Spirituality
13 Jul 13
16 Jul 13
Originally posted by rwingettInsult me, you made a statement of fact, I'm asking you to prove it!
Which is the most parsimonious answer? That babies are capable of conceptualizing a god, or that you're an idiot? The answer, clearly, is the latter, although it doesn't "prove" anything.
I get it is easier to make claims if you don't have to prove them, because
you cannot, but I want to know how you KNOW they don't know about
God! You made the claim twinkle toes, speak up and back up your claims!
Should not be to hard if it is factual, what did you measure, who did you
question, how do you know, or is it....what is the word I'm looking for...
faith?
Kelly
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe two claims are not much different than adding 1+3 getting 4 or adding
The question of whether or not some 'God' exists is simply a descriptive inquiry into the world. Either there is some actual referent of that term, or not. Either the term picks out something acutal, or not. The question has no more "meaning" to me than that. You have some definition for the term 'God'. Now the question is simply whether or not it is is blatantly false as well. Not surprising then that (3) is also false.
3+1 getting 4. If you are someone who has never dealt with the question
about God than I'd say you may fit that description about not having any
belief about Him at all, but those here who deny God are not in that group,
they have without a doubt picked a side in a debate.
Kelly
16 Jul 13
Originally posted by LemonJello"The question of whether or not some 'God' exists is simply a descriptive inquiry into the world. Either there is some actual referent of that term, or not. Either the term picks out something acutal, or not. The question has no more "meaning" to me than that. You have some definition for the term 'God'. Now the question is simply whether or not it is a descriptive fact that the term has a referent."
The question of whether or not some 'God' exists is simply a descriptive inquiry into the world. Either there is some actual referent of that term, or not. Either the term picks out something acutal, or not. The question has no more "meaning" to me than that. You have some definition for the term 'God'. Now the question is simply whether or not it is ...[text shortened]... is blatantly false as well. Not surprising then that (3) is also false.
Are you saying I have to describe God to you before God can have any
meaning to you? The One who created everything, holds everything by
the power of His Word, and so on are new terms you've been shielded
from your whole life?
Kelly
16 Jul 13
Originally posted by KellyJayThe claims are different, period. Like I said, they have different propositional content and entail different things. Likewise, not holding the belief that God exists is different than holding the belief that God does not exist (even if the latter typically implicates the former in practice). Of couse they are different. For starters, the latter entails a belief, whereas the former doesn't. I mean, come on, these are basic points.
The two claims are not much different than adding 1+3 getting 4 or adding
3+1 getting 4. If you are someone who has never dealt with the question
about God than I'd say you may fit that description about not having any
belief about Him at all, but those here who deny God are not in that group,
they have without a doubt choose a side in a debate.
Kelly
And you can keep on pretending that the God questions informs all foundational views for all persons, theist and atheist alike. But you're just deluded on that point. Just because the God question holds so much personal significance for you doesn't mean that the same holds for others. I frankly feel a bit sorry for you that you are so out of touch with what others around you take as important. There are many ways for a person to approach the subject of meaning, purpose, etc, and the God question may have nothing to do with it. You, unfortunately, have an extraordinarily provincial view on this.
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat I am saying is that question of whether or not 'God' exists is fundamentally a question of wether or not some particular concept (in this case 'God' ) is instantiated. It's fundamentally a question of whether or not some particular term with its attached definition in context has a referent. Do you disagree?
"The question of whether or not some 'God' exists is simply a descriptive inquiry into the world. Either there is some actual referent of that term, or not. Either the term picks out something acutal, or not. The question has no more "meaning" to me than that. You have some definition for the term 'God'. Now the question is simply whether or not it is a des of His Word, and so on are new terms you've been shielded
from your whole life?
Kelly
Are you saying I have to describe God to you before God can have any
meaning to you? The One who created everything, holds everything by
the power of His Word, and so on are new terms you've been shielded
from your whole life?
What I am saying, again for the third time now, is that the question of whether or not God exists is a question of whether or not the particular term 'God' in this context has a referent. I already know how you Christians define 'God' in this context. Does this term have a referent? No. Sorry to break that to you. Does that have any implications for my "foundational views" in a normative sense that informs what I value or take as meaningful, etc? No, none that I can tell.
16 Jul 13
Originally posted by LemonJello"
The question of whether or not some 'God' exists is simply a descriptive inquiry into the world. Either there is some actual referent of that term, or not. Either the term picks out something acutal, or not. The question has no more "meaning" to me than that. You have some definition for the term 'God'. Now the question is simply whether or not it is ...[text shortened]... is blatantly false as well. Not surprising then that (3) is also false.
What you're doing here is extraordinarily sloppy, KJ. Basically, you infer a bunch of stuff (related to plans, purposes, meaning etc) from the proposition that God exists. Let's call these implications i1, i2, etc. Then, you're claiming that someone who doesn't believe the proposition God exists (or believes its negation) should then be committed to negation of the implications, not-i1, not-i2, etc. That's false. First of all, we probably have plenty of reason to doubt that i1, i2, etc actually follow in the first place from the proposition that God exists (that is, you could just be sloppily inferring a bunch of crap that doesn't actually follow; have you considered this possibility? ) Secondly, even if the i1, i2, etc do follow from the proposition that God exists, it doesn't follow that not-i1, not-i2, etc follow from the proposition that it is not the case that God exists. Here's an example. Suppose the proposition is that there exists some supernatural being who imbues human lives with meaning. You think this is true, and thus you also infer that your life has meaning. But suppose I don't think it is true. Does that mean that I am committed to the idea that human lives have no meaning? Of course not! I have all sorts of other options at introducing meaning. My atheism has nothing to do with my view on whether or not human lives have meaning. Lastly, how could it follow that one has all these commitments about meaning and whatnot simply from the fact that he lacks belief in some proposition? That's just absurd on the face of it. "
I'm pointing out that our beliefs about God colors all other things! I'm
saying that is the "belief system" we all build with our faith, foundational
would be if God is real or not, or gods are real or not, or if there are no
gods or God. The processes of science take on a different meaning due to
that question, the questions of morals take on a different meaning due to
that question, the questions of values and so on. A sure foundation is what
we all want for our views of the universe.
Without God science cannot offer that, and people would I think reject it if
someone suggested it did, because with science we are ever learning and
will never come to full knowledge.
With God as a sure foundation we would still be learning, but we have a
cause behind all we see. The amount of things in the universe don't change,
except God Himself is there to learn about in addition to His creation.
Kelly
16 Jul 13
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, our beliefs (or lack thereof) about God do not color all other things. The question of God has nothing to do with lots of things. The problem here is not that atheists won't own up to the importance that the question of God carries; it's that you have an outrageously bloated understanding of what importance the question carries. Take the log out of your own eye.
"
What you're doing here is extraordinarily sloppy, KJ. Basically, you infer a bunch of stuff (related to plans, purposes, meaning etc) from the proposition that God exists. Let's call these implications i1, i2, etc. Then, you're claiming that someone who doesn't believe the proposition God exists (or believes its negation) should then be committed to nega ...[text shortened]...
except God Himself is there to learn about in addition to His creation.
Kelly
16 Jul 13
Originally posted by KellyJayNo. I will not indulge your game of shifting the burden of proof. That infants are incapable of conceptualizing a god is self evident. If you want to prove to me that they can, then you're welcome to try.
Insult me, you made a statement of fact, I'm asking you to prove it!
I get it is easier to make claims if you don't have to prove them, because
you cannot, but I want to know how you KNOW they don't know about
God! You made the claim twinkle toes, speak up and back up your claims!
Should not be to hard if it is factual, what did you measure, who did you
question, how do you know, or is it....what is the word I'm looking for...
faith?
Kelly
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Jul 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloThis is actually a rather common problem in communication between (typically fundamentalist)
The claims are different, period. Like I said, they have different propositional content and entail different things. Likewise, not holding the belief that God exists is different than holding the belief that God does not exist (even if the latter typically implicates the former in practice). Of couse they are different. For starters, the latter entai ...[text shortened]... nothing to do with it. You, unfortunately, have an extraordinarily provincial view on this.
religious people and atheists.
In a religion pretty much everything is founded in that religions beliefs.
If their is one, the god or gods are the source and basis of everything from reality itself to
our moral code and meaning and purpose.
The religion is the source and foundation of pretty much all other beliefs.
And people are indoctrinated to think like this almost from birth.
You start with the statement that "god exists" and move on from there.
Naturally they then assume that atheists start with the statement that "god doesn't exist" and
then move on from there.
Which is of course nonsense.
Lack of belief in gods (weak atheism) can stem from not even thinking, or caring, about the issue.
And belief in the absence of gods (strong atheism) is a result of other beliefs and not the source of them.
So many misunderstandings stem from this.
Most of the "where do atheists get their morals from?" questions have their roots in this misconception.
Of course this is helped by preachers and evangelists who deliberately perpetuate and reinforce this
misconception.
17 Jul 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeFor one to consider himself an atheist, he must be able to think and believe what he is thinking. Thus, he has his belief system that hopefully will change as he gains more knowledge of the truth. I have never known a normal adult that has never thought about the existence of God.
This is actually a rather common problem in communication between (typically fundamentalist)
religious people and atheists.
In a religion pretty much everything is founded in that religions beliefs.
If their is one, the god or gods are the source and basis of everything from reality itself to
our moral code and meaning and purpose.
The religio ...[text shortened]... preachers and evangelists who deliberately perpetuate and reinforce this
misconception.
The Instructor
17 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsOf course atheists have thought about god. At least explicit atheists have. They just find the evidence for it (god) to be unconvincing.
For one to consider himself an atheist, he must be able to think and believe what he is thinking. Thus, he has his belief system that hopefully will change as he gains more knowledge of the truth. I have never known a normal adult that has never thought about the existence of God.
The Instructor
Everyone who calls himself an atheist has beliefs of one sort or another. But none of those beliefs are a result of his being an atheist. They are the result of his being a humanist, a materialist, a socialist, or whatever.
17 Jul 13
In Zambia, belief in witchcraft is common. Probably at least as common as Christianity. Practically everyone in Zambia has heard of witchcraft and has considered whether it exists or not.
So, for those that do not believe in witchcraft, is this a belief system and does it impact their foundational beliefs in the same way as atheism would? If not, why not?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
17 Jul 13
Originally posted by RJHindsI wasn't claiming that atheists don't believe anything.
For one to consider himself an atheist, he must be able to think and believe what he is thinking. Thus, he has his belief system that hopefully will change as he gains more knowledge of the truth. I have never known a normal adult that has never thought about the existence of God.
The Instructor
I was saying that the foundation of those beliefs is not the absence of belief in gods.
As rwingett said, atheism is the result of other beliefs, not the source of them.
And I have known and met plenty of 'normal' adults who haven't thought about the
existence of god... Advantage of living in a highly atheistic society... Albeit one that
is not atheistic enough for my taste.
I didn't think about it for a long time either.
Finally...
That should be "for [a person] to consider themselves an atheist, they must be able to think and believe what they [are] thinking. Thus, they [have] their belief system that hopefully will change as they [gain] more knowledge of the truth"
Atheists can be both male and female and its sexist to assume that an atheist would be a he.
Gender unbiased language please.
17 Jul 13
Originally posted by rwingettReally, I get the burden of proof, you are the one making the claim, I ask
No. I will not indulge your game of shifting the burden of proof. That infants are incapable of conceptualizing a god is self evident. If you want to prove to me that they can, then you're welcome to try.
for you to prove it. How do you know?
Kelly
17 Jul 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloLog out of my eye? For saying that if you view this universe as a godless
No, our beliefs (or lack thereof) about God do not color all other things. The question of God has nothing to do with lots of things. The problem here is not that atheists won't own up to the importance that the question of God carries; it's that you have an outrageously bloated understanding of what importance the question carries. Take the log out of your own eye.
place no matter if you claim you lack a belief in God, or you claim there
isn't one, both have this universe a godless place. That is a painting you
get no matter how you voice the foundational views about this place, both
roads get you to the same place. You have your blinders on seeing only
what you want the way you want see it all, because it suits you, your belief
system is at work.
Kelly