Fair enough. The reason my stepson would get the "nice" version of my opinion on Christianity is because he is a kid. I'm more concerned with nurturing his sense of confidence and self-worth than I am about his religious beliefs provided they are not fanatical (such as pushing his beliefs on those who are not interested). I would rather he have misguided views about religion than be depressed or believe that I think poorly of him. I don't bring up religion around my Christian friends but if they bring up the subject I tell them what I think. I still think they can be good friends and good people even if they believe in nonsense every now and again. It doesn't make their beliefs any less absurd but that doesn't overshadow their overall value as people to me. They feel the same way about my atheism. They don't like it but it's not a deal breaker for them. Also, the vast majority of people who know me (including everyone I work with currently) believe I am a Christian. It's actually a fascinating experience to be around Christians when they have their guard down. Most of my negative experiences come from listening to the things they say about atheists and atheism when they are unaware that they are in the presence of one. I wouldn't have my job if my supervisor(s) knew I was an atheist. That I know with a high enough degree of certainty that I will continue playing the Christian role for the remainder of my time working for "the man." Your point about me being more tolerant is duly noted. I don't think that's ever a bad idea.
of course I'm going to come across as a 'looney fear monger' you're-going-to-hell if you do/don't type o dude....I am really not, it's your beliefs and I respect whatever you do or don't believe in, but.... I don't think you get to just sit back and wait for God to reveal himself before you can start believing in him. Kind of defeats the purpose of that whole Jesus fella.
You're right ... it's not really a point of contention because most philosophers after Kant stopped making arguments for the categorical imperative. Kierkegaard chose to make a "leap" into faith because he could find no sound reasoning that would take him to it. And Nietzsche was virulently anti-christian. He thought Jesus was like Dostoevsky's Prince Myshkin - the Idiot - because he was genuinely incapable of being anyone's enemy and old Fred also believed that, had Jesus lived to be older, he would have recanted his beliefs. He believed that philosophers (his kind of philosophers) were still faithful ... but not in god. They were faithful that truth existed and rebutted nihilism by pursuing truth at all costs. Nietzsche once wrote "In truth, there was only one Christian - and he died on the cross." Otherwise, he considered Christianity the prime example of "slave morality." This is sorta wrong all over. Again, this sort of thinking - the pursuit of a logical proof for god - really ended with Kant. You have the logic incorrect as well. While it's true that many people rigorously used two-valued symbolic logic as a measure of truth (a millenium ago) even Aristotle recognized that there were three values - true, false, and not yet true or false (applied to future contingents - the "sea battle" argument in De Interpretatione IX is the main source of his argument). It's not atypical for logicians to use three-valued logic (or more) now. Those philosophers who used logic and then asserted an "other" beyond it did not reach the "other" through logic but through arguing that anything that could not be reached via logic must be God. There was no logical proof - it was always something akin to the Kierkegaardian leap. This is a position that has pretty much been ground into the dirt since then - it assumes, to some degree, that logic is the only faculty that one can use to pursue truth - an assertion that is clearly incorrect. At any rate, the question of god's existence is not a question open to logical inquiry. Dave_78 is correct when he says that there is no logical reason to believe in god - unless you have some special insight that 3 millenia of brilliant men never achieved.
What is the difference? Both rely on suspending evidence and/or holding beliefs without evidence to support them. The only differences are that one billion people have believed one for a few thousand years and probably a few thousand people have believed the other for a few decades. The fact that it makes some Christians mad to compare the two clearly illustrates that they are unable to even attempt to be objective about their beliefs. That's the problem, not my supposed provocation. And for the record, every time I have brought this up the Christian involved was already on a rant about how stupid Scientology is. When I first mentioned this, I was not clear in the fact that it was not me who brought up the subject although I'd be lying if I didn't admit I used each situation to attempt to prove a point to them. I'll agree. Being an atheist does not necessarily equal logic or critical thinking. I have met plenty of atheists who honestly have no grasp of why they are atheists. The few I still know have since converted to Christianity and are now happily ignorant Christians as opposed to angry, ignorant atheists if that's worth anything to you. I don't believe in God for the same reasons you don't believe in the tooth fairy or invisible dragons. That's my position. That's too bad. You're obviously an intelligent, thoughtful person and it's a bit of a waste to me that you see standing up for a non-theistic viewpoint as "rubbing it in someone's face."
I'm wondering how faith would be defined if we were logically able to prove God. The nature of faith exists as it is because God isn't a tangibly constant quantity. How we would perceive faith and worship if powerful aliens assumed roles as Gods in humanity's early history? Definitely not Santy Claus, but maybe some among us wouldn't consider love divine either. That said, people who are truly faithful are willing to accept that it could all be just a waste of time. I'm not entirely sure how they really feel privately. It's human nature to vigorously defend the life or work one has spent years or decades undertaking, sometimes even when reality indicates that it might not be "true". In order to look beyond that destructive denial, I'm thinking it requires true faith in the spirit in the ideal rather than the rules that make up the ideal. /Waiting for that last bit to have it's own wing in the Creation Museum.
This is such a boring and ridiculous argument. There is no reason why someone's "faith" should be given some sort of special "let's be kind and considerate to the point of inanity" relative to discussion. Surely, we can be polite, but to just blindly state that pointing out an obvious case of hypocrisy (e.g. the scientology vs christianity argument above) is equivalent to being "disrespectful" is just plain malarky. I don't have to debate you on "your" terms. Sure, it's equally productive to stick to flaws inherent or internal to judeo-christianity, but to just gloss over the much larger point due to some bizarre exception based on "respect" is totally unfounded. Nothing in Dave78's posts was offensive or mean - it's just the reality of the situation - and the reaction he gets from christians is exemplified in your statement above. It's the discourse equivalent of screaming "that's not fair!"
How can people just arbitrarily change the meaning of a "day"? God created the world in 7 days. Fine, I can deal with that. God is God, and he can do whatever he wants(by definition of supreme deity). But to try to merge science with Christianity seems impossible. The term "day" as defined by science is one rotation of Earth. You can't just say that's a billion years unless the Earth was rotation very, very slowly back in the time when God was creating Earth. Which, of course, makes no sense from a science standpoint.
So going around telling people they are crazy and cultish is just fine then? That strikes me as the flipside of going around telling atheists and agnostics they are soulless and going to Hell.
Except that crazy/cultish behavior can be proven. Whereas the lack of a soul or existence of hell cannot.
Fair enough although you did say "any Christian." Exactly which is why I find the a claim of intellectually superiority at times among atheists to ring hollow. There are plenty of religious people out there whose views are very well thought out as much as there are plenty of atheists whose views are too. And that is fine to have that you have that position what I would question though is two things. First why rub it in people's faces? Not knowing you personally but just going off by what you have posted your viewpoint strikes me as proseltyzing atheisism. From what I gather this is partly driven by what you see as Christians rubbing their religion in your face which I agree happens but at the sametime I would say that is unproductive for either. [edit]Sorry I missed your earlier post and it seems like you are judicious with where and when you argue for atheism.[/edit] Second though have you considered that religious position has a rational basis in regard to the question of mortality and as rational beings we will question what does happen to us when we die? I would say rubbing it in someone's face is based upon the confrontational stance you feel you need to take. To follow on with Twhy's point there is a logical explanation for why people have religious beliefs but to understand them does require not so much a leap of faith but a change of world view. What I find troubling in these sorts of debates is that often both sides will attack each other using the standards they apply of their own world view without understanding the other. For example in Evolution debates I have noticed those arguing against Evolution to attempt to reduce science down to faith. Ultimately I don't find it productive to just engage in confrontation of the sort where one side tries to bash the other with science while the other bashes with faith. That doesn't mean though that we can't seek understanding.
You are welcome to show me proof of where Dave78 or myself have ever claimed to call christians, to their faces, crazy or cultish. Good luck. EDIT: heck, you are welcome to show me proof of where I personally have ever called them crazy or cultish period. I honestly don't think I have, unless there was some exceptional circumstance. I think JayZ750 already exposed this. But regardless, nice attempt to reframe the argument...
Basically my point. Except Dave, nor anybody else in this thread, has shown that to be their tendency. Rather, it's been pointed out that in "real life" - i.e., not on this board, his beliefs have to be hidden from plain view. Quite the opposite. Again, not picking on any individuals in this thread, but in general in life, it is all the opposite as you've pointed out. You may have met a few rude or illogical atheists, but you couldn't have possibly met that many...because there aren't that many atheists in total and there are even fewer ones that are open about it. I don't have Dave's problems, but I basically never discuss my faiths in public. Yet, on the other hand, Christianity, and other religions are constantly being "shoved" down people's faces - from Joel Olsteen's of the world to politics, etc. Christianity in particular seems worse because of it's predominant position in America and the tendency for it's backers to be "missionaries" for their beliefs. I'll tell you one thing...I've never had an atheists come knock on my door! What's more, in an intelligent conversation, like one in this thread, or arguably one amongst peers in real life, then you could get into what might seem like "rubbing it in one's face" type behaviour, but it's simply a restatement of beliefs, beliefs that can be backed by support or lack thereof, whereas the other side requires many leaps of faith. Are all atheists logical and rationale? Of course not. But is it almost by definition a logical and rationale system of beliefs - well in so far as atheist agnostics, probably. "I don't believe in a God and don't know one way or another if I'm right or not because of the lack of evidence, etc., etc., etc."
I think you are cutting yourself short here Thadeus. lets say for a second that God did exist and created the heavens and the earth and yadda yadda... We know for certain that he'd have to exist in at least 2 dimensions of time and the 10 dimensions of space J. Glanz described existed at the time of creation. Humans, obviously do not operate in 12 dimensions. so of course there is no LOGICAL reason to believe in God, especially when God exists in a state that is incapable of any human thought achieving. worldly perceptions of God will only get you so far.....hence faith, hence thwy77's post.
Arguing your belief is similar to saying your belief is the correct one. Saying yours is correct is saying theirs is wrong. People take offense to that. The easiest way to avoid such confrontations is to ignore people when they try to argue for their belief. Just say something like: "thanks for sharing." Of course, if you must have this sort of discussing/argument, you can't do that. I just prefer not to waste my time on something like this, I guess (even though I'm here posting about it anyway).
We don't know any of that for certain, unless one already believes in god. This is just a more elaborate version of the "begging the question" logical fallacy: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html [rquoter]Bill: "God must exist." Jill: "How do you know." Bill: "Because the Bible says so." Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?" Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God." [/rquoter] Same, again. One starts by assuming the existence of god and then ascribes characteristics to god like "god exists in a state that is incapable of any human thought achieving." One could easily say that about many things. The point I'm making is that faith is the only thing that applies to a belief in god. One can make all sorts of schemes that "prove" god's existence, but they ALWAYS start from the end - they start with the assumption that god exists, and then construct a rationale that appears to support that assumption. I'm not terribly interested in arguing whether god exists or not. I think the question is nonsensical since there is no real definition of god, and, because of that, no real definition of what it would mean for god to exist - but more than that, with the characteristics that people have ascribed to god, I don't think it's genuinely important in the world of human experience whether god exists or not - in short: I don't think it's an important question, so I don't care if god exists. Again, the point I'm making with all of this is that it's true to say that there is no logical reason to believe in god. Those who believe in god do so because they believe in god. That's all.
I like it when people blindly use their vast and superior amounts of knowledge. For example, lets take the word "day". If we look up the word "day" in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, we will find the definition means ... oh wait ... I just remembered they didn't have the Merriam-Webster dictionary 3000 or whatever years ago when Genesis was written. And how many times has the word been translated into different languages? I'd venture to say the original writing had nothing to do with 6 actual rotations of the earth. Part II: Day 1 As you pointed out, 1 rotation on Earth is one day. If day 1 was when light was created, (ie: the sun) and Earth was created before the sun, I can only assume technically the earth must not have been rotating until the sun was created, otherwise we would be racking up days already. Also, does this mean if we stop rotating the earth, we can stop a day and freeze time? This reminds me of 24 when someone unfamiliar with the show said, (paraphrasing), "You would think after fighting 7 straight days, Bauer would be pretty tired". C'mon guys, if we can understand "Day 7" in 24 is not literally 7 straight days, why are we quibbling over this?
from The Guardian This is why it is important to not just smile and nod and look the other way when young earth creationists speak. I'd be glad to leave them alone, if they'd leave all the rational people in the world, but they are a disease vector spreading their ideological virus. Like Typhoid Mary, "just letting them be" would just result in a world full the infected. Taken all the way to its logical conclusion, accepting progressive irrationality results in a return to the Medieval world, where people cower in the dark from fear of demons and spirits. To me, that is one of the most terrifying plausible outcomes for the world. It happened to the Romans, and to think we are somehow beyond that now is folly. I also think it would be interesting to see what would happen in the US if the proponents of young earth creationism were Muslim fundamentalists, as in the UK. I'm thinking some of the "just let them be" sentiment wouldn't be quite so strong. [rquoter] Academics fight rise of creationism at universities More students believe Darwin got it wrong Royal Society challenges 'insidious problem' A growing number of science students on British campuses and in sixth form colleges are challenging the theory of evolution and arguing that Darwin was wrong. Some are being failed in university exams because they quote sayings from the Bible or Qur'an as scientific fact and at one sixth form college in London most biology students are now thought to be creationists. Earlier this month Muslim medical students in London distributed leaflets that dismissed Darwin's theories as false. Evangelical Christian students are also increasingly vocal in challenging the notion of evolution. In the United States there is growing pressure to teach creationism or "intelligent design" in science classes, despite legal rulings against it. Now similar trends in this country have prompted the Royal Society, Britain's leading scientific academy, to confront the issue head on with a talk entitled Why Creationism is Wrong. The award-winning geneticist and author Steve Jones will deliver the lecture and challenge creationists, Christian and Islamic, to argue their case rationally at the society's event in April. "There is an insidious and growing problem," said Professor Jones, of University College London. "It's a step back from rationality. They (the creationists) don't have a problem with science, they have a problem with argument. And irrationality is a very infectious disease as we see from the United States." Professor David Read, vice-president and biological sciences secretary of the Royal Society, said that they felt it was essential to address the issue now: "We have asked Steve Jones to deliver his lecture on creationism and evolution because there continues to be controversy over how evolution and other aspects of science are taught in some UK schools, colleges and universities. Our education system should provide access to the knowledge and understanding gained through the scientific method of experiment and observation, such as the theory of evolution through natural selection, and should withstand attempts to withhold or misrepresent this knowledge in order to promote particular beliefs, religious or otherwise." Leaflets questioning Darwinism were circulated among students at the Guys Hospital site of King's College London this month as part of the Islam Awareness Week, organised by the college's Islamic Society. One member of staff at Guys said that he found it deeply worrying that Darwin was being dismissed by people who would soon be practising as doctors. The leaflets are produced by the Al-Nasr Trust, a Slough-based charity set up in 1992 with the aim of improving the understanding of Islam. The passage quoted from the Qur'an states: "And God has created every animal from water. Of them there are some that creep on their bellies, some that walk on two legs and some that walk on four. God creates what he wills for verily God has power over all things." A 21-year-old medical student and member of the Islamic Society, who did not want to be named, said that the Qur'an was clear that man had been created and had not evolved as Darwin suggests. "There is no scientific evidence for it [Darwin's Origin of Species]. It's only a theory. Man is the wonder of God's creation." He did not feel that a belief in evolution was necessary to study medicine although he added that, if writing about it was necessary for passing an exam, he would do so. "We want to become doctors and dentists, we want to pass our exams." He added that God had not created mankind literally in six days. "It's not six earth days," he said, it could refer to several thousands of years but it had been an act of creation and not evolution. At another London campus some students have been failed because they have presented creationism as fact. They have been told by their examiners that, while they are entitled to explain both sides of the debate, they cannot present the Bible or Qur'an as scientifically factual if they want to pass exams. David Rosevear of the Portsmouth-based Creation Science Movement, which supports the idea of creationism, said that there was an increasing interest in the subject among students. "I've got no problem with an all-powerful God producing everything in six days," he said. He said it was an early example of the six-day week. Students taking exams on the subject should not be dogmatic one way or the other. "I tell them - answer the question, it's no good saying it [creationism] is a fact any more than saying evolution is a fact." A former lecturer in organic chemistry at Portsmouth polytechnic (now university) and ICI research scientist, Dr Rosevear said he had been invited to expound his theories at many colleges and had addressed the Cafe Scientifique, a student science society, at St Andrews university, Fife. "The students clearly came expecting to have a laugh but they found there was much more to it. Our attitude is - teach evolution but mention creationism and let students decide for themselves." Most of the next generation of medical and science students could well be creationists, according to a biology teacher at a leading London sixth-form college. "The vast majority of my students now believe in creationism," she said, "and these are thinking young people who are able and articulate and not at the dim end at all. They have extensive booklets on creationism which they put in my pigeon-hole ... it's a bit like the southern states of America." Many of them came from Muslim, Pentecostal or Baptist family backgrounds, she said, and were intending to become pharmacists, doctors, geneticists and neuro-scientists. [/rquoter]
Maybe this one of the problems from arguing on an internet forum, but I was offering Spinoza, Aquinas, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard as 4 examples of how to approach the notion of truth, something other etc. I wasn't arguing that one approach was more valid than another. Essentially you have Spinoza, the rationalist, Nietzsche who says he's not a nihilist but when you really analyze it he kind of is, Kierkegaard who is either/or and Aquinas who is faith/reason. Way oversimplified but that's the basic framework I was going for in positing the problem to Dave, who seems to think it is not valid or logical to believe in God. What do you mean when you say logical proof for God? I see that as the Kantian/Hegelian enterprise. I wasn't trying to under emphasize the role of faith in the Thomistic mindset. I was trying to emphasize the fact that reason/logic/whatever does not necessitate that there is not a God. So either A) God B) No god or C) Maybe in the Future but right now who knows? It seems like C would set off a firestorm of different variables. That seems to make the problem infinitely more complex than it should be. Now I'm not saying there isn't a place for that sort of reasoning. It seems to fit very well into phenomenology, perpectivalism, and personalism. But when arguing about the existence of God, there are really only two answers, yes or no. I'm genuinely interested not trying to be snarky, what other faculties do we have to pursue truth? In our being? How would we know it? Through reason which is part of our being? Once again, maybe this is just a semantics game then. What do you mean when you say logical inquiry? Every philosopher seems infinitely wrapped up in this question of the "other" which is inimically attached to the existence of God; even post-Nietzsche like Heidegger, Deridda, Rorty. Although Rorty and Deridda seem to scrap the project early because they think it is futile. Still, the answer to the question of is there a God dictates the rest of their work. And you do know there are plenty of Thomists out there that would refute their work has been ground in to the dust. But this is a good conversation, my initial reaction was just to point out to Dave that it's not illogical to believe in God.
