Discussion with an Atheist - Explaining Faith with Reason

[navedub]

Discussion with an Atheist - Explaining Faith with Reason
____________________________________________________________________
Me:

I myself am a catholic as well as a deep lover of science. Science is the pursuit of truth but I believe the same is true of my faith. I say "my" because every believer has an individual relationship with their creator and can make up there own minds concerning science. While this may not be true of all Christians who follow a lack of reason such as taking a literal interpretation of the book of genesis while missing the heart of the message, I can't and won't apologize for their beliefs. Nor should I have to. In the same way I wouldn't ask a non believer to apologize for their constant knocking of a truth beyond their comprehension. No offense, just accept that it is and move on.
_____________________________________________________________________
Him:

I refuse to accept that you think we (non-believers) are knocking a "truth beyond our comprehension". What makes you think that you have any more of a better comprehension than a non-believer? This is a typically arrogant statement made by a lot of theists. For some unknown reason, many theists think they have the upper hand in comprehension over others. This is plain BS and arrogance. If we knock anything, its stupid statements like this. Sorry, no offense, but telling me to just accept it is not going to fly.

As for your "personal relationship with a creator"..... To the non-believer (at least me since I can't speak for all) having a relationship with an invisible friend is something we might have done as a child, either for security, out of loneliness, or for attention. We out grow this as adults, or at least SOME of us do.

You say you're a lover of science, so I wonder how you hold on to your faith when science has not been able to show any evidence of something called a soul that leaves the body, yet retains the thoughts of your mind. Science knows that when the body dies, so does the brain and the thoughts in that brain (electrical impulses) stops. Your faith believes in some kind of life after death, science says otherwise, so why do you hold on to your faith? __________________
"The most important thing is to NOT stop questioning" - Albert Einstein

Faith is a vice.
It is a substitute for courage.
It is the abdication of Reason - the greatest attribute humans possess.
It is the selling of one's soul for a happy lie. - Galendir

_____________________________________________________________________
Me:

RE: Sorry, no offense, but telling me to just accept it is not going to fly.

Why so defensive? I wasn't saying you should ACCEPT my beliefs, just that you might want to consider that MY beliefs (not religion as a whole) are beyond your comprehension. Do you know everything? Do you know me personally?

RE: having a relationship with an invisible friend is something we might have done as a child, either for security, out of loneliness, or for attention. We out grow this as adults, or at least SOME of us do.

Well to me he's quite visible, in fact I haven't found a place yet where I don't see god, does that make sense to you?

RE: You say you're a lover of science, so I wonder how you hold on to your faith when science has not been able to show any evidence of something called a soul that leaves the body, yet retains the thoughts of your mind.

Has it disproved it? Doubly, that’s how faith retains its beauty. In its mysterious, not yet fully understood nature.

RE: Your faith believes in some kind of life after death, science says otherwise, so why do you hold on to your faith?

This is the misconception among atheists and theists alike. MY faith. MY understanding is not that there's a heaven or hell absent or detached in anyway from this world. in MY understanding heaven and hell exist within the human heart of all people and that if there is life beyond death it will be when those who have a desire to continue living as humble, caring people will be resurrected here on earth (maybe in some tangible, unsupernatural way not yet discovered, who knows?).
Nevertheless, I respect your opinion and my words were not spoken out of arrogance but rather a frustration with people (whatever their belief system) not considering that not everything is known to them. You may very well be correct in your summations that there is no god but one things for certain and that is that neither you or I are all knowing. Could we at least agree on that?
_____________________________________________________________________
Him:


Originally Posted by navedub RE: Sorry, no offense, but telling me to just accept it is not going to fly.

Why so defensive? I wasn't saying you should ACCEPT my beliefs, just that you might want to consider that MY beliefs (not religion as a whole) are beyond your comprehension. Do you know everything? Do you know me personally?

I don't have to know you or anything about you to know that "comprehension" isn't exclusive to the theists. You speak of "truths" of your faith as if there is evidence for these truths, then say I can't comprehend and I knock these "truths" for which there isn't any evidence for.

Quote:
RE: having a relationship with an invisible friend is something we might have done as a child, either for security, out of loneliness, or for attention. We out grow this as adults, or at least SOME of us do.

Well to me he's quite visible, in fact I haven't found a place yet where I don't see god, does that make sense to you?

Seeing a tree or grass or humans is not god. They are trees and grass and humans. You make sense in as much as I think I know what you are trying to say, but what you are saying is ridiculous. Are you redefining a god? If so, please define him so we can have a discussion. This is not the catholic god, nor any Christian god that I know of.

Quote:
RE: You say you're a lover of science, so I wonder how you hold on to your faith when science has not been able to show any evidence of something called a soul that leaves the body, yet retains the thoughts of your mind.

Has it disproved it? Doubly, that’s how faith retains its beauty. In its mysterious, not yet fully understood nature.

You can't prove or disprove something that doesn't exist. If you make the claim that something does exist, you must show evidence for it, otherwise it’s pointless to think something might exist just because you want it too. It may sound like I'm making an Argument from ignorance, however there is an exception to this argument and that is, in some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, (soul, god, tooth fairy, Easter bunny) evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.

Quote:
RE: Your faith believes in some kind of life after death, science says otherwise, so why do you hold on to your faith?

This is the misconception among atheists and theists alike.

How is this a misconception? This is what is taught in almost every Christian religion, it is dogma and doctrine.

Quote:
MY faith. MY understanding is not that there's a heaven or hell absent or detached in anyway from this world. in MY understanding heaven and hell exist within the human heart of all people and that if there is life beyond death it will be when those who have a desire to continue living as humble, caring people will be resurrected here on earth (maybe in some tangible, unsupernatural way not yet discovered, who knows?).

Within minutes of body death, the brain starts to turn to gray matter, mush if you will. Any resurrection after a day of death would have to be supernatural, for which again, there is no evidence for.

Quote:
Nevertheless, I respect your opinion and my words were not spoken out of arrogance but rather a frustration with people (whatever their belief system) not considering that not everything is known to them. You may very well be correct in your summations that there is no god but one thing’s for certain and that is that neither you or I are all knowing. Could we at least agree on that?

Yes
_____________________________________________________________________
Me:

RE: I don't have to know you or anything about you to know that "comprehension" isn't exclusive to the theists. You speak of "truths" of your faith as if there is evidence for these truths, then say I can't comprehend and I knock these "truths" for which there isn't any evidence for.

do you have love for your mother? Don’t answer; I don't want to get too personal I’m just trying to make a point. I’ll assume you do. Do you honestly believe you can convey that love to me in words? Even if you did, and you seem to be quite articulate, I would still not have a full comprehension of what it means to YOU. Only some broad, personalized interpretation of what you told me.

RE: you must show evidence for it

I must? Must? You seem to follow a stringent set of rules for what you determined to be true and false, good for you. Me, personally I can determine truths for myself based on instinct or an innate universal understanding not yet fully known to me.

RE: How is this a misconception? This is what is taught in almost every Christian religion, it is dogma and doctrine.

No, you're wrong, plain and simple. Look it up. But let’s imagine you were correct. There are still varying opinions in all religions within their structure and among the individuals that make up that religion but it’s the unity of our faith that binds us, not our opinions of the unknown. If you have any experience with the catholic faith you should know this, but even some churches get a little screwy with the way they teach. If you don't have any experience it doesn't surprise me that you don't.

_____________________________________________________________________
Still Me:

Just in case you're avoiding me because I didn't answer ALL of your questions.

RE: Seeing a tree or grass or humans is not god. They are trees and grass and humans. You make sense in as much as I think I know what you are trying to say, but what you are saying is ridiculous. Are you redefining a god? If so, please define him so we can have a discussion. This is not the catholic god, nor any Christian god that I know of.

One you know of? Please, enlighten me on who or what exactly god is, rather, the "Christian god" as you put it.

Within minutes of body death, the brain starts to turn to gray matter, mush if you will. Any resurrection after a day of death would have to be supernatural, for which again, there is no evidence for.

In your estimation. What is your understanding of biology, physics? since you quote Einstein you should be aware that he discovered that energy is merely mass moving at the speed of light squared, you know E=mc2. You should also know that mass is a collection of atoms which in themselves are nothing but particles of energy. Are you familiar with the fact that matter never changes? If I were to burn down New York City and place a glass bubble over it, the weight of the debris and the smoke that used to be New York City would be the same, so matter is unchanging. though it may appear to be destroyed its really still there. And the atomic particles that make up that matter still have the ability to reform into matter. We just haven't found the way yet, but we'll get there. For me, god is the greatest and first scientist and I’m certain he's got resurrection under control. Incidentally Einstein (who you quoted) was not an atheist.


And then, unfortunately he gave up......I pray the lord conveyed some truth through me and caused him to ponder things further. I love atheists, they too are on the eternal quest for truth and understanding.

 

[PKJ]

Discussion with a client. Why faith cannot explain anything.

Client: Hi I'd like to pay for that.

Cashier: Sure. It's ten bucks please.

Client: Here (gives a monopoly money ten bill)

Cashier: Uh... it's ten dollars.

Client: I just gave you ten dollars.

Cashier: I mean, ten real dollars.

Client: They are real.

Cashier: No they are not.

Client: What makes you think so?

Cashier: I have a standard of what I can accept as real. This is not real money.

Client: It is real money, but it is way beyond what you can understand as being real money.

Cashier: What an arrogant - and foolish - man are you!

Client: I am not asking that you start using monopoly cash too, just that you accept the fact that I do.

Cashier: Ok listen. You have the right to believe it is real if you want. I really don't care. But I have to respect the store's policy.

Client: Then the policy must be wrong!

Cashier: No it's not.

Client: How can you know it's the best standard there is?

Cashier: I never said it was. But the company I work for is very, very old and they've been fine-tuning the policy for centuries. Unless you come up with something better, you'll have to stick with it.

Client: I knew this would happen!l Look, I made up another store policy. It's just different, and way beyond your comprehension. So according to that policy you have to accept monopoly cash.

Cashier: Oh yeah, and now everyone will start doing it and we'll go bankrupt.

Client: Not everyone is allowed, only me and the people from my organization. We have a chart that allows us to know who is a member and who is not.

Cashier: Haha, yeah. You are granting yourself the right to use fake money according to your standards based on your organizations chart?

Client: Exactly! I'm so glad that you respect my right to believe silly things.

Cashier: So am I. SECURITY!!!


-------------

Interpretation:

Client: Hi I'd like to pretend X.

Cashier: Sure. Prove it please.

Client: Here (gives a lousy solipsist proof)

Cashier: Uh... proove it please.

Client: I just did.

Cashier: I mean, give a real proof.

Client: It is real.

Cashier: No it's not.

Client: What makes you think so?

Cashier: I have a standard of what I can accept as real. This is not a real proof.

Client: It is a real proof, but it is way beyond what you can understand as being a real proof.

Cashier: What an arrogant - and foolish - man are you!

Client: I am not asking that you start using fake solipsist supernatural proofs too, just that you accept the fact that I do.

Cashier: Ok listen. You have the right to believe it is real if you want. I really don't care. But I have to respect rationnality, logic and epistemology.

Client: Then epistemology and logic must be wrong!

Cashier: No it's not.

Client: How can you know it's the best standard there is?

Cashier: I never said it was. But human rationnality is very, very old and they've been fine-tuning it for centuries. Unless you come up with something better, you'll have to stick with it.

Client: I knew this would happen!l Look, I made up another epistemology. It's just different, and way beyond your comprehension. So according to that epistemology you have to accept my proof.

Cashier: Oh yeah, and now everyone will start doing it and science will become absurd.

Client: Not everyone is allowed, only people from my religion. Others have to stick with rationnality. We use logic to show others are wrong but illogical proofs to show we are right. That's fine for us, as long as it's fine with our sacred texts.

Cashier: Haha, yeah. You are granting yourself the right to use fake proofs according to your standards, based on your sacred text?

Client: Exactly! I'm so glad that you respect my right to believe silly things.

Cashier: So am I. SECURITY!!!

 

[navedub]

Discussion with a client. Why faith cannot explain anything.

Client: Hi I'd like to pay for that.

Cashier: Sure. It's ten bucks please.

Client: Here (gives a monopoly money ten bill)

Cashier: Uh... it's ten dollars.

Client: I just gave you ten dollars.

Cashier: I mean, ten real dollars.

Client: They are real.

Cashier: No they are not.

Client: What makes you think so?

Cashier: I have a standard of what I can accept as real. This is not real money.

Client: It is real money, but it is way beyond what you can understand as being real money.

Cashier: What an arrogant - and foolish - man are you!

Client: I am not asking that you start using monopoly cash too, just that you accept the fact that I do.

Cashier: Ok listen. You have the right to believe it is real if you want. I really don't care. But I have to respect the store's policy.

Client: Then the policy must be wrong!

Cashier: No it's not.

Client: How can you know it's the best standard there is?

Cashier: I never said it was. But the company I work for is very, very old and they've been fine-tuning the policy for centuries. Unless you come up with something better, you'll have to stick with it.

Client: I knew this would happen!l Look, I made up another store policy. It's just different, and way beyond your comprehension. So according to that policy you have to accept monopoly cash.

Cashier: Oh yeah, and now everyone will start doing it and we'll go bankrupt.

Client: Not everyone is allowed, only me and the people from my organization. We have a chart that allows us to know who is a member and who is not.

Cashier: Haha, yeah. You are granting yourself the right to use fake money according to your standards based on your organizations chart?

Client: Exactly! I'm so glad that you respect my right to believe silly things.

Cashier: So am I. SECURITY!!!


-------------

Interpretation:

Client: Hi I'd like to pretend X.

Cashier: Sure. Prove it please.

Client: Here (gives a lousy solipsist proof)

Cashier: Uh... proove it please.

Client: I just did.

Cashier: I mean, give a real proof.

Client: It is real.

Cashier: No it's not.

Client: What makes you think so?

Cashier: I have a standard of what I can accept as real. This is not a real proof.

Client: It is a real proof, but it is way beyond what you can understand as being a real proof.

Cashier: What an arrogant - and foolish - man are you!

Client: I am not asking that you start using fake solipsist supernatural proofs too, just that you accept the fact that I do.

Cashier: Ok listen. You have the right to believe it is real if you want. I really don't care. But I have to respect rationnality, logic and epistemology.

Client: Then epistemology and logic must be wrong!

Cashier: No it's not.

Client: How can you know it's the best standard there is?

Cashier: I never said it was. But human rationnality is very, very old and they've been fine-tuning it for centuries. Unless you come up with something better, you'll have to stick with it.

Client: I knew this would happen!l Look, I made up another epistemology. It's just different, and way beyond your comprehension. So according to that epistemology you have to accept my proof.

Cashier: Oh yeah, and now everyone will start doing it and science will become absurd.

Client: Not everyone is allowed, only people from my religion. Others have to stick with rationnality. We use logic to show others are wrong but illogical proofs to show we are right. That's fine for us, as long as it's fine with our sacred texts.

Cashier: Haha, yeah. You are granting yourself the right to use fake proofs according to your standards, based on your sacred text?

Client: Exactly! I'm so glad that you respect my right to believe silly things.

Cashier: So am I. SECURITY!!!

did you even bother to read it? i'm posting a part two so maybe you'll have some understanding of where i stand. i'm not some anti-atheist.

 

[PKJ]

I've read it. I also read many similar arguments.

You show that we do not know certain things, and that some things are beyond are capacity of knowledge. Since we do not undestrand, we cannot judge it to be false. That's an ad ignorantiam. The incapacity to prove that God does not exist does not mean that God exists.

All is left to do is to justify why you consider X true. Answer: because of some mysterious innate capacity to know true from false that you seem to have. So. Mysterious capacity is required for you to know that X is true, and knowledge of X is required to have mysterious capacity of truth-telling. That's circular logic.

Also, the common comparison between love for the mother and existence of God. For the mother to be loved there needs to be a mother. L(m), where L = love, m=mother. In the case of God we cannot say E(g) because we are not so sure about what is that g. So the comparison does not hold.

 

[Tenka]

I read it, your 'reason' hasn't been introduced yet.

So much for "beyond atheist comprehension" you didn't show the difference between your "understanding' and something you are just imagining.

 

[navedub]

I've read it. I also read many similar arguments.

You show that we do not know certain things, and that some things are beyond are capacity of knowledge. Since we do not undestrand, we cannot judge it to be false. That's an ad ignorantiam. The incapacity to prove that God does not exist does not mean that God exists.

All is left to do is to justify why you consider X true. Answer: because of some mysterious innate capacity to know true from false that you seem to have. So. Mysterious capacity is required for you to know that X is true, and knowledge of X is required to have mysterious capacity of truth-telling. That's circular logic.

Also, the common comparison between love for the mother and existence of God. For the mother to be loved there needs to be a mother. L(m), where L = love, m=mother. In the case of God we cannot say E(g) because we are not so sure about what is that g. So the comparison does not hold.

it wasn't a comparison to relationship with god if you read it again but rather a metaphorical argument for why personal truth's can often not be conveyed by mere words.

RE: because of some mysterious innate capacity to know true from false that you seem to have. So.

you say that as though i were trying to convince you or him of my understanding of truth. so. believe what you will but why be so critical of other's beliefs? where is all of this bitterness coming from? obviously you're an ex-christian for a very good reason, there are many christians who **** me off as well in their ignorance or inflated egos but i don't worship the church, i worship Christ and he hasn't let me down yet. and don't say bitterness doesn't fuel your ideology but rather reason cuz i just don't buy it. if so, why are you here trying to convince people to turn away from faith? i'm not trying to convert you, don't try to convert me. i'll make an effort to understand you but i don't have to agree with you, nor you with me. believe what you will and may you find every hapiness in doing so. no more rivalries is all i hope for.

 

[navedub]

I read it, your 'reason' hasn't been introduced yet.

So much for "beyond atheist comprehension" you didn't show the difference between your "understanding' and something you are just imagining.

what is this obsession with proving god's existence? where does it come from? is it soley a product of the 21st century? is the atheist's thinking that narrow that they can't admit that some things are beyond human comprehension?

 

[Eudaimonist]

what is this obsession with proving god's existence?

It's the desire to sift truth from falsehood.

is the atheist's thinking that narrow that they can't admit that some things are beyond human comprehension?

Why would these issues be beyond human comprehension? What would make them so? Or do you mean that they are beyond the means of validation that we as humans possess?

 

[Tenka]

what is this obsession with proving god's existence?

What obsession? do you think this is my day job?
So much for proof, you haven't even shown the reasoning you promised in the OP.

is it soley a product of the 21st century?

Probably since we found that questions had real answers, then more things and now there is reason to believe that there is no need for God to conveniently explain anything.

is the atheist's thinking that narrow that they can't admit that some things are beyond human comprehension?

Firstly, don't mistake scepticsm for narrow mindedness.
Without them we'd still be sitting in trees cleaning each other's fur.

Example of thing beyond comprehension: God?
No, that's easily within comprehension just look at how human it is, it hates, loves, spites, gets lonely, wants attention, gets angry.
It's an old, invisible bloke.

 

[Ledifni]

did you even bother to read it? i'm posting a part two so maybe you'll have some understanding of where i stand. i'm not some anti-atheist.

His post wasn't a response to your post in its entirety. He makes a very good point, and one I think you ought to address: namely, how can faith ever be justified?

I've asked this question before and I'm very leery about re-stating it simply because I cannot seem to get it addressed seriously. Very simply:

1) Faith, by definition, involves assuming something to be true beyond what is implied by the evidence.
2) If the extra "true" things aren't implied by the evidence, then they're much more likely to be wrong than right -- they're just wild guesses.
C) Therefore, faith isn't justified.

The objection I always receive is that (1) isn't true. I'm invariably told that faith is based on evidence, that it's entirely rational, and that it doesn't make any wild guesses.

However, if faith is nothing more or less than believing what is directly implied by the evidence, then why do you guys use the word "faith?" Why not use "science," which is a perfectly good word we already have for the practice of generating beliefs directly from real-world evidence?

No -- a clear distinction is made between faith and science. Theists insistently deny that this distinction involves the acceptance of beliefs unsupported by empirical evidence. However, if that is not the distinction, then what is it? That is a question that seems to have no answer. Theists want their faith -- but they don't want to admit that they're going beyond the evidence.

 

[Ledifni]

it wasn't a comparison to relationship with god if you read it again but rather a metaphorical argument for why personal truth's can often not be conveyed by mere words.

RE: because of some mysterious innate capacity to know true from false that you seem to have. So.

you say that as though i were trying to convince you or him of my understanding of truth. so. believe what you will but why be so critical of other's beliefs? where is all of this bitterness coming from? obviously you're an ex-christian for a very good reason, there are many christians who **** me off as well in their ignorance or inflated egos but i don't worship the church, i worship Christ and he hasn't let me down yet. and don't say bitterness doesn't fuel your ideology but rather reason cuz i just don't buy it. if so, why are you here trying to convince people to turn away from faith? i'm not trying to convert you, don't try to convert me. i'll make an effort to understand you but i don't have to agree with you, nor you with me. believe what you will and may you find every hapiness in doing so. no more rivalries is all i hope for.

Why the hostility? You said your beliefs are above our comprehension. But we think that we comprehend them quite well, and comprehend that they are false for reasons that you don't comprehend. Obviously, you think you comprehend your opinions better than anyone else, and we think we comprehend ours better than you do; these are our various opinions.

But then you come in here and flatly inform us that we can't comprehend you and that we should just "accept" that. Since it is our opinion that we do comprehend you, that's essentially the same thing as walking in here and saying, "You're wrong. I'm right. Just accept it and move on."

Are you surprised, then, when we rigorously attack your assertions? Why have you turned hostile all of a sudden, just because we won't accede to your blatant demand that we surrender our beliefs and accept yours?

 

[Ledifni]

what is this obsession with proving god's existence? where does it come from? is it soley a product of the 21st century? is the atheist's thinking that narrow that they can't admit that some things are beyond human comprehension?

If they are beyond human comprehension, then no human comprehends them, and any human who pretends to know the truth about them is lying. This should be extremely basic. If you cannot comprehend it, then what business do you have claiming to comprehend it so well that you have no doubt of its truth?

 

[navedub]

Why the hostility? You said your beliefs are above our comprehension. But we think that we comprehend them quite well, and comprehend that they are false for reasons that you don't comprehend. Obviously, you think you comprehend your opinions better than anyone else, and we think we comprehend ours better than you do; these are our various opinions.

But then you come in here and flatly inform us that we can't comprehend you and that we should just "accept" that. Since it is our opinion that we do comprehend you, that's essentially the same thing as walking in here and saying, "You're wrong. I'm right. Just accept it and move on."

Are you surprised, then, when we rigorously attack your assertions? Why have you turned hostile all of a sudden, just because we won't accede to your blatant demand that we surrender our beliefs and accept yours?

RE:Are you surprised, then, when we rigorously attack your assertions? Why have you turned hostile all of a sudden, just because we won't accede to your blatant demand that we surrender our beliefs and accept yours?

no, i never said that, infact my intentions are the exact opposite. i want you to retain your beliefs, grow in them, cultivate them. my percieved hostile comments are an admitted anger which i can deal with, can you? i'm frustrated with theists and atheists alike who seem to be trying to convert each other to their own point of view without considering that there are those of us who want people to retain their ideals though they may seem to be different from my own, your own, their own. or do you guys even bother to actually read this, when i say you guys, i mean the "converters" we'll call em (theists and atheists alike). i often wonder because these posts just seem like some prepared response that are for the sole purpose of denegrating individuality and diversity. you're no different from the intolerant christian, nor are they from you. accept that there are a wide range of truths as well as lies in all ideologies, find peace in your own and then MOVE ON!!!! or rather talk about something more meaningful like what is life? why do we all have egos? can there ever be a commonality though there's diversity? things like that.

 

[Ledifni]

RE:Are you surprised, then, when we rigorously attack your assertions? Why have you turned hostile all of a sudden, just because we won't accede to your blatant demand that we surrender our beliefs and accept yours?

no, i never said that, infact my intentions are the exact opposite. i want you to retain your beliefs, grow in them, cultivate them. my percieved hostile comments are an admitted anger which i can deal with, can you? i'm frustrated with theists and atheists alike who seem to be trying to convert each other to their own point of view without considering that there are those of us who want people to retain their ideals though they may seem to be different from my own, your own, their own. or do you guys even bother to actually read this, when i say you guys, i mean the "converters" we'll call em (theists and atheists alike). i often wonder because these posts just seem like some prepared response that are for the sole purpose of denegrating individuality and diversity. you're no different from the intolerant christian, nor are they from you. accept that there are a wide range of truths as well as lies in all ideologies, find peace in your own and then MOVE ON!!!! or rather talk about something more meaningful like what is life? why do we all have egos? can there ever be a commonality though there's diversity? things like that.

Do you think I don't accept all of that? I have never proselytized atheism, unless you consider it proselytization when I make my case and ask theists to try to refute it. But my intentions are not to convert anybody. My intentions are to test my beliefs and see if they are true. Of course there can be commonality in diversity, and until we're all omniscient I hope we never all agree on everything.

But you said that we can't possibly comprehend you (that seems incredible hubris to me, given that I and many others here were Christians for far longer than we've been atheists), and when we object to that assertion, you get angry. That's all I'm objecting to. I'm not asking you to become an atheist, or to surrender your ideals, or to insist that others surrender theirs, or anything of the sort. I'm pointing out that if you plan to come in here and say, "I'm right. You're wrong. Deal with it," you have to expect that people will challenge you. You don't really have much call to get angry about it.

And I know, you say you weren't trying to say that, and perhaps you weren't. But surely you can see that when you say, "My beliefs are beyond your comprehension, accept that and move on," you are saying that you're right and we're wrong and we should just shut up and accept it. If you don't intend to make that claim, then choose your words more carefully. And do not get angry when people understand your words literally.

 

[navedub]

His post wasn't a response to your post in its entirety. He makes a very good point, and one I think you ought to address: namely, how can faith ever be justified?

I've asked this question before and I'm very leery about re-stating it simply because I cannot seem to get it addressed seriously. Very simply:

1) Faith, by definition, involves assuming something to be true beyond what is implied by the evidence.
2) If the extra "true" things aren't implied by the evidence, then they're much more likely to be wrong than right -- they're just wild guesses.
C) Therefore, faith isn't justified.

The objection I always receive is that (1) isn't true. I'm invariably told that faith is based on evidence, that it's entirely rational, and that it doesn't make any wild guesses.

However, if faith is nothing more or less than believing what is directly implied by the evidence, then why do you guys use the word "faith?" Why not use "science," which is a perfectly good word we already have for the practice of generating beliefs directly from real-world evidence?

No -- a clear distinction is made between faith and science. Theists insistently deny that this distinction involves the acceptance of beliefs unsupported by empirical evidence. However, if that is not the distinction, then what is it? That is a question that seems to have no answer. Theists want their faith -- but they don't want to admit that they're going beyond the evidence.

we're not going to find any truth in one another, you people don't read. or don't bother to try and comprehend. i understand everything you're saying but you don't understand a thing i am. wierd? aint it?

p.s. ask yourself why you feel the need to prove someone they're wrong in what they believe. believe what you will. i think you're right in many instances. i'm glad we disagree and value your individual opinion. what? is every atheist an ex born again, evangalist, baptist, whatever? didn't you bother to unlearn that high pressure sales tactic you're now intellectually waring against? or are you so insecure that you feel the need to bring everyone over into your realm of thought?

 

[Ledifni]

we're not going to find any truth in one another, you people don't read. or don't bother to try and comprehend. i understand everything you're saying but you don't understand a thing i am. wierd? aint it?

It's funny, then, that I feel I understand you and you don't understand me, isn't it? Or perhaps it's not so funny. Perhaps it's true that beliefs always tend to produce more understanding of themselves than of other beliefs. Perhaps, if I don't understand something, you should elaborate, or at least point out what I'm not understanding so we can approach it from a different angle. Saying, "You don't understand," and ending the discussion does nothing for you or me.

p.s. ask yourself why you feel the need to prove someone they're wrong in what they believe.

I notice you think you understand my post. Are you quite sure of that? In writing my posts, I did not consciously intend to prove anybody wrong. I intended, rather, to make my best argument and see what happens to it, in the disinterested search for pure truth. I find that I am aided in that search by devising arguments and trying to find ways they could be wrong, and by posting those arguments here, others are able to help me with that.

But since you obviously understand my post so much better than I do, perhaps you could explain for me what is going through my head, since I clearly don't get it?

believe what you will. i think you're right in many instances. i'm glad we disagree and value your individual opinion. what? is every atheist an ex born again, evangalist, baptist, whatever? didn't you bother to unlearn that high pressure sales tactic you're now intellectually waring against? or are you so insecure that you feel the need to bring everyone over into your realm of thought?

Perhaps it would help if you could explain exactly where, when, and how I have ever attempted to convert a Christian. That would help me, because for the life of me I can't remember a single time in my entire life as an atheist.

 

[navedub]

Do you think I don't accept all of that? I have never proselytized atheism, unless you consider it proselytization when I make my case and ask theists to try to refute it. But my intentions are not to convert anybody. My intentions are to test my beliefs and see if they are true. Of course there can be commonality in diversity, and until we're all omniscient I hope we never all agree on everything.

But you said that we can't possibly comprehend you (that seems incredible hubris to me, given that I and many others here were Christians for far longer than we've been atheists), and when we object to that assertion, you get angry. That's all I'm objecting to. I'm not asking you to become an atheist, or to surrender your ideals, or to insist that others surrender theirs, or anything of the sort. I'm pointing out that if you plan to come in here and say, "I'm right. You're wrong. Deal with it," you have to expect that people will challenge you. You don't really have much call to get angry about it.

And I know, you say you weren't trying to say that, and perhaps you weren't. But surely you can see that when you say, "My beliefs are beyond your comprehension, accept that and move on," you are saying that you're right and we're wrong and we should just shut up and accept it. If you don't intend to make that claim, then choose your words more carefully. And do not get angry when people understand your words literally.

i know, its rooted in intellectual insecurity. you'll move beyond it once you become more comfortable in your own belief system.

i have every right to be angry so long as i know i am, i'm not going to be some hypocrite and say this sort of intolerance, lack of insight doesn't make me angry. my anger is rooted frustration for the feuding egos of man, don't take it personally. doubly, if you take offense to my assertions maybe you need to look inward. you're offended by my beliefs not something i said directly to you, but i'm not offended by the fact that you say i'm wrong, why is that?

you can't comprehend my personal in truth in the same way you can't comprehend what a blind man sees nor a person with down syndrome feels nor how a goat sees the world. we're all individual creatures. so in that estimation, yes, again, get over it, move on, there are things beyond your comprehension which can never fully be explained to you in words.

 

[navedub]

It's funny, then, that I feel I understand you and you don't understand me, isn't it? Or perhaps it's not so funny. Perhaps it's true that beliefs always tend to produce more understanding of themselves than of other beliefs. Perhaps, if I don't understand something, you should elaborate, or at least point out what I'm not understanding so we can approach it from a different angle. Saying, "You don't understand," and ending the discussion does nothing for you or me.



I notice you think you understand my post. Are you quite sure of that? In writing my posts, I did not consciously intend to prove anybody wrong. I intended, rather, to make my best argument and see what happens to it, in the disinterested search for pure truth. I find that I am aided in that search by devising arguments and trying to find ways they could be wrong, and by posting those arguments here, others are able to help me with that.

But since you obviously understand my post so much better than I do, perhaps you could explain for me what is going through my head, since I clearly don't get it?



Perhaps it would help if you could explain exactly where, when, and how I have ever attempted to convert a Christian. That would help me, because for the life of me I can't remember a single time in my entire life as an atheist.

well, good for you. what is the intent for discussing existence then? if its a philisophical pursuit then i recommend you read j. krishnamurti, he is not associated with any religion but speaks truth, to its core. if you haven't yet heard of him.

 

[Ledifni]

i know, its rooted in intellectual insecurity. you'll move beyond it once you become more comfortable in your own belief system.

Navedub, read the above over very carefully -- very carefully -- and see if you can't grasp why this debate is now over and I have nothing more to discuss with you. If you can't learn to respect your opponents, then there is no point in having a debate. Have a good life.

 

[navedub]

It's the desire to sift truth from falsehood.



Why would these issues be beyond human comprehension? What would make them so? Or do you mean that they are beyond the means of validation that we as humans possess?

no, i meant beyond comprehension, which your quote from Seneca supports.