21 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyBecause
I think I have dwindled down the reasons people do not believe in God to two reasons.
1. God cannot be proved.
2. If there is a God, he would not allow "X" or cause "X" to happen.
What say you? Are there any others?
for all n, ([10]_2^n + [10]_2^([10]_2 + n))/[10]_2^(n - 1) = [10]_{10}
hence god doesn't exist.
Respond
21 Apr 12
3 edits
Originally posted by whodeyMy point is that none of us are 100% objective. Facts by themselves are meaningless. It is only when we assign them meaning that they are......well.....meaningful. Unfortunately, to assign them meaning entails us stepping outside those facts and into a belief system of some kind in order to interpret those facts, thus moving from objective to subjective.
My point is that none of us are 100% objective. Facts by themselves are meaningless. It is only when we assign them meaning that they are......well.....meaningful. Unfortunately, to assign them meaning entails us stepping outside those facts and into a belief system of some kind in order to interpret those facts, thus moving from objective to subjective.
...[text shortened]... oss. Such is the loss of a belief system that you have built upon that is not based upon truth.
You act like one starts with some set of what he takes to be facts; and then he adopts a belief structure when he undertakes the task of assigning meaning to those facts. I seriously doubt that analysis. To take something to be a fact in the first place is basically to hold a belief, right? If you take it to be the case that P picks out a fact, then you have a propositional attitude regarding P, wherein you take it that P is true. But that's more or less to first order just what it means to have the belief that P. So, your analysis does not make much sense to me. We all have beliefs (which may or may not be shared), wherein we take the propositional content of those beliefs to pick out facts. Meaning grows endogenously here as what one takes to be the facts weave themselves together into some broader picture. It's not like what you paint where we all start from some shared set of facts and we each exogenously adopt a belief structure in assigning meaning to them.
At any rate, I do not understand how this is supposed to address the questions I had before (regarding what exactly you mean when you say each of is "biased"; and regarding what you think justifies your holding disdain toward those who call themselves agnostic).
Those that do not proport a belief system in God, tend to lead us to believe that belief should be cast aside in favor of reality and the facts.
It's not really even within your power to cast aside belief in favor of what you think the facts are. To think something is a fact is basically to hold a belief in the first place! If someone tells you that you need to cast aside your belief in favor of what the facts are, then they are probably just being question-begging. What they should instead do is to try to convince you, through the offering of evidential considerations, that your belief is mistaken and does not pick out the actual facts in the first place; and they should also be open to whatever evidential considerations you may have in return. Take another look through these threads: I have provided several such arguments to you where I have argued that your God does not exist. In case you do not get it, these arguments offer and represent some reasons why I do not believe in your God. Why do you insist on basically ignoring them when you start up a thread that purports to explicate reasons why persons such as myself do not share your belief in your God?
Obviously, those who do not share your beliefs regarding God think differently than you do on this particular topic. They do not share your view on just what the facts of this matter are in the first place. They probably, on the basis of their own considerations and introspections, do not think the evidence we have justifies your belief. If they're like me, they think the evidence we do have in support of your belief is pretty outrageously bad. So, you probably should quit pretending (like you implied earlier in this thread) that these persons do not believe in God because your evidence merely falls short of being absolutely conclusive: it doesn't merely fall short of being absolutely conclusive; rather, I honestly think it is far worse than that. I would have thought you should know this by now since, again, we have had several discussion on these boards where I have offered reasons against the idea that your God exists, from several different argumentative angles.
We all believe things that cannot or have not been proven whether we are willing to admit this or not.
There you go again, pretending as if those who believe differently than you on the question of God's existence do so because your evidence merely falls short of proof. And this is after I already reminded you that you yourself are atheistic with respect to numerous conceptions of God, so you have no excuse for this at this point.
At this piont we encounter a crisis of sorts where the realization hits us that we must start over. Subconsciencely we all know this, thus we fight to the death to defend our respective beleif systems. At this point we encounter many who may not be truthful with themselves or other posters on this site. I think we see this from both sides. The worst of this devolves into name calling and personal attacks. If the truth be know, we have things to learn from each other, no matter how insignificant they may be.
When are you actually going to address the reasons why you claim you are "biased" in your worldview? Are you saying that your worldview is in internal crisis?
To sum up, discussing this reminds me of the parable Christ once used when building upon sand verses solid ground. If your foundation is faulty, at some point you will be faced with the realization that all you have built upon will come crashing down as you incur a great loss. Such is the loss of a belief system that you have built upon that is not based upon truth.
So if one's worldview is built on a faulty foundation, then it is likely to come crashing down. Okay, again: what's your point? What did you mean when you said you are "biased" in your worldview. Are you saying that your worldview is on a faulty foundation?
And what about those who call themselves 'agnostic'? You still haven't addressed what their intellectual crime is. Hey, just because someone does not come to the same conclusion as you; just because they think, in fact, that they evidence does not really warrant a conclusion either way; that does not mean they are somehow being insincere or fake. Does it?
22 Apr 12
4 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloI will try to splain it a little better. Take Creationism vs abiogenesis, for example. Neither one is observable or provable, yet we believe in one or the other.
[bYou act like one starts with some set of what he takes to be facts; and then he adopts a belief structure when he undertakes the task of assigning meaning to those facts. I seriously doubt that analysis. To take something to be a fact in the first place is basically to hold a belief, right? If you take it to be the case that P picks out a fact, then you shared set of facts and we each exogenously adopt a belief structure in assigning meaning to them.
So if you believe in Creationism, you tend to automatically lean toward other beliefs. Evolution, for example, claims to shed some light on our origins. Those not of faith tend to view this as evidence that there is no God. In fact, the more we learn and reveal how things work, the less likely the need for God is since God is the essence of the mystery to life. Conversely, those of faith often feel threatened by it for the same reason. Add to that concrete interpretations of Genesis from both camps, and what you wind up with is a war between science and religion. In fact, I would say that the only people to reject evolution are those of faith, simply because they believe that it conflicts with their faith. I, for one, do not, but many do and are then motivated to attack evolution in a desperate attempt to defend their faith.
Moving on, what of beleif about abortion or euthenasia? In fact, what makes human beings special in comparison to the animal kingdom? Why is it OK to kill and eat a cow but not a human being? For those of faith, humans are made in the image of God, thus have special significance and should be treated as such, animals are not. Thos not of faith, tend to view humans as glorified animals. The main difference being intelligence. So here we see those not of faith glorify intelligence as being the reason we honor life as where those of faith see human life as divinely sacred, no matter the intelligence level. So when confronted with the unborn, their intelligence level is subpar because it is still developing to those not of faith. The unborn can then be compared to a parasite and extinguished accordingly. Those of faith, however, see it very differently. That unborn life has been ordained by God and made in his image. To extinguish it would be a "sin" no matter how "stupid" it may be.
Moving on, I have noticed that atheists/agnostics tend to lean towards statism. We all look toward a respected higher authority as the basis for our morality and for direction. The more we look to the state, whether of faith or not, the more influecne they have over us. Again, abortion is an example of this. Before abortion was made legal, the consensus was that it was by in large immoral. However, after generations of being legal, the pendulum has swung the other way. The law of the land tends to swing the pendulum a certain direction. Of course, it is embarrassing for those who claim to be of faith sometimes elevate the law of the land over Biblical authority, but as we can all see it happens, especially for those not particularly religious or ignorant of what they profess to believe in. I also think the nanny state is another example. Like sheep, we look for a shepherd to "take care of us". In fact, we all instinctively look for a shepherd and must choose one. For many, the shepherd becomes the state, especially if there be no God for them.
So as you can see, one belief system tends to build upon another. The greater the construction, the more investement we have in defending a particular position.
22 Apr 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloHow many facts have you personally proved? My guess is that most of what you believe have been things that have not been questioned. For example, does Jupiter exist? My guess is that you have never heard anyone question that it exists, thus you glibly accept that it exists. After all, you have seen pictures!! However, if you begin to hear people question Jupiters existence, then doubt begins to creep in. Sure, you brush them aside at first as idiots, especially if their evidence is not that compelling to you. However, the more people who come forward to question this fact and the more evidence that piles up, the more potential there is to sway you and doubt creeps in further.
[bIt's not really even within your power to cast aside belief in favor of what you think the facts are. To think something is a fact is basically to hold a belief in the first place! If someone tells you that you need to cast aside your belief in favor of what the facts are, then they are probably just being question-begging. What they should instead do i ...[text shortened]... fered reasons against the idea that your God exists, from several different argumentative angles.
As you have correctly pointed out, you have provided evidence for your beliefs, as have I. However, neither of us is impressed with the others evidence. At least enough doubt has entered the equation for the both of us to at least try to examine this particular belief in a God. After all, most of what we believe goes unquestioned. So the real question is what makes us relinquish a particular belief? I think part of the answer is how much time and investment you have put into a particular belief. For example, if someone says they believe in God but do nothing with it, then swaying them the other way would probably not take much. However, take someone who has walked with God for years and experienced his hand and felt that they have been touched by him, you may as well be arguing with a brick wall. In fact, I think we have all been on the side of a losing argument, for which we later learned we were right all along. I think intuition plays a key role in which way we are swayed when it comes to evidence. Of course, the same can be said for those not of faith. For example, if you are Dawkins and have a movement under way to attack religion and have books being sold to attack it, then you have an investment to continue to fight the good fight of lack of faith. So arguing with him would probably be like arguing with a brick wall as well, no matter the evidence.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeyThat is a gross misrepresentation of the respective positions.
I will try to splain it a little better. Take Creationism vs abiogenesis, for example.
Neither one is observable or provable, yet we believe in one or the other.
Abiogenesis IS testable and verifiable.
Creationism isn't.
The fact that we can't go back and watch what happened in the past does not even
remotely mean that events in the past are not open to scientific enquiry.
22 Apr 12
Originally posted by LemonJelloAll I am saying is that we look at things through a skewed lense. For example, if you were a scientist studying our origins and you are a person of faith you might link such evidence with creation. However, if you are not a person of faith, such correlations would probably be absent. In fact, you may come up with other theories specifically to explain away the possibility that creationism had anything to do with it.
When are you actually going to address the reasons why you claim you are "biased" in your worldview? Are you saying that your worldview is in internal crisis?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeyEvolution is not evidence that there is no god and 'those not of faith' do not take it as evidence
So if you believe in Creationism, you tend to automatically lean toward other beliefs. Evolution, for example, claims to shed some light on our origins. Those not of faith tend to view this as evidence that there is no God. In fact, the more we learn and reveal how things work, the less likely the need for God is since God is the essence of the mystery to ...[text shortened]... ny do and are then motivated to attack evolution in a desperate attempt to defend their faith.
that there is no god.
What it does do is provide a viable mechanism that adequately explains the diversity of life
without the intervention of any intelligence or god.
It makes a god unnecessary, it doesn't disprove their existence.
It is of course part of a broader scientific knowledge base that does flatly contradict many creation myths
and particularly young earth creation myths.
So it is a threat to anyone who thinks the world is only a few thousand years old.
22 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloAll I am saying is that if you believe things that are not true, then your actions will be based upon falsehoods. This then become problematic in terms of the negative consequences for such beliefs when reality smacks you up side the head.
So if one's worldview is built on a faulty foundation, then it is likely to come crashing down. Okay, again: what's your point? What did you mean when you said you are "biased" in your worldview. Are you saying that your worldview is on a faulty foundation?
And what about those who call themselves 'agnostic'? You still haven't addressed what their i ...[text shortened]... lusion either way; that does not mean they are somehow being insincere or fake. Does it?[/b]
I think we all believe things that are not true, however, when those things involve our foundation, the whole structure will come crashing down at some point.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeyI am sorry but the scientific method and peer review is specifically designed to weed out and
All I am saying is that we look at things through a skewed lense. For example, if you were a scientist studying our origins and you are a person of faith you might link such evidence with creation. However, if you are not a person of faith, such correlations would probably be absent. In fact, you may come up with other theories specifically to explain away the possibility that creationism had anything to do with it.
minimise any potential biases by design.
It is simply not true or valid to dismiss science and scientific endeavour as being just as biased
as the next world view.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Science_is_a_faith
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Science
http://www.skepdic.com/faith.html
http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-tv-show/aron-ra-what-we-can-and-cannot-honestly-say-we-know-5016609
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 Apr 12
Originally posted by whodeyI couldn't agree more and have said this (in different ways) many times here.
All I am saying is that if you believe things that are not true, then your actions will be based upon falsehoods. This then become problematic in terms of the negative consequences for such beliefs when reality smacks you up side the head.
I think we all believe things that are not true, however, when those things involve our foundation, the whole structure will come crashing down at some point.
In fact it is a foundational cornerstone of my position that believing things that are false is
dangerous as it can lead to making harmful decisions.
Intentionally doing so or not taking reasonable precautions to prevent you doing so is thus immoral.
As you evidently agree, If you hold beliefs that are not true then you may make decisions
based on those beliefs that lead to bad consequences, for you and for others.
Thus it must be moral to attempt to make your world view as accurate as possible by believing as many
true things as possible and as few false things as possible and to [within reason] constantly check those
beliefs to ensure that you don't unintentionally hold false beliefs.
Believing things based on faith (ie without or despite the evidence) is inevitably going to lead to believing
things that are not true. As the number of possible beliefs is infinitely bigger than the subset of true beliefs.
And further more if you believe based on faith you have no means of verifying and thus trusting what you
believe to be true is actually true.
You have built your foundations on quicksand (or really empty vacuum).
Thus it must be immoral to believe anything based on faith because that would inevitably lead to false beliefs
and as we established earlier it is moral to make your beliefs as accurate as possible and thus deliberately doing
something that will cause you to have false beliefs must therefore be immoral.
Now of course it's not possible let alone practical for every individual to personally test every belief or idea to see
if it is true.
Which is why we have science, which rigorously tests ideas and independently verifies ideas through peer review
and repeated testing that does the checking for us and makes it's results publicly known so that we can see them.
And when it does make mistakes it has mechanisms to detect and correct those mistakes and thus gets better and better
and closer and closer to 'the truth' over time even if it can never actually claim to have got there.
Science is the reasonable constant testing of ideas to see if they are true that we can use as our solid foundation.
It has proven itself time and time again to be vastly superior to any and all other methods we have thought of or tried.
It IS the way we conquer individual biases and objectively know things.