Atheism and the USA, followup

[indy007]

I don't really think so Lazs. Science is provisional truth, not final truth. It's knowing you may very well be wrong, but going with the best, provable natural explanation somebody can come up with. I think what you see as the weakness of science, faith that it's the only correct answer, may just be unfounded. The very strength of science is that it can be proven wrong, and new provisional truths are found. All it requires is proof.

I don't see how knowing you may not be correct, and open to new, provable knoweldge makes you an untrustworthy zealot. Except, maybe, that proof must fit into the framework of science? Why shouldn't it though? That's the provisionally true, accepted way of explaining nature. Otherwise we wouldn't have any verifiable knowledge of phsyics, biology, etc, etc.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by lazs2
subaru... one group admits their faith based belief.... the other does not...

Actually there are 3 groups here.

1) Pro God's existence. They believe it to be the truth. Leap of faith taken.
2) Not really sure. Maybe, maybe not. Leap of faith may or may not be taken.
3) God doesn't exist. They believe it to be the truth. Leap of faith not taken.

The last group doesn't take that leap of faith at all. They accept the facts as they see them.

Originally posted by lazs2
both beliefs are faith based...

See above.

Originally posted by lazs2
Who would you trust when push came to shove?   even for an opinion?

lazs

The one who demostrated an ability to analyse a situation, act in an honest and fair manner, and not be so quick to finger point and blame things on others. The belief in God would not enter the picture.

[lukster]

Originally posted by SaburoS
No.
It is ironic that there are those here that presume to know what I think and how I think. They cannot accept the fact that I reached a conclusion based on the facts as I see it.

 

If you are in fact saying that I COULD be right. Then we have no argument.
God does not exist for me. God exists for you. One takes a leap of faith, the other refuses to take that leap.

Fair enough?

I'll accept that provided you admit the possiblity that there might be a self aware intelligent being that created everything.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by lazs2
and suibaru... no...you don't take a leap of faith about religion or aliens or whatever...
instead...you take a different leap of faith and say that they are not possible.

Not entirely correct.
The possibilty of aliens (life forms from other solar systems similar to ours) existing I do agree with. (Had you even bothered what I typed in the other thread we were involved in, you would have known my position.)
Do I say that it is definite? No. No leap of faith there.

Originally posted by lazs2

You know, this is kind of like a pregnancy issue. Either is or isn't.
Either you take that leap of faith in believeing in God or you don't take that leap.
But that's not good enough for you is it?
Your preconceived notions just have to fit in your box.
No way could you be wrong for your argument falls apart under scrutiny if you were.

Originally posted by lazs2
can we admit that and move on?

lazs

For me to admit to something that I don't agree to would be dishonest of me.

[lukster]

It's really simple. To say I don't know if there is a god requires no faith. To say I know there is no god does.

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by lukster
I'll accept that provided you admit the possiblity that there might be a self aware intelligent being that created it.

Why should I?
I would no longer be an Atheist if I thought that possibility existed.
I would then become an Agnostic.

How about you just accept that I believe that your belief in God is the right one for you, that your leap of faith was taken and accepted?

I've never told my relatives or friends that they were wrong for their belief in God.
They've never questioned me to the extent that our relationships got worse.
If anything they became even more accepting of my being an Atheist when they found out the truth of what I was about.

How about you're respecting my right to my belief as I see it for me and stop feeling threatened by it.
I have no agenda. I concider myself an honorable and honest individual.
Too bad some others can't accept it.
There seems to be an agenda alright, but it is not I trying to carry it out.

[wrag]

Originally posted by SaburoS
You've been quite clear on that. Kindly show me where I said you were or did the above? You won't find it cause I didn't. Yet even now you still create this phantom argument. You were saying something about honesty and lying?
Your face red yet?

I don't think you see nor realize it.



Why should I? I am not the one taking the leap of faith here. You admit that you cannot prove and that it is YOUR belief of god's existance.
Are you saying that the possibility of God's non-existance is... not possible?
Your very argument betrays your supposed unbias in the issue of God's existance.
Even now you still fail to realize that I, by not taking that same leap of faith you or anyone else that believes in God, ...is...not...the...same...th ing.



Again, you presume to be the all knowing, that there is no possibility of God not existing. Therefore, anyone that disagrees with that premise, must be lying. Anyone that hasn't taken that leap of faith in God's existence is wrong, as you argue that way.



How do you know what I know?
You like to keep making assumptions to fit the box of your 'argument'.
I was very specific about the possibilty of aliens existing AND the Green men from Mars issue. Too bad you didn't actually read it.
Kind of a dishonest way of having a discussion, eh?



Again, you presume too much.
Kind of smug of you actually.



Wrong.
I make that statement based on....well you reread what I've posted.
Are you that paranoid that you feel I have an "agenda"?
What agenda is this for you really have me puzzled here.
Don't tell me you belief system is that fragile that you cannot accept a different way of thinking of your own. Kind of sensitive of you actually.

 

Again, you betray your supposed unbias.

My truth:
God has not been proven to exist for me, therefore God does not exist.
To state that I have to have a leap of faith to believe it is to make the assumption that God does exist, that I am wrong.

 

Again, you presume too much.
I never lost a puppy or did I go through anything tramatic. I never was taught that there was a God so I never 'lost' a faith of their being a God's existance.
Call me the sceptic.
Rebel? That's funny. I dn't go around with signs indicating that I am an Atheist, nor do I try to 'convert' others out of their religious beliefs.

I'm fairly private but for your benefit:

I was married to a Catholic. We were together for 19 years, married for the last 9. See was practicing in that she always went to Mass, went to church, etc. Her uncle is now a Cardinal.
We all got along great. I didn't try to convert her, nor did she try to convert me. We ended out marriage for other reasons outside of religion.
I've got many good friends that are staunchly Christian. One even is trying to set me up with her Christian "sister".
Religion does not get thrown in the picture. We respect each other's right to our own views.
I have an employee where we have very good and thorough discussions about Christianity and Atheism. He's still staunchly Christian and I'm still staunchly Atheist (as it should be). We've never gotten into an argument either as we've respected the other's position.

So much for my "agenda" and my "grudge"

Are you red yet? I doubt it.

From what I've read of your post  SaburoS I honestly don't think laz is refering to YOU!

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by lukster
It's really simple. To say I don't know if there is a god requires no faith. To say I know there is no god does.

Sorry, not quite that simple.

1) To believe in God is to take a leap of faith.
2) To not believe in God is to not take that leap of faith.

Agnostics, by their nature won't take a stand either way for they don't accept the explainations yet put forth. The moment they accept that there is a God is the moment they take that leap of faith and become a believer.

Agnostics are unsure. Might be, might not be. The moment thay take a stand one way or the other is when they no longer are Agnostic.

[Simaril]

Originally posted by Vulcan
While I cannot disprove there is a 'god' I can disprove there is NOT a christian god based on statements made in christian teachings, ie creationism versus the age of the earth, evolution etc, the great flood etc.

Now, either the bible is wrong, or you're worshipping a false god.

Vulcan, both in this and in your prior posts you're making absolutist statements despite having pretty limited understanding of christian texts and teachings. (I.E., your statements about the origin of the biblical canon sound more like polemic than reasoned opinion, and when confronted with data the issue kinda went away.)

Let me just address the age of the earth thing, since it seems to be a bugaboo for you.

In the original hebrew, I understand that the word "day" has a broader meaning, and is used for a block of time anywhere from 24 hours up. "Morning" actually means "beginning," and "evening" is "ending." So the literal translation would be close to "and the beginning and the ending were the first time period." That Hebrew text has traditionally been understood as it was translated to King James english as "the morning and the evening were the first day," and that could be the meaning -- but may not be. The idea that the earth was 6000 years old was FIRST proposed by a minister in the 1800s, based on adding together the lifespans of people named in the Bible; but this overlooked the fact that "son of" literally meant "came from," leaving open the possibility that generations were skipped in the reported geneologies (which had gaps anyway). The 6000 year thing is not an intrinsic, ancient christian teaching...

So there is not a "christian" doctrine for the earth's age, which is not surprising since the whole point of the Bible is God's relationship with humans. There are Christians who believe the earth is 6000 years old, and christians who believe it is MUCH older than that. The bible does say that the ultimate source of life was a creation act by God, not by spontaneous generation; and one could argue that spontaneous generation of life has yet to be proved in any way scientifically.

Evolution is a broad term, including micro and macro evolutionary changes. the bible says that animal life came about through God's direct action, and that life reproduced "after its kind." Natural selection, and even speciation within "kinds" (whatever they are) would be absolutely consistant with christian teaching.

[Hap]

Been giving some thought to how the thread has progressed.  Want to make a worthwile contribution.

In my experience, faith is somewhat similar to falling in love.  When not in love, one knows love exists.  Even when bitter, one knows love exists.  When one is "in love" then there exists a quantative differnce that might throw the experience into a different category, one of a difference in kind and not merely one of number.  It has been somewhat similar for me.  Despite my feelings.  Despite my perceptions.  Despite my ignorance.  Love is a reality.  The same is true of hate, fear, evil etc.  

God exists too.  His existence, character, and qualities are not contingent.  Which is why analogy serves only so far.  I am the contigent one.  As far as proofs go to God existence, they are so abundant and profound that using them as assertions, evidence, or conclusive elements in an argument begs the question, "am I discussing this with an honest man?"

Best Wishes,

Hap

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by SaburoS
Sorry, not quite that simple.

1) To believe in God is to take a leap of faith.
2) To not believe in God is to not take that leap of faith.

Agnostics, by their nature won't take a stand either way for they don't accept the explainations yet put forth. The moment they accept that there is a God is the moment they take that leap of faith and become a believer.

Agnostics are unsure. Might be, might not be. The moment thay take a stand one way or the other is when they no longer are Agnostic.

You say you do not believe in God.  If you do not believe in God, do you believe in the non-existance of God?  I think I read a post of yours that you do not.

If you do not believe one way or the other, you are agnostic, refusing to take a leap of faith either way.

[Simaril]

Originally posted by Hap

...snip....

In my experience, faith is somewhat similar to falling in love.  When not in love, one knows love exists.  ...snip... Despite my feelings.  Despite my perceptions.  Despite my ignorance.  Love is a reality.  The same is true of hate, fear, evil etc.  

...snip....

Best Wishes,

Hap

It is so wild that you came out with this idea -- which is far older than you may realize. I've been listening to a series of lectures thats one of those put out by the The Teaching Company ("more than 200 college level courses"....on everything from economics to history to music Here's the link ), on the philosophy of Augustine of Hippo.

Anyway, back in the 300 CE era Augustine used the same comparison....

[SirLoin]

Leap of faith is like diving into a large base to de-ack in a P51b.

[wrag]

Originally posted by Chairboy
There's nothing slippery about it, I assumed you understood the definitions of the words.  If you really don't, then here are other sources, randomly picked from google:

http://www.strange-loops.com/athwhatis.html
http://www.2think.org/hii/atheism.shtml
http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/agnovsath.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism

Are you seriously going to keep trying to attack my definition?  There's nothing remarkable about it, it's just what anyone who studies the subject learns.  I wasn't bothering to answer this because I didn't want to embarass anyone, but jeepers.

Now can we continue the conversation?  I've given the educated definition to atheism vs. agnosticism, and it deals with just about all of your concerns.  I guess the ball is firmly in your court.

You haven't embarrassed anyone IMHO.

Looked at em.

The 1st 3 are somones blogs.  IMHO they don't count.  Why?  At the begining of one of the blogs the blogger expresses that contained within are the bloggers own thoughts.

The last 2, after having read them, are interesting.

I noticed in the atheism definition the nearly exact statement made by laz.  Some atheist seem in agreement with laz in that Both Theism and Atheism MAY be considered a leap of faith.

I also notice there are atheist CHURCHS!

I also notice there is more then one definition of atheism.  I see, mainly, that there SEEMS to be much argument about the definition of atheism even among atheist.

I'm not entirely sure these site support your definition/defferintiation Chairboy.

They seem to cast more of a haze over the subject rather then making anything clear cut.

Would you care to discuss how you arrived at your defferintiation statement?

[wrag]

Originally posted by SaburoS
Sorry, not quite that simple.

1) To believe in God is to take a leap of faith.
2) To not believe in God is to not take that leap of faith.

Agnostics, by their nature won't take a stand either way for they don't accept the explainations yet put forth. The moment they accept that there is a God is the moment they take that leap of faith and become a believer.

Agnostics are unsure. Might be, might not be. The moment thay take a stand one way or the other is when they no longer are Agnostic.

Perhaps you should go read the wikepedia definitions?

It appears that some Atheist agree with laz.  Both believing and non-believing are a leap of faith.

The entire subject appears somewhat muddled IMHO.  There doesn't appear to be agreement as to what an atheist is even among atheist????

AND there are ATHEIST CHURCHS??????