Atheists and Theists are similar... [Archive]

Hikaru Zero

09-15-2004, 07:40 PM

Hikaru finds that religion is contradictive.

To say that you believe in a God.
Is to say that you believe in something.
Whereas you know what this something is,
As you describe it with words such as "loving," "powerful," "omnipotent," and "omniscient."

Thus, to be religious is to believe in a certain God that is quite specific.

Yet, most religions practice that the followers of such a religion are NOT omniscient (all-knowing), and that "God" defies all logic and reason.

If this is so, if God cannot be defined within the bounds of logic and reason,
How is it so that followers can know God?
Or even the very existance of a God that is as specific as they claim to define?
When God exists outside of all knowledge and logic?

Religions teach that no person can know all that is God.
Yet, they teach all that God is.

Hikaru finds this practice to be absurd, irrational, and dogmatic.

Instead, Hikaru allocates his belief to something that he CAN know. That is, humanity, which is definite and actual, rather than hypothetical.

Jatom

09-15-2004, 10:15 PM

Riddle me this... how can one choose to believe or not believe in something that is entirely undefinable, unfathomable and beyond the limits of our perception? If someone asked me if I believed in something the first thing I would want to know is what that something is.This depends on what you mean by wanting "to know what that something is." Perhaps you're questioning what God is made of, what He's 'composed' of. But when speaking of the Christian God, this is a category error. Speaking about the composition of an absolutely simple being, is like speaking about the color of Wednesday. Wednesdays don't have a color, and a simple being is not 'composed' of parts.

However, what you seem to be alluding to, is that the referent of a word needs to be empirically verifiable. A denial of metaphysics that would render much of your everyday speech pointless. Can you tell me what 'love' is? How about the laws of the logic you appeal to daily? What about 'perception'? Can you point me to the empiricial referent of these words--the object these words denote?

Jatom

09-15-2004, 10:19 PM

Well Hikaru, in Christianity God does not defy all logic.

Hikaru Zero

09-15-2004, 11:12 PM

Well Hikaru, in Christianity God does not defy all logic.

Christianity was not the only religion Hikaru was referring to, Jatom.

But insofar as Christianity goes, if the Christian God does exist in a way that humans can fathom, Hikaru suggests that if humans have reached that level of understanding and capability, our faith be put in ourselves, in humanity, rather than in an entity we cannot even prove exists.

Jatom

09-16-2004, 01:45 AM

First I don't believe that anyone can even begin to fully understand God, and what we do know is only analogous to whats really there.

Second, I think you draw a false delima. I don't believe it to be an either or situation: either our "faith" is in ourselves, or our "faith" is in God. I don't see it this way. You must first believe in order to understand or 'fathom' something. Belief in another being first implies belief in your own existence. Belief that pressing the 'Submit Reply' button will post what I've type, requires me to first trust my senses. I still trust that the 'Submit Reply' button will do its Job, it's just that knowledge of my own senses is a precondition for that trust, but this precondition doesn't take the place of that trust.

Hikaru Zero

09-16-2004, 05:33 AM

Jatom:

Faith is, as you quaintly put, not an either/or choice.

However, as an alternative to religion, which is proven time and time again to cause war, death, insanity, and strife, Hikaru offers the suggestion that humankind put its faith in something that appears (at least to him) more dependable.

It is merely an idea that is thrown up for suggestion, and is certainly not meant to be an ultimatum. :)

But, take it as you wish.

Hikaru thinks that trust is put into something that one does understand. Whereas, faith is put into something that one does not understand.

You put your trust into your senses, and because you understand firsthand how they work, you trust them to do what you know they are capable of doing.

However, you put faith into, say, the physics of the universe. This is something that you do not understand much of (unless you are a well-known scientist; if that is true, please correct me).

But the physics of the universe may one day result in the catastrophic destruction of all that humankind depends on to survive.

Whereas, your senses could never result in such.

Thus, Hikaru suggests to trust in mankind and nature,
And not an entity we cannot prove exists,
Much less know what it might be,
For nature will not result in our destruction,
And though humans squabble and kill often in today's world,
Our birth rate still exceeds our death rate,
And humankind would not allow its self-destruction,
As we all have an instinctive will to survive.

Jatom

09-16-2004, 06:50 AM

Jatom:

Faith is, as you quaintly put, not an either/or choice.
I actually was stating that there was no dilemma between placing "faith"in God, and placing "faith" in oneself, that both are entirely possible at the sametime without there being some sort of contradiction.

However, as an alternative to religion, which is proven time and time again to cause war, death, insanity, and strife,
This is beside the point. There are many things that can cause war, death, insanity, and strife. I'd argue that the misuse of Christianity causes such things, much like the misuse of a plastic bag can cause suffocation. But this does little to prove the truth or falsehood of a religion, only that it can be misused.
Hikaru offers the suggestion that humankind put its faith in something that appears (at least to him) more dependable.

It is merely an idea that is thrown up for suggestion, and is certainly not meant to be an ultimatum. :)

Ah, I see...
But, take it as you wish.

Hikaru thinks that trust is put into something that one does understand. Whereas, faith is put into something that one does not understand.

If you notice, I've quoted the word "faith" in this and in my previous post. I did this because the word "faith" was not used in the correct Biblical understanding of the word. I think you're using the word "faith" to mean unfounded belief, but ironicly enough, "faith" in the biblical sense of the word means "trust," and this trust is not an unfounded belief or a "blind faith" as many would make it out to be.
You put your trust into your senses, and because you understand firsthand how they work, you trust them to do what you know they are capable of doing.

I'd say, there are much to senses that we don't understand, how the mind and senses interact being one of them. But my analogy went further then this. Having faith or trust, that my senses actually correspond the external world, since it cannot be empirically proven the external world I perceive, doesn't only exist within my head. My point was that I must first believe that my senses actually correspond the external world before I can trust that the "Submit Reply" button will actually have an effect on the eternal world.
However, you put faith into, say, the physics of the universe. This is something that you do not understand much of (unless you are a well-known scientist; if that is true, please correct me).

No I am not a well-known scientist, just a laymen and a wannabe philosopher/theologian/Christian apologist :) but thanks for asking..
But the physics of the universe may one day result in the catastrophic destruction of all that humankind depends on to survive.

You're speaking of concepts that are beyond my scope to argue...

Whereas, your senses could never result in such.

Thus, Hikaru suggests to trust in mankind
Mankind is only finite in his understanding, and often times seem bent on the destruction of himself. I cannot place my trust merely in mankind, but choose instead to ultimitly place my trust in the Perfect Creator, and Sustainer of life.
and nature, And not an entity we cannot prove exists,
Depends on what what you're criteria of 'proof' is I guess. But I fear your method of "proving" existence probably cannot even account for itself, since it's probable some evidentialist method.

Much less know what it might be,
I could argue that I know what God is like through my experience with Him.

Hikaru Zero

09-16-2004, 01:25 PM

Hmm ...

Jatom, you are tough to argue with (in a non-heated way). =)

Suffice it to say that Hikaru has lost the point he was originally speaking of.

Thus, Hikaru asks: Why are you Christian? (if his intuition does him justice, and you do follow that discipline)

Jatom

09-17-2004, 07:56 AM

I'm a Christian because I realized that I was (and still am) a sinner, and in need of a savior. That my current state was a mere perversion of what it was originally supposed to be, and consequently I was unfit to be in the pressence of God. That God Himself had provided a way out, and I only needed to trust Him.

Razorofoccam

09-17-2004, 02:13 PM

YES

Atheists and theists are similar.
They believe in that which has NO EMPIRICAL GROUNDING.
They believe what they wish to believe.
Based nowhere in experience by humans.
Occam says there is evidence to falsify both religion and athiesm
That evidence is a total lack of verification for both the atheistic and theistic positions. Those posotions are WORDS..and no more.

No human HAS YET shown one iota of evidence for a religious god.
OR. For no god at all.

Occam

Razorofoccam

09-17-2004, 02:24 PM

Razorofoccam

09-17-2004, 02:33 PM

Hikaru Zero

09-17-2004, 06:15 PM

occam needs not a savior.
Why
Because his code of morals is in line with christian morality.
Though it did not originate in christian morality. [ and chistian morality did not originate with christ]

Morals are a thing made by humans.
Not by god and especially not as objective laws.

There is no objective morality, or fairness.
THERE IS ONLY US.
This is a result of 3 decades of observation/thought, without prejudice.

WE. are the arbiters of human morality.......live with it.

Occam

Hikaru agrees completely.

Jatom, Hikaru respects your belief in Christianity; please do not let this get confused anywhere throughout this or other topics. =)

Hikaru, though baptised and later confirmed a Christian, is no longer Christian for a number of reasons, including his believe that the Bible, despite its teachings, is NOT literally truthful, and only exists to be one large parable to teach morality.

Hikaru has respect for the Bible, he just does not believe it literally.

=====

Hikaru just thought to explains oemthing. He does not mean this explaination to be insultive; if you find it so, please accept this as Hikaru's apology.

Hikaru does not believe in Christianity because he does not enjoy Christianity's view of God.

In the Bible, it states that God is both all-knowing and all-forgiving. Surely, Jatom, you can agree with this?

If God is indeed all-knowing, then He must surely know that Hikaru is not Christian because he has not been provided with enough evidence that Christianity is true.

Were Christianity ever proven true to Hikaru, he would then become a Christian himself. Hikaru believes what he does now because it is a belief, and truth has not been proven. If truth ever were proven (on religious lines), then Hikaru would KNOW truth, rather than believe something else.

Since God is all-knowing, he surely must understand this about Hikaru.

Yet, in the Bible, it says that if you do not believe in Christianity throughout your life, you will not be saved, and the Gates of Heaven will not be open unto you.

Hikaru has asked several pastors and reverends this question: "If Hikaru went through his life as a non-Christian, because he has insufficient evidence to believe in Christianity, and then one day, Hikaru died, and saw God, and truth was bestowed unto him, and Hikaru repented his ways and became a Christian at that moment, would Hikaru still be saved?"

The answer to this question has been a resounding "No." The argument is that Hikaru did not believe in Christianity at all throughout his life, and that Hikaru would only be repenting to be saved.

Though Hikaru would actually be repenting because he now realizes that he is incorrect in believing what he did.

If God is ALL-KNOWING, then he must know the reasons why Hikaru doesn't believe in Christianity.

If God is ALL-FORGIVING, should he surely not understand that Hikaru made a mistake, and should he not forgive this mistake?

If God knows Hikaru's plight, and does not forgive this act of transgression (as pastors and reverends have all told him), then,

In truth,

Hikaru would rather not follow the Christian God at all.

And he would never worship a God that claims to be all-knowing and all-forgiving, that does not forgive or comprehend Hikaru's plight.

This is why Hikaru does not wish to follow Christianity. Again, he means no offense by explaining it the way he has, but this is one of his reasons, and this reason has yet to be defeated by any Christian.

AreYouExperienced

09-17-2004, 07:30 PM

Hikaru Zero

09-18-2004, 05:32 AM

S'pose AreYouExperienced and Occam have a good point there.

Thank you for clarifying. =)

Jatom

09-18-2004, 09:07 AM

YES

Atheists and theists are similar.
They believe in that which has NO EMPIRICAL GROUNDING. As do you, otherwise your empiricism would never get off the ground.

They believe what they wish to believe.How does this logically follow?

Based nowhere in experience by humans.You have yet to show this
Occam says there is evidence to falsify both religion and athiesm
That evidence is a total lack of verification for both the atheistic and theistic positions. Those posotions are WORDS..and no more.First evidentialism is self-deafeting. Second words have concepts behind them...you know this, so why play stupid games occam?

Jatom

09-18-2004, 09:46 AM

Hikaru agrees completely.

Jatom, Hikaru respects your belief in Christianity; please do not let this get confused anywhere throughout this or other topics. =)

Hikaru, though baptised and later confirmed a Christian, is no longer Christian for a number of reasons, including his believe that the Bible, despite its teachings, is NOT literally truthful, and only exists to be one large parable to teach morality.

Hikaru has respect for the Bible, he just does not believe it literally.And I have respect for both you and your beliefs. Don't worry there's nothing wrong with a friendly discussion.

Hikaru just thought to explains oemthing. He does not mean this explaination to be insultive; if you find it so, please accept this as Hikaru's apology.

Hikaru does not believe in Christianity because he does not enjoy Christianity's view of God.Then it doesn't appear that you've rejected Christianity on any rational ground. I mean, that you don't enjoy Christianity's view of God says nothing for the truth or falsehood of that God--only that you don't like Him.

In the Bible, it states that God is both all-knowing and all-forgiving. Surely, Jatom, you can agree with this?No! Where is said that God is all-forgiving? To the contrary, I see that God is Just, and Holy (Take a look at Romans 2:5-11, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and Galatians 6:7-10)

If God is indeed all-knowing, then He must surely know that Hikaru is not Christian because he has not been provided with enough evidence that Christianity is true.Or perhaps Hikaru rejects the evidence that He is given on different grounds. Perhaps he sees God as unfair, and refuses to submit to such a God. Perhaps Hikaru's presuppositions force him to interpret the evidence in such a way that it is rendered invalid. Prehaps Hikaru must first challenge his presuppositions before he can examine the evidence clearly...

Were Christianity ever proven true to Hikaru, he would then become a Christian himself. Hikaru believes what he does now because it is a belief, and truth has not been proven. If truth ever were proven (on religious lines), then Hikaru would KNOW truth, rather than believe something else.

Since God is all-knowing, he surely must understand this about Hikaru.I'm sure God does.

Yet, in the Bible, it says that if you do not believe in Christianity throughout your life, you will not be saved, and the Gates of Heaven will not be open unto you.

Hikaru has asked several pastors and reverends this question: "If Hikaru went through his life as a non-Christian, because he has insufficient evidence to believe in Christianity, and then one day, Hikaru died, and saw God, and truth was bestowed unto him, and Hikaru repented his ways and became a Christian at that moment, would Hikaru still be saved?"

The answer to this question has been a resounding "No." The argument is that Hikaru did not believe in Christianity at all throughout his life, and that Hikaru would only be repenting to be saved Not that you wouldn't be repenting to be saved, just that it would be too late, and repentance would be imposible.

Though Hikaru would actually be repenting because he now realizes that he is incorrect in believing what he did.The point is Hikaru, your decision, would already be actualized, and you would be living out the consequences. If I choose not to drink water, than I would die. But upon dying it would be too late to change my mind.

If God is ALL-KNOWING, then he must know the reasons why Hikaru doesn't believe in Christianity.I'm sure He does.

If God is ALL-FORGIVING, should he surely not understand that Hikaru made a mistake, and should he not forgive this mistake?God is not all-forgiving, nevertheless, He's willing to forgive you right now. However, if you reject, He respects you decision.

If God knows Hikaru's plight, and does not forgive this act of transgression (as pastors and reverends have all told him), then,

In truth,

Hikaru would rather not follow the Christian God at all.

And he would never worship a God that claims to be all-knowing and all-forgiving, that does not forgive or comprehend Hikaru's plight.

This is why Hikaru does not wish to follow Christianity. Again, he means no offense by explaining it the way he has, but this is one of his reasons, and this reason has yet to be defeated by any Christian.Perhaps I'll discuss the last part with you later.

themnax

09-18-2004, 09:47 AM

yes
there is no natural requirement for nontangable forces and beings to not exist
and equaly none for whatever such may happen to exist to bear the slightest
resemblence to anything anyone has ever believed or immagined about them

sure everything anyone has ever believed could all (somehow, don't ask me how)
could ALL be true, but does or doesn't anyone (except a few of us maybe)
have the slightest idea how huge and diverse is even the physical material
universe, just what we can see with our own beady little optics,
really is?
how miniscule everything believed or immagined becomes by comparison
in the context of even materialy observable diversity?

so my own 'beliefs' are a patchwork of unverifyable guesswork too
but if you set aside the adament assumptions so popularly emotionaly romantic
what we are left with is that yes more then we can immagine
may and probably does exist
including quite possibly in nontangable forms
but is orders of maginitude unlikely to resemble any popular
assumption about them

and really how popular or otherwise they might happen to be
has nothing to do with likelyhood
only with how effectively they appeal to emotions that are as much a part
of any organism more complex then an amoiba as they are of
our own sentient creative selves

why do people have such a hard time simply admitting that
it is possible for there to be more then we know
when there cannot help but be orders of magnitude more then we know.

what we do know beyond what we can measure is what we can feel
and what we can feel does not dictate form
only motivates toward a sense of connectedness

leaves on a branch are each individual and individualy identifyable
yet at the same time completely contiguous with each other and the rest
of the tree.

magic, unknown, and god
not christianity, islam or any other name of belief

like those leaves on that branch we may and seem to be
part of some great tree, which to us, like the tree to
the leaves, is beyond our immagining

we can dance to someone else's ritual
we can make up our own
or we can simply experience that connectedness
without attempting to impose names and deffinicians
of our own invention on it

the only harm in either of these things is when we try
to insist on everyone else seeing with our own eyes
which can only lead to frustration and bloodshed because
each and everyone of us has our own eyes and hearts and minds

whatever does exist
i've not seen it take the place
of the kind of world (of human society) we live in
being created by how we live in it

and i for one can't immagine anyone logicly expecting it to

ok i'm rambling and repeating myself
well my only excuse is that the subject seems to insist on doing likewise

=^^=
.../\...

mother_nature's_son

09-18-2004, 11:16 AM

Then it doesn't appear that you've rejected Christianity on any rational ground. I mean, that you don't enjoy Christianity's view of God says nothing for the truth or falsehood of that God--only that you don't like Him.
Jatom,

People tend to embrace what works for them- in accordance to their particular chemistry and dynamic. We all have different approaches to things, because we are all unique individuals. Spirituality is no exception.
God, as I'm sure you would agree, is greater than us humans can possibly hope to imagine. God is unfathomable in the realm of thought. So we see human concepts of god come in many shapes, colors, and sizes.
Christianity, metaphorically, embodies a male characterization of god- 'the father'-. So what if somebody happens to identify better with a 'mother' version of god, for instance? Is this person 'wrong'?

Hikaru Zero

09-18-2004, 06:18 PM

"Then it doesn't appear that you've rejected Christianity on any rational ground. I mean, that you don't enjoy Christianity's view of God says nothing for the truth or falsehood of that God--only that you don't like Him."

Hikaru has mis-stated what he meant, apologies. He finds it hard to believe in Christianity not because he doesn't like the Christian view of God, but rather because he finds the Christian view of God to be contradictive; an oxymoron, of sorts.

"No! Where is said that God is all-forgiving? To the contrary, I see that God is Just, and Holy (Take a look at Romans 2:5-11, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and Galatians 6:7-10)"

I have been told by various pastors and reverends that God is all-forgiving.

Furthermore, though Hikaru is not knowledgable enough to know the direct passage(s) from the Bible (hats off to you for being so avid that you know the passages; or perhaps you used Google? ;), was it not said that repenting and praying to God will yield God's forgiveness of sins? Disbelieving in God is a sin, is it not?

"Or perhaps Hikaru rejects the evidence that He is given on different grounds. Perhaps he sees God as unfair, and refuses to submit to such a God. Perhaps Hikaru's presuppositions force him to interpret the evidence in such a way that it is rendered invalid. Prehaps Hikaru must first challenge his presuppositions before he can examine the evidence clearly..."

Hikaru would like to believe that his presuppositions do not lead him to bias. However, should this be the case, Hikaru must ask of Jatom what presuppositions he has lead him to this biased state of mind? For the reason that Hikaru has already explained, he believes the Christian view of God to be conflicting and unfair, and would not bow to an unjust God any more than he would bow to his unjust parents (which Hikaru is glad to be far away from at the moment =P).

"Not that you wouldn't be repenting to be saved, just that it would be too late, and repentance would be imposible."

Is it not the Christian belief that there is life beyond death? If so, if our souls experience everlasting life (whether in heaven or elsewhere), why would it be too late to repent, if my life would continue for at least aeons longer than it has already existed?

If Hikaru were bothered by the fact that he may not be saved, he would be repenting now. Hikaru would prefer to follow truth; not to follow a path that saves his own hide. He would not repent to be saved; rather, to follow truth. If Hikaru were offered two choices upon death: To save himself and follow a false God (should such a being exist), or to slip into unbeing and not follow a false God, Hikaru would choose unbeing simply as it is a matter of principle.

"The point is Hikaru, your decision, would already be actualized, and you would be living out the consequences. If I choose not to drink water, than I would die. But upon dying it would be too late to change my mind."

This is true. However, what consequences have Hikaru been living out? Ever since Hikaru ceased to believe in Christianity, he has found his mind to sharpen at an exponential rate (thinking outside the box, perhaps, rather than following?), he has found (or perhaps been presentented with the opportunity to choose) more truth about himself than he ever thought he would know. Hikaru sees only spiritual benefit rather than consequence.

"God is not all-forgiving, nevertheless, He's willing to forgive you right now. However, if you reject, He respects you decision."

Hikaru is pleased with the notion of God respecting his decision. =) That aside, Hikaru has been told by many "authorities" on Christianity that God IS indeed all-forgiving, and having read some of the Bible, Hikaru vaguely remembers (though perhaps it is a distorted memory?) the prospect that God is all-forgiving so long as one repents and makes an earnest effort not to sin.

"Perhaps I'll discuss the last part with you later."

If you like, you may send Hikaru a private message or an e-mail (hikaruzero@snine.net).

Hikaru finds that his only transgression with regard to Christianity is the fact that he does not believe in the Christian view of God, nor does he believe in Jesus being the saviour, or the Bible.

That aside, Hikaru follows as many of the Commandments as he is able, he follows morals and values that are set in Christianity, and he displays virtues that might be admired by Christians whenever it is possible for him to do so. Hikaru leads a life of honesty and integrity, and believes that Christianity supports such a life.

Hikaru simply finds it hard to believe that God might reject his (if-late) plea to follow truth, when he could not distinguish truth in his past life (assuming Hikaru is dead at this point).

Hikaru believes that a human which does not make their own decisions and does not seek truth is already dead. That being said, what is the difference between death by blindly following Christianity and never thinking for oneself and death by straying from a few Christian beliefs?

Jatom

09-20-2004, 07:44 AM

Jatom,

People tend to embrace what works for them- in accordance to their particular chemistry and dynamic. We all have different approaches to things, because we are all unique individuals. Spirituality is no exception.This is true, however, if one only dismisses something because he doesn't like it, then he hasn't dismissed it on any rational grounds.

Christianity, metaphorically, embodies a male characterization of god- 'the father'-. So what if somebody happens to identify better with a 'mother' version of god, for instance? Is this person 'wrong'?This person is wrong if their concept doesn't correspond to reality, just as I'd be wrong if I stated that the Earth was larger than the Sun. As a side note, Christian theology understands God to be neither male or female...and there are 'mother' references made in Bible about God as well.

mother_nature's_son

09-20-2004, 08:35 AM

This is true, however, if one only dismisses something because he doesn't like it, then he hasn't dismissed it on any rational grounds.'Rational grounds' do not apply here. By definition rationality excludes emotion and prejudice, both of which are essential in characterizing a human spirit.

This person is wrong if their concept doesn't correspond to reality, just as I'd be wrong if I stated that the Earth was larger than the Sun. Whose reality? Your reality? My reality?

As a side note, Christian theology understands God to be neither male or female...and there are 'mother' references made in Bible about God as well.Metaphorically speaking, not literally. The 'father and son' dominate the new testament.

Please contribute these references.

Jatom

09-20-2004, 08:36 AM

Hikaru has mis-stated what he meant, apologies. He finds it hard to believe in Christianity not because he doesn't like the Christian view of God, but rather because he finds the Christian view of God to be contradictive; an oxymoron, of sorts.OK, thanks for clearing that up.

I have been told by various pastors and reverends that God is all-forgiving.Either they're mistaken (as the Bible reveals otherwise) or I'm understanding "all-forgiving" to mean something it doesn't actually mean. So let me clarify. God has the ability to forgive all sins but His forgiveness is conditional, that is, a condition must be met in order for His forgiveness to take place (that condition being that one must first accept His forgiviness in order to be forgiven). Not all individuals meet the condition, thus not all are forgiven. I take "all-forgiving" to mean that not only does God have the ability to forgive every sin, but he actually does forgive every sin. But this cannot be the case, because not everyone fulfils the condition, so not everyone is forgiven, thus not every sin is forgiven.

Furthermore, though Hikaru is not knowledgable enough to know the direct passage(s) from the Bible (hats off to you for being so avid that you know the passages; or perhaps you used Google? http://www.hipforums.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif, was it not said that repenting and praying to God will yield God's forgiveness of sins? Disbelieving in God is a sin, is it not?Yes I agree that unbelieving is sin (the unforgivible sin) and repentance brings about God's forgiveness. But I'm not sure where you were going with this.

Hikaru would like to believe that his presuppositions do not lead him to bias. However, should this be the case, Hikaru must ask of Jatom what presuppositions he has lead him to this biased state of mind? For the reason that Hikaru has already explained, he believes the Christian view of God to be conflicting and unfair, and would not bow to an unjust God any more than he would bow to his unjust parents (which Hikaru is glad to be far away from at the moment =P).Correct, I do have presuppositions that lead me to believe a certain way, and we'd need to critique each others' worldviews in order the examine our presuppositions. But that's a task for a different time. Anyway, I was just offering another posibility that's all.

Is it not the Christian belief that there is life beyond death? If so, if our souls experience everlasting life (whether in heaven or elsewhere), why would it be too late to repent, if my life would continue for at least aeons longer than it has already existed?I think this may be an equivocation of the word "life" at any rate, the life you live now is where you make your choice, it's where you have the potential to make one choice or the other. The next "life" is your potential choice made actual. It'd be to late becuase you'd already be living out your choice, just as it'd be late to start drinking water after you died. Your choice is already actualized.

As a side note, where is it said that as long as one has life, he has the choice to repent?

If Hikaru were bothered by the fact that he may not be saved, he would be repenting now. Hikaru would prefer to follow truth; not to follow a path that saves his own hide. He would not repent to be saved; rather, to follow truth. If Hikaru were offered two choices upon death: To save himself and follow a false God (should such a being exist), or to slip into unbeing and not follow a false God, Hikaru would choose unbeing simply as it is a matter of principle.You're, of course, assuming that God is false. What of a different opinion, what if God were true and belief in the truth would save you?

This is true. However, what consequences have Hikaru been living out? Ever since Hikaru ceased to believe in Christianity, he has found his mind to sharpen at an exponential rate (thinking outside the box, perhaps, rather than following?), he has found (or perhaps been presentented with the opportunity to choose) more truth about himself than he ever thought he would know. Hikaru sees only spiritual benefit rather than consequence.No, no. Let's assume for the moment that Christianity is true. Now you're left with too options:
1. Accept Christ
2. Reject Christ

These to options each have their own consequence.
1. Eternal Life
2. Eternal Damnation

Now as far as your current situation goes, neither consequence (1) or (2) is currently actualized, since you haven't died yet.

Hikaru is pleased with the notion of God respecting his decision. =) That aside, Hikaru has been told by many "authorities" on Christianity that God IS indeed all-forgiving, and having read some of the Bible, Hikaru vaguely remembers (though perhaps it is a distorted memory?) the prospect that God is all-forgiving so long as one repents and makes an earnest effort not to sin.See my above on this matter. It does appear that we agree for the most part though...

...and I'll email you on the other part.

Jatom

09-20-2004, 09:10 AM

'Rational grounds' do not apply here. By definition rationality excludes emotion and prejudice, both of which are essential in characterizing a human spirit.I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this, or how this dispoves the notion that someone rejecting something simply because he doesn't like it, is him rejecting it on rational-less grounds.
Whose reality? Your reality? My reality?No, reality. The totality of all actual things

Metaphorically speaking, not literally. The 'father and son' dominate the new testament. And...?

Please contribute these references.Isaiah 66:9 "Do I bring to the moment of birth and not give delivery?" says the LORD . 'Do I close up the womb when I bring to delivery?' says your God."Isaiah 42:14 “I cry out like a travailing woman,” Isaiah 46:3 “Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, that have been borne by me from their birth, that have been carried from the womb.” Job 38:29 "From whose womb comes the ice?
Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens "Isaiah 49:15, “Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Yea, these may forget, yet will not I forget thee.” Isaiah 66:13, “As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you.” Matthew 23:37 “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets and stoneth them that are sent unto her! How often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”

Hikaru Zero

09-20-2004, 03:33 PM

"Whose reality? Your reality? My reality?"

Actuality.

"As a side note, where is it said that as long as one has life, he has the choice to repent?"

By definition of life, one always has choice. If one has life without choice, then I argue that they are already dead. For life without choice is merely action; not actually "life."

Beyond that, Jatom, you've done a good justice to Christianity.

After having a long (non-forum-related) talk with a friend last night about many things, Hikaru came to the conclusion that he respects the beliefs that Christians hold, but does not respect Christianity itself. This is due to the fact that (1) Christians have killed in the name of God, and this is clearly anti-Christian, which reinforces Hikaru's view of an oxymoronic Christianity, and (2) Almost every Christian that Hikaru has met has tried to convert him in some way.

Hikaru understands that perhaps God respects his decision to not believe (or perhaps suspect judgment about?), and Hikaru respects God back for that reason (whether or not God does or doesn't exist). However, Hikaru doesn't respect God's "fan club" because they DON'T respect his decision.

But you've done a good justice to Christianity today, as I now see there is hope for some followers of Christianity, some hope of respect and discussion without dogmatism and ignorance. =)

Either way, Hikaru doesn't like to say that he doesn't believe in the Christian God. Rather, Hikaru would say that he's suspended judgment about the existance of such; meaning he is agnostic.

It is not that Hikaru disbelieves in God, but merely that he doesn't know whether or not God exists, and because he has no proof of the existance of God, cannot come to the conclusion that God either does or doesn't exist.

Hikaru can see where disbelieving God would be punished by eternal damnation, if one did not repent during their lifetime. However, what of those who neither believe nor disbelieve in God, simply due to a lack of evidence and a rational train of thought?

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, that killeth the prophets and stoneth them that are sent unto her!"

Wait, the prophet-slayers went around getting people stoned? (laughs) Okay, Hikaru knows that "stoneth" in this case refers to crushing with giant rocks, but he thought this passage a tad bit funny. ;)

J_Lazarus

09-20-2004, 07:13 PM

This is absolutely horrible:

..in that they both make the statement which essentially is: "I know."

They both make some form of a leap of faith, whether it be faith in a certain doctrine/sabbath, or faith in human logic and rationality.

By extension, one could say that atheists ARE theists, they just happen to follow a secular set of "commandments" (the rules/constraints of logic).

Any thoughts? Yes, my initial thought is that you have zero clue about logic, rationality, atheism, theism, and the various positions that may come out of or result in an atheistic view of reality.

(1) Not all theists claim to work solely on groundless faith - many claim to incorporate reason into their position, and many claim that God's non-existence is an absolute impossibility

(2) There is no "faith" in logic or rationality. Logic is a necessary method by which we weed out contradictions from our thinking. There is no faith in it because it is necessarily true - and any attempts to defy it will lead into incoherence and self-contradiction.

(3) I see alot of ignorance in this post and others about what atheism actually is. If you think atheism = the position that God does not exist, you are wrong :-). That isn't basic atheism whatsoever, that is Strong-Atheism.

This is common knowledge.

"a" = without. "theism" = god-belief.

Atheism = without god-belief.

or, IOW:

Atheism = a lack of belief in a god or gods.

That is a far cry from saying, "Gods do not/cannot exist".

Atheism at its base, or what is also called Weak-Atheism (Negative Atheism) is purely a negative position. Strong-Atheism (Positive Atheism) is a positive position claiming knowledge about the non-existence of God. Strong-Atheism as commonly held is not a position of belief as much as it is a claimed position of knowledge due to the methods of argumentation employed by its advocates.

To try to put it even more simply:

Weak-Atheism is the position where an individual can look into his mind and find no belief in God there. The result here is that God may have a possible relation to reality - because the non-believer is not saying that it is false, but that they simply don't believe it is true.

Strong-Atheism is the position where the individual says that he doesn't just have a lack of belief in God - but that God is false. Consequently, God has no possible relation to reality.

Here's a graph I drew awhile back for someone else who didn't understand the distinction:

http://greves.comdotnet.com/graph2.jpg

Implicit atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god or gods, - but that this lack of belief has not been consciously recognized yet. An example of this is the Filipino tribesman who might never have heard of the concept of "God" before. Obviously, because he has never heard of it - he does not believe. But this lack of belief has not been consciously decided.

Once a lack or belief or a rejection of the god-concept as false is a consciously made decision - it becomes Explicit Atheism.

Any person who actually reads atheistic literature and is familiar with atheism itself would know this.

Read George Smith, or Michael Martin. Hell, go to my website: www.strongatheism.com (http://www.strongatheism.com). This is common knowledge for those who know what they're actually talking about.

Finally, you treat "atheism" as a unified worldview. It isn't. Atheism at its base is purely a negative position - so you will not be able to infer any positive qualities about the individual who holds to that view. There are many atheists who reject rationality entirely - e.g. Nihilists. There are many who completely disagree with each other on various topics - e.g. Objectivists and Humanists. You also have moral objectivists vs. moral subjectivists. And the list goes on and on.

Further, I see agnosticism being treated as a third alternative here by Occam and others. Agnosticism is not a third alternative at all. Either you have a belief in God, or you do not have a belief in God. Note that inquiring about beliefs is quite different then asking whether or not the actual deity exists. I can ask you, "Does God exist?", and you can answer, "I don't know", making you an agnostic. But then I can inquire further, "Do you have a belief in God?" - if you answer yes, then you are an agnostic theist. If you answer no, then you are an agnostic atheist (or Weak-Atheist, Negative Atheist).

As for Occam's claim that Strong-Atheism and Theism have no evidences for them at all, I already challenged to formally debate him on another thread for fun. I'll happily reform my challenge and have him address my own evidences against the existence of God - and we can see whether or not my position really amounts to "no evidence at all".

I'm quite sure Jatom is capable of doing the same for his own theistic stance. From my brief overview of this thread, it seems that he's been the only sensible contributor all the way through.

- Laz

AreYouExperienced

09-20-2004, 07:49 PM

J_Lazarus, you seem to be having problems with your definition of terms. You seem to be confusing agnosticism with this "Weak-Atheism."

Further, I see agnosticism being treated as a third alternative here by Occam and others. Agnosticism is not a third alternative at all. Either you have a belief in God, or you do not have a belief in God. Note that inquiring about beliefs is quite different then asking whether or not the actual deity exists. I can ask you, "Does God exist?", and you can answer, "I don't know", making you an agnostic. But then I can inquire further, "Do you have a belief in God?" - if you answer yes, then you are an agnostic theist. If you answer no, then you are an agnostic atheist (or Weak-Atheist, Negative Atheist).

Once again here, you are confused about the definitions of your terms. I contend that my answer to your second question would also be "I don't know," because, for one, I don't know, and two, I don't make predictions on things without basing them on any kind of facts or evidence. Doing so incorporates some shape or form of faith, which is the point I was trying to make in my original post. Whether it's faith in one's self/intuition, faith in the doctrine, faith in rationality, it makes no difference.

But, if you are so caught up in semantics and petty sub-divisions of atheism (i.e. "agnostic atheists", which IMO is just confusing), then feel free to insert "Strong-Atheists" in place of "atheists" in my original post. I hope that clarifies things for you.

J_Lazarus

09-21-2004, 05:11 AM

J_Lazarus, you seem to be having problems with your definition of terms. You seem to be confusing agnosticism with this "Weak-Atheism."

Once again here, you are confused about the definitions of your terms. I contend that my answer to your second question would also be "I don't know," because, for one, I don't know, and two, I don't make predictions on things without basing them on any kind of facts or evidence. Doing so incorporates some shape or form of faith, which is the point I was trying to make in my original post. Whether it's faith in one's self/intuition, faith in the doctrine, faith in rationality, it makes no difference.

But, if you are so caught up in semantics and petty sub-divisions of atheism (i.e. "agnostic atheists", which IMO is just confusing), then feel free to insert "Strong-Atheists" in place of "atheists" in my original post. I hope that clarifies things for you. Nuh uh. No confusion at all. I said quite clearly that agnosticism is not a third alternative. You can either be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

The answer to the second question is you don't know? You don't know whether or not you have faith at this exact moment in a particular God? You must be quite confused about yourself.

If you do not know whether or not it exists - you can either lack belief in it because you feel you cannot or do not know, or you can believe in it regardless of your inability to come to any conclusion epistemically. Either way you don't know - but your belief in it or lack thereof regardless of being unable to have knowledge will make you either an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist.

Further, the terminology is not confusing at all. Its very simple. Many people here are caught up in common misconceptions about positions. Semantics is not a big issue but when formally discussing a subject you should at least know the definitions of the terms you're actually using.

And lastly, I already answered your charge about Strong-Atheism being a "Faith" position. And I also answered your charge about there being any "faith" in rationality.

I understand what you're saying, no clarification needed. What I'm saying is that your understanding of terms and positions is confused, and your understanding of logic and rationality is confused also.

This thread reminds me of the few Universist board members I used to talk to. As a friend of mine said, "Universism is the foolosophy of gas station attendants". The point being, without intent to insult, that this thread is intended to discuss positions, and yet the contributors are actually uneducated about what those positions are really about. - Similar to the Universists, who involved themselves in philosophical thought and yet had no understanding of philosophy.

- Laz

P.S. If you feel the terminology is confusing, I humbly suggest you read George Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God". He spends alot of time clearing up misconceptions about what atheism is, what agnosticism is, and etc. etc.

Hikaru Zero

09-21-2004, 06:55 AM

Either you have a belief in God, or you do not have a belief in God. Note that inquiring about beliefs is quite different then asking whether or not the actual deity exists. I can ask you, "Does God exist?", and you can answer, "I don't know", making you an agnostic. But then I can inquire further, "Do you have a belief in God?" - if you answer yes, then you are an agnostic theist. If you answer no, then you are an agnostic atheist

Philosophically
If you are a *rational* person.
You believe what the evidence suggests.

In order to know what the evidence suggests,
You must weigh the evidence.

The credibility of the evidence is evidence itself;
In that credibility directly influences the "weight" of the evidence.

If strong evidence is incredible,
It is not strong evidence at all.

Back to the point.

If the evidence, after being weighed,
Tends to weigh more on one side,
Then it is rational to believe that side.
If the evidence weighs more on the other,
Then it is rational to believe the other side.

If the evidence suggests that there is a God,
It is rational to believe in God.
If the evidence suggests that there is not a God,
It is rational to beileve there is not a God.

Each person has varying amounts of evidence.

Some have more evidence to support God's existance than they have evidence to disprove it.

Some have more evidence to disprove God's existance.

Either way, as you stated,
You must either believe in God, or not believe in God.

However, this is false.

If, after weighing the evidence, the evidence is balanced, and the evidence does not suggest either one of these things,

Then, it is rational,
Philosophically,
To do what is called "suspending judgment" about the issue.

Thus,
When asked "Does God exist?"
It is rational to say "Yes." if your evidence supports it.
It is rational to say "No." if your evidence weighs against it.
And it is ALSO rational,
To say "I don't know." if your evidence neither supports it nor weighs against it.

Thus.

You can be a theist by believing in God.
Or an atheist by disbelieving in God.
Or what is called "agnostic" by suspending judgment about God.

All are philosophically rational.

Furthermore,

It is NOT rational,
To answer "I don't know." to the question "Does God exist?"
And then answer "Yes." or "No." to the question "Do you believe God exists?"

As if you BELIEVE that God exists,
And if you are rational,
Then you must have evidence to support the existance of God.

If you have heavy evidence to support this existance,
Then the answer to your question "Does God exist?" must be yes.

Therefore, there is no such thing as,
"agnostic theist"
Nor is there such a thing as,
"agnostic atheist."

As an agnostic, by definition, does not BELIEVE nor does he DISBELIEVE,
The existance of God.

And to answer "Yes." or "No." to a question about their BELIEFS in God,
By definition,
Makes them not agnostic.

Jatom

09-21-2004, 09:39 AM

I'm quite sure Jatom is capable of doing the same for his own theistic stance. From my brief overview of this thread, it seems that he's been the only sensible contributor all the way through.Thanks for the kind words JLazarus. It's nice to hear this from one stands on the opposite side of the spectrum. It's a welcome change from the usual comments that amount to me being some poor uneducated sap whose only basis for his beliefs is desire.

J_Lazarus

09-21-2004, 01:36 PM

Thanks for the kind words JLazarus. It's nice to hear this from one stands on the opposite side of the spectrum. It's a welcome change from the usual comments that amount to me being some poor uneducated sap whose only basis for his beliefs is desire. I personally feel that those atheists who generalize about a theist's motives for belief are just as bad as those theists who try to brush aside atheistic arguments by saying, "Oh, well it doesn't matter, cuz deep down you believe in God anyway". Extremely frustrating, and its disrespectful.

You're a very educated sap :-P.

Hell, when is the last time you've heard the word's "Logical Positivism" and "Presuppositionalism" out a common atheist or theist? They've no grasp on the history of philosophy and in-depth concerns about God. Although I do hold to non-cognitivism, I don't hold to verificationism - but it was good to know someone else was educated enough on this forum that you knew about it anyway.

I'm one of the most staunch atheists on the block, with the exception of only my friends :-P. But you'll see me giving a much harder time to the atheist who just nay-says everything (You have no proof, you have no proof, you have no proof), as compared to the educated theist. You're a far better asset to this forum then alot of others who come here - and I've been coming here a long time.

Thus,
When asked "Does God exist?"
It is rational to say "Yes." if your evidence supports it.
It is rational to say "No." if your evidence weighs against it.
And it is ALSO rational,
To say "I don't know." if your evidence neither supports it nor weighs against it.

Thus.

You can be a theist by believing in God.
Or an atheist by disbelieving in God.
Or what is called "agnostic" by suspending judgment about God.

All are philosophically rational.

Furthermore,

It is NOT rational,
To answer "I don't know." to the question "Does God exist?"
And then answer "Yes." or "No." to the question "Do you believe God exists?"

As if you BELIEVE that God exists,
And if you are rational,
Then you must have evidence to support the existance of God.

If you have heavy evidence to support this existance,
Then the answer to your question "Does God exist?" must be yes.

Therefore, there is no such thing as,
"agnostic theist"
Nor is there such a thing as,
"agnostic atheist."

As an agnostic, by definition, does not BELIEVE nor does he DISBELIEVE,
The existance of God.

And to answer "Yes." or "No." to a question about their BELIEFS in God,
By definition,
Makes them not agnostic.
The first part of this is what I have already addressed. Inquiring as to whether God exists or not is different than personal faith.

Secondly, you're treating atheism as if its a positive position again. If you read my post last time and understood it, you'd see it was not :-). The atheist need not say "God does not exist" to be an atheist. The individual who asserts this is a Strong, or Positive Atheist. The common atheist may simply lack a belief in such a being. So when the question "Does God exist?" pops up, an atheist can respond, "I don't know, - it might, but I have a lack of belief in such a thing, due to reasons X, Y, and Z".

Further, an agnostic theist need not provide evidence - because they are not providing a positive assertion about reality, but rather, they have faith without the ability to know. You'll never catch them saying, "God exists" - but rather, "I have faith in a God, but I can never know if he actually exists". There is no burden of proof on their shoulders - there position is such as to deny the capacity to be able to meet the burden of proof on the subject, or at least to be unable to do it at that time.

If the evidence is entirely balanced, then guess what? You most likely will lack a positive belief in a God, because the evidence is inconclusive about his existence. Thus, you're an agnostic atheist - you lack a belief in God, and you simply don't know if he exists or not.

Once again, read the literature. You can learn something new everyday :-).

- Laz

BlackGuardXIII

09-26-2004, 11:28 AM

I have seen enough to convince me of the existance of Spirit, but I do not think any religion has a corner on the market. Buddha explained it best, from all the views I have read.

T.S. Garp

10-08-2004, 03:52 AM

Do we agree that there is no formal proof possible for the existence of God? If there were, the need for free will disappears--which runs counter to the very basis of Christiamity with regard to good and evil. It also answers the question, "If God is omnipotent, why does he not abolish evil by eliminating Satan?" It is the choice that each of makes that is significant, according to Christian teachings, that gives meaning to being "good."

Razorofoccam

10-08-2004, 05:24 PM

Do we agree that there is no formal proof possible for the existence of God?
Garp

No..Occam does not agree.
You have NO IDEA what proof is possible.
Trying to tell others what is pssible is a lie....
Anything is possible.

Occam

Anything.

Hikaru Zero

10-08-2004, 09:19 PM

Hikaru agrees with Occam in this case.

It is not that proof of God *doesn't* exist, and never will ...

It is rather that proof of God is *not known* to humanity at this time, and may never be known.

Though it might also be known in the future.

T.S. Garp

10-09-2004, 03:06 AM

Garp

No..Occam does not agree.
You have NO IDEA what proof is possible.
Trying to tell others what is pssible is a lie....
Anything is possible.

Occam

Anything.
No, no no...sorry if I gave you that impression. My point was not whether anything like this is possible or not. I was speaking to the Christian concept of the belief in God as based on faith alone (i.e. a choice to believe). If a proof of God existed, this central tenet of this faith would evaporate. I suppose that one could say that there is no proof or disproof of any particular set of beliefs.

Razorofoccam

10-09-2004, 12:03 PM

No, no no...sorry if I gave you that impression. My point was not whether anything like this is possible or not. I was speaking to the Christian concept of the belief in God as based on faith alone (i.e. a choice to believe). If a proof of God existed, this central tenet of this faith would evaporate. I suppose that one could say that there is no proof or disproof of any particular set of beliefs.
Garp

Yes it would evaporate.
Faith exists as a human perspective.

Organised religion plays on faith for an obvious reason.
There is no fact....[regarding religious validity]

Thus to religion, And the religious.
Faith is synonamous with fact...

This is why so many have trouble defining a fact...
Human social systems do not actually teach that a fact is supposed to be what is accurate to the real world...
Human education systems do not even each the basics of logic, induction and deduction...

Human beings are not taught to think...
They have to learn by themselves...

most dont bother.

Occam