Posted on 06/18/2009 8:27:56 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
bookmark
Would you call lumping the behavior of Osama Bin Laden or any other islamofascist with your average American of faith as representative of “all theists” a fair categorization?
I wouldn’t. It’s a hasty generalization error. If you want to know more about logical fallacies search the web—there’s lots of information out there.
As I pointed out, the author of the “Atheism” article himself/herself, distinguished between strong and weak atheism, and then turned around and lumped them back together. THAT is incoherent.
It does not really matter what a word used to mean. It’s, what does it mean now. In the old days if you said some one was “nice” that was a bad thing and the word “hussy” used now in a bad way used to mean simply a house wife. Words change over the years.
Sounds like you’re agnostic, unless the evidence presented has convinced you of the non-existence of God. If the later, what evidence has convinced of God’s non-existence?
(Note: no ax grinding or selling of a particular world view on the topic here, just interested in your thought process on the topic).
“Secular” means worldly or temporal, as in “not pertaining to religion”. It makes no claim about there being a God.
“Atheistic” means having no belief in God, or more commonly positively maintaining that there is no God.
“We are born knowing nothing at all and must be taught, and later take it upon ourselves to learn, anything and everything that we will ever know to believe, including atheism.”
Blank slate theory alive and well? What a crock.
Well, keep fighting the odds then.
“Who would claim atheism? Agnosticicsm perhaps, but atheism?”
Funny how unbelievers have to bend over backwards. Of course none of them can prove that God doesn’t exist. Just like you can’t prove Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist. No one jumps on your throat when you say you don’t believe in Santa. They don’t demand you qualify yourself by saying, “I don’t know if Santa exists or not, and that’s the most I can say.”
“They set themselves up as their own god and decide what will happened once they die. Their knowledge is limited to what they see/hear - they are making crucial decisions while working off of limited knowledge.”
That pretty much describes everyone, theist or atheist.
Well I disagree with the concept of knowledge gained from something other than sensory experience. A baby is born tabla rasa.
(So the author’s statement about: “theism requires no more intellect than that which an infant can muster, why should we argue” is really just a rhetorical smear.)
If people want to use faith to make decisions I don’t agree with that but it’s their business.
As for how I evaluate claims—well the nature of the claim itself is important. If it’s an extraordinary claim that has been made over the period of many centuries, and yet has only been presented with poor arguments and no direct evidence then things like credibility come into play.
That’s the author’s own admission.
How dare you attempt to use logic and rational thinking in a Philosophy thread.
Don't you know that philosophy is off limits in the Philosophy threads, and has been so for several years?
I'm surprised you even got noticed and got some responses.
I am a believer, but I also believe that God is a rational being and appreciates rational discussions ... rather than the slipshod pontificating and sloppily disguised preaching that is the bread and butter of Philosophy threads of late.
If bridges in this country were built with the same engineering quality as the philosophical quality of most of the posts to this section, then the ferry business would be doing quite well.
Thanks for posting rationally, but you really have to cut it out. You're just annoying everyone else.
Funny how unbelievers have to bend over backwards. Of course none of them can prove that God doesn’t exist. Just like you can’t prove Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist. No one jumps on your throat when you say you don’t believe in Santa. They don’t demand you qualify yourself by saying, “I don’t know if Santa exists or not, and that’s the most I can say.”
Nevadan: I think you may have missed the point of the quote you replied to. I may be wrong, but I believe the poster was arguing against the “presumption” of atheism.
I believe he was referring to the fact that many times the atheist assumes that if one has no evidence “for God’s existence”, then one is obligated to believe that God does not exist — whether or not one has evidence “against God’s existence”.
What some atheists fail to see is that atheism is just as much a claim to know something (”God does not exist”) as theism (”God exists”). Therefore, the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.
Further, in the absence of evidence for God’s existence, agnosticism, not atheism, is the logical presumption. Even if arguments for God’s existence do not persuade one to belief in God, atheism should not be “presumed” because atheism is not neutral; pure agnosticism is. Atheism is justified only if there is sufficient evidence against God’s existence.
Next, to place belief in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and belief in God on the same level is mistaken. The issue is not that we have no good evidence for Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, fairies, etc.; rather, the truth is we have strong evidence that they do not exist.
Absence of evidence is not at all the same as “evidence of absence”, which some atheists fail to see.
On the contrary, theists can produce credible evidence for God's existence. It may not be “convincing” evidence to the atheist, but that doesn't mean valid evidence for God does not exist. It is also true the atheists have arguments and evidence that God doesn't exist. What remains is for each side to present the best evidence they can and compare which side presents the most convincing argument for or against God's existence.
Human life has no particular meaning or purpose and there is no real basis for ethics, love or even logical thought. Atheism provides no footing for a just, caring and secure society.
...with yet another baseless claim. A belief in God is not necessary to have purpose in life, a system of ethics, love, or logical thought.....and a belief IN God does not necessarily lead to a "just, caring, and secure society". Pure nonsense dressed up as "logical thought" to appeal to those with Faith so they can justify calling atheists unethical, loveless, purposeless, unjust, uncaring, insecure, etc etc etc....."atheism is a religion" is equally nonsensical. Me going about my life without a belief in God is in no way a "religion."
Believe in the wrong god and see what happens.
a- "without"
-the- "god"
-ism "belief in"
= without a belief in God.
...it ain't rocket science.....and for every dilhole out there running around positively exclaiming "there is no God", there are 100,000 out there saying "I don't have a belief in God"......2 very different statements.
Particularly love the "atheism is chosen" part.....yet another claim to denigrate atheists for. Never have I had a motivating factor for my non-belief. Matter of fact, I have envied the Faithful my whole life for having something I do not.
Also don't have anything against Christians or any other religion for that matter. HAve at it...
Oh boy....atheists cannot have ethics and morals? What a bunch of nonsense. Don't suppose I can figure out "right" from "wrong" either.
Oh boy.....atheists will die sooner....
Oh boy....atheists are less happy.
Oh boy...atheists are superstitious (if I don't believe in God, why would I have a belief in superstitions?)
Uh oh....atheists are full of STDs and drugs......and in jail.....and are unmarried...or divorced...and are communists....Nazis....Klansmen.....Hitler!!!
SSDD
A logical assumption for believers, since we are rational beings and are made in His image.
The Father knew that His wonderful earth would just be one big atheist and pagan mill if He did not provide some proofs of His existence. He couldn't just talk to one guy and expect all of us skeptics to believe what that guy says forever.
He's got a plan for His creation. It involves free choice, not robotic worship. And He has revealed His plan in 'diverse' ways to numerous folks. He has numerous times foretold and fulfilled detailed parts of it as proof. He has used miracles witnessed by millions and documented by many as proof. He gets the proof thing. He knows we are naturally hard-headed skeptics. He had to continually remind even the direct eye-witness generations of His miraculous efforts to free them (Israel) from slavery in Egypt, for example.
Christ turned water into wine, healed the sick, freed the possessed, walked on water, read minds, foretold the future, fed thousands from a handful of food, walked through walls, calmed storms and raised the dead. STILL, some of His own disciples could not believe that what He'd been predicting - His death and resurrection - could really happen. Thomas, of course, is famous for his doubt. The risen Christ miraculously appeared to the other disciples, showed off His pierced hands and feet and even the hole in His side where the soldier thrust in the spear to confirm His death.
Yet Thomas still did not believe Christ had risen. Till He showed up again:
"Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing."
The continued existence of atheists was, of course, expected and predicted by God. It's nature. As He's pointed out in His requests that we attempt to control our natural tendencies in favor of greater spiritual motivations.
In this dispensation of grace, He's made it perfectly clear that faith is the basis for His acceptance of individual believers. You can't good-work your way into His family. Faith is required. And He's made clear what's required to demonstrate the saving faith. You need to understand His plan, recognize the proofs of it and acknowledge Christ's role in it.
There will always be those who doubt the proofs because the final physical proofs ended way back shortly after the dispensation of grace started two thousand years ago. The doubt, again, is natural. That is why, as Christ reminds Thomas, that faith is so valued and rewarded by God:
"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name."
Faith certainly is a precious gift. And "faith comes by hearing". There is a great deal of documentation to study regarding His plan. His word includes His plan in detail and in summarized form. In symbolic reference and in allegory. In parables and in agriculture analogies. In types and in examples. He wants everyone to understand and believe which is why He presents it in various ways.
But not everyone will. That is the cost of freedom.
The vast majority of Indians, for example, have been Hindu for centuries. If you are born in India of Hindu parents, you are overwhelmingly likely to be a Hindu. If you are born to Christian parents in the US, chances are you will be a Christian.
Is it an act of a loving Being to burn forever those who were raised in the nonchristian faith and remained true to it, in your personal opinion?
ElectricStrawberry wrote: A belief in God is not necessary to have purpose in life, a system of ethics, love, or logical thought.....and a belief IN God does not necessarily lead to a “just, caring, and secure society”. Pure nonsense dressed up as “logical thought” to appeal to those with Faith so they can justify calling atheists unethical, loveless, purposeless, unjust, uncaring, insecure, etc etc etc.....”atheism is a religion” is equally nonsensical. Me going about my life without a belief in God is in no way a “religion.”
Nevadan: You are absolutely correct in saying that belief in God is not necessary to have a personal morality, a personal view on the purpose of life, experiencing and giving love, bravery, courage, and on and on.
The problem for atheists, in my opinion, is that while it is true that belief in God is unnecessary for “a” morality, “a” purpose, etc. - it is equally true that the atheist has no foundation upon which to judge right from wrong. Why? Because the atheist has reduced such questions to mere “preferences”. Questions such as whether or not to steal, lie, cheat, murder, etc. are placed on the same level as preferences for which flavor of ice cream one prefers. This is because the atheist has no transcendant moral foundation (other than their own personal beliefs) upon which to judge right from wrong.
In fact, if atheism is true, and there is no God, then questions of right from wrong would be nonsenical. Such questions should have no meaning. If one doesn’t know what the color “blue” is, how can one identify it when he sees it? He can’t. Atheism provides no transcendant, moral foundation upon which to identify “right” from “wrong”. The atheist can come up with their own personal “view” of what right and wrong is - but, this would not necessarily have any meaning or moral compunction upon anyone else - unless they just happen to agree.
In other words, it is nice when atheists want to be “moral” and mirror the moral convictions of their society - even live “superior” moral lives as compared to others, but they have no particular philosophical compunction to do so. They can create their own “personal philosophy” that they live by, but again, it is only “their” belief.
Atheism can “allow” for personal morality, a personal view of the “purpose of life”, and, it can also allow for “no morality” and no purpose in life. It can allow for a completely amoral, narcissitic view of life and morality without any violation of atheism. This is because atheism, by logical extention of the denial of God (and therefore the denial of transcendant moral absolutes) has no transcendant moral standard upon which to declare the acts of others as either right or wrong - only personal conviction and preferences. Atheism, taken to its logical end, removes the possibility of moral absolutes that all must/should adhere to.
The fact that most people, even atheists, live as though they do know what murder is, what stealing is, what lying is, what “unfair” is, demonstrates (for me at least) one of the compelling evidences for the existence of God.
This does not “prove” the existence of God, but I do believe it is one of the compelling evidences for God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.