What is BELIEF ?

by EdenOne 233 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  EdenOne

  I don't know exactly how the holy book came to be, except that is so old and passed from generation to generation. There are references to it made in ancient texts from Sumer. The content of the book was given to a few prophets directly by Spanx. Sometimes in dreams, sometimes in visions, sometimes through voices. But no one has ever seen Spanx, because he said that no one can see Spanx and remain living. But surely, the book must be of divine origin, because Spanx made sure that his word was preserved to our time.

  MRI's and other tests were performed on Spanx's believers, but at the time of the testing, no contacts took place. One never knows when Spanx will make contact.

  Eden
• 

  Viviane

  But surely, the book must be of divine origin, because Spanx made sure that his word was preserved to our time.

  OK, so you don't actually know anything except there is an old book.

  You've failed to prove lack of evidence equals lack of knowledge. Your entire argument is falling apart.
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  Jonathan Drake:

  
  

  really?

  Eden

  What? What am I missing!? Tell me!
• 

  EdenOne

  Remember that I'm playing the devil's advocate here. To me, Spanx's believer, there's abundant evidence. Now, I ask of you, atheist, how can you prove me that Spanx, whom you deny to exist, doesn't exist. How can you know for sure? Or do you not believe because you don't have sufficient evidence?

  Eden
• 

  Viviane

  Remember that I'm playing the devil's advocate here. To me, Spanx's believer, there's abundant evidence. Now, I ask of you, atheist, how can you prove me that Spanx, whom you deny to exist, doesn't exist. How can you know for sure? Or do you not believe because you don't have sufficient evidence?

  Huh? That's not at all what you were asking in your OP. You've totally changed your question, I suspect because your entire argument has fallen apart.

  If you want to get into specifics, then 1)the people making the assertion have to provide the evidence. If they are ignorant of that, well, that's their problem and 2) why would I try to prove a negative to you? Do you realize how illogical that is? and 3) I don't believe anything without a reason to. Neither you nor any other theists has every provided any evidence or other reason to believe in <deity of choice>.

  At this point, I'm not sure you even know what you are trying to argue.
• 

  EdenOne

  Viviane, it was you who started this nonsensical polemic of asking me to define god. I told you over and over that I'M NOT A THEIST, and therefore I don't know how to define a god for you. If you must ask that question, ask a theist.

  Since you were oblivious to what I wrote, I decided to oblige and make up a god for you; in any case, Cofty said that every god ever named is a human invention. So, I might just as well make up a prop god on the fly. Just to see where you were going with this. And naturally, I'm playing the part of a believer in said god. And I'm asking you the same questions a theist believer would ask.

  Naturally, this isn't what I was asking in my OP. But since you insisted in taking the thread in this direction, so be it.

  Eden
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  I'm also playing devils advocate I guess. I want to believe in spanx but you can't produce the book!
• 

  EdenOne

  Linking back to the OP ... Regarding Spanx, - and just pretend for a moment that you didn't have reliable information that I just made it up - do you:

  a) Claim the he doesn't exist because no god, or gods, or deities exist?

  b) Declare that you lack belief in Spanx because you don't have evidence concerning its existence?

  c) Declare that you cannot be sure that Spanx or any deity exists, because there's not enough evidence for or against or deities are unknowable?

  d) ... ?

  Eden
• 

  cofty

  Cofty said that every god ever named is a human invention

  No I didn't but yes it is.

  I said that it is possible to show that every god ever worshipped does not exist.

  There are two problems however.

  Believers get coy about defining their god because the more they say about it the easier it is to debunk. Therefore they try to be as vague as possible when debating about god. When it comes to proselytising though they have no problem being specific. Suddenly they know exactly what god does, says, likes and dislikes.

  Secondly believers hide behind the word "proof". It is a word that belongs to mathematicians. In the rest of our lives we deal with evidence not proof. The beliefs of a rational person are commensurate with available evidence.

  In the case of god - specifically the god of christian theism - there is an abundance of evidence to be taken into account. On the one hand there is no evidence for god and an overwhelming amount of compelling evidence against.

  Dishonest believers and agnostics are quick to point out that it can't be "proved" that there is no god as if that leaves the matter as a 50:50 proposition.

  They are only fooling themselves.

  If they ever serve on a jury I hope they are willing to be less obtuse.

  
  
  
• 

  EdenOne

  Cofty: Believers get coy about defining their god because the more they say about it the easier it is to debunk. Therefore they try to be as vague as possible when debating about god. When it comes to proselytising though they have no problem being specific. Suddenly they know exactly what god does, says, likes and dislikes.

  I agree.

  What then constitutes "evidence"? A theist will present as evidence certain things (creation, beauty, goodness, miracles, revelations, holy writings) that a rationalist will dismiss as valid evidence. Then the theist pulls the card that he experiences god within, a personal mystical connection that only people of faith can possibly experience. To them, that's evidence. I presume this too will be dismissed by a rationalist. So, if both cannot agree on what is "evidence", where do we stand regarding knowledge? To the theist, he "knows" because he has "evidence" that god exists.

  If an atheist has lack of evidence and evidence against, but no affirmative evidence of the inexistence of god ( because logically one can't prove a negative) what can he know about a given deity?

  Eden