[Closed] A nice chat about faith?

So if evidence comes along that shows a god(s) exists you'll change your mind. How is that not allowing the possibilty of god(s) existing?

'Allowing the possibility' is a bit disingenuous I think- it's not true in any meaningful sense and implies that the alternative is actually on the table. It's a bit of a stretch to say you're allowing the possibility of something by acknowledging that you can't strictly speaking disprove it. If that were the case we'd all be allowing the possibility of an infinite amount of old guff that anyone could dream up, which of course we're not in any active or meaningful way.

I've got to agree with Woppit as well in that it's also pretty disingenuous IME to say stuff like "He/She is in our hearts" or "maybe God is just a word for that feeling you get when you're out in the mountains at sunrise, hmmm?"

I'm pretty sure people who come out with this stuff aren't really saying "let's give this thing a name and call it, oh, I dunno, 'God', although it could just as easily be 'Dave' or 'Hefneg'".

While one cannot disprove the existence of God in the sense that it is impossible to prove a negative. One can define what a god is then posit how the world would be if a God of that description existed . Such an exercise tends to reveal an absence of God rather than a God shaped hole.

My favourite being that God to be God would be universal as in Omnipresent if so why has he not been recognised and worshiped in the same way across the globe throughout human history. See the total differences between the Inca Egyptian Greek/Roman and Abrahamic ideas of who god is and what God wants.

There are lots of logical issues with the concept of God as described in the Bible. However, it may not be beneficial to pursue them 🙂

There are also plenty of alternative concepts to consider, but if they are not the subject of a religion then it's probably not worth pursuing them either.

There is a great scene in True Detective (highly recommend btw) where Matthew Mcconaughey pretty wells sums my thoughts to a tea.
For your viewing pleasure

One can define what a god is then posit how the world would be if a God of that description existed . Such an exercise tends to reveal an absence of God rather than a God shaped hole.

There may / may not be some sort of deity(ies) out there but if the evidence is hidden at some sort of quantum level (for example) then we're a very long way from finding out.

Language is the flaw in many typical theists arguments.
The limitations of our understanding of the natural world (aka science) is the flaw in most atheist arguments.

However (to go back to the OP) if science proves that having faith gives you a higher chance of survival to not having faith - in a scientific sense having faith is the correct evolutionary path.

Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we [b]can[/b] suppose.

J. B. S. Haldane.

"This is fake logic - as it assumes that all your descriptions of the 'thing' are correct.
Philosophically even using the word God brings in the limitations of linguistics (God being a singular masculine word) and also assumes that the human experience of the world is non-subjective (i.e. is not limited by our own physical natures)."
This really is flawed, we as subjective creatures have defined and worshiped a supreme being we call God it is perfectly logical to consider whether that being does or does not exist.

If you ask whether there may be as yet other entities that are in existence possibly at a quantum level or in the folds of the duvet multiverse, then yes we can entertain and analyse as best we can that concept but we have stopped talking about the existence of "God" in the human religious context and started talking about Hypothetical undefined entities .

but we have stopped talking about the existence of "God" in the human religious context and started talking about Hypothetical undefined entities .

Exactly. As has been said several times, not believing in deities does not equate to not believing in anything beyond our current understanding of the universe.

I'm not "limited" by our understanding of the universe, I'm simply informed by it.

GrahamS - Member
I'm afraid actually, it makes you an agnostic as I understand agnosticism
Agnostic: A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.
-- http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/agnostic

That's not me. I choose not to believe in the existence of deities or gods. That makes me an atheist. A person without theism.

I make that choice based on the evidence I see, therefore clearly I do believe that something CAN be known about the existence of gods. Which means I am not an agnostic.

Clear?

Then lets look at our friend the agnostic according even to your Oxford English definition: 'A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.' that is a plain simple un contradictory statement.

It is why it is so logical, all you theists of both flavours are always contradictory when challenged, "oh I don't believe in God(s), but I might if someone proves it, sorry you can't say that, that's a something else. Atheism is the rejection of belief in deities, there are none, nada.. Not or there might be.

You my friend really should redefine your description of yourself, come out, be agnostic, move to Brighton have parades, vote Green 😉

oh I don't believe in God(s), but I might if someone proves it, sorry you can't say that

Eh? Why not?

I don't believe there's anywhere on the planet where gravity works backwards, but if it turned out there was I'd have to revise my belief wouldn't I? Same thing, surely?

MrSalmon - Member
oh I don't believe in God(s), but I might if someone proves it, sorry you can't say that
Eh? Why not?

I don't believe there's anywhere on the planet where gravity works backwards, but if it turned out there was I'd have to revise my belief wouldn't I? Same thing, surely?

Because the two words Atheist and Agnostic mean two different things, one deals with (dis)belief, the other deals with knowledge . That statement suggests a combination of both where actually none exists, if you are an Atheist your opinion is formed from belief whereas an Agnostic deals (more logically imv) in knowledge.

Technically all those believers should be referred to as Agnostic Theists, since they can't possible know. The Day there is a 'Gnostic' Theist, is the day the problem is proved.

if you are an Atheist your opinion is formed from belief

Nope. It's formed by a lack of evidence. Why you no rissen?

derrick im sure graham can speak for himself but he appears to have said he is an atheist he does not believe in God but he does concede the intellectual possibility of the existence of Hue. Hue is not God as anyone defines God in any Religion.

Then lets look at our friend the agnostic according even to your Oxford English definition: 'A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.' that is a plain simple un contradictory statement.

If gods exist, then something [i]can [/i]be known about them, we've just not found it yet. The only way they cannot be known about is it they don't exist. And as this is what I believe, your dictionary definition of "agnostic" demonstrably doesn't apply to me.

I reject the belief in deities. Absolutely. It's fanciful nonsense. QED, atheist. The caveat that you're so desperately clinging to, which is that in the [i]hypothetical [/i]situation that one day a god or gods come riding in on a winged unicorn going "chocolate eggs for everyone!" then I will of course revise my opinion. That's nothing because I'm a closet agnostic, it's because we will have suddenly been presented with the evidence that has thus far been utterly lacking for millennia.

Nope. It's formed by a lack of evidence.

No. (a)theist = (dis)Belief
(a)gnostic = (without)knowledge

Sorry not my opinion, linguistic fact, it's all Greek to me.. 😉

Thomas Henry Huxley said:[12][13]

Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle ... Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable.

According to philosopher William L. Rowe, in the strict sense, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.

So if you form the view that there are sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that God does not exist you are an atheist . If you concede that were there to be fresh evidence that demonstrated that god existed you would review your position you are both an Athiest and a Scientist and not a dogmatist .

Pwned.

if you are an Atheist your opinion is formed from belief

I don't need "belief" to dismiss the idea that gods, hobbits, Spongebob Squarepants or Santa Claus are actually real. The burden of proof is not on me to justify rejecting fairy stories, it's on the people making wild claims to back them up.

Technically all those believers should be referred to as Agnostic Theists, since they can't possible know

Why is it so important to you to score this point? You've been trotting out this same trollish bobbins for years on the previous accounts you've had banned. You can call us banana sandwiches for the difference it makes, it doesn't change what anyone thinks, believes or knows.

There is no contradiction there. If you think there is then you misunderstand my argument.

oh I don't believe in God(s), but I might if someone proves it, sorry you can't say that, that's a something else.

No, it really isn't.

I don't believe in gods based on the evidence I see. That makes me an atheist.

If new evidence emerges that convinces me otherwise then I may decide I am no longer atheist. That makes me reasonable.

It absolutely DOES NOT make me agnostic.

[b]An agnostic cannot change their mind based on evidence[/b] (and still remain an agnostic) because an agnostic is someone who believes that it is [b]not possible[/b] to know anything about the existence of gods, regardless of the evidence.

Agnosticism does not mean [i]"maybe"[/i], it means [i]"that is forever unknowable"[/i].

So even if a shiny guy with a very convincing beard appeared on a cloud and started doing lots of God-things like resurrecting the dead, causing floods and plagues, forming planets and creating new life from clay then an agnostic would still say [i]"We cannot know that he is a god"[/i].

Whereas I might say [i]"Hmm... looks like I was wrong. That bloke meets the description of a deity, so I guess I now believe in at least one deity"[/i] and at that point I would stop being an atheist.

Derick your Greek and logic is a little confused A -without Theist- belief. The absence of a belief is not in itself a belief as a settled state for ever na na na . It is an absence. Agnostic is a one word label attached to a subtle nuanced philosophy and you get nowhere other than semantic point scoring to try and over analyse the Greek etymology of that one word.

given the length of this article on the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism#Meaning ]meaning of Gnosticism[/url] the simplistic attempts to pwn what Gnosticism is becomes a philosophical discussion.

crankboy favours the Huxley interpretation.

Edit - although this seems more interesting

Modern sexual magic began with Paschal Beverly Randolph.[20] The connection to Gnosticism came by way of the French Gnostic Church with its close ties to the strong esoteric current in France, being part of the same highly interconnected milieu of esoteric societies and orders from which the most influential of sexual magic orders arose, the Ordo Templi Orientis (Order of Oriental Templars, OTO).

Derek Knight Rider said:

[b]Agnosticism[/b] can be simply stated as not knowing or having knowledge about God(s) it is a statement of personal knowledge. A weak minded agnostic may not know for sure but does not preclude that such knowledge can be obtained. On the other hand a strong minded Agnostic does not accept that knowledge about God(s) is possible.

[b]Atheism[/b] is the absolute belief that there is no God, Deity and that all things concerning such are human constructs, myths and legends.

There is however clearly a third alternative

[b]Afencesittism[/b] is the belief that whilst it is currently fashionable to deny the belief in God, deities myths and legends, if at some time in the future such evidence of existence should arise then a rapid reversion to theism may occur.

"given the length of this article on the meaning of Gnosticism the simplistic attempts to pwn what Gnosticism is becomes a philosophical discussion.

crankboy favours the Huxley interpretation. "

Flattered you have analysed my half thought through diversions but given I am 255 pages into a realy complex work thing, can you briefly summarise what Gnosticism is and what Huxley said ?

Agnosticism isn't the opposite of gnosticism though is it? Don't try and be too overly analytical of the linguistic terms here - they are just labels, as said above, and not subject to rigorous nomenclature.

The burden of proof is not on me to justify rejecting fairy stories

Sure, but that's not the issue. It's not about the 'fairy' stories as you somewhat scathingly describe them - it's about the possibility that there is some external intelligence responsible for or at least involved in all this.

That is a much more difficult question, and I think neither science nor religion has much claim on the answer.

I tend towards Buddhism and having faith in myself and my friends 🙂

Derek Knight Rider said:

*a bunch of new definitions that do not match those in a dictionary*

If you are going to redefine what words mean then you might as well argue that I am French. 😆

Afencesittism by your own definition would appear to be agnostic.

you really don't get the absence of belief point do you and I appear to now be arguing more about how you chose to define words and concepts rather than whether or not God exists. He doesn't by the way but I do enjoy his regular tweets.

If you are going to redefine what words mean then you might as well argue that I am French.

Not really. Some words have strict definitions, some do not. Surely you've realised this over the years?

crankboy - Member
Afencesittism by your own definition would appear to be agnostic.

you really don't get the absence of belief point do you and I appear to now be arguing more about how you chose to define words and concepts rather than whether or not God exists. He doesn't by the way but I do enjoy his regular tweets.

We can't know though can we? We're mortal, one day something is going to occur that will either enlighten us totally or put us out of our misery and it won't matter much anyway.

So I tend to wrongly ascribe the Atheism view to the no life after death assumption as well, that could equally be wrong, but so often we are taught the two go hand in hand, God and the afterlife, i.e You can't have one without the other.

Whereas I like to hope there is more but whilst we're here we can't know therefor agnostic can be the only label I can apply to me, but I am hopeful that we are a universal consciousness that travels the Universe like a radio message looking for suitable receivers in mortal form to dial into.

Anyway that's it really it just an opinion, nothing more or less and GrahamS i respect that last description and get it, but I wouldn't hold your breath I don't think your days of Atheism are likely to end this side of the grave.

Afencesittism is the belief that whilst it is currently fashionable to deny the belief in God

I do not deny the belief in 'God'. Who would deny a belief in 'God'? The evidence for belief is all around us.

Sounds like you're trolling (especially with your carefully chosen and unreferenced 'definitions') but I'll bite.

Not entirely fitting yr first two definitions so I'm only left with the third. Don't fit there either. I only care about 'fashion' inasmuch as it's currently out of fashion (in my secular country) to either punish or kill me for not having any belief in a prescribed deity. ie We left theocracy behind for now. I am very lucky (historical context) for the freedom to think and believe freely.

My lack of belief in any deity is not driven remotely by my own concern for fashionable philosophies. My parents allowed me to decide for myself, I studied (in mostly layman's terms except for A level psychology) comparative religion, history, anthropology, psychology and biology. I looked at all the evidence available and I'm entirely convinced that 'deities' are a projection of ourselves, cooked up wholly by ourselves in absence of other explanations for (among other things) 'big questions', societal control and fear of death. I have not been lazy in arriving at this disbelief/belief (call it what you will)

The burden of proof must surely be on those introducing the 'deity', just as the burden of proof is on me should I claim that a 'ghost' called Derek is controlling everyone's thought patterns from a laundry basket someplace beyond our 'ken.

The burden of proof must surely be on those introducing the 'deity'

Oh go on then - why?

I wouldn't hold your breath I don't think your days of Atheism are likely to end this side of the grave.

You never know:

Oh go on then - why?

Tax breaks 😉

Oh go on then - why?

Because it's no different to any other claim. You don't, or at least shouldn't, start with the assumption that your claim is correct as to do that would invite the acceptance of all sorts of unfallsifiable nonsense.

People who don't know that faeries are real aren't worth talking to

You don't, or at least shouldn't, start with the assumption that your claim is correct as to do that would invite the acceptance of all sorts of unfallsifiable nonsense.

But that goes for the claim that there is no god just as much as the claim there is one.

I know some lovely people of 'faith' in fact a good friend is a lady vicar. But also some right twonks, a couple of whom hide behind there alleged religions as an excuse for some outright bad behaviour.

On the other hand I know some really mellow and charitable atheists, who in most societies would be pegged as 'religious' because of what they get up to, but they just love humanity.
I also know some right pricks who are atheists. One especially who's views have really wound me right up recently!

So, in conclusion, it takes all sorts

Oh go on then - why?

Beyond tax exemption I really don't want to post any links to killings, mutilations, restrictions, 'exorcisms' and other punishments carried out and (often with legal impunity) predicated on claims for the existence/inviolate laws/nature of a 'deity'. It really is critically depressing for me to consider or view such things. I am ideologically so far removed from those who would do these things that I can't ever see it being bridged. And still no evidence that would stand up in court (hence theocratic courts, see?)

Whether god is or is not is irrelevant. Belief in god is the questionable issue here.
Belief is an affirmation, a repetition of what one adheres to for comfort out of fear. When one believes in something other possibilities are graded, locked out etc. Belief in god therefore is belief in ideas of their god or someone elses, as in the case of religion.

You could argue that one who believes in god and one who believes god does not exist, both share the same misfortune as their mind is not free to be.

GOD or what ever name it is, must be everything (otherwise there is a god and there is everything else, which is illogical) You cannot believe in everything.
So take god out of the equation and belief.
Everything
which includes you.

Give it a name, I like Tao, teapot seems popular as well.

If you choose to develop your 'faith' OP I think you would be best served to make up a completely new and exciting Religious theory. Why follow another persons made up flawed gibberish when you can make up your own.

But that goes for the claim that there is no god just as much as the claim there is one.

See now you are just trolling as you know full well that it is impossible to prove a negative.

Beyond tax exemption I really don't want to post any links to killings,

Not sure you understood my post. I wasn't asking why you don't like religious nutters, I was asking why there's a difference between having to prove the existence of God vs having to prove the non-existence.

See now you are just trolling as you know full well that it is impossible to prove a negative.

Yes, but so whPersonally I have found absolutely stacks of highly persuasive evidence for the non-existence of God.at? That is your problem, as a proofer. The fact that something cannot be conclusively proved doesn't mean you cannot gather evidence. Consequently, both sides can be treated equally. Your statement, gonefishin, is perfectly correct, but not limited to either side.

Consequently, both sides can be treated equally. Your statement, gonefishin, is perfectly correct, but not limited to either side.

That's a false dichotomy. There are literally *thousands* of gods. Not Yaweh/non-Yaweh.

There are not 'two sides'. There are literally millions of sides. Now which ones do we choose, and why?

Not sure you understood my post. I wasn't asking why you don't like religious nutters, I was asking why there's a difference between having to prove the existence of God vs having to prove the non-existence.

Maybe I didn't understand. But please don't dismiss my answer as simply 'not liking religious nutters'. That not only puts words in my mind/mouth, but is possibly missing my point. My point is not that the wholly religiously convicted are 'nutters', my point is that they are claiming to have knowledge/evidence of a ruling 'deity' that is so strong that it becomes accepted as Law over the lives of others (and not only followers) whilst (at least to followers) there seems to be no real burden of proof required beyond a circular argument - ie the Book is true because it is the Word of God. It is the Word of God because it is true, etc... That's without even approaching evidence of the 'God' existing in the first place! These same people have no problem disbelieving all manner of other claimed deities and so-called 'supernatural' entities - yet disbelief in their one 'God' is so often a punishable offence. It's a weird kind of wilful myopia . Isn't it?

Example: If I was to accidently throttle a young person whilst in the belief that I was driving out malevolent invisible Yumaloomas - or I presented a book that said I should throw asexual persons headfirst from a tower - or even simply claim tax relief, wouldn't you require me to show evidence beyond reasonable doubt that my book had ultimate transcending authority? Would you be further or less convinced if said book was not only endlessly open to interpretation but had some whacking holes in its claims about the observable physical world and had the appearance of being fables for historical/political gain?

Surely the burden of proof is on me?

If my 'deity' made no such claims over people, and I wielded no such power or authority, then You I'm sure would be mostly unconcerned as to any burden of proof. I make no claim that no deities exist, and I still claim that the burden of proof (let's say evidence) is on those that do. I am quite happy to challenge specific claimed 'deities' by offering all the evidence I have available to me regarding what convinces me of their wholly human invention.

It is mostly these specific 'deities' that hold sway in courts of law, in matters of personal freedom, of life and death and of extreme prejudice. That being so, how in the World is the burden of evidence considered to be also on the disbeliever? Serious question, I would love to know.

Ok fair enough. There are thousands of sides.

You choose the one you WANT to choose 🙂

Surely the burden of proof is on me?

In that case yes, of course - you are having to justify harm against another person. But we're not talking about the criminality of any kind of violent action *in this thread*. We're talking philosophy.

We're talking philosophy.

Oh, in that case, let's philosophically discuss whether there exists or not a burden of proof when claiming the existence of a ruling entity named a 'deity' which is intended to hold sway over moral, societal and legal matters?

No - why not?

Yes - Then how robust should the evidence be? More or less than, say, a settlement claim in a civil court?

What say you?

No - why not?

Cos it's unproveable and therefore academic. In practical terms, you pick the idea you like. And don't argue with anyone else about it.

It's a bit like choosing a football team 🙂

So just help me out. I don't believe in God. How should I describe myself?

It's a bit like choosing a football team

It is? You can talk to football teams and they speak back, and you don't even have to say it was the confirming feelings inspired by the sunset that day that made you 'just know' that it was David Beckham's voice answering your important innermost hair-styling questions! It was caught on tape! It was real! Football players exist. You can shake their hands. You can video them. You can take swabs of their DNA, marry them, have children with them. You can become a football player and join a team.

There seems to be no doubt as to football teams existence. How is deciding whether there exists a (or which one is 'real'?) 'deity' even remotely (philosophically speaking) similar?

There seems to be no doubt as to football teams existence.

I didn't say 'it's like believing in football teams'. It's like choosing one to support.

As in, you choose a team either because you're from that town, someone close to you also when you were young supports that team, or just because you like the sound of it.

Likewise choosing a religion. Some people just like the idea. Some people have been brought up that way.

slowoldman - Member
So just help me out. I don't believe in God. How should I describe myself?

It depends, if you just up and choose not to believe in God for no other reason than simply choice, based on whatever.. then you're an Atheist.

If on the other hand you find yourself not accepting there is or isn't a God simply because of the logical argument that we as humans cannot possibly know one way or the other anyway.

Then you are Agnostic.

Is my opinion formed now largely from the discussions and back up links on this thread.

I could be wrong of course as I'm sure someone will come along in a moment and reason.

For atheist we also include no evidence, proof or anything useful to back up nay of the claims that there is a god. It's not just choice it's taking the evidence and looking at it objectively. Bring some evidence for the floating sky man and people will consider it. Same as when Jive kicks off the Lizard men conspiracy if there was actual evidence people might believe him.

Anyway derek no relation of the other derek are you?

It's not just choice it's taking the evidence and looking at it objectively

Yes but you choose to do that - look at evidence objectively.

Religion is for idiots

Ha, just found some documentary entitled 'the Unbelievers' on Netflx, gahhh ... now I have to watch it. Thnks STW, I think...

Molgrips - I didn't say 'it's like believing in football teams'. It's like choosing one to support.

But you skipped a step. Can you guess which one?

No?

Yes but you choose to do that - look at evidence objectively.

Ok - we've established that there is no evidence that satisfies YOU.

You're failing to understand why other people might rationally think differently whilst not being stupid.

I am impressed by the choosing a football team argument belief in religion is basicaly a random fashion choice . the religious command no more power or respect for their belief than a Chelsea supporter for his choice of team and no more right to be represented in parliament than any one else so boot the bishops out of the house of lords . religion certainly gets no say in law making or education .

or me and all the other people looking for objective evidence that proves the existence of a higher being. It could be said that those with faith have a much lower threshold for credible evidence - see all the JHJ threads and replace Lizard Men and the rest with God, Allah and Jesus.

I am impressed by the choosing a football team argument belief in religion is basicaly a random fashion choice

Hmm.. I said 'a bit like' not 'exactly the same as'.

Must admit I'm not impressed by the twisting of what you've read to back up your own pre-existing point of view. Reminds me of something else.. 🙂

religion certainly gets no say in law making or education

Let me remind you I was making a philosophical point, not a British Constitutoinal one.

It could be said that those with faith have a much lower threshold for credible evidence

Or.. a different assessment of evidence.. Or a different reason for having a different assessment...

I guess it just needs to go to court...

Not too long ago a couple of stw'ers mentioned how much they got from their faith. This warmed me. Religion isn't for everyone and a lot of wrong is done in its name. I take solace in someone's choice to believe and be at peace with their choice. Live and let live.

Or.. a different assessment of evidence

What evidence?

Live and let live.

Absolutely and on an individual level I quite agree.

However on a societal level religions don't seem to agree on this principle as many seem happy to exert their influence over the lives of non-believers too.