Philosophy Now Forum

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:24 pm “Faith is believing what you know ain't so.”

― Mark Twain

Wow. That's so impressive. I guess you got me there. I mean, if Mark Twain said it, it's got to be gospel.

[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=482782 time=1606951244 user_id=9431]
[quote=Sculptor post_id=482780 time=1606947849 user_id=17400]
“Faith is believing what you know ain't so.”

― Mark Twain
[/quote]
Wow. :roll: That's so impressive. I guess you got me there. I mean, if Mark Twain said it, it's got to be gospel.
[/quote]

Gospel. Heh.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 12:20 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:24 pm “Faith is believing what you know ain't so.”

― Mark Twain

Wow. That's so impressive. I guess you got me there. I mean, if Mark Twain said it, it's got to be gospel.

We should all have a lot of faith, especially in atheism.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 2:56 am We should all have a lot of faith, especially in atheism.

It takes a lot for one to believe one's succeeded in eliminating the very possibility of the Supreme Being for the universe, especially without so much as a rational strategy to do it. As the saying goes, "I just don't have enough faith to be an Atheist."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:49 pm
My answer to that is in Hebrews 1:3, and yes, that's my honest answer. I believe it absolutely.

Thanks, but ''The Son is the radiance'' is not an image of God. It's just a fable that has spawned from sound heard as words from within the human primate.

The truth is, Immanuel cannot show an actual image of God, all Immanuel can show are words that are made of sound.

You have FAILED Immanuel ... keep trying, else just admit there is no such thing as GOD.

Please show a proper image...like this

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 12:20 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:24 pm “Faith is believing what you know ain't so.”

― Mark Twain

Wow. That's so impressive. I guess you got me there. I mean, if Mark Twain said it, it's got to be gospel.

He's smarter than a deluded idiot like you.
Run along now and get on your knees to god, you little sycophant.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:14 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 2:56 am We should all have a lot of faith, especially in atheism.

It takes a lot for one to believe one's succeeded in eliminating the very possibility of the Supreme Being for the universe, especially without so much as a rational strategy to do it. As the saying goes, "I just don't have enough faith to be an Atheist."

Faith is the death of reason. It is not a virue. It is pathetic.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 2:56 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 12:20 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:24 pm “Faith is believing what you know ain't so.”

― Mark Twain

Wow. That's so impressive. I guess you got me there. I mean, if Mark Twain said it, it's got to be gospel.

We should all have a lot of faith, especially in atheism.

Atheism requires no faith, and is in fact a rejection of it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:24 am

Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Tue Dec 01, 2020 11:28 pm I need a real definition of "God" to go further. If you won't express one, then your belief is NOT able to be provable to anyone but those who already believe.

I don't think you "need" any such thing. The universe is something you believe in, I'm sure; but it's not boundable by the kinds of definitions you seem to want. I've certainly given you aspect-emphasizing definitions, but you seem to want something more than that, though I cannot say what it is. But "need"? No. "Want"? Maybe.

Actually, your argument with Theism seems to really break down to a couple of very simple possibilities:

1. Scott cannot believe in God because Scott hasn't seen God.

2. Scott cannot believe in God, because Scott doesn't even understand what "God" means.

I think the first more plausible than the second, but neither seems a very good way to argue.

We might add a third possibility:

3. Scott does not believe any evidence for God exists, because he keeps himself from knowing what any such evidence might be.

Again, not a great line of defence.

But I hear you when you say:

...the religious come with a whole life and background that cannot understand that atheism is NOT just some other competing religion. That is, they are normalized to believe in God that their logic shortcuts with the assumption that ALL people MUST believe in some form of belief in a God.

However, this argument has the disadvantage of being easily reversible, with no certainty of which accusation is correct. Like any mere ad hominem, it can bite back. It can say that the Atheist is "normalized" to believe that no rational person can possibly believe in the existence of God, so after that, he simply ignores all the evidence. And this is, in fact, the critique that the Bible mounts with reference to Atheism:

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and they exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them up to vile impurity in the lusts of their hearts, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for falsehood, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever." (Romans 1:18-24)

Which way is it? Is Theism just "wishful thinking," or is Atheism "wishful thinking?" I guess it depends on what one thinks of what God has said.

Immanuel Can wrote:

I don't think you "need" any such thing. The universe is something you believe in, I'm sure; but it's not boundable by the kinds of definitions you seem to want.

To be sure, something exists and that something is what we often call "the universe".
What is your reasoning that what exists did not create itself, but was created by something else that wanted to created it? As a theologian you need to be able to answer that question.
Saint Paul said as quoted by I C

His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made,

This what we now call laws of nature/ science. Laws of nature / science are distinguishable from the myriad creatures that Paul refers to as

corruptible mankind, of birds, four-footed animals, and crawling creatures.

all of which are subject to the laws of nature/science.

Immanuel in the post quoted has made it fairly plain what "God has said". I'd endorse that reasoning.

What Immanuel Can has not said is why he presumes that God has made it plain to us what we should do about existence itself . Existence itself, ruled as it is by certain immutable laws, means we have all been thrown into life willy nilly.

The hymn 'O God of Bethel' contains this line 'Through each perplexing path of life our wand'ring footsteps guide'. Laws of nature/science cannot guide us, but knowing nature's laws helps us to make better choices than if we knew nothing of laws of nature/science. The wise scientist or agnostic will not be too haughty to express his fears and pleas in a hymn addressed to God of Bethel. ('Bethel' means literally 'House of God or El'). After all , only an idiot can be completely devoid of anxiety.

Where Immanuel Can goes astray is his certainty that he himself knows the particular moral code he subscribes to comes direct from God. Immanuel should know that whereas God is eternal; all moral codes are historical.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 11:21 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:14 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 2:56 am We should all have a lot of faith, especially in atheism.

It takes a lot for one to believe one's succeeded in eliminating the very possibility of the Supreme Being for the universe, especially without so much as a rational strategy to do it. As the saying goes, "I just don't have enough faith to be an Atheist."

Faith is the death of reason. It is not a virue. It is pathetic.

Atheism is the death of WISDOM...the death of actual philosophy.

Faith opens up more questions, indeed, requires FAR more reasoning than is achieved by cutting off such a philosophical POV.

[quote=attofishpi post_id=482833 time=1606993444 user_id=6293]
[quote=Sculptor post_id=482824 time=1606990912 user_id=17400]
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=482803 time=1606968892 user_id=9431]

It takes a lot for one to believe one's succeeded in eliminating the very possibility of the Supreme Being for the universe, especially without so much as a rational strategy to do it. As the saying goes, "I just don't have enough faith to be an Atheist."
[/quote]

Faith is the death of reason. It is not a virue. It is pathetic.
[/quote]

Atheism is the death of WISDOM...the death of actual philosophy.

Faith opens up more questions, indeed, requires FAR more reasoning than is achieved by cutting off such a philosophical POV.
[/quote]

In the rest of the English speaking world faith requires refusing to use reason. In the rational world where it isn't opposite day, atheism is the epitome of wisdom.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 12:04 pm

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 11:21 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 5:14 am
It takes a lot for one to believe one's succeeded in eliminating the very possibility of the Supreme Being for the universe, especially without so much as a rational strategy to do it. As the saying goes, "I just don't have enough faith to be an Atheist."

Faith is the death of reason. It is not a virue. It is pathetic.

Atheism is the death of WISDOM...the death of actual philosophy.

Faith opens up more questions, indeed, requires FAR more reasoning than is achieved by cutting off such a philosophical POV.

Faith is a dead end.
You are a dead end.

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 2:08 pm In the rest of the English speaking world faith requires refusing to use reason. In the rational world where it isn't opposite day, atheism is the epitome of wisdom.

What is clear from this thread is that you cannot argue with a faithful hound. They simply do not have the chops.

Theology is attempting to reasons about made up things. You can go deeper into a "holy" text than a book of information because the only limit is your imagination.

Advocate wrote: ↑Thu Dec 03, 2020 2:11 pm Theology is attempting to reasons about made up things. You can go deeper into a "holy" text than a book of information because the only limit is your imagination.

Until your imagination clashes with someone else's imagination, then people get killed.