I would like to share an opinion on MadMax- He has experienced a God he cannot see, touch or audibly hear. He has no scientific proof to offer. He has no bones to pick with those who experiences are different, in fact he respects them. But his experience with God has left a indelible connection within him that he cannot deny, yet he will not let go. I believe this is what the Bible means when it says 'God is Love' I believe MadMax has tasted this 'love' and he believes in his heart of hearts it is real. Yes, it is faith. But it is not faith without a message, a meaning and a person. That person is Jesus Christ. I respect Madmax so much for having such a simple faith that a child could understand his love for God. I just want to encourage him to carry on. MadMax- feel free to speak for yourself and correct my thoughts on this.
you're wrong. i worship Frank Stallone. i'm not gonna convince anyone of anything here. truly, i'm not trying to. was just talking about similarities between a BELIEF that there is a God and BELIEF there is not a God. but apparently that pissed folks off...and it's not worth it over that.
I was not trying to be insulting - in fact, I was ready to let it go just like thegary... FB's post got me thinking about it again though - thus the comment. My apologies if it seemed like I was "piling on". EDIT (in response to your above post)... I'm not trying to change anybody. I'm happy if you're happy. I was just interested in exploring this a bit further. I understand the notion of what you are putting forward Max, but I am not convinced that is correct. Maybe part of that is some sort of bias...
show me show me show me how you do that trick the one that makes me scream she said the one that makes me laugh she said and threw her arms around my neck show me how you do it and i promise you i promise that i'll run away with you i'll run away with you spinning on that dizzy edge i kissed her face and kissed her head and dreamed of all the different ways i had to make her glow why are you so far away? she said why won't you ever know that i'm in love with you? that i'm in love with you? you soft and only you lost and lonely you strange as angels dancing in the deepest oceans twisting in the water you're just like a dream... you're just like a dream... daylight licked me into shape i must have been asleep for days and moving lips to breathe her name i opened up my eyes and found myself alone alone alone above a raging sea that stole the only girl i loved and drowned her deep inside of me you soft and only you lost and lonely you just like heaven
I believe that it's far more unlikely for God not to exist than for it to exist. I believe that the theory of evolution is far stronger than the theory of creation. Well, scientific theories are just theories. Scientists come up with theories to interprete the data they receive and use their models to predict the future. Good theories tend to be much more reliable and verifable than bad theories. However, every scientist and atheist understands that it's highly likely that they have not seen all the evidence yet, that's why they know their theories are not perfect and could be wrong. A proper atheist would never claim to know everything. Facts are not perceptions, you drop an apple, it will fall to the ground, that's a fact which is perceivable, but it's totally objective. We atheists prefer to base our understandings on verifable facts and logic. Our "faith" is different from yours because we demand proof before we would accept something. Your faith is known for its demand of blind acceptance. That's what sets us apart. In the general sense, belief is not equal to religion. I have a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow morning -- you cannot call this a religion. Religion is just one type of belief that asserts the existence of a personal God. Atheism is another type of belief that demands the most logical, factual and verifable theory to be accepted. There is no such thing as practising "atheism". What's there to practise? We just do everything based on facts and logic. We interpret everything with verifable models that change constantly. Why would you devote yourself to do something that gives you absolutely no pleasure? Everything you do, you do it because you believe it ultimately will do more good to you than if you don't do it. But what's the basis of your motivation? Why do you want to practise a religion? Why do you think you should serve God? Why do you think it's necessary to live by God's rules? The basis is that you believe that you will end up in a better position if you do so, and that's human instincts at work. The best reason I can come up with is evolution and the basic instincts. Evolution has determined that those with the strongest instincts to survive and breed are the ones that actually survivied. So as a member of the species that survived, the most basic instinct of a human being is to make our species survive longer and become better. That's why we feel good when we help others in need -- because evolution has selected those that would help in each other to survivie. So, as atheists, we choose to honour our species and our fellow human beings, instead of a God that most likely does not exist. As decided by my evolved instincts, my devotion is not just to myself, but to human beings as a species. I don't regard myself or any other human beings as a God. I believe we are all equals who should help each other and our species to survive. Does studying the bible with Jehova's Witnesses for 3 months count as outside my box? I prefer to stick to the dictionary defintion of religion -- because that's what everyone else uses. Otherwise, we could be arguing about the same thing and not knowing it. You can go ahead and invent whatever meaning to whatever words you wish, but I'd like to ask you to stick to the most common meanings when discussing them with me. You are exactly wrong here. Science and facts are not absolute, that's why we atheists change what we believe as we discover more facts and come up with better models. Our knowledge evolves and so does our understanding of the universe. We don't just stick to one teaching no matter what. We require the most convincing proof of something before accepting it. To us, the proof of god is far less convincing than the proof of evolution. Hence we believe in evolution instead of creation. Do you work the same way? Again, if you can prove me wrong convincingly, I'd be happy to become a follower of God.
I have no desire to prove you wrong, but yes I would like to try to convince you to be a follower of Jesus Christ. I cannot give you convincing proof though, but God can. So I am going to pray to 'the air' so to speak and then come back and post some more.
You are speaking of two different things. You are saying faith deals with something that can't be proven, but the next paragraph you are speaking about faith in face of contrary proof. The non-existence of God can't be proven(I know about the silliness of asking someone to prove a negative.) but there is a chance that it exists at least in a non-paranormal manner, and believers to varying degrees might be right. Yet one person believes that it doesn't exist despite lack of proof that it doesn't.
Following on FB's point. As the saying goes "The absence of proof isn't proof of absence." MadMax's definition of an atheist is someone one who chooses to not believe in a deity(s) this isn't a matter of providing them with proof as that would meet MadMax's definition of agnostic as someone who doesn't know whether there is a deity(s). Since there is no rational and empiracal proof of the existence of deity so we're left with a matter of choice. If you choose to believe in a deity you are a theist. If you choose to not believe in a deity you are an atheist. If you are open to either way then you are an agnostic.
This sounds like something directly from Neo's conversation with the Architect I thought a agnostic was someone who believed that there was a higher being but didnt know who or what it was?
You have a different understanding of than I do. I believe in evolution and God. I believe that most Christians in the United States feel this way. The faith of the bible that I read is far from demanding "blind acceptance" as you call it. In fact in the bible, questioning God is rewarded, and praised. In the story of Moses, God chooses him, and Moses not only questions he practically argues and tells God that God has made a mistake. Moses claims he is not the right man. The more that Moses questions and argues the more God is pleased and knows that he has the right man. The whole Jewish tradition that the books are based in was about questioning as part of the training in religion. When the story of Jesus talking in the temple at only 12 is mentioned. He is answering questions. Questioning is a huge part of faith. That is just one example among many of people questioning and not having blind faith. Furthermore doesn't ask anyone to not look at things logically, or ignore the facts. Almost all of ecclesiastes is about a person's search for the truth. In fact if we search for Jesus, we must search for the truth, as he claimed that is what he was. He wasn't trying to change the definition of truth, he was telling people that where the truth was, that was what he was about. So wherever we find the truth, we find God's work. I know there are people who see the bible in as limited a fashion as you portray, but that is just them, and it isn't religion or the bible as a whole.
newplayer and rhester; I've been reading through this discussion and I find both of your views problematic. Newplayer, for as much as you accuse Rhester of being stuck in a box I think your own thinking is just as stuck in a box too. This is a false dichotomy that you are presenting because belief in the theory of Evolution doesn't preclude a belief in a deity or even belief in a Judeo Christian God. You're falling into the same trap that fundamentalists Christians do who oppose Evolution as seeing that they are antagonistic. Evolution is an explanation of process but not of purpose and as such deities have nothing to do with the explanation. At the sametime though nothing about it precludes that deities might be responsible for it. The existence of deities, be it God, Vishnu or Giant Spaghetti Monster, aren't questions that pertain to Evolution. The problem is that you contradict yourself here. You argue as a proper atheist you would never claim to know everything but then you argue that you base your understanding on verifiable facts and logic vs. blind acceptance. The problem though is we are dealing with an area where we don't know everything and likely will never know everything. It is one thing to argue on the basis that if I drop an apple that it will fall to the ground. Proof can be found through the scientific method. The problem though is how do you scientifically prove God? You've made a choice to actively not believe in God because it can't be empiracally and rationally proven at the same time then there is no way to discount that God doesn't exists since we don't have the means to prove it. In the end your absolutist view is as narrow as a fundamentalist religious view since neither side can claim empiracal proof. This is the flip side of a point that I always bring up in regard to Evolution vs. Creationism debates. Science and religion deal with different things and its a mistake to use the means of one to prove the other. I generally apply that to stating why it is a mistake to use the Bible to disprove Evolution but the converse applies if you're scientifically trying to disprove God. But in a way it is religion. You don't know for a fact the Sun will rise tomorrow but are making an extrapolation based upon previous knowledge that the Sun will rise. To a certain point there is amount of faith involved. Taking it further consider the fact that the Sun rose today. In our own limited context that is an unremarkable thing and is logical. Consider though on a universal scale the Sun rising. You are looking at then a long chain of events that have caused the Earth to rotate the way it does, to form around a star, and for a cloud of dust and gas to collect and contract enough leading to nuclear fusion to create the Sun. For that matter consider the long chain of events leading to you being able to perceive the sun rising. Along any of those chains of events the slightest change could've completely altered that. Consider then for a moment the miraculous of how everything has come about this way. Science and logic can trace how everything has come out this way but it can't tell you why it did. That is a question that is beyond empiracism. People have brought up the terms strong and weak atheism but I like to think of it as fundamental or practical atheisism. I brought this up earlier but being the egomaniac in love with his own voice that I am I'm going to bring it up again. There are many people who hold seemingly contradictory views in that they both hold a religious belief but also believe in empiracism and rationalism. I would call this practical atheisism in regard that when dealing with issues where we need to rely on empiracism and rational thought God or any other deity isn't a factor. Such as I'm not going to design an airplane relying on the power of prayer. That doesn't preclude a belief in a higher power so in adition to relying upon engineering principles that have been tested or rationally thought out doesn't mean I might not pray that my plane flies. Depending on the context one can be both an atheisist who doesn't serve or rely upon a faith belief system yet still also believe in a higher power. Just because someone does things based on facts and logic and demands proof doesn't rule out at the same time belief in God. OTOH a fundamental atheisist would no matter what the context not believe in God. To me that is as narrow as believing in God no matter what the context. Belief in God is a matter of faith since it can't be empiracally proven. If Rhester were to convince empiracally it would no longer be a faith belief. What you are ignoring is the matter of choice. Faith is a matter of choice and you have made a conscious choice to not believe. There is no objective way to prove that either of you are correct but since you've made a choice you are choosing a faith as much as Rhester is.
Rhester now your turn. This is an interesting question whether religion is dependent upon faith belief or worship. I was once told by an orthodox Jew that one could be a Jew and not believe in God as long as they followed the rules. I'm pretty sure that he wasn't speaking for Judaism as there is a Hebrew term for Jews who don't believe in God which translates to "apostate" but it was an interesting point. This is also a question for Buddhism too since many Buddhist sects and what could be considered fundamental Buddhism there is no higher power. The problem with this completely divorcing religion from belief is that it comes down to why are you doing this if you don't have faith? By doing that then you are reducing religion to a matter of habit or an obsessive compulsive behavior like being a kleptomaniac, something that is done for no purpose. While religion might not be rational it is certainly purpose driven. This is a very narrow view of pleasure. Pleasure might not be immediate physical gratification but fulfillment on a variety of levels. You might not consider prayer pleasurable compared to having a beer but on some level is something you find desirable. I still think this is very problematic in terms of what are the basis of beliefs. In the end if I believe an apple rolling off of a table will fall you are saying that is religion. While there is some degree of faith in that that is a highly limited form of faith since I'm relying upon a rational prediction based upon a lot of empiracal data. That is very different than a belief that Jesus is in Heaven or that Rama is an avatar of Vishnu. At the same time this contradicts your earlier argument regarding practices. What if I believe in God but don't do any sort of worship? Religion cannot be divorced from a faith belief and a practice. Further that faith belief should be in something It sounds to me like you are trying to have it both ways that one is religious if they do a practice or if they have a belief. True we can't quantify everything but the problem is how much we rely on the unquantifiable. As I said in my response to Newplayer we can't rule out God just because we can't prove he/she/it exists at the sametime though it would be a mistake to rely upon an unproven belief. Science and facts are absolutes but for understanding how the Universe works they've proven a lot more reliable than religion. As I said earlier one can be a practial atheisist. But here are you are painting a dichotomy between human intellect and God which need not exist. Yes the choice to not believe in God constitutes a faith belief as much as the choice to believe but that's a far cry as saying that they are the same.
