Atheists and Theists are similar...

..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, Hikaru has a thought.

He argues that you are a moron and do not know what you are talking about.

But then again, he is just kidding.

Hikaru believes that you are correct on some points: That it may be equally ignorant for an atheist to use the phrase "I know." But some atheists don't do that; keep this in mind. Some atheists use the phrase "I believe." And there is nothing wrong with this phrase, whether used by an atheist or a theist.

Hikaru disagrees that atheists are not theists that follow "logical" commandments. Commandments, in all religions, are a set of moral rules meant to be followed. Logic is followed by ALL in this world, both theist and atheist. Logic is subjective, not objective like commandments are.

To him, atheists seem more like atheists than theists. However, this is what Hikaru *believes,* and you are quite welcome to see things differently.

 

In that sense, all would be theist, because all place their "faith" in certain unproven and unprovable propositions. But I don't think it's fair to call all people theist, perhaps you could say that all are a sort of foundationlist. But the terms "theist" and "atheist" are terms that describe the differnces within that group. An atheist believes in no God, while a theist believes in one.

 

Theists can believe in multiple gods.

I think that the theist and atheist perspectives take exactly the same amount of faith, or beleif, or whatever you want to call it.

Many believe in a God they can not define without using extremely abstract descriptions like 'love', 'beauty', 'living', 'powerful'... what do they REALLY know of the nature of God, were one to exist?
Based on this lack of credible evidence many decide to beleive there is no God, but they too are using the definitions handed to them by those who claim to represent God. They can do no better of a job defining it, but choose not to believe in it anyway.

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

Ah, I see...

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.

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.

No I am not a well-known scientist, just a laymen and a wannabe philosopher/theologian/Christian apologist but thanks for asking..

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

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.

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.

I could argue that I know what God is like through my experience with Him.

 

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)

 

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.

 

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

 

Jatom

You need a savior ,,, why
Because you wish to have one..

DESIRE

And no more

Occam

 

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.

 

Thank you Occam, that was the point I was trying to imply here. I'm just not as good with words as you are.

 

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

Thank you for clarifying. =)

 

As do you, otherwise your empiricism would never get off the ground.

How does this logically follow?

You have yet to show this

First evidentialism is self-deafeting. Second words have concepts behind them...you know this, so why play stupid games occam?