Skip to main content

I believe when it comes to the theism vs atheism debates, the theist will always be at the disadvantage for 3 reasons.

1 The theist is forced to assert the existence of something based strictly upon faith; atheists are not

2 The theist is forced to defend someone elses behavior, (charaters of the bible Koran, etc) the atheist must only defend his own

3 The theist must proclaim something to be flawless and perfect. Nothing is perfect, flaws can be found in anything.

I am sure there are others but these 3 come to mind right now

Your thoughts?


Kevin
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
I believe when it comes to the theism vs atheism debates, the theist will always be at the disadvantage for 3 reasons.

1 The theist is forced to assert the existence of something based strictly upon faith; atheists are not

2 The theist is forced to defend someone elses behavior, (charaters of the bible Koran, etc) the atheist must only defend his own

3 The theist must proclaim something to be flawless and perfect. Nothing is perfect, flaws can be found in anything.

I am sure there are others but these 3 come to mind right now

Your thoughts?


Kevin

Well, just of the top of my head, I would say that your definition of theism seems to be rather circumscribed. You seem to be working from the premise that theism = Abrahamic monotheistic traditions, and even rather narrow version of these.

For example, lets take each of your statements one at a time.

1. The classic philosophical arguments for the "existence of God" are no more predicated on "faith" than atheism.

2. Again, the theistic arguments need not be predicated on the behavior of historical, literary, or mythological figures.

3. There are versions of theism that do not conceive of the Divine as flawless, perfect, etc. Indeed, there are Abrahamic monotheist who would not make such claims. They would not that the God of the Bible changes his [sic] mind, expresses sorrow for various decisions, etc. This is one of the reasons for the continued interests in process or emergence philosophies and theologies. In these traditions, God is not omniscient, omnipotent, or perfect.
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
I believe when it comes to the theism vs atheism debates, the theist will always be at the disadvantage for 3 reasons.

Your thoughts?


The problem is right there with the "I BELIEVE".

Just because something is true does not necessarily mean one can get enough reliable information to KNOW that it is true. Just because something is false does not necessarily mean one can get enough reliable information to KNOW that it is false.

But I have seen atheists call agnostics "weak atheists".

Believing suspecting and knowing are 3 different things. You can know that 2 + 3 = 5. You can suspect that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe but you can believe in Santa Clause.

Atheism is just as much a BELIEF as any theism. Considering how many god concepts there are it should be rather difficult to prove there isn't one and that still leaves the possibility that there is a god that doesn't correspond to any concept that humans have come up with yet.

So if you can't know, why give a damn?

Join the Church of Apathy.

http://www.churchofapathy.org/

That is heresy of course since anyone that joins is obviously not sufficiently apathetic. lol

um
Kresage Makes some interesting points. First he said:

(quote)
"Well, just of the top of my head, I would say that your definition of theism seems to be rather circumscribed. You seem to be working from the premise that theism = Abrahamic monotheistic traditions, and even rather narrow version of these."

(reply)
True! The reason I work from this premise is because 99.99% of all theist vs atheist debates involve "Abrahamic monotheistic traditions, and even a rather narrow version of these".

(quote)
"1. The classic philosophical arguments for the "existence of God" are no more predicated on "faith" than atheism."

(reply)
It doesn't require an act of faith to doubt what you can't see; atheism is the opposite of faith.

(quote)
"2. Again, the theistic arguments need not be predicated on the behavior of historical, literary, or mythological figures."

(reply)
The type of theist who debate with atheists almost always do.

(quote)
"3. There are versions of theism that do not conceive of the Divine as flawless, perfect, etc. Indeed, there are Abrahamic monotheist who would not make such claims. They would not that the God of the Bible changes his [sic] mind, expresses sorrow for various decisions, etc. This is one of the reasons for the continued interests in process or emergence philosophies and theologies. In these traditions, God is not omniscient, omnipotent, or perfect."

(reply)
I'll give you that, but the type of people who hold these views generally don't do much of the debating with atheists. I started this thread refering to the type of people who do most of the debating with us

Umbrarchist says:

(quote)
"The problem is right there with the "I BELIEVE".

Just because something is true does not necessarily mean one can get enough reliable information to KNOW that it is true. Just because something is false does not necessarily mean one can get enough reliable information to KNOW that it is false."

(reply)
Actually it does! To know simply means to be convinced beyond a shadow of doubt; thus just because you know something doesn't mean you are correct
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/know

(quote)
"Considering how many god concepts there are it should be rather difficult to prove there isn't one and that still leaves the possibility that there is a god that doesn't correspond to any concept that humans have come up with yet."

(reply)
To doubt the existence of something doesn't require you proove anything; that's why atheists are at the advantage in such debates

(quote)
"So if you can't know, why give a damn?"

(reply)
Well, I do know; thus I give a damn

Raptor replies:

(quote)
"I never got this. For someone to acknowledge and or admit that they 'don't know'?
I think that's anything but "weak" and has zero to do with being an atheist. "

(reply)
I agree! Atheism and Theism is about what you BELIEVE; Agnostic is about what you KNOW: A completely different subject

Kevin
quote:
It doesn't require an act of faith to doubt what you can't see; atheism is the opposite of faith.

I would disagree with this statement. It takes faith to do anything. This is at the heart of the epistemological quest, namely, "How do I know what I know." How do you know that you are not a windowless monad, ala Leibniz, in other words, how do you know that you are not a brain in a vat, that you are not plugged into the Matrix, and that what you believe about the world is not manufactured by some "other." Indeed, what is your argument against solipsism.
quote:
Originally posted by umbrarchist:
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
I believe when it comes to the theism vs atheism debates, the theist will always be at the disadvantage for 3 reasons.

Your thoughts?


The problem is right there with the "I BELIEVE".

Just because something is true does not necessarily mean one can get enough reliable information to KNOW that it is true. Just because something is false does not necessarily mean one can get enough reliable information to KNOW that it is false.

But I have seen atheists call agnostics "weak atheists".

Believing suspecting and knowing are 3 different things. You can know that 2 + 3 = 5. You can suspect that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe but you can believe in Santa Clause.

Atheism is just as much a BELIEF as any theism. Considering how many god concepts there are it should be rather difficult to prove there isn't one and that still leaves the possibility that there is a god that doesn't correspond to any concept that humans have come up with yet.

So if you can't know, why give a damn?

Join the Church of Apathy.

http://www.churchofapathy.org/

That is heresy of course since anyone that joins is obviously not sufficiently apathetic. lol

um

um,
Can one KNOW something that is other than an analytic proposition like 2+3=5. I.e.,
1. a proposition whose truth depends solely on the meaning of its terms
2. a proposition that is true by definition
3. a proposition that is made true solely by the conventions of language.

Another example would be "All bachelors are unmarried." This is true by definition. Or, "All triangles have three sides."
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:

(quote)
"3. There are versions of theism that do not conceive of the Divine as flawless, perfect, etc. Indeed, there are Abrahamic monotheist who would not make such claims. They would not that the God of the Bible changes his [sic] mind, expresses sorrow for various decisions, etc. This is one of the reasons for the continued interests in process or emergence philosophies and theologies. In these traditions, God is not omniscient, omnipotent, or perfect."

(reply)
I'll give you that, but the type of people who hold these views generally don't do much of the debating with atheists. I started this thread refering to the type of people who do most of the debating with us


Kevin




Did you?

quote:

"I believe when it comes to the theism vs atheism debates, the theist will always be at the disadvantage for 3 reasons."


You didn't qualify what you meant by "theist" here.

And anyway ... what is the point of so narrowly specifying a type of theism?

If you are going to carry on a debate with "theism" generally ... in defense of "atheism" generally .... you can't hobble your opponent at the outset by confining him/her to only a set number of views which you approve beforehand.

That's not a very interesting debate.
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
I believe when it comes to the theism vs atheism debates, the theist will always be at the disadvantage for 3 reasons.

1 The theist is forced to assert the existence of something based strictly upon faith; atheists are not

2 The theist is forced to defend someone elses behavior, (charaters of the bible Koran, etc) the atheist must only defend his own

3 The theist must proclaim something to be flawless and perfect. Nothing is perfect, flaws can be found in anything.

I am sure there are others but these 3 come to mind right now

Your thoughts?


Kevin



All Theist do not think a like either....

"Nothing can not be perfect?"

If it's physical life yes, but God being a spiritual entity, how can we as physical human beings try to grasp that concept?

We all have our own interpretation on things, even if some one were to tell you to go cut down a tree... you would probably use an axe as I would use a chain saw...one may be quicker than the other, but they both get the job done.

Atheist are not based on faith? I don't know about that one. It takes a lot of energy to not believe in God and reassert those beliefs just because "the evil church" and the usual over generalization of religion as well. lol


Oh yes, the lack of PHYSICAL evidence for a SPIRITUAL entity as well. Spirituality is some thing you feel...ok, but that's how it goes.

Once you've had that spiritual experience with God no one can ever tell you any differently or take that away. It's like an Orgasm...I doubt you can physically prove that...and that is the best example I can think of in regards to the spiritual experience of God and a Orgasm.
Debating whether or not there is a 'god' is useless.

Debating religion(s), the culture, certain interpretations of passages, the psychology, the history of it etc, is something mortals do better to grapple with.

When folks say, "I believe" and the foundation is of their belief is no more than their faith, there is no debate. Be it for or against a religion(s), it's a wrap.

...A thought just came to mind:

Does, and or, should faith support evidence or does/should evidence support faith?

Maybe in some indirect way this question has been answered before, but Imma let if fly anyway.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
quote:
Originally posted by kevin1122:
I believe when it comes to the theism vs atheism debates, the theist will always be at the disadvantage for 3 reasons.

1 The theist is forced to assert the existence of something based strictly upon faith; atheists are not

2 The theist is forced to defend someone elses behavior, (charaters of the bible Koran, etc) the atheist must only defend his own

3 The theist must proclaim something to be flawless and perfect. Nothing is perfect, flaws can be found in anything.

I am sure there are others but these 3 come to mind right now

Your thoughts?


Kevin



All Theist do not think a like either....

"Nothing can not be perfect?"

If it's physical life yes, but God being a spiritual entity, how can we as physical human beings try to grasp that concept?

We all have our own interpretation on things, even if some one were to tell you to go cut down a tree... you would probably use an axe as I would use a chain saw...one may be quicker than the other, but they both get the job done.

Atheist are not based on faith? I don't know about that one. It takes a lot of energy to not believe in God and reassert those beliefs just because "the evil church" and the usual over generalization of religion as well. lol


Oh yes, the lack of PHYSICAL evidence for a SPIRITUAL entity as well. Spirituality is some thing you feel...ok, but that's how it goes.

Once you've had that spiritual experience with God no one can ever tell you any differently or take that away. It's like an Orgasm...I doubt you can physically prove that...and that is the best example I can think of in regards to the spiritual experience of God and a Orgasm.

But there is physical proof of an orgasm. I can measure certain physiological responses (dilation of pupils, heart rate, brain wave activity, respiration, etc.) One can also do the same with respect to some religious or spiritual experiences. Over the last several decades there have been numerous studies performed on mystics, shamans, healers, and conjurers. The difference is not so much the physical evidence, it has to do with the need and or desire to attribute it to something that is super/supra natural.

It is not the spiritual "experience" in and of itself which is called into question by most contemporary atheists. The issue has to do with the causal agent. Atheists, naturalists, humanists et al do not see the need to posit something other than the "world" which includes the natural realm as well as human social and cultural products and practices.
quote:
It takes faith to do anything


Exactly Kresge, and this is the first thing that you learn in the study of how we establish reality and truth.

Science is predicated on faith. Me and an employee got in this discussion the other day. I was explaining to him that positivism and science is predicated at its lowest common denominator of an unprovable believe, AKA faith that the premise is true.

If you all remember that is why when I indulged more in these threads I argued that there are only two things: persuasion and force when it comes to belief systems. Force being passively used to describe the social cultural influences that we accept by virtue of space, time, and location.

That is why I can say that I am a Christian simply because I choose to be, and that be as valid of a reason as any complex syllogism or form of argumentation that one would use pro or con. If all belief is predicated on faith, then my belief is equally as relevant when I say "because I choose" because we all passively or actively choose a "faith" even if it is not in a deity.
quote:
Originally posted by urbansun:
quote:
It takes faith to do anything


Exactly Kresge, and this is the first thing that you learn in the study of how we establish reality and truth.



I understand (to the extent I do, anyway, LOL) the epistemological issue of why we think we know what we think we know. But I'm troubled by the idea that "faith" in the nonexistence of God is equal to the affirmative belief in the unknowable. If I proclaim myself the prophet of some god I just made up out of nowhere, your decision to reject what I say doesn't strike me as being the same thing as someone else's decision to believe me. Again, I understand that we're going on a certain embrace of an ultimately unknowable position, but I see the two as different things. In scholarly circles, is there NO term to distinguish the two?
I disagree that they are distinguishable. Let's look at your thought process in greater detail:

1. "But I'm troubled by the idea that "faith" in the nonexistence of God is equal to the affirmative belief in the unknowable."

You start with an assumption that God is nonexistent which is a faith based assumption. Secondly you have faith based assumption that there is an "affirmative belief in the unknowable". Simply because on "believes" that something is unknowable does not make it so. Hence the belief is predicated on faith.

2. "If I proclaim myself the prophet of some god I just made up out of nowhere, your decision to reject what I say doesn't strike me as being the same thing as someone else's decision to believe me."

How would we legitimately know that you were not a prophet? It would have to be a clearly faith based decision. For example, even if in your mind you were lying to hustle, one could believe that God was using your attempted distortation for his omnipotent purpose. There are many ways to perceive you prophet hood. They are all faith based.



Kresge talked about the physical measurable manifestations of an orgasm is some form of "proof". This is incorrect. What humans in a certain setting have done is codified a series of perceived responses and categorized them. It is the fact that enough people have agreed with the categorization and titled it that give it any meaning. So in even physical manifestations that we want to claim as "proof" are simply the accepted social circular logic of "we define x as Y, so when y occurs it is x". We provide the definition, which is inclusive and exclusive of phenomena, title it, and say it is proof if something occurs. And it is, superficially, but philosophically it is not. There is no "proof" fundamentally, there is only faith is defined sociological perceptions that we accept as true by faith.
quote:
Originally posted by urbansun:
I disagree that they are distinguishable. Let's look at your thought process in greater detail:

1. "But I'm troubled by the idea that "faith" in the nonexistence of God is equal to the affirmative belief in the unknowable."

You start with an assumption that God is nonexistent which is a faith based assumption.

17 No I didn't. I never made a comment or an assumption one way or the other about the existence or nonexistence of God.

quote:
Secondly you have faith based assumption that there is an "affirmative belief in the unknowable". Simply because on "believes" that something is unknowable does not make it so. Hence the belief is predicated on faith.
There was no faith-based assumption about a belief. The discussion we're already in assumes the thing is unknowable for the sake of argument only. If you're going to try to critique the basis for an assumption that was already understood as being for argument's sake only, then you are too far off the deep end of this to have anything meaningful to contribute. It's necessary to make the assumptions you refer to in order to facilitate the discussion about the underlying ideas. Confused

quote:
2. "If I proclaim myself the prophet of some god I just made up out of nowhere, your decision to reject what I say doesn't strike me as being the same thing as someone else's decision to believe me."

How would we legitimately know that you were not a prophet? It would have to be a clearly faith based decision.

Denotatively, there would have to be a distinction between the two kinds of things you're lumping in as "faith." First of all, normally when one speaks of having faith, one has the belief in the truth of something without proof, but that belief is combined with a certain comfort, a hope that it's true. One typically doesn't speak of belief in things they don't care about as "faith." No one ever says, " I don't know for sure, but I have faith that traffic will be backed up on the highway, so I'll take the back roads." You can have faith that the highway will NOT be backed up, as you act on that faith by entering the highway. Here, you not only believe, but you WANT to believe it, because the highway is the fastest route normally. But belief not coupled with hope and desire really doesn't constitute the same kind of belief normally associated with "faith."

So if you choose to reject my contention that I am a prophet, the fact that you're not placing any particular hope or desire on that belief demonstrates a difference. From there, the difference in motivation strikes me as worthy of noting a distinction in kind.

quote:
Kresge talked about the physical measurable manifestations of an orgasm is some form of "proof". This is incorrect. What humans in a certain setting have done is codified a series of perceived responses and categorized them.


Huh? An orgasm has a definition. When certain physical manifestations are occurring, that is an orgasm. If those things are measurable, and the presence of those things is by definition an orgasm, then why isn't that proof of an orgasm?
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Huh? An orgasm has a definition. When certain physical manifestations are occurring, that is an orgasm. If those things are measurable, and the presence of those things is by definition an orgasm, then why isn't that proof of an orgasm?



But how'bout philosophically?

As I said earlier, a lot of this depends on ones epistemological assumptions. Urbansun, I appreciate what you are raising in terms of what constitutes knowledge and knowing, but I think there are gradations of veracity with respect to different knowledge systems. As you suggest, there is some sense in which one makes fundamental assumptions in all systems, but there is a distinction with respect to how rigor that obtains with these systems.

There is greater rigor and consistency within the scientific narrative than say in the area of aesthetics or religion. This is what makes it so powerful, and has led to its success over the last several decades. Criteria such as reproducibility and conditions for falsifiability give it its gravitas as a means of explanation. So, in this narrative, I think that it is acceptable to speak of proofs.

For me, however, science is not about meaning. It is about explanation. Meaning and meaning making is a linguistic process, and though it may be rule governed, it does not possess the rules are not as exacting as that of science. It is fundamentally about interpretation. Practically, a good interpretation is that is basically the most compelling, and this has historical, social, and cultural factors.

Thus, I have no problem saying that I can prove that the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m/s[2]. However, I would never say that I can prove that Toni Morrison is the greatest living author in the English language, although I do believe it to be true, the assertion is meaningful to me, and I can put together a rather compelling argument for the assertion. However, as this claim falls in the realm of aesthetics, it will never have the rigor of the gravity claim.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
Does, and or, should faith support evidence or does/should evidence support faith?


That's a brain teaser...I would say it could go both ways.

If you had evidence of Jesus Christ body (because there is no body to be found at the moment, plus the story of his bodily and spiritual resurrection as we know it would not be true), then that would make the story semi false, but you know there was really a Jesus due to the fact of the body is there for observation.

All a person who has faith in Jesus and from the stories and the morals you learned from his parables is strictly faith, then again you have the New Testament documents (70-100 A.D/C.E) as some sort of proof of the man's life and his teachings. Some argue this is not "proof" enough.


Yes there is the Gospel of Thomas that was left out thanks to those at the Counsel of Nicea. Gnostic's (Written in 200-300 A.D/C.E) didn't make it because the fact they had nothing to do originally with those who wrote the New Testament stuff. That Jesus Pantera guy was born in the 2nd century by the way and many people have tried to link him to being "the original Jesus", but kind of hard when all of the New Testament stuff was written before his time. Unless they had a time machine...lol (The time machine part was a joke).
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
There is greater rigor and consistency within the scientific narrative than say in the area of aesthetics or religion. This is what makes it so powerful, and has led to its success over the last several decades. Criteria such as reproducibility and conditions for falsifiability give it its gravitas as a means of explanation. So, in this narrative, I think that it is acceptable to speak of proofs.



Decades? More like the last several centuries.
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
Yes there is the Gospel of Thomas that was left out thanks to those at the Counsel of Nicea. Gnostic's (Written in 200-300 A.D/C.E) didn't make it because the fact they had nothing to do originally with those who wrote the New Testament stuff.


This is debatable.

Elaine Pagels, for example, argues that Thomas was written before even the Gospel of John and that (in what is a much stronger claim) John was written in part as an polemic against Thomas.
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
Yes there is the Gospel of Thomas that was left out thanks to those at the Counsel of Nicea. Gnostic's (Written in 200-300 A.D/C.E) didn't make it because the fact they had nothing to do originally with those who wrote the New Testament stuff.


This is debatable.

Elaine Pagels, for example, argues that Thomas was written before even the Gospel of John and that (in what is a much stronger claim) John was written in part as an polemic against Thomas.


It's debated that the Gospel of Thomas is written as early as 60 A.D/C.E (Making it written before any of the canon Gospels such as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) Gospel of Thomas speaks about Jesus Childhood and how he doubted that Jesus would come back in spiritual form until he did.

The latest is 140 A.D/C.E

Either way works for me.
Wow quite a bit of replies in just one day; I will attempt to respond to a few

Kresage says:

(quote)
"It takes faith to do anything"

(reply)
Faith is about believing; and even though it can lead to doing, it doesn't have to.

(quote)
"This is at the heart of the epistemological quest, namely, "How do I know what I know." How do you know that you are not a windowless monad, ala Leibniz, in other words, how do you know that you are not a brain in a vat, that you are not plugged into the Matrix, and that what you believe about the world is not manufactured by some "other." Indeed, what is your argument against solipsism."

(reply)
I would doubt these things simply because they haven't been proven to my satisfaction. I need not proove anything to myself concerning those issues

Honest Brother says:

(quote)
"You didn't qualify what you meant by "theist" here."

(reply)
the type of theism I was refering to was those who believe in a God that is the creator and ruler of the universe.

(quote)
And anyway ... what is the point of so narrowly specifying a type of theism?

(reply)
Because I am not aware of any other type of theisms and if there are others, they don't do much debating with atheists which is what this subject is about.

Willy-Will says:

(quote)
"All Theist do not think a like either...."

(reply)
True but the ones who debate atheists usually have a few things in common such as
*They usually claim the existence of a God that can't be consistently experienced by all humans; thus they use the term "faith" to justify this belief
*They believe this God is flawless and perfect thus they feel obligated to defend his behavior

(quote)
""Nothing can not be perfect?"

If it's physical life yes, but God being a spiritual entity, how can we as physical human beings try to grasp that concept?"

(reply)
If this spiritual entity has flaws; by definition it is not perfect. We can determine if it is flawed by reading about the behavior of this spiritual entity in it's ancient texts.

(quote)
"Atheist are not based on faith? I don't know about that one."

(reply)
Yes it's true! Faith is a belief that is not backed up by logic, facts, or proof. Even your Jesus says this by discribing faith as "the study of things hoped for evidence of things UNSEEN". If facts, and proof were involved, it would not be unseen

(quote)
"It takes a lot of energy to not believe in God and reassert those beliefs just because "the evil church" and the usual over generalization of religion as well. lol"

(reply)
Really! Does it require a lot of energy to doubt the existence of Thor, Zeus, or Dionysus? What about characters that you've never heard of? I think not.

Urbansam said:
(quote)
"Science is predicated on faith. Me and an employee got in this discussion the other day. I was explaining to him that positivism and science is predicated at its lowest common denominator of an unprovable believe, AKA faith that the premise is true."

(reply)
Science is the study of the physical and material world via observation and experimentation. Faith is believing without proof , facts or logic. Now I realize some people use the term faith to discribe what they believe, even when it is backed up with logic; ex I have faith that it will be a sunny day tomorrow, I have faith the alarm clock will work just as it has countless days before etc. but using the word faith this way basically makes the word meaningless.

Well that's all for now

Kevin
(quote)
"It takes a lot of energy to not believe in God and reassert those beliefs just because "the evil church" and the usual over generalization of religion as well. lol"

kevin1122 said:
(reply)
Really! Does it require a lot of energy to doubt the existence of Thor, Zeus, or Dionysus? What about characters that you've never heard of? I think not.

-------------------------------------------
My reply:

Theist do defend God and explain to those who are Atheist in a rational manner the nature of God from their own understanding. Then again, we all interpret things differently. That's how it is.


Well if you knew the history of Zeus, Thor, or Dionysus first of all, Zeus of course was model after a man as most of the Roman and fellow Greek "Gods and Goddess" were venerated men and women.

War Mongers as well are seen as God and comparing them to the one God is entirely blaspheme. Why I say this?

Well of course you have the Abraham religions or even religions like Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, etc, didn't go around sacrificing human beings to their "Gods and Goddess" or sleeping with youth as apart of their culture. That's not preached in their belief system at all, just those religions such as the Roman, Greek, and Norse.

In other words, they are different systems of morals and beliefs as well.

So yep, I sure in hell deny the veneration of Thor, Zeus, or Dionysus. Smile No energy needed on that one.

Also, faith is based on unseen facts? I have to question over the years now that some people use to believe folks came from damn apes, but then it's just a common ancestor. How do you really know for sure? That is faith right there and evidence for this? Just because some scientist believes this as well?

I'll go with the common ancestor one though...but the Apes...lol. Although some will say it was the Aliens who had some thing to do with our creation. Doesn't make much sense to "evolve from apes" and losing all of that strength that they would possess doesn't seem very useful in our process of evolutionary change. Care to explain that one?

See it's hard to grasp what spirituality is for some one who doesn't understand. Then again, that is a choice with all things, you have to want it.

Measuring Orgasms? I don't know about that either...they could be faking it on you or not, all you can take is their word...that is purely faith as well...believing.

Who says God has flaws? Unless it's the insecurities of some one's lack of understanding of their existences or entirely about everything around them.


Really if you wish to get very deep about it and the obvious, it's people who are the messed up ones. We can make things so simple or very hard. Free Will...it can go either way.

Asking questions are good though.
Last edited {1}
quote:
Atheist are not based on faith? I don't know about that one. It takes a lot of energy to not believe in God and reassert those beliefs just because "the evil church" and the usual over generalization of religion as well. lol


This is the kind of stuff that shows the uselessness of these discussions. It is like believers and non-believers have minds that operate in different tracks.

It requires no energy to NOT BELIEVE.

I attended a Catholic grade school with my sisters. They were both baptized and I wouldn't have anything to do with it. Decades later I asked one of my sisters, "What if the only reason you believe this is because of indoctrination at school?"

She said, "I don't like to think about that."

So to me this is an emotional decision not a logical one. A lot of atheists are just on an emotional trip in the opposite direction. You can't learn to BELIEVE what you were never exposed to as a child. Some kids just don't respond to the DUMB PROPAGANDA.

I don't have a problem with weird speculations though.

http://www.quantumcritics.com/general/star-trek-meets-the-bible.html

daz 20

um
quote:

quote:
Atheist are not based on faith? I don't know about that one. It takes a lot of energy to not believe in God and reassert those beliefs just because "the evil church" and the usual over generalization of religion as well. lol


This is the kind of stuff that shows the uselessness of these discussions. It is like believers and non-believers have minds that operate in different tracks.

It requires no energy to NOT BELIEVE.





For what it's worth, I'm formally agnostic.

And I expend just about no energy whatsoever thinking about God one way or the other. lol
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
...And I expend just about no energy whatsoever thinking about God one way or the other. lol


Well that is simply becasue:
quote:
it's hard to grasp what spirituality is for some one who doesn't understand. Then again, that is a choice with all things, you have to want it.


You have to want HB. You have to want it.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
...And I expend just about no energy whatsoever thinking about God one way or the other. lol


Well that is simply becasue:
quote:
it's hard to grasp what spirituality is for some one who doesn't understand. Then again, that is a choice with all things, you have to want it.


You have to want HB. You have to want it.


That's right, if you really want to understand some thing you have to care to want it. Want it!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
...And I expend just about no energy whatsoever thinking about God one way or the other. lol


Well that is simply becasue:
quote:
it's hard to grasp what spirituality is for some one who doesn't understand. Then again, that is a choice with all things, you have to want it.


You have to want HB. You have to want it.



I dispute the idea that "spirituality" requires a God-concept.
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
...And I expend just about no energy whatsoever thinking about God one way or the other. lol


Well that is simply becasue:
quote:
it's hard to grasp what spirituality is for some one who doesn't understand. Then again, that is a choice with all things, you have to want it.


You have to want HB. You have to want it.



I dispute the idea that "spirituality" requires a God-concept.


With out God there would be no spirituality...lol

God is a spirit by definition. But yeah you can have "God with out spirituality" you get religions like Buddhism, Jainism and many more. Not so original, but there's always a bases for some thing.
"Some kids just don't respond to the DUMB PROPAGANDA."

Just like in China, back in the Soviet Union days, Albania, Cambodia, Republic of Afghanistan, and Vietnam...talk about dumb propaganda running wild there years ago or still going on today. Speaking of Star Trek, some one made a funny and told me that Atheist are like Vulcan's...emotionless, plus they don't show much of a humorous side. Maybe they might be Japanese? racist lol


ohsnap
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
...And I expend just about no energy whatsoever thinking about God one way or the other. lol


Well that is simply becasue:
quote:
it's hard to grasp what spirituality is for some one who doesn't understand. Then again, that is a choice with all things, you have to want it.


You have to want HB. You have to want it.



I dispute the idea that "spirituality" requires a God-concept.


With out God there would be no spirituality...lol



Says who?
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
Says who?


God would say so and according to these two definitions. Then again, it wouldn't be Free Will if you didn't have a choice.


http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/god

Main Entry:
1god Listen to the pronunciation of 1god
Pronunciation:
\ˈgäd also ˈgȯd\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date:
before 12th century

1capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe bChristian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind 2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship ; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality3: a person or thing of supreme value4: a powerful ruler



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spirituality
Spiritual


–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit; incorporeal.
2. of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature: a spiritual approach to life.
3. closely akin in interests, attitude, outlook, etc.: the professor's spiritual heir in linguistics.
4. of or pertaining to spirits or to spiritualists; supernatural or spiritualistic.
5. characterized by or suggesting predominance of the spirit; ethereal or delicately refined: She is more of a spiritual type than her rowdy brother.
6. of or pertaining to the spirit as the seat of the moral or religious nature.
7. of or pertaining to sacred things or matters; religious; devotional; sacred.
8. of or belonging to the church; ecclesiastical: lords spiritual and temporal.
9. of or relating to the mind or intellect.
–noun 10. a spiritual or religious song: authentic folk spirituals.
11. spirituals, affairs of the church.
12. a spiritual thing or matter.
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
...And I expend just about no energy whatsoever thinking about God one way or the other. lol


Well that is simply becasue:
quote:
it's hard to grasp what spirituality is for some one who doesn't understand. Then again, that is a choice with all things, you have to want it.


You have to want HB. You have to want it.



I dispute the idea that "spirituality" requires a God-concept.


With out God there would be no spirituality...lol

God is a spirit by definition.

Whose God? You really need to be more precise when you say things like this. That would not be an accurate statement for some monist traditions. Also, there are many religions that believe that their divinities have physical bodies, bodies of flesh and blood.
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
Makes it kind of hard to say you can have it with out God as a bases at one time if Religion is nothing more than organized Spirituality. All religions/spirituality derive from one thing.

You couldn't have Buddhism and Jainism with out Hinduism

What one thing would that be? Freud would say the one thing would be due a mass neurosis that is rooted in the Oedipal complex. Durkheim associates it with social/psychological phenomenon that takes place in community. Bataille understands the source of religion as an attempt to regain the lost intimacy/immediacy that arises with the transition from animality to human consciousness. Pascal Boyer says that religion is an unintended consequence of human evolution related to the need to be hypervigilant about ones surroundings.
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
Whose God? You really need to be more precise when you say things like this. That would not be an accurate statement for some monist traditions. Also, there are many religions that believe that their divinities have physical bodies, bodies of flesh and blood.


I am so glad you asked me because for those who have heard this before they get to hear it again...

The God and same God of the following religions...

God Religions

* African traditional religions- Traditional African religions involve teachings, practices, and rituals that lend structure to the African native societies. Traditional African societies reflect local conceptions of God, the Gods (if the cultures are polytheistic or henotheistic), and the cosmos. Even within single communities there may be slightly different perceptions.

* Native American religions of the North- Rituals and traditions differ by tribe. They are manly Henotheistic when it comes to the concept of everything having a soul from rocks to a rambling creek. For when it comes to God, they call God the creator or Grandpa.

* Zoroastrianism- is the religion and philosophy based on the teachings ascribed to the prophet Zoroaster (Zarathustra, Zartosht). Mazdaism is the religion that acknowledges the divine authority of Ahura Mazda, proclaimed by Zoroaster to be the one uncreated Creator of all (God).

* Hinduism- is sometimes referred to as henotheistic , but there is a devotion to a single "God" (Brahman) who takes up many manifestations such as Vishnu, Krishna, Ganesha, Devi, etc.

* Judaism- is a Monotheistic belief in which the God who created the world established a covenant with the Israelites, and revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of the Torah, and the Jewish people are the descendants of the Israelites.

* Christianity- is a monotheistic religion centered on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in the New Testament. Christians believe Jesus is the Son of God and the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament, and that the New Testament records the Gospel that was revealed by Jesus. Depending on religious denomination, some believe that Christ is actually God himself.

* Islam- is a monotheistic religion originating with the teachings of Muhammad, a 7th-century Arab religious and political figure. The word Islam means "submission", or the total surrender of oneself to God (Arabic: ????, All--h). An adherent of Islam is known as a Muslim, meaning "one who submits (to God)".

* Sikhism- this religion advocates the pursuit of salvation through disciplined, personal meditation on the name and message of God. A key distinctive feature of Sikhism is a non-anthropomorphic concept of God, to the extent that one can interpret God as the Universe itself.

* Baha' I' Faith- is a religion founded by Bahá'u'lláh in 19th-century Persia, emphasizing the spiritual unity of all humankind. It has a belief in God and his many messengers through out history.

* Mormonism- is a term used to describe the religious, ideological, and cultural elements of certain branches of the Latter Day Saint movement, specifically, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church). They uphold a belief in Jesus Christ and God.

* Caodaism- is a relatively new, syncretistic, monotheistic religion, officially established in Tây Ninh, southern Vietnam, in 1926. The term Cao --ài literally means "high place." God is regarded as the founder of this religion.



* Chondogyo- Cheondogyo preaches that there is God and that He resides in each of us, not in Heaven as Christianity teaches. It strives to convert our earthly society into a paradise (Heaven) on Earth. It attempts to transform the believers into intelligent moral beings with high social consciousness. In this respect, it could be seen as a humanistic socialism.

* Rastafarianism- is a cultural value system that accepts Haile Selassie I, the former Emperor of Ethiopia, as God incarnate, whom they call Jah. He is also seen as part of the Holy>as the messiah promised in the Bible<>to return. The name Rastafari comes from Ras (literally "Head," an Ethiopian title equivalent to Duke), and Tafari Makonnen, the pre-coronation name of Haile Selassie I.

That's a long list, but you notice again how people tend to interpret things differently when it comes to these things?
Why would I care for Freud? He was a drug addict. No one took him serious. The only thing he was right about was there being a sub-conscious. Besides all of that, he was out there...

Doing research on upper class Austrians and surmising that girls have a penis envy or fathers are paranoid about their sons sleeping with their wife is quite questionable in regards to his mental state.
quote:
Originally posted by Willywill3:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor:
Does, and or, should faith support evidence or does/should evidence support faith?


That's a brain teaser...I would say it could go both ways.

If you had evidence of Jesus Christ body (because there is no body to be found at the moment, plus the story of his bodily and spiritual resurrection as we know it would not be true), then that would make the story semi false, but you know there was really a Jesus due to the fact of the body is there for observation.

All a person who has faith in Jesus and from the stories and the morals you learned from his parables is strictly faith, then again you have the New Testament documents (70-100 A.D/C.E) as some sort of proof of the man's life and his teachings. Some argue this is not "proof" enough.


Yes there is the Gospel of Thomas that was left out thanks to those at the Counsel of Nicea. Gnostic's (Written in 200-300 A.D/C.E) didn't make it because the fact they had nothing to do originally with those who wrote the New Testament stuff. That Jesus Pantera guy was born in the 2nd century by the way and many people have tried to link him to being "the original Jesus", but kind of hard when all of the New Testament stuff was written before his time. Unless they had a time machine...lol (The time machine part was a joke).


Does anything you've said here even begins to answer my question?

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×