Faith and Atheism

[Davian]

Vulnerability is a good thing within the context of a loving relationship. You can't have friendship without vulnerability.

Who is this 'friendship' with?

I have on more than one occasion been told that I would probably been more acceptable to [their] concept of "God" if my personal life was not going so well for me at this time. The religious preying on the vulnerable.

I'm sorry I don't understand the significance of the quote.

It was in response the Pascal quote you commented on.

When do we get to find out what the OP was about?

 

[Ana the Ist]

^ short title. Long title: "The tendency of faith and the phenomenon of atheism."

Here is my contention:

Humans tend to believe in God*. Atheists are those who have come to reject this belief that they (at one time) tended to have.

If we can agree on this I will share the purpose of this contention.

* or gods or supernatural persons

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with the notion that mankind, in general, has a tendency to believe in God*. I would contend that the tendency is to make sense of what we perceive as reality. God and the supernatural in general, is a result of this innate desire to make sense of things.

To elaborate a little, let's imagine how primitive man might have perceived the ebb and flow of the tides. It's hardly a stretch to think that early man must have seen the changes in the tide and possessed a desire to understand/explain the changes he saw. Likewise, its not difficult to imagine that this primitive man realized that whatever the cause was, it must be something of great power. It must be something capable of affecting such vast amounts of water with such regularity. One primitive man might think that the wind was responsible, yet he's unsure how. That explanation leaves a lot to be desired since it only explains the "what" not the "how". Another primitive man thinks that there must be a very powerful being, hidden deep within the seas, that controls the seas and everything in them. A "god" of the water if you will.

Like any two explanations, they compete with each other when it comes to convincing others which explanation is true. The man who believes the wind is responsible fails to convince many people because of the other questions this explanation creates. The man who believes in the water-god however, can use creative stories to answer the "How" and the "why" as well as many other phenomena related to the sea (why ships sink, etc.)

It's fairly obvious which answer gains popularity...the water-god makes sense to them. It's more entertaining. By worshipping this water god, a small sense of control can be gained, even if it doesn't exist in reality. Another thing happens also...this man who invented this water god has gained some status within his community. His popularity, gained from nothing else but "knowing" the mysterious, has given him another idea. Why not create gods that explain other unknown phenomena? As he does, his influence grows. He is able to stop doing real work and spend his time building his following. He is able to include his personal opinions into his new religion....what people should eat, how they should act, what they should say, even what is right and wrong. He immediately chastises any who question him, he humiliates those who don't believe...making them an undesirable minority. He suffers none to question his "knowledge" for it is the foundation of his new-found power and if he is shown "wrong" or "false" his power wanes for it. He has, in effect, created a religion at this point.

If you view supernatural belief through this paradigm, I think you can go a long way in explaining the origins of the supernatural, and indeed...the relationship of these beliefs and mankind throughout history.

 

[quatona]

^ short title. Long title: "The tendency of faith and the phenomenon of atheism."

Here is my contention:

Humans tend to believe in God*. Atheists are those who have come to reject this belief that they (at one time) tended to have.

If we can agree on this I will share the purpose of this contention.

* or gods or supernatural persons

No, we can´t agree on this.

 

[Illuminaughty]

If they existed and interacted with the world be most definitely could.

Strangely he only interacts in the areas where there are gaps in our scientific knowledge. If a few of those gaps close then he disappears from those specific gaps and moves on to the new ones. He hides in the gaps so that people will still need the virtue of blind faith. If it could be proven with 100% certainty that he existed we wouldn't need faith. We couldn't reject him if he were too obvious. The angels could but they are different.

 

[Elioenai26]

Strangely he only interacts in the areas where there are gaps in our scientific knowledge. If a few of those gaps close then he disappears from those specific gaps and moves on to the new ones. He hides in the gaps so that people will still need blind faith apparently. If it could be proven with 100% certainty that he existed we wouldn't need faith and we would have no free will with which to reject him so we can go to hell.

This is not true.

God interacts in the lives of every person in whom He resides.

 

[Davian]

This is not true.

God interacts in the lives of every person in whom He resides.

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

 

[Elioenai26]

Just not in any way that you can demonstrate.

I could demonstrate it. If I were with you in person. Thats what brightlights was talking about when he mentioned the word "relationship".

 

[Davian]

I could demonstrate it. If I were with you in person. Thats what brightlights was talking about when he mentioned the word "relationship".

You don't mind derails at all, do you?

That's not much of a demonstration if it can't be replicated by others, elsewhere.

Anyone want to buy a slightly used cold fusion power generator?

Hey - why not video it and upload it to youtube?

 

[Elioenai26]

You don't mind derails at all, do you?

That's not much of a demonstration if it can't be replicated by others, elsewhere.

Anyone want to buy a slightly used cold fusion power generator?

Hey - why not video it and upload it to youtube?

Your definition of a "demonstration" is unncessarily and unreasonably limited to "that which can be replicated by others, elsewhere." I think that you are being too narrow and specific with your conditions regarding what you accept as an acceptable demonstration. Of course that is your choice and it is entirely up to you. But I think that you have a tendency of defining the words you use so narrowly as to prohibit anyone from presenting you with evidence that would be compelling to the average person.

 

[Davian]

Your definition of a "demonstration" is unncessarily and unreasonably limited to "that which can be replicated by others, elsewhere."

Where did I dictate such a definition?

I think that you are being too narrow and specific with your conditions regarding what you accept as an acceptable demonstration.

Where did I say that? Do you think it practical of me to jump in my car and drive to your house? Did I not suggest practical alternatives?

Of course that is your choice and it is entirely up to you.

Thanks!

But I think that you have a tendency of defining the words you use so narrowly

Spending time in the physical sciences and philosophy forums will lead to clearly defining the words one uses. Else one could end up asserting that jet airliners are built on guesses and not facts.

as to prohibit anyone from presenting you with evidence

I see the problem now! If only *I* would let you define 'demonstration' as 'an unsubstantiated claim made in an internet forum', then we could see that this "God" is real and not just a character in a book.

roflmao.

One might think that if you could actually perform such a demonstration, you would already be doing it with others, and we would be reading about you on the news. Any luck with that?

as to prohibit anyone from presenting you with evidence that would be compelling to the average person.

Perhaps I set the bar a little higher than the 'average person'.

"The study from National Geographic Channel found that 80 million Americans - or 36 per cent - are certain alien spaceship exist, and of those who believe, 79 per cent are convinced the White House has kept information about other lifeforms a secret."

Read more: More than a third of Americans believe in aliens.

(Apologies in advance to any of my fellow members of this site that count themselves among those that believe that Earth is being visited by extraterrestrial craft. This post is in no way intended to offend or embarrass. I for one welcome our alien overlords.)

 

[Elioenai26]

Where did I dictate such a definition?

Where did I say that? Do you think it practical of me to jump in my car and drive to your house? Did I not suggest practical alternatives?

Thanks!

Spending time in the physical sciences and philosophy forums will lead to clearly defining the words one uses. Else one could end up asserting that jet airliners are built on guesses and not facts.

I see the problem now! If only *I* would let you define 'demonstration' as 'an unsubstantiated claim made in an internet forum', then we could see that this "God" is real and not just a character in a book.

roflmao.

One might think that if you could actually perform such a demonstration, you would already be doing it with others, and we would be reading about you on the news. Any luck with that?


Perhaps I set the bar a little higher than the 'average person'.

"The study from National Geographic Channel found that 80 million Americans - or 36 per cent - are certain alien spaceship exist, and of those who believe, 79 per cent are convinced the White House has kept information about other lifeforms a secret."

Read more: More than a third of Americans believe in aliens.

(Apologies in advance to any of my fellow members of this site that count themselves among those that believe that Earth is being visited by extraterrestrial craft. This post is in no way intended to offend or embarrass. I for one welcome our alien overlords.)

You are being sarcastic now while I am being serious.

I will quote what you said and I do not think you were being sarcastic when you said it.

That's not much of a demonstration if it can't be replicated by others, elsewhere.

You said that in response to my post regarding demonstrating to you, in person, via a relationship, that Christ lives in me. You dismissed it as not much of a demonstration if it can't be replicated by others elsewhere.

But that is ok. I am not the only Christian in the world. There are many of us. No doubt some where you live, maybe even some in your neighborhood. Maybe even some in your family. Maybe they are living godly, exemplary lives, maybe they aren't. Maybe you do not even care. I do not know. I will say that I believe you spend too much time acting immature on this internet forum for someone who is married with children and who is 48 years old.

Maybe you have been hurt by someone in your past who was involved with the Christian religion, maybe you just really could care less, I do not know, but if you are in search of the truth, maybe you should start taking a look at a Person who has claimed to be The Truth. You may be surprised at what you find.

 

[brightlights]

The purpose of my contention is to suggest that religious knowledge is arational and furthermore to suggest that there are more faculties of knowledge than empirical and rational faculties. Let me explain:

We have empirical faculties -- namely, our five senses. We can see, hear, taste, smell, and touch the physical world and gain knowledge of the world.

We also have rational faculties. We can have conversation, understand complex concepts, and understand other minds. Almost like a sixth sense. Our rationality also "senses" the world. When we understand an idea or another person we use sensory language like "Oh, I see!" or "Now I hear what you're saying!"

We also have moral faculties. These, I am convinced, are quite separate from our rational faculties. There is nothing reasonable about morality -- though we may justify our moral feelings with rational explanation. Our moral feelings are still simply moral feelings. They exist within us before any reasoning occurs. We make moral judgments and then justify them with reasons. We "sense" the moral world with our conscience. But there is nothing rational about "right" or "wrong". No amounts of "is" statements can make an "ought".

I would suggest that we possess aesthetic faculties as well. We are able to perceive the world as beautiful or ugly. This, too, is quite separate from our rational faculties. There is nothing reasonable about what we find to be beautiful, though we can create all kinds of justifications for our aesthetic feelings (by using evolutionary theory for instance). Still, at the end of the day our aesthetic feelings are only feelings. There is no reason for their existence. We possess artistic "eyes" by which we view the world and make aesthetic judgments.

I would also and finally suggest that we possess spiritual faculties and this is why humans tend to believe in God. We do not "sense" God through empirical, rational, moral, or aesthetic faculties but through spiritual faculties. In the same way that the conscience senses moral reality and the eye senses physical reality, the eyes of faith sense spiritual reality. This, of course, will require more explanation. But here is contention #2.

 

[Elioenai26]

The purpose of my contention is to suggest that religious knowledge is arational and furthermore to suggest that there are more faculties of knowledge than empirical and rational faculties. Let me explain:

We have empirical faculties -- namely, our five senses. We can see, hear, taste, smell, and touch the physical world and gain knowledge of the world.

We also have rational faculties. We can have conversation, understand complex concepts, and understand other minds. Almost like a sixth sense. Our rationality also "senses" the world. When we understand an idea or another person we use sensory language like "Oh, I see!" or "Now I hear what you're saying!"

We also have moral faculties. These, I am convinced, are quite separate from our rational faculties. There is nothing reasonable about morality -- though we may justify our moral feelings with rational explanation. Our moral feelings are still simply moral feelings. They exist within us before any reasoning occurs. We make moral judgments and then justify them with reasons. We "sense" the moral world with our conscience. But there is nothing rational about "right" or "wrong". No amounts of "is" statements can make an "ought".

I would suggest that we possess aesthetic faculties as well. We are able to perceive the world as beautiful or ugly. This, too, is quite separate from our rational faculties. There is nothing reasonable about what we find to be beautiful, though we can create all kinds of justifications for our aesthetic feelings (by using evolutionary theory for instance). Still, at the end of the day our aesthetic feelings are only feelings. There is no reason for their existence. We possess artistic "eyes" by which we view the world and make aesthetic judgments.

I would also and finally suggest that we possess spiritual faculties and this is why humans tend to believe in God. We do not "sense" God through empirical, rational, moral, or aesthetic faculties but through spiritual faculties. In the same way that the conscience senses moral reality and the eye senses physical reality, the eyes of faith sense spiritual reality. This, of course, will require more explanation. But here is contention #2.

Bravo! I love it. This is good man. Look forward to the rest!

 

[Illuminaughty]

There may be other faculties of perception but the "eyes of faith" thing sounds problematic to me. It opens you up to confirmation bias. People have a knack for "finding" evidence to support what they already believe. "What the thinker thinks the prover proves" like Robert Anton Wilson one wrote.

 

[Elioenai26]

There may be other faculties of perception but the "eyes of faith" thing sounds problematic to me. It opens you up to confirmation bias. People have a knack for "finding" evidence to support what they already believe. "What the thinker thinks the prover proves" like Robert Anton Wilson one wrote.

You are forgetting that confirmation bias is applicable to anything one believes, not just that which is non-empirical by nature. If you maintain that confirmation bias is in someway itself biased towards those beliefs which are non-empirical, you have the burden of proof to make a case for such a position.

 

[brightlights]

There may be other faculties of perception but the "eyes of faith" thing sounds problematic to me. It opens you up to confirmation bias. People have a knack for "finding" evidence to support what they already believe. "What the thinker thinks the prover proves" like Robert Anton Wilson one wrote.

Yes you're right. But let's just entertain the thought for a moment. If God existed, would this scheme of knowledge make sense to you? Would it be possible that God is perceived by spiritual faculties and that these faculties, like all others, can become damaged?

 

[Carmella Prochaska]

I think it's sort of an innate thing to believe in a Creator. Even young children can see when there is a design of some sort. Child psychological studies show that children tend to believe "God did it". For me, I find it easier to believe for example that God made butterflies with their beauty & ability to metamorphosize instead of them evolving over a lengthy directionless mind-less process.

 

[Illuminaughty]

You are forgetting that confirmation bias is applicable to anything one believes, not just that which is non-empirical by nature.

The person seemed to be claiming that God was empirically verifiable but you need a special organ of perception to see him. When that "organ of perception" is called belief or faith it makes me question the accuracy of any results gained via that route though . It's not surprising people find apparent evidence for something they already believe in.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The purpose of my contention is to suggest that religious knowledge is arational and furthermore to suggest that there are more faculties of knowledge than empirical and rational faculties. Let me explain:

We have empirical faculties -- namely, our five senses. We can see, hear, taste, smell, and touch the physical world and gain knowledge of the world.

We also have rational faculties. We can have conversation, understand complex concepts, and understand other minds. Almost like a sixth sense. Our rationality also "senses" the world. When we understand an idea or another person we use sensory language like "Oh, I see!" or "Now I hear what you're saying!"

We also have moral faculties. These, I am convinced, are quite separate from our rational faculties. There is nothing reasonable about morality -- though we may justify our moral feelings with rational explanation. Our moral feelings are still simply moral feelings. They exist within us before any reasoning occurs. We make moral judgments and then justify them with reasons. We "sense" the moral world with our conscience. But there is nothing rational about "right" or "wrong". No amounts of "is" statements can make an "ought".

I would suggest that we possess aesthetic faculties as well. We are able to perceive the world as beautiful or ugly. This, too, is quite separate from our rational faculties. There is nothing reasonable about what we find to be beautiful, though we can create all kinds of justifications for our aesthetic feelings (by using evolutionary theory for instance). Still, at the end of the day our aesthetic feelings are only feelings. There is no reason for their existence. We possess artistic "eyes" by which we view the world and make aesthetic judgments.

I would also and finally suggest that we possess spiritual faculties and this is why humans tend to believe in God. We do not "sense" God through empirical, rational, moral, or aesthetic faculties but through spiritual faculties. In the same way that the conscience senses moral reality and the eye senses physical reality, the eyes of faith sense spiritual reality. This, of course, will require more explanation. But here is contention #2.

Perhaps we do possess spiritual faculties. But we need to be careful in specifying what is meant by 'spiritual'. An atheist can have experiences that he regards 'spiritual', but not supernatural.

 

[Elioenai26]

The person seemed to be claiming that God was empirically verifiable but you need a special organ of perception to see him. When that "organ of perception" is called belief or faith it makes me question the accuracy of any results gained via that route though . It's not surprising people find apparent evidence for something they already believe in.

Do you question your other sensory organs with the same scrutiny as you do with the ones for perceiving the spiritual realm brightlights is talking about?