Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Looks like my initial reading of the situation was correct. Oh well.It's called sarcasm, but I'm damned if I'm going to try and explain that. (hmmm, maybe I should create a new thread)
Good job complaining that I don't post enough content for your standards rather than addressing what I do post. Any wonder why I don't bother writing more?
Can you find anyone hear on CF that thinks you "do enough" to constructively further a discussion?
Sure. For an example, take a look at post 206. Look at the checkmarks at the bottom of it.
Look, I get it. It is hard to keep the rhetoric going when people point out the obvious - there are better ways to figure out reality works than paragraphs and paragraphs of creative writing exercises. But don't shoot the messenger.
And I thought the rhetoric--or actually the more appropriate word in your case would be "polemics"--was on your side.....since you almost never, as far as I can tell, buttress your points with anything academic
(by which I mean here "of scientific and scholarly substance"). It would be good for you to support your statement and demonstrate for us from where you drawn your all encompassing, and rather simply, ocean of knowledge that supposedly backs all that you say. What classes have you taken? What books have you read? Which scientific and/or atheistic authors have been most influential in your view of the world?
Etc. etc. But, when I look for that kind of thing from you, I hear this guy singing in your chorus line ....
Wait, I thought the issue was that I didn't win some sort of arbitrary popularity contest. Why are you moving the goalposts yet again?
I see the problem here. I don't honestly remember the names of the authors of the textbooks I read 25 years ago. But that's the benefit of working in a field which has well tested methods for determining the truth of claims - it simply doesn't matter who wrote the books as long as the content does line up with reality. That's why I'm not impressed by the fact that you can name drop some dead white dudes having opinions - even if you can tell me when and where they had that opinion and which other dead white dudes shared them. I'd much rather have an effective method of seeing how those opinions line up with reality - and the results of applying that method.
But if it really matters I can try to find the authors of some of my college textbooks. I have a feeling this is another red herring, but hey, why not waste more time trying not to actually discuss ideas rather than name drop?
I see another problem. I'm not used to fields which consider pictures of cartoon characters "of scientific and scholarly substance". I'll try to improve.
Gah, you are really not going to let me get away with brushing aside Platonism, are you? I don’t feel I know enough about it to give it a proper evaluation, but I can get back to you perhaps in another thread? I feel like all my conversations in here are now about my epistemology vs everyone else’s and not addressing the OP’s question anymore.Wellll, now you're going to need to deal with @2PhiloVoid's Jewish epistemology and my Platonism at the same time. Sorry, can't be helped.
Well, I’m glad we agree on this. I do understand what you mean with the whole separate epistemology for finding faith in God, I just wholly reject the idea of using a different epistemic standard for one specific type of claim. The problem specifically with your Jewish epistemology is that it seems identical to self-deceit. Studies in cognitive dissonance show that when there is a conflict between your beliefs and your behavior, you’re more likely to change your beliefs to justify your behavior rather than the other way around. We really don’t like to admit when we’re acting in what Sartre would call “bad faith.” I hate to say that about something so many generations have taken very seriously and held sacred, but I call it like I see it.
Gah, you are really not going to let me get away with brushing aside Platonism, are you? I don’t feel I know enough about it to give it a proper evaluation, but I can get back to you perhaps in another thread? I feel like all my conversations in here are now about my epistemology vs everyone else’s and not addressing the OP’s question anymore.
The point is that most theists would not be making claims like this either. "I believe that God exists" would be a more appropriate claim, and unless atheism is now defined as the belief that theists do not believe that God exists, which would be really wild, it doesn't make sense to say that atheism is the rejection of a theistic claim.
Ok, fair enough. I seem to have misinterpreted Sartre's meaning of "bad faith" to simply mean acting in a way that goes against your beliefs, but your video (and Silmarien) has explained that it's more about acting as though no other choices are available to you when there really are. I accept this correction. All I meant was that the epistemology proposed by Judaism as you describe it, if used as an apologetic strategy, appears to take advantage of a well-documented psychological phenomenon that compels people to change their beliefs when they're forced to act in ways that contradict them. If someone doesn't already believe in God, but then they start living as though they do, they might very well start to believe just to relieve the cognitive dissonance. But that's true for any given belief so it's not a strong indicator of God's existence either way. I did notice that the Jewish god-epistemology isn't exactly for someone who doesn't already believe, but rather those who believe and wish to explore the nature of their beliefs a little deeper, so that's fine. I just had to criticize it as an apologetic strategy because as you reminded me, this is an apologetics forum.Yeah, I wouldn't want to be the one to say that religiously oriented Jewish people have always acted ... in Sartrean "bad faith." In fact, to say so is basically a 'crock of bull' AND an implicature that diminishes (and otherwise completely and utterly ignores) both the epistemic and the social indicia within the biblical texts.
Sure, we might say that the Israelites in the O.T. had periodic episodes of acting in "bad faith," but this wouldn't comport to the Sartrean notion in the least. Rather, the prophetic institution within the biblical corpus supplies and implies a completely different complex to explain the Israelites mental "situation," one that is quite different in nature than the one you are construing with casuistry ... from the 'outside' of the Bible.
I guess how one sees the nature of the faith depends on whether your are an 'innie' or an 'outie.' Personally, I try to see things from multiple perspectives, not just one.
I did not mean to insult you, truly. It was a misinterpretation on my part. I have heard and understand your Jewish epistemology as you have described it, and my only point is it doesn't help a non-believer come to belief at all. I know it's not meant to, either. I don't doubt that those who use that epistemology are sincere in their already-existing faith, I just don't know if it belongs in the same category as Christian apologetics.Moreover, I for one am not going to accept ANY insipid insinuations that I, myself, only have Christian faith because I have ... Sartrean "bad faith." Yeah, as I said above, I think that kind of evaluation is a crock of bull and if anything, I've studied way too much to be taken in by a bunch of atheistic amateurs who want to take crackshots at my faith.
Notice, too, or maybe you haven't, that my epistemological understanding of things actually makes room and explains at least some of the reasons why people can be atheists, and it doesn't imply that atheists are all at fault for being where they are cognitively with the whole 'god question.' But, apparently, atheists (or agnostics, or skeptics, doubters, or whatever label you want to use) such as yourself are in such a rush to discount everything biblical that some of you guys want to insist that all this Christian belief stuff can just be pawned off to cognitive dissonance and "bad faith." How convenient for you.
So you say, and yet you also think that modern physics is simply mathematical models rather than based on observation. Something's not adding up.
Just wanted to point out that our sensory perception of reality actively conflicts with the scientific picture of it. Is the candle in front of me actually green or is it the light reflecting against it in a specific way that makes my brain register the color green? Is it solid, or does the structure of the atom mean that it and everything else is mostly empty space? Do fundamental particles actually "exist" in the same way that atoms and molecules do at all?
In practice, at least where I live, this doesn’t hold true at all.
When I ask a theist (and in my case it’s almost always a Christian) the question, “Could you be wrong about your god existing?”, the answer is overwhelmingly “No, I know that God exists.”
.....why is it you can always say things...so much better than I can?!Physics does use mathematical models to describe what it studies. This goes all the way back to Ptolemaic astronomy--people believed that the sun went around the earth because of astronomical calculations rather than simply because they observed it going around the earth. I'm talking about the use of mathematical models (and reason) instead of relying upon naive sensory perception, and this gets increasingly more important as the work gets more and more theoretical. This does not rule out observation, but the scientific method is meant to correct for the flaws of sensory perception, even as it obviously makes use of it. If you were willing to read my post in the context in which it was originally made instead of replying to a straw man of your own making, this strange dispute could have been avoided altogether.
In practice, at least where I live, this doesn’t hold true at all.
When I ask a theist (and in my case it’s almost always a Christian) the question, “Could you be wrong about your god existing?”, the answer is overwhelmingly “No, I know that God exists.”
I've also never met an atheist in person who would claim that it was a lack of belief. All of my atheist friends will say they don't believe in God.
Yes, like the claim that I see all the time that someone knows that a god exists, which runs counter to your suggestion that "most theists would not be making claims like this".Theism covers a lot of different beliefs.
If atheists don't want theists to make assumptions about their beliefs or lack thereof, they should be willing to return the favor. But that doesn't happen around here very often. It seldom even registers with people that I don't identify as Christian, even after I've said it multiple times.
No, I literally said this:
And then you jumped on it for reasons unknown.
Physics does use mathematical models to describe what it studies. This goes all the way back to Ptolemaic astronomy--people believed that the sun went around the earth because of astronomical calculations rather than simply because they observed it going around the earth. I'm talking about the use of mathematical models (and reason) instead of relying upon naive sensory perception, and this gets increasingly more important as the work gets more and more theoretical. This does not rule out observation, but the scientific method is meant to correct for the flaws of sensory perception, even as it obviously makes use of it. If you were willing to read my post in the context in which it was originally made instead of replying to a straw man of your own making, this strange dispute could have been avoided altogether.
I've also never met an atheist in person who would claim that it was a lack of belief. All of my atheist friends will say they don't believe in God.
Theism covers a lot of different beliefs. If atheists don't want theists to make assumptions about their beliefs or lack thereof, they should be willing to return the favor. But that doesn't happen around here very often. It seldom even registers with people that I don't identify as Christian, even after I've said it multiple times.
Probably all of my atheist friends would recognize that the two statements are colloquially equivalent.
Yes, like the claim that I see all the time that someone knows that a god exists, which runs counter to your suggestion that "most theists would not be making claims like this".
I'm apparently not seeing what you're seeing. In terms of putting words (or beliefs) in other people's mouths, over the 14 years I've been here I've seen it happen much, much more often from theists.
Lacking a belief that something exists and not believing something exists, would appear to be one and the same.
For myself personally, I certainly lack a belief that a God exists and I also don't believe a God exists.
Would they also say that God does not exist and is a human invention? I have a friend who has said that in no uncertain terms. I was not even aware of this "lack of belief" definition before running into the internet version of atheism, and I used to actually identify loosely with the movement.
Perhaps this is anecdotal on all sides. Most of the theists I know in person would not make such a claim. Perhaps the ones who do make that claim are simply louder about it? That would not mean there are more of them.
Of course, there are also questions concerning what we mean by knowledge. Even people who claim that the existence of God can be demonstrated philosophically or are convinced on the grounds of personal experience will probably back down if you set the bar for knowledge all the way at absolute certainty. Unless you're dealing with people who are completely unreasonable, but that can be the case whether you're a theist or an atheist.
This is a very Protestant forum, so many of the people on it will fit with certain stereotypes to one extent or another. That doesn't mean that they're not stereotypes, and as a Platonist whose interest is primarily in Eastern Orthodoxy, I get hit with them all the time. It is very clear to me that many of the atheists here, at least in the Apologetics forum, think that they are owed respect without having any obligation to return it.
As for theists putting words in atheists' mouths, sometimes it depends. Earlier in this thread I used the word "atheistic perspective" to refer to looking at reality with the assumption that atheism is correct, and someone flipped out because "atheism" is not a claim. This new definition of atheism as a lack of belief has become so rigidly dogmatic that some people are apparently unable to handle seeing the word used in entirely different contexts. That is not a good sign.
They don't have to be. I lack belief in an afterlife but I do not disbelieve that there is an afterlife. I prefer to operate under the assumption that there is one, as it makes me take this life more seriously, but that doesn't mean I'm not agnostic about it.
If a God does not exist and some people believe a God exists, wouldn't the belief then be a human invention?
Humans manufacture certain beliefs all the time, there is nothing unusual or even abnormal about that. And the fact, that humans have so many different beliefs, that all can not be correct, verifies that beliefs are invented by human minds.
People believe big foot exists, people believe they have been abducted by aliens and I could go on and on.
Of course. My point was that this particular friend doesn't say that she lacks belief in God. She says that God was invented by humanity and does not exist. That is an actual positive claim. I've got another friend who would be an agnostic but thinks it's a copout so instead believes that God does not exist. He's less adamant about it than the first one, but given his feelings about agnosticism, I doubt he would describe his stance as a lack of belief.
I'm not sure if any atheist I've known in person would say that their atheism is a "lack of belief," though. I'm familiar with "agnostic atheism," but atheism as "lack of belief" or as the rejection of a specific claim is entirely new to me.
But, wouldn't that almost be a position one would have if they don't believe in something, that they automatically attribute it to human invention?
Again, lack of belief and not believing something, is exactly the same thing using different words. I mean, if you lack a belief in something, you automatically don't believe in that something. Not sure why that is so hard to understand.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?