I am a christian, i and i strongly belive in my lord jesus christ, and i also belive that if you belive in him and except him as your savior, u will go to heaven. and i also believe that he created the world, not the big bang, or that we came from stupid apes.
Something I've seen posted a few times while skimming over a.. considerable amount of these posts which I would be inclined to take objection to.
Atheism is not faith. It's a rather cheeky argument by the believers to try and put atheism & religion on equal grounds. Faith is a belief in something, without evidence. The first response to that is that there is no evidence that God does not exist - which is absolutely true. However, the non-believers don't have the burden of proof. If I told you that there are gnomes that live in your garden that make your plants grow, I would expect (and hope) that you would ask me to produce evidence of these gnomes - otherwise, you would dismiss it without further thought.
I could tell you that there is fruit in the fridge, and you might accept it without checking for yourself - as it's a scenario that typically may be true (depending on your household). The point I'm making on this is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you are telling me that there is a 'being' that lives - but not in a sense that all other life that we know of, because it's immortal, and it can see into your mind, and my mind, and everyone's mind on the planet all day, every day, for every second, and has complete control of our universe and everything in it - I don't think it's a stretch to postulate that as quite an extraordinary claim. But where's the proof for it?
Back to my original point of atheism being confused with faith - atheism is the stance that many intelligent & free thinkers arrive at, and for one key reason. Skepticism. It is being a skeptic that I arrive at the conclusion that there is no god, because there is no convincing proof on the subject, and taking a look at all of the other entirely reasonable things that we come to rely on in our every day lives, that I can make the decision that this is not one of those reasonable things, and cast it aside.
And to that point - I've seen a few posts by atheists who claim that *nothing* could ever convince them that there is a god or a creator. This is an unreasonable point of view in my opinion. Say the clouds parted, a man flew out of the sky without aid from man-made invention, and started performing *real* magic & miracles in front of the entire world to see, and every scientist on the subject was incapable of explaining the nature of said miracles. I have to say, I'd be leaning in the direction of a believer - because I form a point of view, and opinion on the information & science available.
I'll reiterate - atheism is *not* faith based. It's a logical conclusion that any person can arrive at if they allow themselves to critically examine the available evidence & information. And to that note - I do decry holy texts as evidence, as a much more reasonable explanation is that a man, or group of men decided to enslave the minds of the denizens of this Earth for the collection of money, power, and land. I cite the vatican & imperialistic nature of islam, judaism, and christianity as proof to that end. To that end, please no pathetic circular logic "God wrote the bible and the bible says God exists, so there!" rebuttals.
And to that point - I've seen a few posts by atheists who claim that *nothing* could ever convince them that there is a god or a creator. This is an unreasonable point of view in my opinion. Say the clouds parted, a man flew out of the sky without aid from man-made invention, and started performing *real* magic & miracles in front of the entire world to see, and every scientist on the subject was incapable of explaining the nature of said miracles. I have to say, I'd be leaning in the direction of a believer - because I form a point of view, and opinion on the information & science available.
This is an interesting point you make. I am so convinced there is no god that were I to see such a spectacle I would assume that I'd lost my mind! Even if I didn't experience any change of my faculties of reason, I would consider a skeptical scenario more likely to obtain than the existence of a god to obtain. So, to that end, I really do believe there is no evidence that would convince me - logically, empirically, or otherwise.
Back to my original point of atheism being confused with faith - atheism is the stance that many intelligent & free thinkers arrive at, and for one key reason. Skepticism. It is being a skeptic that I arrive at the conclusion that there is no god, because there is no convincing proof on the subject, and taking a look at all of the other entirely reasonable things that we come to rely on in our every day lives, that I can make the decision that this is not one of those reasonable things, and cast it aside.
You seem to be a victim of the common human thought process: if there isn't proof for something, then it must be wrong! The very lack of evidence for either side means that, by your OWN definition, atheism is a faith. The skepticism argument could go both ways; if a person is skeptical as to the non-existence of God, then would that person instantly become a devout Christian? No. Your analogy is invalidated because of that. --------------
I'll reiterate - atheism is *not* faith based. It's a logical conclusion that any person can arrive at if they allow themselves to critically examine the available evidence & information.
Is it logical? No. Think about it. Any belief in something that has no evidence is not necessarily correct; therefore not logical.
The very lack of evidence for either side means that, by your OWN definition, atheism is a faith.
I thought HiddenDistance was pretty clear in his original post when refuting this claim:
The first response to that is that there is no evidence that God does not exist - which is absolutely true. However, the non-believers don't have the burden of proof. If I told you that there are gnomes that live in your garden that make your plants grow, I would expect (and hope) that you would ask me to produce evidence of these gnomes - otherwise, you would dismiss it without further thought.
Take it another way. We don't presuppose the existence of things. For example, we discover new animal species that we didn't know were there. So the base case here is not denying the existence of things. In other words, we don't go around naming things that we know not to exist. The only proposition, then, under consideration here is something to the effect of "god exists." The claim "god does not exist" is really only made in response to the existential proposition. Atheists do not need evidence for their claim, because it is not actually positing anything. It only represents the base case that already existed before the proposition "god exists" was even made.
Is it logical? No. Think about it. Any belief in something that has no evidence is not necessarily correct; therefore not logical.
I agree with this claim completely. Furthermore, there are some real logical challenges (I think they fall just short of contradictions) that provide some real problems with the notion of a Christian god. At the very least, it shows that Christianity itself is based upon this clear challenge.
You seem to be a victim of the common human thought process: if there isn't proof for something, then it must be wrong! The very lack of evidence for either side means that, by your OWN definition, atheism is a faith. The skepticism argument could go both ways; if a person is skeptical as to the non-existence of God, then would that person instantly become a devout Christian? No. Your analogy is invalidated because of that.
Victim? Actually I'd be inclined to think that this thought process isn't common enough.
From your statement that "if there isn't proof for something, then it must be wrong!." - does that honestly mean that you subscribe to the contrary? "If there isn't proof for something, then it must be correct?"
From that line of reasoning, I could attribute you for being responsible for the holocaust & every other atrocity committed on the planet, because I have no proof that shows you had anything to do with it. Can you see how silly that sounds?
Moegreche's rebuttal on presupposition is correct on your counter arguement - which, if you actually read & understood my post you would know I addressed. We don't need to come up with proof to show that things do not exist. I don't need to prove that there is no such thing as the tooth fairy, or santa claus, or unicorns, or mermaids, or god.
Let's put this another way - have you heard of Russell's Teapot? Sometimes referred to the Celestial Teapot - originally dreamed up by Bertrand Russell to refute the claim that the burden of proof lies with the skeptic. To do Russell proper justice, I'll quote him here:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
To address your final thought:
Is it logical? No. Think about it. Any belief in something that has no evidence is not necessarily correct; therefore not logical.
That's something you just don't understand. I'm not *actively* believing in the non-existence of god, I just don't believe that he's out there in the same way that I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster or big foot because there's nothing to prove that they do exist. It's a lack of belief, a lack of faith, and in it's place, there is simply a void.
This is an interesting point you make. I am so convinced there is no god that were I to see such a spectacle I would assume that I'd lost my mind! Even if I didn't experience any change of my faculties of reason, I would consider a skeptical scenario more likely to obtain than the existence of a god to obtain. So, to that end, I really do believe there is no evidence that would convince me - logically, empirically, or otherwise.
I would certainly share your first reaction =) Given time and scientific evidence, I would likely concede some point; however it could just be that the idea of 'god' to us could just be a sufficiently advanced life form. I love Arthur C. Clarke's famous quote:
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Even given the evidence that it exists however, I do not think that I would be inclined to worship them.
From your statement that "if there isn't proof for something, then it must be wrong!." - does that honestly mean that you subscribe to the contrary? "If there isn't proof for something, then it must be correct?" From that line of reasoning, I could attribute you for being responsible for the holocaust & every other atrocity committed on the planet, because I have no proof that shows you had anything to do with it. Can you see how silly that sounds?
I'd just like to say that we don't believe because we have no proof, but because of faith, which is hard to decribe if you don't have faith in God. But I'm certain you don't have faith that he commited every atrocity on the planet. The only point was that you can't disprove something by saying there is no proof. The only way to distinguish a theory as true or false is to get proof.
But I'm certain you don't have faith that he commited every atrocity on the planet.
Of course I don't - I'm just trying to point out how ridiculous he sounds.
The only way to distinguish a theory as true or false is to get proof.
Now the latter part of that is absolutely true in scientific circles. Problem is, 'god' is not a theory. At best, it is a hypothesis, but has no proof, and has never stood up to scientific scrutiny, and as such, cannot become a theory.
From your statement that "if there isn't proof for something, then it must be wrong!." - does that honestly mean that you subscribe to the contrary? "If there isn't proof for something, then it must be correct?"
There's that same thought process again! I think that we can't know if something is correct, or tout it as such, unless there is proof. That is why I am not religious. ----------
From that line of reasoning, I could attribute you for being responsible for the holocaust & every other atrocity committed on the planet, because I have no proof that shows you had anything to do with it. Can you see how silly that sounds?
That analogy fails. Because if you look at my birth certificate, then it will say, "born 10/01/1996" which is after the occurrence of the Holocaust. That analogy is basically one big assumption; that if YOU don't have proof for something, then it must be false. I don't mean to sound inflammatory, but you're not sounding so intelligent to me either sat this point. -------
Moegreche's rebuttal on presupposition is correct on your counter arguement - which, if you actually read & understood my post you would know I addressed. We don't need to come up with proof to show that things do not exist. I don't need to prove that there is no such thing as the tooth fairy, or santa claus, or unicorns, or mermaids, or god.
*headdesk* Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. There is an amusing saying. It goes like this: 'assuming makes an ass out of u and me.' Ever heard it before? Because that played perfectly into the meaning of that proverb. ------------
That's something you just don't understand. I'm not *actively* believing in the non-existence of god, I just don't believe that he's out there in the same way that I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster or big foot because there's nothing to prove that they do exist. It's a lack of belief, a lack of faith, and in it's place, there is simply a void.
Oh look, another assumptions. Besides, what would the distinction between an active and inactive disbelief in God be? ------------ The theory of Russell's Teapot always amused me~
[/quote]There's that same thought process again! I think that we can't know if something is correct, or tout it as such, unless there is proof. That is why I am not religious.
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. I'm not sitting on a viewpoint of absolute certainty that religious people are wrong - I'm taking the viewpoint that believing in things for which there is no evidence is ridiculous and idiotic. The fact that you think I, or any other atheist needs to disprove god shows how little you know about scientific research & thought. You continue to ignore the burden of proof. Perhaps it's a very simple postulate, but if one of them is correct, then the other must be incorrect. I am not making *any* claims - religious people claim that god exists, and my response is simply "Prove it". If they can't, I have no reason to pay further attention to the subject.
Wow. You're complaining a lot about assumptions, but you fail to point out what it is I'm supposed to be assuming.
[quote]headdesk* Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. There is an amusing saying. It goes like this: 'assuming makes an *** out of u and me.' Ever heard it before? Because that played perfectly into the meaning of that proverb.
This doesn't address my point at all, and is just insulting. Typical response when you don't actually have any legitimate argument to bring the table.
I don't mean to sound inflammatory, but you're not sounding so intelligent to me either sat this point.
And again, another insult, and no point. Additionally, if you didn't mean to sound inflammatory, you wouldn't have made such a comment, so you *do* mean to sound inflammatory. If I don't want to do something, I don't do it.
My distinction between active & inactive is this: There are people who "believe" in atheism as a faith, because they're whiny little adolescents or teenagers who reject their parents, reject god, & decide that rebellion is the way for them and/or they've never actually thought or discussed the subject at all.
Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. I'm not sitting on a viewpoint of absolute certainty that religious people are wrong - I'm taking the viewpoint that believing in things for which there is no evidence is ridiculous and idiotic. The fact that you think I, or any other atheist needs to disprove god shows how little you know about scientific research & thought. You continue to ignore the burden of proof. Perhaps it's a very simple postulate, but if one of them is correct, then the other must be incorrect. I am not making *any* claims - religious people claim that god exists, and my response is simply "Prove it". If they can't, I have no reason to pay further attention to the subject.
I never in any way said that atheists need to disprove God. You're making up things that I didn't even say! Besides, I understand your argument. What I'm saying is that neither side is technically logical, and a gray area is the most logical place to inhabit until there is proof. You have explained your view more thoroughly now, and I thank you for that. ----------
This doesn't address my point at all, and is just insulting. Typical response when you don't actually have any legitimate argument to bring the table.
Sorry. But what i was saying was that you don't know if I read and understood your post or not. Therefore, it is an assumption. ---------------
And again, another insult, and no point. Additionally, if you didn't mean to sound inflammatory, you wouldn't have made such a comment, so you *do* mean to sound inflammatory. If I don't want to do something, I don't do it.
What I'm saying is that neither side is technically logical
Why is neither side technically logical? As indicated, certainty is not an absolute, but one of those outcomes is far more likely then the other given what we *do* know about our universe. Logic, would be siding with the one that makes more sense rationally - which is atheism.
