Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Nurglitch wrote:Explaining the voices in your head to a sane person is like explaining colour to the blind, except you're crazy.

I'm sorry. This is sigged.

Manchu wrote:@Orlanth: I think the point that Ahtman was trying to get across was that there is no reason for a skeptic to believe that a believer's perspective is any closer to the truth or otherwise more reasonable than his own. The sentiment that skeptics are like the blind compared to believers is at least of heavily loaded as Nurglitch's post, if more (perhaps unintentionally) subtle.

Actually both posts I commented on to some degree wrote off people with faith as insane. This is an ad Hominem attack.

My comments are not loaded because there is no proof of the non existence of God, a skeptic can at best be content within their own paradigm. Some who do believe may get to see some evidence of the opposite, I cannot prove this to any but myself but nonetheless it's there. Its the imbalance between looking for something until you find it (or not), and looking for proof of non existence, the latter requires searching everywhere, the former possibly only until it is found.


Going back to the OP, I know many people who know God and hear God, and I have no problem in believing that this former pornstar hears God. After all I am no better than her in God's eyes.

Orlanth wrote:

Manchu wrote:@Orlanth: I think the point that Ahtman was trying to get across was that there is no reason for a skeptic to believe that a believer's perspective is any closer to the truth or otherwise more reasonable than his own. The sentiment that skeptics are like the blind compared to believers is at least of heavily loaded as Nurglitch's post, if more (perhaps unintentionally) subtle.

Actually both posts I commented on to some degree wrote off people with faith as insane. This is an ad Hominem attack.

Ad Hominem? Or...

After all I am no better than her in God's eyes.

I'm sorry. I could say something so god darned awful about this...

@Orlanth: Proof of God's existence requires an absence of faith. Faith is a way of being certain that does not require evidence.

I do not know what you mean by "knowing" or "hearing" God and I hesitate to assume. If you mean to state that someone has heard the voice of God in a literal auditory sense then you shouldn't be surprised if others are incredulous.

Orlanth wrote:Not really. You see faith comes first, then the relationship. However once you are talking to God its hard to ignore the fact that He is no myth.

You have a bit of the tail wagging the dog there it seems. You still can't make a non-believer understand why talking to god is actually important anymore than you can make a believer understand why it is ridiculous. "Talking" to god doesn't ever make it a fact or there wouldn't be diverse religions or ideologies. Other groups have just as much of a firm belief. If just believing something always made it so the world would be a different place. Having faith that it is true is not the same things as being factually true objectively. I could introduce you to some Hindus that would make the same statement you made about it being fact. Would you like to convert? They aren't the only ones either, we could go down a laundry list of religions that aren't Christian.

Orlanth wrote:Furthermore I can understand how it is not to believe in God, and can experience what the skeptic does, but the opposite is seldom true. I am in a better position than a skeptic, the skeptic guesses at what they don't have experience of, I know what I have seen and heard. In this I am lucky, many other have a strong faith but have not been blessed this way, why, I don't know.

You are changing this to role playing where I am talking appreciation. Pretending to be a non-believer is not the same thing as being one just as pretending to be a believer is not the same thing. I could pretend to be you be you but that doesn't mean I actually know what it is like. What you have here is hubris and pride; you assume knowledge you could not possible to have.

@Ahtman: A believer may have at one time been a skeptic, so it is entirely possible that Orlanth could be speaking from a perspective that he has done more than pretended to have. Conversely, there are many believers who have become skeptics, so Orlanth's point on that score is not very convincing, either.

Ahtman wrote:Having faith that it is true is not the same things as being factually true objectively.

Faith is being certain that something you have no empirical evidence for is factually, objectively (that is, not subjectively) true.

Manchu wrote:@Ahtman: A believer may have at one time been a skeptic, so it is entirely possible that Orlanth could be speaking from a perspective that he has done more than pretended to have. Conversely, there are many believers who have become skeptics, so Orlanth's point on that score is not very convincing, either.

That was part of the point I was trying to make.

Manchu wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Having faith that it is true is not the same things as being factually true objectively.

Faith is being certain that something you have no empirical evidence for is factually, objectively (that is, not subjectively) true.

I agree, that is why trying to make factual claims using faith as a basis just doesn't work. The two ideas don'[t mix. If it needs facts to prove it, then it isn't faith. It becomes idolatry.

Nurglitch wrote:As other people have pointed out plenty of other industries have large and distressing dark sides. Working in a kitchen, for example, exposes you to plenty of drugs, unsafe working conditions, and so on. And yet there are safe wonderful kitchens out there that are a joy to work in, that aren't filled with drug-addicts, health and safety violations, and produce food that's worth eating.

As Tristan Taormino points out, the problem isn't with pornography any more than MacDonalds makes food problematic thanks to its labour, health & saftey, and effect of the product on habituated users. There's fast-food porn, production-wise, and it degrades people as much as any other sweat-shop industry that depends on exploiting people.

Which is good that there are sites out there that producing plenty of non-degrading porn sites, like Abbey Winters, Tristan Taorminos own work, and so on. A favourite fetish site of mine, for example, always include a warm-down session afterwards which is good because it promotes not only the notion of the fantasy within a safe, sane, and consensual framework but encourages good BDSM behaviour where you need to be negotiate with your partner and debrief afterwards.

I mean, by all means pre-judge an entire industry because of a minority (which, this being the internet, is disproportionately represented because there's no local-market for the really weird stuff), but just be aware of how ignorant doing so is.

Okay, so because some other industries are bad, it negates my point about the porn industry? Bad argument and you know it.
This thread is about the porn industry, therefore my arguments were based around it. I have very similar concerns about professional sports, actually, probably slightly more concern as it is considered okay for parents to push their kids into that unhealthy lifestyle whereas it's totally taboo to do so with porn.
I never argued that there weren't people happily making harmless, enjoyable porn. But I don't think that's the majority, at all. If you've got numbers to say otherwise I'd love to see them.

As for your last sentence, well done on first misinterpreting what I was saying to make me fit the charicature you're more interested in arguing against, and then also well done on the snide personal attack. Really classy.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Ad Hominem? Or...

Flat out ridicule is an ad hominem attack. Whether verbal or by body language. My points are placed logically, you are not obliged to agree but if you disagree place your arguements logically. Follow Manchu's lead on this.

All you are 'saying' is that religous arguements should not be dignified with a responce and are to be recoiled from.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

After all I am no better than her in God's eyes.

I'm sorry. I could say something so god darned awful about this...

Go ahead if it makes and logical sense. If you use firm logic to assault my arguments I will not be offended, if your arguments have no logic then they would be firmly in the category of bigotry. You can keep those 'arguments' to yourself.

Manchu wrote:@Orlanth: Proof of God's existence requires an absence of faith. Faith is a way of being certain that does not require evidence.

There is no proof or lack of proof.
All arguments on Gods existence or non-existence are based on faith.

Manchu wrote:
I do not know what you mean by "knowing" or "hearing" God and I hesitate to assume. If you mean to state that someone has heard the voice of God in a literal auditory sense then you shouldn't be surprised if others are incredulous.

A fair question and one that Shelley Lubben has likely encountered if she hears God as she says she has. Forgive me if I have to explain this one as comprehensively as possible. It is difficult to describe and I must use words that are also used to describe other things in order to translate this phenomena into English.

Literally hearing God is VERY rare, apparently Paul did on the road to Damascus. It happens a few other times in the Bible. The audible voice of God is a Bible story like Jesus feeding the five thousand and even the Crucifixion and Resurrection themseles. At this point you simply have to make a choice to believe them or not. I hold you in no ill will if you do not, but conversely noone here now has a ministry to the like of Jesus or Elijah.

The hearing God I speak about, is a broadly common phenomena within the churches. While concentrated in the charismatic movement (churches that actively seek out the gifts of God) it is respected even in those churches that do not. For example the voice of God is taken seriously in denominations that are resistant to other gifts, those churches that do not experience tongues or prophesy are generally still open to a member who says "I think God is trying to tell me this...." at least until the message is heard.

From my experience and what I observed in others God works through what the Bible describes as the 'still small voice', the good news is that it cuts in without any required thought process of your own, the bad news is that it cuts in across the imagination. This is where hearing God can be for want of a better word dangerous as you need to learn to distinguish the difference between impanted thought and your own. I don't know if my words are adequate but I will admit there is a correlation between the imagination and the voice of God, the difference is in the 'accent'.

The Bible itself teaches us caution regarding hearing God, and gives us methodology to determine whether what we hear is God or not. I will best describe thisd by explaining my experiences.

1 Corinthians 14:29: Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully [KJV: judge] what is said.

A prophet is essentially someone who hears God with a particular purpose to the message received, to share the message corporately. However a similar methodology is also used in helping train oneself to hear God. If you hear something write it down and share it with other believers, look for a correlation. If a correlation is found you have heard God, if not not.

Fortunately hearing God is common enough that a correlation can often be found. Let me give you an common example. I remember one occasion where the pastor had prepared a sermon on a passage of the Bible as normal, but had felt in the car that God wanted to teach on something else. During the service someone in the church got up and spoke two lines from a completely different part of the Bible feeling that she should share that at that time. A few minutes earlier I was 'led' to also open my Bible and look for the same passage. I was mulling over whether or not I should interrupt the service and speak those same words. The masge shared by the other worshipper was a 'reassurance' to the pastor as this was the passage that God had told him to preach on that morning while in the car. Though unnecessary by that point I approached the pastor afterwards and told him I had been led to the same passage and was considering whether to speak those same words.

The interesting point about this was that it was a clear correlation, its also an example of hearing God clearly and evidence we were progressing (or at least I was being relatively new to this at the time). It is also nothing unusual. Hearing God is part of our everyday lives but at home and as a group, we don't even consider it a miracle, its just normality.
Looking at it I like this particular testimony as you can fit odds to it. I have never bothered to do so but I know they are long. What are the chances of three seperate people picking the same passage out of the Bible without prior communication and at random? What truly boggles the mind is how often this happens, this is anything but a one off. The most common 'comment' from God I have encountered is leading one to a particular passage of scripture. Though the 'still small voice' also holds normal conversation if you quieten yourself.

Romans 12:2: Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is — his good, pleasing and perfect will.

I must admit that because I have a very active imagination (I am here on Dakka after all ) I was very unsure when I first heard God, fortunately God is patient and understanding, He doesn't punish 'unbelief' in someone who is unsure what they have heard if anything. It took a lot of 'coincidences' before I would accept Gods voice. The lynchpin for me, came when I worrited to the assistant pastor who came on a home visit. I said more or less: "I want to hear God, but don't know if I do. He talks to me, in fact just now he told me he wants you to open an orphanage in Egypt.*" The assistant pastor smiled at me and said "Now I know you hear from God", this had been exactly what he had been planning and the church had yet to be told.
This was a crisis of faith to me, requiring evidence of whether I heard God at all and learning to distinguish between Gods voice and other things.

First thing to learn when listening for God is to actively test what you hear. At first I thought this might be somewhat sinful to deny God when He speaks, but He understands this after all you need to be open to Him to some degree to hear Him at all. In time you get to learn more of Gods personality first hand and see where it correlates to established knowledge of his character and this is the hard part to describe: 'how it sits with the spirit within you'.

*This comment was intended and received as an example of what I might be hearing as if at random. It is normally BAD to just speak out what you are hearing without mulling it over first.

Ahtman wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Not really. You see faith comes first, then the relationship. However once you are talking to God its hard to ignore the fact that He is no myth.

You have a bit of the tail wagging the dog there it seems. You still can't make a non-believer understand why talking to god is actually important anymore than you can make a believer understand why it is ridiculous.

No we can't but we can understand your reaction:

1 Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Can I assume you mean what you wrote? Note how you said 'is ridiculous' not 'appears ridiculous to us', highlighted in bold. Ridiculous is a strong word, you can deny without resorting to ridicule. The former is a flat denial, the latter acknowledges that others have a different paradigm.

Ahtman wrote:
"Talking" to god doesn't ever make it a fact or there wouldn't be diverse religions or ideologies. Other groups have just as much of a firm belief.

Talking to God is a privilege, it's also a fact. We do it pretty much all the time in some churches. Sure we cannot prove it but when the correlations add up like they can the chance that this is all random drops to a miniscule percentage. God doesn't do parlour tricks, but does talk with His friends where He is invited and welcome.

Ahtman wrote:Having faith that it is true is not the same things as being factually true objectively.

I will accept that, do you have the courage to also accept that also? Specifically: atheism is also a faith that cannot be proven "factually true objectively".

Ahtman wrote:
I could introduce you to some Hindus that would make the same statement you made about it being fact. Would you like to convert? They aren't the only ones either, we could go down a laundry list of religions that aren't Christian.

No problem with that either. We are not afraid of the competition. Any Hindi that speaks out and tries to tell me that I should accept Hinduism to be religiously fulfilled I will treat as a friend, according to his paradigm he is trying to do me a favour and I can respect that wholeheartedly. We would also disagree alot.
I draw the line at cults - mainly because the recruitment methodologies differ from standard open teaching and preaching. But that is another comment for another time.

Ahtman wrote:
You are changing this to role playing where I am talking appreciation. Pretending to be a non-believer is not the same thing as being one just as pretending to be a believer is not the same thing.

Actually you have me wrong. For a start its testimony not role playing. A testimony is based on ones own life and is important within the church, role playing is make beleive. I didn't make up that I am a Christian, or that at before I was a Christian I was not.

Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.

Charismatic Christianity is an empirical faith, testimony is important to us because with the Holy Spirit the unusual can become mainstream in a small way. The Christian life is not about hanging on to a belief in big miracles that happened two thousand or more years ago, it also rests on the little miracles of today. Testimony is important to us because we know God, God is real and He helps us in our lives. Those, to us, are facts, YMMV.

Ahtman wrote:
What you have here is hubris and pride; you assume knowledge you could not possible to have.

What hubris, what pride? I speak of what I know and see, of peoples lives changed for the better and correlation of faith. Why is this 'wrong' and to what fall does this pride lead? Also I have given evidence that the knowledge is there to possess though faith. i know I am not alone here in having directly experienced this.

Your choice is to accept or reject, but your choice to do so is also a faith based. You say its not possible to have such knowledge. How are you so sure? You can be sure only through a strong faith in no-god. Look at this carefully please. Perhaps you are more religious than I am in this regard, I do not look at the opposed arguments and call out 'impossible'. I speak of evidence and testimony not of definate proof and absolute certainty. Yes, I am very sure in my own conscience, but I don't seek to impose that surety on others. I point out faith instead.

Manchu wrote:@Ahtman: A believer may have at one time been a skeptic, so it is entirely possible that Orlanth could be speaking from a perspective that he has done more than pretended to have. Conversely, there are many believers who have become skeptics, so Orlanth's point on that score is not very convincing, either.

Faith is a choice. I still believe as much as I did when I joined the church, but for other reasons I rarely attend now. I kept my faith, just not as practiced on Sunday mornings, my reasons are my own and not for any lack of faith in God. Some do leave the charismatic movement, to join other churches or simply not attend but very few actually truly lose their faith. For those that do its a distinct choice based on other reasons. I know of a 'couple' who no longer 'beleive' because it was convenient for them for the man to leave his wife and run off with the wife of another man, from the same church. This was a case of turning Christianity off in favour of other benefits.

Fact remains in churches as much as outside the heart overides the head, or in the case above the loins override the head and the heart.

The charismatic church is not above corruption unfortunately. Sadly the number one cause of skepticism amongst former church goers is not God by corrupt supposed Christians, particular church leaders. We all fall short and some fall shorter than others, because anyone can start a 'church' the job sadly attracts many people for the wrong reasons, especially to the more 'open' Charismatic and evangelical movements. This ranges from 'spirit filled' churches with decent congregations but financially corrupt leaders through to out and out scum like Westboro Baptists - who are in all likelihood not Christians at all.

Point being, very few people once they have experienced God truly leave Him, they might leave the churches but rarely leave the faith entirely, though some are hurt badly enough by other so-called Christians that they are driven to that in an attempt to escape that pain. Most people who out and out leave Christianity to convert to another faith have done so from a 'dry' church life that does not experience God, or even in some cases proactively shuns such experience.

tl;dr

Now where is the booze!

I would have broken it into several different posts to adress each person in turn, but Dakka would have lumped it all back together.

A textwall was required to adequately answer Manchus' comment, for which I apologised in advance.

Is it your round?

I don't mind long answers if they're interesting and well written. (Which that was.)

This thread is beginning to intrigue me...

Orlanth wrote:Literally hearing God is VERY rare, apparently Paul did on the road to Damascus. It happens a few other times in the Bible. The audible voice of God is a Bible story like Jesus feeding the five thousand and even the Crucifixion and Resurrection themseles. At this point you simply have to make a choice to believe them or not. I hold you in no ill will if you do not, but conversely noone here now has a ministry to the like of Jesus or Elijah.

This type of biblical exegesis is called literalism. It is not the only way to read the Bible and some authorities consider it to be erroneous because it is not only overly simplistic but also encourages individual interpretation, which unfortunate practice results in many more errors and even scandals. (I'm using the word "scandal" in its Greek sense, an obstacle to faith.) I find that this literalism and the attendant tendency toward personal interpretation characterizes much of your experience as you have described it so far. Specifically, what you are describing seems more of a kind of superstition than religion, especially your correlational logic regarding coincidence. People who have "lucky charms" (or, in ancient times, pagan idols) frame the question in much the same way: "What are the chances of me having such good luck every time I found a penny? Finding a penny must be lucky." No doubt a person can indulge in any sort of private spirituality heedless to the incredulity of others. If you truly have faith that you hear God there is nothing I can do to disprove it given that your claim is not based on proof in the first place. These kind of claims about private spirituality, however, should not be misconstrued into definitional statements about Christianity. The belief system of Christianity, and I mean Trinitarian Christianity passed along from Jesus through the Apostles and eventually defined at Nicea in 325, does not involve so-called charismatic practices that are at best the quirks of individual communities and at worst, given the example of movements like those of Mohammed ad Joseph Smith, the origin of personality cults. That is why claims about hearing God, as you yourself admit, are dangerous. That is also why these claims arouse the skepticism and worry of believers and non-believers alike.

Im not getting into having a go at religious people anymore, i dont have any issue with 99% of them, but i have to have my say when you say it requires "faith" not to believe in God (Him/her/it)

Im sick of religious people calling me a faith-head because it makes them feel better.

You dont have to have faith if you are a none believer. Faith by DEFINITION is.

faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Everything i believe with regards to the origin of life is based on logical proof and material evidence. Not faith. You need faith for God, you dont need faith for things that have scientific evidence to back them up.

You can believe in God all you like, thats absokutely fine, i dont have any issues with that at all unless your a creationist and you want to tell lies to my kids at school or some door knocking gakker who wont leave me alone. But i have no faith. And no religion. Lack of belief in something cannot by definition be a religion and im sick to the back teeth of hearing it.

Orlanth wrote:
Can I assume you mean what you wrote? Note how you said 'is ridiculous' not 'appears ridiculous to us', highlighted in bold. Ridiculous is a strong word, you can deny without resorting to ridicule. The former is a flat denial, the latter acknowledges that others have a different paradigm.

A statement with respect to the ridiculousness of a thing can only be made from a subjective point: ie. the appearance of ridiculousness is the same as the actual ridiculousness of a thing, as ridiculousness is not an objective claim.

Orlanth wrote:
I will accept that, do you have the courage to also accept that also? Specifically: atheism is also a faith that cannot be proven "factually true objectively".

What sort of atheism? Certain brands of it are not faith based, whereas all brands of theism are.

Orlanth wrote:
Also I have given evidence that the knowledge is there to possess though faith.

Knowledge does not follow from faith. No epistemology ever conceived would suppose otherwise.

Orlanth wrote:
Your choice is to accept or reject, but your choice to do so is also a faith based.

Not necessarily. You process continuation in a faith centered mode because that is your chosen paradigm, but there is no need for faith when there is no positive action being taken. I don't need faith to not do something.

Orlanth wrote:
Point being, very few people once they have experienced God truly leave Him,

This is, of course, another issue of true Scotsmen.

mattyrm wrote:faith (fth)
n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

To believe that there is no God still fits this definition of faith. Do you have extensive evidence in the realm of the metaphysical to prove that there is no God? If not, then to believe that He doesn't exist is still faith. Faith in secular humanism, but faith nonetheless.

mattyrm wrote:Everything i believe with regards to the origin of life is based on logical proof and material evidence. Not faith. You need faith for God, you don't need faith for things that have scientific evidence to back them up.

The origin of life is just one aspect of God and His infinite power. You seem to be hung up on this one issue. You do realize that there are devout Christians who believe in theistic evolution right?

mattyrm wrote:You can believe in God all you like, that's absolutely fine, i don't have any issues with that at all unless your a creationist and you want to tell lies to my kids at school or some door knocking gakker who wont leave me alone. But i have no faith. And no religion. Lack of belief in something cannot by definition be a religion and im sick to the back teeth of hearing it.

As said before, your faith may be latent but it is still there. You still have to take logical conclusions, evidence and theories from other people and accept them as your own, regardless of whether or not you have spent hours pouring over their research and theorems to verify their claims. So even on a basic level you are still exhibiting a level of faith in them, namely that they are honest and absolutely right. Faith is not as simplistic as you might suggest.

What if he doesn't think they are absolutely right?
What if (like many agnostics and so on) he is comfortable accepting a level of doubt? I find many atheists have some doubt about the non-existance of god- that is, they are willing to be proved wrong.
Doubt is central to my worldview, much more than faith. Which isn't to say I don't have faith at times, but I think doubt is far more valuable.
Different strokes for different folks though.

@JEB: I think you're splitting hairs a bit. Making an argument based on a lack of evidence is not as good an argument as one based on evidence but the first one no more relies on faith than the second. For example, I do not believe that there are in the physical world unicorns and dragons. The only evidence I have for this is that I have never seen one or encountered any credible source that claims to have seen one. But I do not have "faith" that there are no unicorns and dragons.

Belief is funny as it doesn't have a clear, neurological definition. Its difficult to say what one believes, and what one does not believe with any level of 'truth'; given the lack of substantiation.

To put it in a question: Does one believe something if that 'belief' is held only for a moment?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote: But I do not have "faith" that there are no unicorns and dragons.

I would say that you do. At least insofar as you are willing to make a positive statement of certitude in testament of that as a fact.

@dogma: I think your Russellian mind is looking for unhelpful correlations between mechanical or materialistic images and linguistic ones.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:I would say that you do. At least insofar as you are willing to make a positive statement of certitude in testament of that as a fact.

I think you and JEB are both equating the concept of "faith" with the concept of "guess" or "theory."

Its possible. Certainly the world is simpler when belief is confined to evidently positive notions. But I'm an amateur philosopher, and things which are evident bore me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:I think you and JEB are both equating the concept of "faith" with the concept of "guess" or "theory."

The qualification of certitude was meant to sidestep that; reasonable people don't make certain statements about the truth value of theories. As I said, belief is funny. There is a good deal of argument over its relevance as either a prolonged condition, or an instantiated one. Personally, I suspect (Believe?) that it turns on the aforementioned certitude (ie. if you are not certain of the nonexistence of unicorns, you do not believe that they don't exist), but I could be convinced otherwise.

Da Boss wrote:What if he doesn't think they are absolutely right?

He may, but that doesn't deny the existence of faith.

Da Boss wrote:What if (like many agnostics and so on) he is comfortable accepting a level of doubt? I find many atheists have some doubt about the non-existance of god- that is, they are willing to be proved wrong.

This isn't a matter of proof. You can no more prove the absence of God then I can prove the existence of God. It simply isn't possible. It requires faith to believe in God because we cannot prove His existence, but on the same token according to Matt's definition of faith

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

To believe that God doesn't exist exhibits a similar level of faith, as there is no logical proof or material evidence that He doesn't exist. Both require belief that is based on circumstantial evidence and logical conclusions so both require faith.

Da Boss wrote:Doubt is central to my worldview, much more than faith. Which isn't to say I don't have faith at times, but I think doubt is far more valuable.

Doubt is undoubtedly easier, but more valuable? I have to respectfully disagree.

Manchu wrote:Making an argument based on a lack of evidence is not as good an argument as one based on evidence but the first one no more relies on faith than the second.

That is not what I said. Read my post, and keep in mind the context it was in.

I think there is a difference between dogmatic and practical beliefs. The certainty that God exists, for example, requires faith inasmuch as it cannot be achieved through empirical proof. To doubt God's existence for lack of empirical evidence requires no faith at all. To state that there is no God as a matter of practicality--that is, to state that the hypothetical existence of God does not and should not inform one's opinions or behavior--also does not require faith of any kind. I think that most "Age of Reason" atheism is a practical rather than dogmatic matter. As for the "New Atheism," that is another story. Perhaps the dogmatic insistence upon the non-existence of God does require a sort of faith. But when I assert that there are no unicorns or dragons in the natural world, I am not doing so as a matter of faith, except in the colloquial sense of "having faith" that humankind would have encountered such beasts if they actually exist. But I'm not talking about faith as a metaphor (as a related example, acting in "good faith") but rather in an epistemological sense.

What do you think of this statement: "logic requires inference and perhaps assumption but not faith"?

@JEB: I read your post, understand its context, and believe that I have already addressed it sufficiently. If you think otherwise, please extrapolate what point you feel I have either misinterpreted or misunderstood.

Relapse wrote:

malfred wrote:

Relapse wrote:The definition of trauma, courtesy of dictionary .com:

"1. Pathology. a. a body wound or shock produced by sudden physical injury, as from violence or accident.
b. the condition produced by this; traumatism.

2. Psychiatry. a. an experience that produces psychological injury or pain.
b. the psychological injury so caused."

The second definition applies in the instances I refer to.

I'm amused by your screen name in this instance.

Damn! Caught me with my pants down!

Define "irony". A user with a screenname of "Relapse", discussing porn addictions, and then posting this reply.

Well, I might as well dive in too:

JEB wrote:You still have to take logical conclusions, evidence and theories from other people and accept them as your own, regardless of whether or not you have spent hours pouring over their research and theorems to verify their claims. So even on a basic level you are still exhibiting a level of faith in them, namely that they are honest and absolutely right. Faith is not as simplistic as you might suggest.

Aren't you referring to faith (small 'f'), opposed to Faith (big 'F') here? Thats is to say, 'faith' to mean 'trust'? It takes 'trust' to believe the word of qualified scientists, who have poured thousands upon thousands of man(and woman)hours collectively into understanding certain things? People who can demonstrate WHY and HOW gravity, evolution, or photosynthesis works EARN our trust. That isn't the same thing as 'Faith', as I'm sure most people on here would admit.

Also, Atheism is not a monolithic group of identical viewpoints. 'Atheism' literally means 'without theism', and that can cover a whole range of things from agnosticism to Anti-theism. It requires no faith on my part to be non-theistic. If proof that god/s exist became available, then I would be the first to say 'wow, awesome!' - but there isn't any, so I personally can't say that. Do I think god exists? No. Is my position on this unmoving? No. Because that would require Faith, and that 'ain't me babe.

I wonder is doubt easier. I wonder what easier even means, in this context.
But yes, to me, it is more valuable. It's how I construct my worldview, by trying to question everything, worry at everything, consider as many other points of view as I can. I'm not always good at it, as sometimes I can be pretty closedminded on suprising topics, but I try to correct myself. I think that's valuable.

JEB, I was sort of putting forward an argument for what some people call atheism but is really a form of agnosticism that is 99% sure. But that 1% of doubt is important, and is what stops it being a faith issue. Though I don't disagree that even the most dedicated agnostic has moments of faith in their lives. It's unavoidable. I'd consider them to be significantly different to religious faith.
(Uh, sorry if I've misunderstood you. I often find the metaphysical conversations on dakka hard to follow, my training was in science with little emphasis on this sort of thing, though I find it really interesting and thoroughly enjoy these conversations. I also find it hard to express what I'm thinking properly, but hopefully I was clear enough here.)

JEB wrote:You can no more prove the absence of God then I can prove the existence of God. It simply isn't possible.

SCIENCE: Making the impossible, possible.

We have no way of understanding that which we do not yet know. We can know that we don't know things in the present, but we don't know that we won't know them in the future. And we can have no idea of what those things might be.

An example of this is electricity.

Instead of adding my own wall of text (most of which here are well written and quite interesting) I'm just going to agree with Albatross.

I must say I'm surprised this has yet to devolve into a flamefest... (cue such-and-such)

Yay!

I think it's nice to have a reasonable discussion on these matters. Flamewars on this subject get boring, fast - but a decent debate can last pages and pages - and are often very interesting.