Athiest what do you believe?

by real one 108 Replies latest jw friends

  • THE GLADIATOR
    THE GLADIATOR
    It is like discussing the existence of fairies with someone who bases their beliefs on 'My Big Book of Fairies', who refuses to look at other books which would show that book is a collection of stories, and who at the same time insists that the Boogieman doesn't exist even though there are other books about him.

    This is very true.

    Of course most fairy stories contain a wicked witch and they all try to cast spells on each other but in the end the good fairy wins.

    Like the Bible they are stories that attempt to explain the negative and positive energies at work in the universe, without which it could not exist.

    These story books can not be taken at face value or believed literally. Only Gladiators are real.

    GT

  • inrainbows
    inrainbows

    Gladioli

    A posse ad esse non valet consequentia.

  • Caedes
    Caedes
    While not accepted by courts, however, hearsay CAN be truth. And there are "facts" but most, including most so-called "christians" DENY those facts. I recently had a person "of faith" (???) tell me that he/she had run some of what I shared by others ("rational" people, but apparently "of faith")... and they, too, totally disagreed, stated it could not be.

    The FACT is, however, that some receive holy spirit... and by means of the "gifts" of that spirit... can do things (for example, hear spirits). It is the TRUTH... and a FACT. That others don't believe it because THEY can't hear/see/do... or because they cannot yet wrap their heads around the concept and/or the possibility... does not make it untrue or not a fact. It just makes it... unbelievable for them... unless and until some kind of empirival evidence is presented. Unfortunately, empiricalness has to do with the PHYSICAL world... and what I and others are speaking about is of the SPIRIT world. And the two are not the same.

    Hearsay can be truth but without evidence it nothing more than opinion. You talk about how someone not being able to grasp a concept does not mean it is untrue (as I am sure anyone who has studied quantum mechanics will testify to) I agree, some on this board are incapable of comprehending the theory of evolution. Their in-comprehension does not make the theory any less correct. What does make it correct are verifiable facts.

    The simple fact is that if you wish to talk about a supernatural spirit realm then you have to concede that there will never be empirical evidence and thus you can only ever talk about opinion and belief never fact. I have no issue with anyone who wishes to believe in things without evidence (as long as they arent flying buildings into planes etc) but please don't insult my intelligence by equating your magical thinking with factual information. When you have some empirical evidence then you can talk to me about facts, until then have the courage to call it by it's proper name, faith.

    Ah, but surely you'd have to prove those psychic powers, eh?

    For the sake of argument discusssion a 'strong' theos would be an externalised supernatural entity capable of action, with a personality and the possibility of proof.

    A 'weak' theos could be anything from a non-supernatural (i.e. evolved entity) given supernatural explanation to an idea, that may or may not be externalised and/or subject to proof.

    Perhaps you could give an example of the sort of nonsense a weak atheist ought to believe in.

    Someone not really belieiving in Bible god but conceeding that it might exist would have to do the same to Qu'ran god, or indeed Norse pantheon gods, and having gone that far is not far removed from conceeding the possible existence of other anthropological super-natural projections. You can easily get from Bible god to the whole tooth fairy/spaghetti monster/invisable pink unicorn gamut and not actually change levels of demonstrable proof.

    I wouldn't insult you by expecting you to take my extra-ordinary claims without evidence would I?

    I am not sure you have fully explained the difference in your two positions, there can never be empirical proof of the supernatural by definition. Is your god limited in his powers?

    As I outlined earlier in this thread, since I cannot disprove your god, santa claus, the tooth fairy, allah or the celestial tea-cup then I cannot say there is zero possibility any of them exist. I have no problem with assigning your god the same probability of existence as a celestial tea-cup. What you have outlined is an argument for the non-existence of your deity not one of faulty logic in my thinking.

  • inrainbows
    inrainbows

    caedes

  • inrainbows
    inrainbows

    Caedes

    there can never be empirical proof of the supernatural by definition. Is your god limited in his powers?

    My definiton of supernatural is something not explained by our current understanding of the laws of physics, cosmology, or natural selection.

    A god that DID pre-exist this Universe and that WAS independent of our space-time and that DID not have an origin would be able to prove itself and would be as supernatural. Of course, no such god has ever proved itself, hiding behind ineffability (Shaman talk for "can't answer that").

    I have no problem with assigning your god the same probability of existence as a celestial tea-cup.

    Ah, but what if I believe in the IDEA of 'god'? Maybe that 'god' is what 'connects' people? That is is nothing other than a consequence of sentient being aware of themselves and will have developed as an idea wherever creatures become sentient and realise that there are shadows... everywhere... and that you can't see what is in shadows but if you're a thinking creature you can IMAGINE it.

    Such a defuse entity is not even an entity, it is a force, and it might not even be a measurable one outside of the mind of those that see things that way. God as a paradigm.

    But as it's only possible proof is in the thoughts of the person holding such a belief, unless the person holdin such a belief is lying about having such a belief, then they have a personally provable god that is not supernatural, as the only proof required is thought. Cogito ergo theos summae - "I think therefore god is" (I think, my Latin is dreadful).

    Of course, they cannot prove it to others but as the only proof needed for another person is the acceptence that someone could indeed have such an idea, a god of that description is far more provable than the normal gamut of re-hashed stone age monster skymen or modernistic illustrations of the unprovability of such old-fashioned ideas.

    It's like the idea of a soul. I think this is based on dreaming. A soul is a pretty reasonable supposition to explain dreaming to early man. Therefore any sentient ctreatures that have evolved and experience any state like dreaming will have developed a similar idea to explain it.

    We are the story tellers. Dolphins and chimps might be smart, but I'm not convinced they are story tellers. And having developed the ability to tell stories (probably because it wooed the ladies), and developed it (as those with the gift of the gab got laid more often), it is natural we came up with stories to explain things... even if they didn't need explaining.

    Ideas of god and souls are natural concequences of creative story telling and dreams. They evolved with us. As they were never ever really anything other than ideas, of course they exist.

  • Caedes
    Caedes

    Inrainbows,

    That's my name, don't wear it out!

    I know it's exasperating isn't it?

  • inrainbows
    inrainbows

    Yah, hit reply by mistake, read it again

  • Caedes
    Caedes

    Inrainbows,

    Ultimately it comes down to a natural process or a supernatural force. Since you can't empirically prove the existence of supernatural forces I am happy to discount the possibility of them. If you wish to redefine your 'god' to be a natural process then you would be able to prove it exists, if you are happy with such a limited 'god' then good for you.

    You can argue semantics and twist theism as much as you like, but if your god is in anyway outside the realm of the natural physical world then I am entitled to reject your god due to lack of evidence.

    If you wish to worship natural forces then I can make you an altar to gravity (or the natural force or idea of your choice) for a very reasonable fee.

  • IP_SEC
    IP_SEC

    I believe in kindness when it is deserved.
    I believe in pride in oneself.
    I believe in leaving the world a better place.
    I believe in truth
    I believe in freedom
    I believe in the human race

    I hope I am remembered as kind
    I hope I am remembered as proud
    I hope I leave the world better than before I came
    I hope I will always be truthful
    I hope in freedom for all
    I hope our race will triumph over its dark side

  • real one
    real one

    they can prove the rock exists

    where did the rock come from?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit