Silly Religion

[Sculptor]

Definition; Atheism
noun
disbelief OR lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

A poor definition. It fails to leave anything to "agnosticism" as a distinct position,

Agnosticism has meaningless.

[Sculptor]

It's remarkable that you can get out of bed in the morning, since it would take faith to believe your feet would hit the floor.

Rubbish.
Gravity trumps faith idiot!

[Immanuel Can]

Rubbish.
Gravity trumps faith idiot!

Well, given the profundity of your insights, the capaciousness of your vocabulary, the generous-spirited humanity of your manner, and the scintillating nature of your insights, I know you'll find it impossible to imagine why I would ever forgo the pleasure of this high intellectual discourse; however, against all probability, I am content to do so.

You're going nowhere. And that's fine. It's a choice, too.

[surreptitious57]

I do not need faith when I get out of bed in the morning because I know the floor is there
Faith is not necessary when you have knowledge because there is no need to believe in something if you actually know it is true
Belief and knowledge occupy entirely different parts of the epistemological spectrum so there is no convergence between them

[surreptitious57]

You can believe something and you can know something but you cannot believe and know something simultaneously

[Immanuel Can]

I do not need faith when I get out of bed in the morning because I know the floor is there
Faith is not necessary when you have knowledge because there is no need to believe in something if you actually know it is true
Belief and knowledge occupy entirely different parts of the epistemological spectrum so there is no convergence between them

“…one can be deceived in many ways; one can be deceived in believing what is untrue, but on the other hand, on is also deceived in not believing what is true; one can be deceived by appearances, but one can also be deceived by the superficiality of shrewdness, by the flattering conceit which is absolutely certain that it cannot be deceived.” -- Soren Kierkegaard.

[BardoXV]

You can believe something and you can know something but you cannot believe and know something simultaneously

That is not true, a person can believe what they know. A person can do both at the same time.

[BardoXV]

“…one can be deceived in many ways; one can be deceived in believing what is untrue, but on the other hand, on is also deceived in not believing what is true; one can be deceived by appearances, but one can also be deceived by the superficiality of shrewdness, by the flattering conceit which is absolutely certain that it cannot be deceived.” -- Soren Kierkegaard.

Kierkegaard was correct on this, the YEther's and YEC's demonstrate both very well.

[Sculptor]

Rubbish.
Gravity trumps faith idiot!

Well, given the profundity of your insights, the capaciousness of your vocabulary, the generous-spirited humanity of your manner, and the scintillating nature of your insights, I know you'll find it impossible to imagine why I would ever forgo the pleasure of this high intellectual discourse; however, against all probability, I am content to do so.

You're going nowhere. And that's fine. It's a choice, too.

Oh yeaah! LOL

Run away, run away!

[Sculptor]

“…one can be deceived in many ways; one can be deceived in believing what is untrue, but on the other hand, on is also deceived in not believing what is true; one can be deceived by appearances, but one can also be deceived by the superficiality of shrewdness, by the flattering conceit which is absolutely certain that it cannot be deceived.” -- Soren Kierkegaard.

Kierkegaard was correct on this, the YEther's and YEC's demonstrate both very well.

It is a common enough failing for the theist to attempt to make non theists conform to the same mistakes that they themselves have made. I see this all the time.
This is pure projection.
Yet making the God Claim is not symmetrical in any sense. The failure comes when the theist washes his hands of evidence and reason, and in abandoning them adopts the hopeless position of FAITH.
Clearly the scientist and the atheist do not have that problem, as the claims of science can be verified with evidence and reason, or abandoned with new evidences, whilst the position of the atheists makes no claims at all. On the other hand anything goes, when you simply believe. Fairies can be real, ghost can haunt, grandmothers can return from the dead and you can be guaranteed eternal life.
Simple self deception.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh yeaah! LOL

Run away, run away!

With such logical skills, too. Such wit. Such repartee. Such verbal legerdemain.

No wonder I'm utterly terrified of you. Yes, yes, I'll run as fast and far as I can.

[Sculptor]

Oh yeaah! LOL

Run away, run away!

With such logical skills, too. Such wit. Such repartee. Such verbal legerdemain.

No wonder I'm utterly terrified of you. Yes, yes, I'll run as fast and far as I can.

I'd recommend a long run off a short pier.

[RCSaunders]

Hi IC,

Nothing up to here actually says anything we've not already discussed.

I know there is nothing supernatural,

If you "know" it, you should be able to tell other people how they should know it too. At the very least, you could be a decent chap and help them to find the route you've gone down.

Unlike evangelical Christians I do not believe my purpose in life is to get in the face of others to convince them of what to believe and how to live. In fact, I regard the idea that one ought to be looking out for everyone else as one of the major evils of this world and is nothing more than meddling in others lives.

Of course I can explain what I know to anyone who is interested in learning the truth. Very few people are interested in the truth, however, because credulity is easier and their superstitions are comforting. A few acquaintances along my road in life have been keen to know the truth and to do the ruthless hard work of rigorous learning and thinking required to learn it. Such are very rare, and all the others would rightly consider my being "a decent chap ... help[ing] them to find the route," an uninvited and unwelcome intrusion in their lives.

But I really don't think you know it at all, RC, however much you may want to assert it.

Well, I can live with what you think about me, and your penchant for reading minds, though you have no way of knowing what I want.

If he's mistaken, he'll discover it. If he's not, you will.

It's quite the opposite, RC.

If I'm wrong, neither he nor I will ever know it. If he's wrong, we'll both know it...but far too late for him, unfortunately.

Oh, you won't have to die to learn the truth. If any part of your life is being determined by wrong choices based on superstitious beliefs, the consequences cannot be evaded, and may even be the cause of your death. More likely you will become conscious of a feeling of being out of control, and experience a kind of nameless dread and a sense of guilt that all the confession in the world cannot rid you of. Perhaps it will be something you know you have to work to achieve but choose to pray about it instead, or let some feeling you call compassion or empathy determine a choice your best reason would never make which results in a consequence that totally disappoints you, but whatever it is, it cannot be evaded.

There never has been, "one genuine creation, one genuine miracle, one genuine prayer answered, one genuine prophecy, one genuine revelation, one genuine incarnation, or one genuine resurrection. ...

That's clearly untrue, ...

If it were that clear it would be obvious. Once something is demonstrated to be true, it becomes unnecessary to promote it. No one has to promote and argue for the nature of the chemical elements being what they are as described to be in the periodic table of the elements, no one has to campaign and have demonstrations to convince people that electricity can be used to light our buildings, cook our meals, refrigerate our food, and wash and dry our clothes, and there or no organization dedicated to spreading the word that heavier than air flight is possible or that sound, pictures, and information can be transmitted wirelessly.

... because it's already been "broadcasted," and not everybody believes it. You're not merely reckoning without the fact that not everybody has the same experiences; your also reckoning without the perfidy and obduracy of the human heart.

I do not regard written works as reliable sources of news. Anyone, except the extremely gullible, knows most of the things written in books, or broadcast in the media, or repeated and believed by lot's of people are usually untrue and only fools believe any of those things unless they can observe the facts for themselves.

Atheists don't want to know. That's why they claim to know what, rationally, we can see they could never know.

A little more mind reading? I'd say, theists don't want to know the truth because they are so comfortable with their beliefs and the truth would be too demanding, but I cannot read minds, and do not know any individual's motives for his superstitious beliefs. I only know they are wrong.

Cause only pertains to events

I'm afraid that's, at most, a half-truth, RC.

One of the "events" to which causes pertain is such things as creations and births. Hence, the existence of all contingent things is also a matter of cause and effect.

But that is exactly what I said. The events you describe are explained by the entities that do them. My argument was that events to not cause events and there is no such absurdity as imagined by Hume of an event called, "a cause," that explains another event called, "the effect." No event explains creation, a creator explains creation, no event explains birth, a mother explains birth. No event precedes or causes existence, existence precedes all events. There is no such thing as a, "first cause."

There is no such thing as a, "single cause," of anything. When I walk into my kitchen and flick the light switch a Humean would say my flicking the switch caused the light to come on. That is not true. If there were no outside power lines connected to the wiring in the house, I could flick the switch forever, and the light would never come on. If the power generating plant shut down, flicking the switch would cause nothing. All real life "causes" are like that. There is never just one event that is the, "cause," of anything. What is naively called, "cause," is actually, "an explanation," of what or how things behave, and that explanation is always the nature of the things that behave.

But there is no infinite regress of causes, and no infinite regress of origins.

That, at least, is correct, because there is not such thing as a, "chain of causes."

The principle actually reads, "Everything that has a beginning has a cause."

If you mean, there is an explanation for why every entity becomes that entity, that is true. Everything changes and some changes result in the end of some entities (as when an organism dies) and other changes result in new entities (as when carbon under extreme heat and pressure becomes a diamond). But existence itself does not have a beginning. The principles is called the law of conservation of matter and energy. It changes, it does not begin or end.

Now, you may still decide you don't want to believe in God.

What I want has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe. I told you before, I would love for there to be a God. Why do you think I spent years studying everything I could find that seemed the least bit plausible with regard to deity. Why do think I read and studied the Bible and learned Greek, and even some Hebrew so I could study and learn what it really said and meant. Why would I study all of the Biblical theologians, and read thousands of pages of commentary if I did not want there to be a God.

The fact is, you want there to be a God, and I think that is sufficient reason for you to believe there is a God and rationalize away every sound question of that belief. I wanted there to be a God, but what I wanted was not sufficient reason for me to believe in what all evidence and reason demonstrated was not possibly true.

But you'll never be able to say that God didn't do right by you.

Well, that is certainly true. [As an aside, you'll appreciate. I've known self-avowed atheists who claim they hate God.]

I see you are being assaulted on other fronts, so I'll stop here and not interfere in your battles. I cannot stand with you in defense of your beliefs, but I certainly stand with you in defense of your freedom to declare what you believe in any way you choose.

[Immanuel Can]

I see you are being assaulted on other fronts, so I'll stop here and not interfere in your battles. I cannot stand with you in defense of your beliefs, but I certainly stand with you in defense of your freedom to declare what you believe in any way you choose.

Well, should we pause there, then? I'm okay with that.

I'm still enjoying our discussion, but we have both expressed ourselves clearly and frankly so far, I think. And I trust we're fine with continuing to hear from each other.

I, like you, would agree with the principle that we may not agree with what another person says, but we should stand firmly for their right to say it. Dialogue is the way to better things; and it's a sad symptom of our world when people on different sides of a debate cannot talk civilly and part with respect. (I'm thinking of much of the current political discourse here.) The hope is that dialogue may lead to a broader perspective on the issues; or that at the very least, people can learn to disagree agreeably, no?

And I am certain you and I can.

I feel better for the exchange. It's been rewarding discussing these issues with you. I would relish further exchanges on any issue, so feel free to bring up anything you think hangs uncomfortably open at the moment, or anything that prompts your interest in the future.

Regards,

IC

[surreptitious57]

I do not need faith when I get out of bed in the morning because I know the floor is there
Faith is not necessary when you have knowledge because there is no need to believe in something if you actually know it is true
Belief and knowledge occupy entirely different parts of the epistemological spectrum so there is no convergence between them

one can be deceived in many ways : one can be deceived in believing what is untrue but on the other hand one is deceived in not believing what is true : one can be deceived by appearances but one can be deceived by the superficiality of shrewdness by the flattering conceit which is absolutely certain that it cannot be deceived - Soren Kierkegaard

This does not apply to your specific example of having faith that the floor is there everytime you get out of bed
You know very well that it is there so the deception Kierkegaard is referring to here does not apply to that at all
That example is so trivial as to render it meaningless so you need to provide something significantly more subtle
Being deceived in some ways is possible but not in all ways otherwise absolutely everything we experience is false