reasoning given a God who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

Secondly, suppose God came and visited me like he did with Adam, or Abraham, or Moses or Joseph Smith, then I'd "know" wouldn't I? However, notwithstaning my knowledged of God, how can I make you know what I know? I can't, agreed?

I can share with you my experience or knowledge, and you can choose to believe or not. I think in large measure this is the type of faith non-believers label believers with..."they don't really know, they just believe mearly on dead prophets or living fools who claim they 'know' but really don't know."

Such a label of "faith" is only a superficial understanding of faith. Faith is not understood by most people, non-believers and believers alike. Faith is a topic I'd like to discuss in greater detail if you are interested; let me know, otherwise I will not begin a thread on faith, what it is, the object on which it rests, and the effects which flow from it.

DeathMonkey, I know that God lives.

Stop trying to convince me because it'll just end up pissing you off. I have given that subject 30 years of my life, and nothing. Hence, the beliefs I hold. To me its so clear as to be self-evident.

My overall, non-partisan point is that from within each of us is a place where the big scary questions dwell, and we all use faith in SOMETHING to answer those questions. And that the mechanism, be it theist or not, is similar in most people. That the "mechanics of Faith" are common throughout the spectrum of philosophy and religion.

This is really the debate I have tried to raise, not more Christian-Atheist pissing matches.

That in structure, they are more similar than one would think. There is the Scientific Canon, priests of math and science, dogma and rhetoric, inflexible sects that still believe in centrifugal force, and heretics that believe in Faster Than Light particle movement. You have the Nihilists, the Existentialists, the Altruists, there are non-denominational Atheists.

Yes, science doesnt preclude a life of faith, but those would then still be Theists, not Atheists, wouldnt they? Jesus was a Jew, Einstein was very spiritual (also Jewish I believe). Personally, I am a big Chaos Theory fan.

Every Sunday you go to church, every Monday I watch Discovery channel. You read the Bible for guidance, the Books of Mark and Luke and John. I read the books of Heinlein and Azimov, Hegel and Kant, Neitzche and Genet.

We have the same questions: How was the Universe created? What happens when we die? We have different answers, but we approach them similarly. I am not any more different from a Christian than a Hindu. Or a Buddhist. I still seek answers, I just seek them from my own experience, just like everyone else. In those answers I believe, I have faith.

[DeathMonkey]

Incorrect, without the Bible, the existance of God wouldn't be known. You can make the claim that you would "know" that God was here, regardless of the Bibile, but that's already covered when the person said he "felt" the mouses presense.

Your little "fake chat" had several fundmental flaws, primarily, the fact that you acted as if there is more evidence of God then there is that the sky is blue, when in fact, there is NO evidence of God, except the personal experience of individuals.


Actually, how do you write a book about stuff in which God plays a major part, without knowing of God? The Bible is a collection of writings ABOUT peoples experiences of God. Theoligically, God was around for a long time, and very evident, smiting and plaguing etc etc long before the Bible was written. Just thought I'd chime in :)

[Craig]

Craig, I don't get what you are saying. Can you please restate.

The Christian teleological argument is one of the main philosophical arguments used to support the existence of God. Though it has appeared in various forms throughout the ages, its basic premise is that the world or the universe is far too great and complex to have ever arisen on its own; therefore there must be a creator, and this creator is God. The argument is predicated upon the absurdity of things arising on their own without divine action. The irony, as I pointed out, is that it is equally absurd to appeal to an all powerful, all knowing, all loving, maximally perfect supreme being who is immortal and transcends time. The teleological argument works until someone stops and realizes that "Wait a minute- this whole proposition about God is equally as bizarre the atheist's assertion, doubly so when we factor in that more evidence is being discovered as to the universe's origins and birth while there is still no evidence for God that does not require a logical pressuposition of faith."

[DeathMonkey]

Mike,

Good point, and this brings in the distinction between so called "Strong" and "Weak" atheists. Strong atheists are those who firmly deny the existence of God. Usually these people have had some sort of experience that causes them to become strong atheists, and they tend to outright dislike or even hate God. Unfortunately, these people are little better than those who claim with absolute certainty that God exists, namely because they have no way of knowing for certain that He does not exist.

Weak atheists, on the other hand, are exactly as you describe. They are capable of intellectually entertaining the idea of God, and admit that there is a possibility for His existence, but given the circumstances they see no good reason to believe He exists. Most if not all the noted atheist thinkers are weak atheists, if I am not mistaken.

If you "entertain" the notion, then one is not an Atheist, one is Agnostic. Many Agnostics lay some claim to be Atheist, but many are just anti-Christian, or anti-religion. But they aren't Atheists in the strict sense, and should not be called such.

Its a good distinction you bring up, just stating me opiiiiine

The great Atheist writers, IMHE, are pretty hardcore "there is NO God" folks: Nihilists, Existentialists, etc.

[Craig]

That's funny, mataj, you jive talk like evolution is fact. Every day science refutes the theory of evolution. Time to let the science you love so much speak for itself; why aren't you listening?

Science has not refuted evolution, but rather it has confirmed it, beyond a shadow of a doubt. I should qualify in stating that not every portion of the theory of evolution has been confirmed, but its main tenets have been empirically proven. A number of studies list members of species X who, through empirically observable genetic changes, became able to mate with each other but not the original members of species X. The significance of these studies is that they nicely illustrate speciation, which is an evolutionary process wherein a species genetically changes over time. It also illustrates genetic drift.

There are a few scientists, some even with doctorates, who argue that speciation does occur, but gross changes, such as a bacteria eventually evolving into a human, cannot occur. Thus, they claim, evolution does not occur. However, this is a bit silly, since they are actually admitting that evolution does occur, but only under certain conditions.

The long and short of it is that evolution is going to stick around with us, in one form or another, for as long as we live as a species. There may be revisions that need to be made to some portions of the theory, but the core tenets are solid and empirically proven.

[MikeD4o7]

If you "entertain" the notion, then one is not an Atheist, one is Agnostic. Many Agnostics lay some claim to be Atheist, but many are just anti-Christian, or anti-religion. But they aren't Atheists in the strict sense, and should not be called such.

Its a good distinction you bring up, just stating me opiiiiine

The great Atheist writers, IMHE, are pretty hardcore "there is NO God" folks: Nihilists, Existentialists, etc


There was no such thing as an agnostic until I think the 1850's. Atheism is simply what the word broken down means. prefix 'a' meaning 'without', root 'theism' meaning "Belief in a god". So anyone that doesn't believe in God is an atheist. That makes me an atheist, not an agnostic. I don't believe in God, but that doesn't mean that I claim positively "God does not exist". Plus, if you look at Huxley's definition of agnostic... you have to conclude that everyone is an agnostic since nobody can really "know".

[Craig]

DeathMonkey,

Close, but not quite. An agnostic does not know for certain whether or not God exists. Further, agnostics state that there really is no way of knowing whether or not God exists. The weak atheist, however, states that God does not exist based upon a number of pieces of evidence. There is a difference, though it is a subtle one.

[DeathMonkey]

Plus, if you look at Huxley's definition of agnostic... you have to conclude that everyone is an agnostic since nobody can really "know".

I said that earlier and the people who talk to Jesus told me I was wrong.

[Platypus]

Weak atheists, on the other hand, are exactly as you describe. They are capable of intellectually entertaining the idea of God, and admit that there is a possibility for His existence, but given the circumstances they see no good reason to believe He exists.

What you call a "weak atheist" is more commonly less prejudicially called an agnostic.

Science has not refuted evolution, but rather it has confirmed it, beyond a shadow of a doubt. I should qualify in stating that not every portion of the theory of evolution has been confirmed, but its main tenets have been empirically proven.

Yes, let's try to be very clear on this one. Evolution is real. We can see its effects very clearly in microorganisms, and less so in other simple forms of life. Failure to extrapolate in very obvious ways to more complex beings would itself require a very substantial lack of faith. The case for natural selection, on the other hand, is less compelling. I know quite a few people who recognize the reality of evolution but have offered legitimate scientific criticism of the idea that natural selection is the only or even primary thing that drives it. I'm not disagreeing with or correcting anyone here; I'm just trying to forestall a misunderstanding before it occurs.

There was no such thing as an agnostic until I think the 1850's.

You mean that we didn't use that word for them, not that they didn't exist. When one pair of terms is both clear and widely understood I think we should use it instead of making up new terms.

[DeathMonkey]

DeathMonkey,

Close, but not quite. An agnostic does not know for certain whether or not God exists. Further, agnostics state that there really is no way of knowing whether or not God exists. The weak atheist, however, states that God does not exist based upon a number of pieces of evidence. There is a difference, though it is a subtle one.


I gotcha. It is a bit confusing, I tend to take the two words very literally, but there is still a lot of grey area.

[cpwill]

Incorrect, without the Bible, the existance of God wouldn't be known.

lol, oh really, then how was the bible created; somebody originally wrote it as a joke?;) no, they wrote it about something they had experienced. personally, i can attest to the fact that i met God well before i started looking into scripture. trust me on this one;)

You can make the claim that you would "know" that God was here, regardless of the Bibile, but that's already covered when the person said he "felt" the mouses presense.

you are accusing me (along with hundreds of millions of people) of insanity?:)

Your little "fake chat" had several fundmental flaws,

yes, primarily the fact that it is analogy. however, i take some pride in the fact that so far my fake chat has more accurately reflected the discussion here than the option that somebody;) put wherein the theist begins shrilly screaming that the non-believers were going to hell (care to point out to me the posts where patriot, i, or any other believer have pushed that?)

primarily, the fact that you acted as if there is more evidence of God then there is that the sky is blue, when in fact, there is NO evidence of God, except the personal experience of individuals.

(cough) excuse me, but there's no evidence of anything other than the personal experience of individuals.;)

[mahayana]

"There was no such thing as an agnostic until I think the 1850's. Atheism is simply what the word broken down means. prefix 'a' meaning 'without', root 'theism' meaning "Belief in a god". So anyone that doesn't believe in God is an atheist. That makes me an atheist, not an agnostic. I don't believe in God, but that doesn't mean that I claim positively "God does not exist". Plus, if you look at Huxley's definition of agnostic... you have to conclude that everyone is an agnostic since nobody can really "know"."

I'm a big fan of etymology, believe that people's different ideas of what words mean often are the basis of deeper inquiries. I have to laugh a little about all the "weak athiest", "strong athiest", odd definitions people keep posting. Just for fun, "theist" is a term dating from 1678, and even the dictionary can't leave it meaning "belief in a god". They go on to add "belief in the existence of one god viewed as the creative source of man and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world." In other words, they add implied theology to the word. Most theists are really promoting the Deity they think they know.

I like getting into definitions, but prefer "believer"," non-believer", and "athiest" to have their common meanings. These main categories come from the way people answer the question "Do you believe in God?" answered "yes", "I don't know", or "there is no such thing." Choose your answer, that's how you are being perceived.

Personally, my problem is with non-sensible theology. And the curious subject of theophany.

[Craig]

I'm a big fan of etymology, believe that people's different ideas of what words mean often are the basis of deeper inquiries. I have to laugh a little about all the "weak athiest", "strong athiest", odd definitions people keep posting.

The problem with the word "atheist" Mahayana is that people sometimes make certain presuppositions about you if you don't clarify further. One of the reasons why the "strong" and "weak" distinctions are necessary is because of these presuppositions. I believe that it is important to clarify that I can accept the existence of God, but only with compelling evidence wherein the evidence can only be explained by appealing to the existence of a higher power. Too many people will interpret situations with more than a little ambiguity as evidence for God's existence, or they haven't reasonably considered that the event in their life could have been a product of chance, or cause and effect.

Back on the subject of atheism, as you pointed out, is a lack of belief in God. That means that by definition, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, and all other religious people who lack belief in God are "atheists". Logically, it makes sense to create a distinction in order to describe the different forms of atheism, does it not?

[MikeD4o7]

You mean that we didn't use that word for them, not that they didn't exist. When one pair of terms is both clear and widely understood I think we should use it instead of making up new terms.


Yes, in the context I was saying that in, I meant that the word didn't exist until the mid 19th century. The coining of the word "agnostic" in my opinion, was a mistake and I believe Huxley only did it to find a less "offensive" word to label himself as instead of "atheist". If you read the way that Huxley states what the deal with agnosticism is... it's pointless. Huxley's position is that he is an agnostic, "without knowledge", because there's no way he could have knowledge, in the strict definition of knowledge, of the existence of a God. Well this is the point where 99.999999 percent of atheists say "well, duh..". If we want to run with this definition and say that only people that say "God doesn't exist and I can prove it" are atheists, then fine... we've just wiped atheism off of the face of the planet considering nobody, to my knowledge, ever says anything like that.

My feelings about the existence of God are basically the way I feel about the existence of a teacup orbiting a star about 3 lightyears away from here. Sure, it's conceivable and it doesn't break any rules of logic... but if you come to me and tell me that there's a teacup orbiting that star... I don't necessarily feel compelled to curb my skepticism and give a "gee, you may be right" kind of response.

I think that makes me an atheist, not an agnostic.

[Fox]

Well this is the point where 99.999999 percent of atheists say "well, duh.."According to a recent estimate, only about 2 1/2% of the world's population is atheistic.
http://www.injesus.com/Groups/ViewMessage.cfm?MessageId=HA008H7N&GroupID=DA0087YZ&UCD=dcm
2.5% of 6 billion people is 150 million people. 99.999999% of 150 million is 149,999,998.5. So according to your argument, only 1 1/2 people on the whole planet would say "God doesn't exist and I can prove it."

[Craig]

Heh. It's hyperbole Fox. ;-)

Though I agree, randomly throwing stats into a discussion that you've come up with is not a good way to persuade people. Stastics are misleading enough as it is, and phony ones don't add credibility to an argument. It's one thing I have to work to avoid from time to time when posting.

[JustinH]

According to a recent estimate, only about 2 1/2% of the world's population is atheistic.
http://www.injesus.com/Groups/ViewMessage.cfm?MessageId=HA008H7N&GroupID=DA0087YZ&UCD=dcm
2.5% of 6 billion people is 150 million people. 99.999999% of 150 million is 149,999,998.5. So according to your argument, only 1 1/2 people on the whole planet would say "God doesn't exist and I can prove it."

THAT is the greatest statistic ever :lol:.

[Anvils Hammer]

this is a very interesting thread....

i used to be a christian
then i was agnostic
then atheist
i belive that there is NO god or anything outside the physical universe.
it DOES require faith to belive what i do, easily as much as any other religion.
at a recent funeral, it took a lot of faith to reaffirm my belief, as the only atheist present, that this person was gone, forever, nothing remained.
everyone else in the room was content to belive that this person was now in heaven and would live eternally, and accepeting they were wrong was so so hard.
Atheism requires MORE faith than religions, as religions provide all the answers to the big questions, Atheism requires the beliver to come to their own conclusions and believe what makes sense, not what they would like to believe.
i used to be scared of death, as i belive it is the end, there is nothign beyond it, id love to think i have an immortal soul but i dont, and its harder to believe that than assure you self of a place in heaven or whereever you believe you are going.
i dont fear deaht anymore, for the simpel reason that when im dead, i wont know it, so theres no point giving it any further thought.

[mahayana]

"Back on the subject of atheism, as you pointed out, is a lack of belief in God. That means that by definition, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, and all other religious people who lack belief in God are "atheists". Logically, it makes sense to create a distinction in order to describe the different forms of atheism, does it not?"

This is not what I said. Perhaps I was unclear. The common view is that there are believers and non-believers. Athiests are seen as a small subset of the non-believers, the few who assert that there is no god.

I understand that you have your own definition of atheism, I was just pointing out that it is not the common one. You are outlandish when you try to lump major religions like Buddhism and Hinduism in with your atheism. Do you really think that everyone with reservations about Judeo-Christian theology is an atheist? They certainly don't think so.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Does it bother anyone to realize that everything requires faith?

We believe much yet know nothing. How do you know that you exist? Bang your head on the table, how do you know that is really pain? How do you know that when you turn around, everything disappears? How do you know that it even exists in the first place?

A true skeptic, while generally useless, brings up a point, how do you know anything?

Everything requires faith.

[Jard]

You know because you have knowledge. I know i am typing for example; but then again maybe we are in a dream, or maybe just maybe we are all dead... yes well at the moment i am passing wind!! :) At this point in time i need no faith to know what i am doing, if it changes then with it my knowledge will change.

Its always when trying to explain the bigger things in life that people believe they need faith, but do you really? People need an explaination... some hope; things cant just stop? this cant be it? surely we were put on this earth for a reason? well maybe oblivion is awaiting us, maybe this is just it and maybe there is not reason why we were put on this earth....

An atheist for me is someone who uses logic and they might just end up being the people who are right. I'd like to beleive not, however people might look back in 100 years and wonder how religion could have been the pretence for so many wars.

[Duo_Maxwell]

At this point in time i need no faith to know what i am doing, if it changes then with it my knowledge will change.

How do you know what you are doing, when in fact you may not be doing it? How do you know you have knowledge?

[mahayana]

How about these premises (not necessarily in chronological order):

"I think, therefore I am."

"La Vida es Sueno." (life is a dream)

"Let those who have eyes see, those who have ears hear."

"Might makes Right...the victors write the history."

[cpwill]

si vis pacem para bellum :)

success is merely the ability to go from defeat to defeat without loss of enthusiasm - winston churchill

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -Benjamin Franklin



lol, sorry:D

[MikeD4o7]

According to a recent estimate, only about 2 1/2% of the world's population is atheistic.
http://www.injesus.com/Groups/ViewM...A0087YZ&UCD=dcm
2.5% of 6 billion people is 150 million people. 99.999999% of 150 million is 149,999,998.5. So according to your argument, only 1 1/2 people on the whole planet would say "God doesn't exist and I can prove it."


I thought I made it fairly obvious that I threw out that number solely to make a point, and that I didn't intend it as a realistic statistic. From now on I'll make sure to specify so we don't have this confusion again though. ;)

[Craig]

Does it bother anyone to realize that everything requires faith?

We believe much yet know nothing. How do you know that you exist? Bang your head on the table, how do you know that is really pain? How do you know that when you turn around, everything disappears? How do you know that it even exists in the first place?

A true skeptic, while generally useless, brings up a point, how do you know anything?

Everything requires faith.

Cogito Ergo Sum, Duo. Let me tell you the story about Descartes and his system of radical skepticism. Descartes too went through the same thought processes that you just did. He comments that one can doubt the existence of a lot of things in life. One can, for instance, doubt the existence of God. One can also doubt the existence of other people. One can even doubt the existence of one's own self. In each case, Descartes discusses reasons for this doubt.

With this system of doubt, Descartes realized that one could doubt the existence of nearly everything; or that it took faith to believe in almost anything, if you will. However, there is one thing that you cannot doubt. You cannot doubt that there is doubting going on. And doubting is a form of thinking. Thinking implies a thinker. The logical conclusion of this is Cogito Ergo Sum, "I think therefore I am." And with this realization, Descartes dispelled the myth that everything is faith, and began to build up his philosophy on that one simple but profound truth:

Cogito Ergo Sum

[Duo_Maxwell]

How did he deal with the issue that he may not be doubting at all? That doubt is not what he believed it to be.

[Craig]

How did he deal with the issue that he may not be doubting at all? That doubt is not what he believed it to be

Ah, but this is a false problem. He cannot be "not doubting" because of the fact that what was going on meets the criterion for doubting. Remember that words are merely symbols to represent something else. If we were trying to describe doubting without words, we'd come up with...







.....But that doesn't mean that the thing in itself, namely doubting, does not exist. It's along the lines of Kant's distinction between the phenomenal and the numenal. The phenomenal is the word and the concept of doubting, but the numenal is the thing in itself. And really, what we call that thing is irrelevent, so long as our nomenclature is consistent.

And we can know that doubting is going on simply because it is a state. Morever, it can be identified by its presence or absence of existence at any given moment. And we know it's doubting merely because the thing in itself matches exactly our phenomenal term for it. So really, while this problem looks like its irresolvable, that is not the case.

[Duo_Maxwell]

there's a reason I know I shouldn't argue with you.

And now i'm going to let it go.

[Craig]

Besides, your question leaves us with an interesting philosophical paradox: How can we know that we are doubting if we aren't actually doubting? In other words, how can you claim that something requires faith if you cannot even doubt that it does not require faith in the first place?

;)

[MikeD4o7]

I always liked the way that Descartes approached that problem. The idea of the ultimate deceiver (don't remember if that's exactly what he called it) and all of that.

[Patriot]

Besides, your question leaves us with an interesting philosophical paradox: How can we know that we are doubting if we aren't actually doubting? In other words, how can you claim that something requires faith if you cannot even doubt that it does not require faith in the first place?
;)

Not sure I follow. Are you saying that there needs to be opposition in all things? For example, sweet & bitter, good & evil, mercy & justice, faith & doubt?

We need opposition in all things, otherwise there would be no meaning because there is no distinction/differentiation?

And without an environment of opposition, there could be no choices?

[Craig]

No, that's not what I am trying to say. Duo's response was to demand as to how Descartes dealt with the issue that he may not be doubting at all. Let's stop and think about that for a second though. If we aren't really doubting in the first place, as Duo suggests, then how is it possible to doubt the existence of oneself, God, other people, etc.? If there is no doubting going on, then none of the doubts Descartes expressed would have arisen in the first place. His "not doubting" problem thusly leaves us with a paradox which cannot be resolved.

[Patriot]

No, that's not what I am trying to say. Duo's response was to demand as to how Descartes dealt with the issue that he may not be doubting at all. Let's stop and think about that for a second though. If we aren't really doubting in the first place, as Duo suggests, then how is it possible to doubt the existence of oneself, God, other people, etc.? If there is no doubting going on, then none of the doubts Descartes expressed would have arisen in the first place. His "not doubting" problem thusly leaves us with a paradox which cannot be resolved.

OK, gotcha.