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.

From Websters:

Main Entry:
faith
Pronunciation:
\ˈfāth\
Function:
noun

2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust


Based off this definition, I would say that both those who believe in God and don't believe in God have a belief structure based on faith. If you don't want to believe in God, then you have to accept that your belief is based in faith just as much as a believer. Neither has any proof. If you want to be really scientific about it, then you just have to say that there is no evidence either way.

Ozymandias wrote:That video was like a slower talking Yahtzee from Zero Punctuation. Same accent and same fun use of cartoons.

Why does everything sound more authoritative when spoken in that accent? That's transatlantic, right? The sort of made up replacement for recieved that the BBC uses?

That's my second favorite accent, after the aristocratic tidewater Virginia accent Martin Sheen used in Gettysburg, and just ahead of own good old Northern Cities accent. Everybody can understand me just fine!

ixlar: Nice Job I like it, You took the Words right out of my mouth.....

ixlar wrote:Based off this definition, I would say that both those who believe in God and don't believe in God have a belief structure based on faith. If you don't want to believe in God, then you have to accept that your belief is based in faith just as much as a believer. Neither has any proof. If you want to be really scientific about it, then you just have to say that there is no evidence either way.

The problem is where the burden of proof lies; in general it's considered illogical to believe in the existence of something which has no proof - or even significant evidence - for it. Whether or not you can prove a negative doesn't matter here; the default is something does not exist without a reason to believe that it does.

For example, there's an invisible elf in your room, and if you try to find him you'll fail because he's too magical.

Also, if you don't believe that he exists, he'll read your mind and get mad, and maybe eat your skin.

You have no reason to believe in my invisible elf, thus you most likely do not. You may accept it's existence as a possibility, but that's not the same as believing that he, in fact, is real.

But both require belief. Its an interesting argument. Its also one of those arguments that if you think about to long, might create a paradigm shift. Not all paradigm shifts are good thing.

Oh God nothing's real its all belief!

I think therefore I am? (I beleive therefore I exist?)

Kinda cool.

Not a very pragmatic, though.

"Nothing can ever be proven! Our entire thought process is based on limited perceptions and assumptions made about the world around us!"

You don't really get anything from that, other than "that's not an apple... I perceive it to be one! Based on my assumptions!"

It's like simulationism. No real point, beyond maybe trying to impress people. Everything just comes full circle, and your life hasn't really changed.

First - Genuinely sorry I wasn't on for those last two pages, because I can't possibly go back and reply to every point, I'd really like to, but I have to sleep at some point, it would take hours. If you want my opinion on anything in particular, feel free to ask again, although I will be working tomorrow night, and may not be on all day as a result.

Now,

ixlar wrote:From Websters:

Main Entry:
faith
Pronunciation:
\ˈfāth\
Function:
noun

2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust


Based off this definition, I would say that both those who believe in God and don't believe in God have a belief structure based on faith. If you don't want to believe in God, then you have to accept that your belief is based in faith just as much as a believer. Neither has any proof. If you want to be really scientific about it, then you just have to say that there is no evidence either way.

I will use an analogy to explain this following point. Vegetarians do not eat meat. Meat is ANY dead animal. Therefore, vegetarians do not eat fish, pooultry etc. Some people who claim to be Vegetarians eat fish. They are wrong, but are called Vegetarians by those who are ignorant of the distinction (they are pescatarians.)[sp?]
The same applies to Atheists. I am an atheist, as I'm sure you figured out. I do not believe in a god or gods. I cannot PROVE there is no god, but I believe it is less likely than the non-existence of a god. By god with a small g, I mean also the supernatural as a whole, 'magic', unicorns, leprechauns, ghosts, flying spaghetti monsters, Nurgle, whatever. I AM an atheist because I deny the existence of god through challenging the hypothesis (if you contest that it is a fact or even theory, please look up the scientific definitions of these words, as I am using scientific terminology) of 'his' existence. In addition, I believe that the Christian God, as a relatively recent one compared to many Ancient Eygyptian, South/Central American, Far Eastern etc religions, is even less likely than the existence of god at all. I know I cannot prove 'his' non-existence, but I only believe things I have reason to believe, and I have no reason to believe this. Popularity does not make it true, especially when some of the methods through which much of this popularity was garnered are despicable to any humanitarian.

Those who claim there CANNOT be a god, and also BELIEVE it, are not Atheists by the definition that fits me. Atheist is really the wrong term for me, rather than them, but no term exists for my demographic that suffices. In its original definition, atheism was literally anti-theism -- and anti-theists are dogmatic by definition, they believe, with no evidence, that there is no god. If you choose to call that faith I cannot argue, although it is slightly different from belief in a particular God.

Orkeosaurus - excellent point with the invisible elf, perfect example.

As I cannot scroll through the whole thread in my little box below (should have used Quick Reply ) I cannot check who made the point about the definition of Atheism throughout history. Hopefully I have answered it. Also, we need to make a distinction between Theism, and Deism, something Websters is seemingly unaware of. Theism is the belief in a PERSONAL God, one who cares about your everyday life, and you as an individual. Deism is the belief in a supernatural force or forces that either control things behind the scenes, or just started the whole thing running and sat back to see what happens. The stereotypical Far-Right American Deep South Christian falls firmly under the former category, for an example. I think the majority of well educated religious people would subscribe to the latter, although they may not realise or admit it. I accept that I could be wrong of course, it's merely a hypothesis.

EDIT: Dogma, a true Atheist could not actually believe in any element of the supernatural, regardless of definition. They eat fish.
Generalgrog: Sorry, but secular humanism is a set of beliefs about what's right - a moral code. It is not a faith system, as it has no supernatural elements. Evolution is different again. To use Micro evolution as the example ( I believe you said you accept this, but that might have been someone else, sorry if so ) it is a scientific theory, with evidence, like gravity. If we have the knowledge to understand the exactitudes of the experiments/research carried out (and I don't myself, although I get the gist) then we can replicate them, and get similar or identical results. It's not like Darwin thought it up, and everyone just thought, 'oh, okay then, must be true', it has been demonstrated many times. Whilst Macro is slightly different, I'm not a biologist and cannot explain any better, or more, I trust the scientific method, as it has been demonstrated to work more times than enough, including by me, so if other people used it to determine Macro, I believe that is reasonable evidence to believe in their findings. I hope that's clear.


Also - earlier I asked (was it you dogma?) if you meant it was easier to defend metaphysical concepts, and you said yes as they cannot be proven wrong - but the lack of evidence gives us no reason to believe either. With no reason to either believe or disbelieve, I think disbelief has to be the only option. I think this is the fundamental difference in our worldviews, only, if I may, mine is more consistent. You have no reason to believe leprechauns, ghosts, unicorns, aliens etc don't exist, so you should believe they do, but I doubt it. Although if you do believe in them, I apologise, and you prove me wrong. Aliens are perhaps a bad example - they are a statistical likelihood.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

ixlar wrote:Based off this definition, I would say that both those who believe in God and don't believe in God have a belief structure based on faith. If you don't want to believe in God, then you have to accept that your belief is based in faith just as much as a believer. Neither has any proof. If you want to be really scientific about it, then you just have to say that there is no evidence either way.

The problem is where the burden of proof lies; in general it's considered illogical to believe in the existence of something which has no proof - or even significant evidence - for it. Whether or not you can prove a negative doesn't matter here; the default is something does not exist without a reason to believe that it does.

For example, there's an invisible elf in your room, and if you try to find him you'll fail because he's too magical.

Also, if you don't believe that he exists, he'll read your mind and get mad, and maybe eat your skin.

You have no reason to believe in my invisible elf, thus you most likely do not. You may accept it's existence as a possibility, but that's not the same as believing that he, in fact, is real.

Here is the fly in the ointment. There is proof. I am proof. I've been born again. I have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. God isn't some philosophical system to me. God is alive, Jesus has arisen (Resurection Day(a.k.a Easter) is approaching!)

The other proof is that I'm not the only one that claims to have a relationship with God. So this is where I and others are different from athiests, etc. I know without a doubt that I am saved and am going to heaven, to be with God when I die. Jesus made this possible for me and others. So this is where there is a big disconnect between unbelievers and believers in that the unbeliever has no idea what it means to be a believer so it all seems like myths and legends, invisible friends, little elfs, etc,etc.

GG

ixlar wrote:From Websters:

Main Entry:
faith
Pronunciation:
\ˈfāth\
Function:
noun

2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust


Based off this definition, I would say that both those who believe in God and don't believe in God have a belief structure based on faith. If you don't want to believe in God, then you have to accept that your belief is based in faith just as much as a believer. Neither has any proof. If you want to be really scientific about it, then you just have to say that there is no evidence either way.

But this is only relevant to the conversation and GeneralGrog’s point if you consider atheism and evolution as one in the same. They are not the same, because you can believe in both evolution and God, or believe in one and not the other, or you can believe in neither.

And no, one doesn’t have to have ‘faith’ in evolution. One can just see it as the best fitting model for all observed empirical events. One can note that the theory is constantly tested and refined as more is discovered, and leave it at that.

But then there are very big differences in most forms of atheism and conventional spiritual faith. Sure, there are atheists who are adamant in their belief in the absence of God and use that belief to inform their other beliefs in values (whether it be nihilism, humanism or whatever). But there are a lot of atheists who view God as very unlikely, think no more of it and when pushed just make jokes about the flying spaghetti monster. Their belief doesn’t really inform any other part of their value set, and isn’t a core of their identity. You can use whatever dictionary terms you like, but comparing the faith in the second type of atheist to the faith of a Christian is doing both a disservice.


But I think the big, big thing everyone in this conversation needs to be aware of is why this idea of ‘atheism and/or evolution require faith just like God does’ exists. It isn’t because anyone really cares whether atheism is a faith. It isn’t because anyone really believes that following the scientific process is an act of faith. It’s because the bible stopped being taught in schools. From there a movement formed to try and get the bible back into schools, and it has taken the form of intelligent design, which pretends that creationism is as legitimate a theory as evolution in discussing the complexity of life. One of the odd assumptions made in that movement is that evolution is somehow a complete explanation for everything and that it somehow needs or assumes a very strong form of atheism. From there it follows that atheism and evolution are also faith based movements.

Now, I don’t think anyone here is part of that movement, but that is the origin of these claims that atheism or evolution is faith based. Simple truth is that only a small number of atheists (albeit highly vocal) have anything like the faith of Christians or other religious groups. And the even simpler truth is that the study of evolution, like any scientific process, has nothing to do with faith at all, and is just a process by which we observe the world, make predictive models and then test those predictive models.

generalgrog wrote:Here is the fly in the ointment. There is proof. I am proof. I've been born again. I have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. God isn't some philosophical system to me. God is alive, Jesus has arisen (Resurection Day(a.k.a Easter) is approaching!)

The other proof is that I'm not the only one that claims to have a relationship with God. So this is where I and others are different from athiests, etc. I know without a doubt that I am saved and am going to heaven, to be with God when I die. Jesus made this possible for me and others. So this is where there is a big disconnect between unbelievers and believers in that the unbeliever has no idea what it means to be a believer so it all seems like myths and legends, invisible friends, little elfs, etc,etc.

GG

See, that thing there? Where you're talking about your personal relationship with God and how it is beyond any philosophical system? Yeah, that's massively to the 'faith' that evolutionary scientists or atheists have. And that's been my point all along, that you're not doing your own faith any favours when you claim atheism or evolution has a faith that's anything like it.

Sebster - nicely put.

generalgrog - I understand your point of view - and I do respect that you made that choice of your own free will. But you have to understand (I think you do, but I'm stating it for clarity anyway) that that is not what those of us who respect the Scientific Method as the only reliable known method of evidence gathering call proof.

No disrespect, but if someone is mentally ill, and kills someone because they think Santa told them to do it, there is no discernable difference between the strength of their belief and yours, but that doesn't mean Santa really speaks to them, or exists at all.

I'm afraid you also ignore the fact that there are some who call themselves Athiest who once were religious, sometimes even deeply so. I respect your opinions, and you are an intelligent and astute debator, (at least, compared to most people on the internet ) so I really am not trying to insult you personally.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Not a very pragmatic, though.

"Nothing can ever be proven! Our entire thought process is based on limited perceptions and assumptions made about the world around us!"

You don't really get anything from that, other than "that's not an apple... I perceive it to be one! Based on my assumptions!"

It's like simulationism. No real point, beyond maybe trying to impress people. Everything just comes full circle, and your life hasn't really changed.

Wait, actually it is.

IN some manner the philosphy is found in Existentialism, certain forms of Buddhism, even science.

Only I am real. Only God is real, everything must be proven to be real.

Frazzled wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Not a very pragmatic, though.

"Nothing can ever be proven! Our entire thought process is based on limited perceptions and assumptions made about the world around us!"

You don't really get anything from that, other than "that's not an apple... I perceive it to be one! Based on my assumptions!"

It's like simulationism. No real point, beyond maybe trying to impress people. Everything just comes full circle, and your life hasn't really changed.

Wait, actually it is.

IN some manner the philosphy is found in Existentialism, certain forms of Buddhism, even science.

Only I am real. Only God is real, everything must be proven to be real.

The concept that things have to be proven to be accepted DOES exist in science as discussed above, however, science tells us things are true according to what we currently know, not that they are absolutes. The belief there is a god is an absolute, and this philosophy should rule that an illogical conclusion.

Okay. Interesting thing I'd like to say, following on from watching Darwins Garden late last night on the BBC.

So, Evolution directly contradicts much of the Bible. It challenges the assumption that God made the earth. It has reasonable disproved the claim the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old (it is in fact Billions, according to Science).

But so what? Does disproving the Bible disprove God? We are only told by Religion that the Bible is the infallible word of God. That to me requires more faith to believe than the possible existence of a higher power. Note the inordinate amount of influence many organised Religions have. IS it surprising that they would claim to literally be Holier Than Thou in their role, claiming they were chosen by God to spread His word?

I ask this as an Agnostic bordering on Atheist. I am trying to refrain from stacking the question, hence my lack of explanation. Rather than my opinion, I want people to look at this as a purely philosophical question. Ignore all else in this post other than the crux of the question.

Does disproving the Bible, disprove God?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Okay. Interesting thing I'd like to say, following on from watching Darwins Garden late last night on the BBC.

So, Evolution directly contradicts much of the Bible. It challenges the assumption that God made the earth. It has reasonable disproved the claim the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old (it is in fact Billions, according to Science).

But so what? Does disproving the Bible disprove God? We are only told by Religion that the Bible is the infallible word of God. That to me requires more faith to believe than the possible existence of a higher power. Note the inordinate amount of influence many organised Religions have. IS it surprising that they would claim to literally be Holier Than Thou in their role, claiming they were chosen by God to spread His word?

I ask this as an Agnostic bordering on Atheist. I am trying to refrain from stacking the question, hence my lack of explanation. Rather than my opinion, I want people to look at this as a purely philosophical question. Ignore all else in this post other than the crux of the question.

Does disproving the Bible, disprove God?

Disproving the bible does not disprove God, except in the case of people whose faith is built upon the belief that the Bible is absolutely correct.

The problem with a belief that the Bible is absolutely right about the age of the Earth is that at one point there appears to have been a shift in the word(s) used to describe the units of time (possibly from 1/2 years to full years.

I think disproving the Bible disproves the Christian God as believed in by many people, yes. Not the existence of a higher power per se, but as people who believe in literal truth from the Bible see their God, yes. This is a highly emotive issue though, and one that Christians will contest. Perhaps a better example would have been to invent a religion as an example - to see if they would apply this reasoning when they had no stake in the conclusion.

I don't think the question is insulting though.

If anything, it is more damaging to Atheists who hold Darwinism up as the death of God.

You should be right, but many Christians get inordinately defensive when presented with this argument. Just trying to soften the blow if they can't resist a'flamin'

Elessar wrote:Sebster - nicely put.

generalgrog - I understand your point of view - and I do respect that you made that choice of your own free will. But you have to understand (I think you do, but I'm stating it for clarity anyway) that that is not what those of us who respect the Scientific Method as the only reliable known method of evidence gathering call proof.

No disrespect, but if someone is mentally ill, and kills someone because they think Santa told them to do it, there is no discernable difference between the strength of their belief and yours, but that doesn't mean Santa really speaks to them, or exists at all.

I'm afraid you also ignore the fact that there are some who call themselves Athiest who once were religious, sometimes even deeply so. I respect your opinions, and you are an intelligent and astute debator, (at least, compared to most people on the internet ) so I really am not trying to insult you personally.

Elessar, thank you for the compliment, but there are much more knowledgable Christian scholars than I that could give clearer and more consice answers than I. All I'm really trying to do is give my perspective, which sadly is most often portrayed in the media (Bill Mahrer for example) as fanatical, ignorant, stupid, etc. I do acknowledge that since we are human beings, and thus fallible, you will always be able to find examples of those traits. The problem I see is that many people see those traits and think all Christians are that way.

I agree that you can be a Christian and still believe in Theistic macro evolution. I just happen to think that you would be wrong if you believed that, and we can agree to disagree. After all salvation is not based on what you believe about creation but on whether or not you have entered into a relationship with God.

GG

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Okay. Interesting thing I'd like to say, following on from watching Darwins Garden late last night on the BBC.

So, Evolution directly contradicts much of the Bible. It challenges the assumption that God made the earth. It has reasonable disproved the claim the Earth is a mere 6,000 years old (it is in fact Billions, according to Science).

But so what? Does disproving the Bible disprove God? We are only told by Religion that the Bible is the infallible word of God. That to me requires more faith to believe than the possible existence of a higher power. Note the inordinate amount of influence many organised Religions have. IS it surprising that they would claim to literally be Holier Than Thou in their role, claiming they were chosen by God to spread His word?

I ask this as an Agnostic bordering on Atheist. I am trying to refrain from stacking the question, hence my lack of explanation. Rather than my opinion, I want people to look at this as a purely philosophical question. Ignore all else in this post other than the crux of the question.

Does disproving the Bible, disprove God?

Respectfully your first statement is wrong, and thus everything else following is a bit off. So if I said Sod Off Mate! is that insult English or British? Whats a Scottish equivialent. Sorry-its already been that kind of morning.

Part of the problem is that there are a lot of people who do fit that stereotype, and nothing is done about it as the ignorance generates money for their local church. This leads to generation after generation of people who become less and less tolerant of outside views.

Children should never be told they are a member of a religion. Teach them what your religion believes, sure. When they're mature enough to make their own choice, tell them you would be happier if they believed the same as you, but that its okay if they don't, you're still thier parent. It's the same with strangers in a way. If you think I'll go to Hell, and want to pray for me, fine (you probably hadn't thought of doing so, but whatever ) just don't tell me about it because I don't believe it will achieve anything. Since we're having a good discussion here, I suppose I'd be flattered, but when people I know less than I know you do it, it either comes across as patronising, or as an attempt to make me feel guilty - many people use it as a way of disregarding anything else you said, even if they had no answers to your arguments, and this inflames the situation. If done to your own child, it would likely either make them resent you, are guilt them into a religion they don't truly believe, making them overcompensate with religious displays - furthering the stereotype.

I probably could have said that a lot more concisely...

Frazzled wrote:
Respectfully your first statement is wrong, and thus everything else following is a bit off. So if I said Sod Off Mate! is that insult English or British? Whats a Scottish equivialent. Sorry-its already been that kind of morning.

The Scottish equivalent is "Stick it up yer arse!" It's an English insult, few non-English Brits ever say sod off...few English people would use language that wasn't more...colourful...either.

The first statement he made was opinion. Claims made from the exact words of the Bible, such as the lineages of Joseph, Adam, Moses, Noah etc, created the claim that the Earth is only 6k old. It doesn't SAY this in the Bible exactly, but it does say it lists all the generations up until Jesus, and gives the ages of Adam etc when their children were born.

A more accurate statement would have been "The fossil record contradicts much of the Bible."

EDIT: Sorry for double-post

Elessar wrote:
A more accurate statement would have been "The fossil record contradicts much of the Bible."

EDIT: Sorry for double-post

Actually, the fossil evidence only impacts a strictly literally reading of a few chapters of the bible, meaning that at worst the fossil record contradicts a tiny amount of the bible, or at best the fossil record requires a tiny portion of the bible to be read less literally, perhaps keeping in mind the idea that God is beyond time and concepts like "Days" don't really restrain Him.

Polonius wrote:

Elessar wrote:
A more accurate statement would have been "The fossil record contradicts much of the Bible."

EDIT: Sorry for double-post

Actually, the fossil evidence only impacts a strictly literally reading of a few chapters of the bible, meaning that at worst the fossil record contradicts a tiny amount of the bible, or at best the fossil record requires a tiny portion of the bible to be read less literally, perhaps keeping in mind the idea that God is beyond time and concepts like "Days" don't really restrain Him.

Yes, but, if you take all the Bible literally, then there should be a house of cards effect when one thing is disproven. If every word is literally, exactly true then one word bein g shown to be false calls into question the entire thing. The genealogy of Jesus that made him a descendant of David, thus fuelling claims he was the Messiah, is not a little thing.

Of course, the word 'day' in relation to Genesis is an unknown time-frame, it doesn't mean a revolution of the Earth before gravity, at least. But if you think its literally a day, then it does contradict you. This is why I said it contradicts the Bible as many people read it.

EDIT: Emphasis.

Elessar wrote:
Yes, but, if you take all the Bible literally, then there should be a house of cards effect when one thing is disproven. If every word is literally, exactly true then one word bein g shown to be false calls into question the entire thing. The genealogy of Jesus that made him a descendant of David, thus fuelling claims he was the Messiah, is not a little thing.

Of course, the word 'day' in relation to Genesis is an unknown time-frame, it doesn't mean a revolution of the Earth before gravity, at least. But if you think its literally a day, then it does contradict you. This is why I said it contradicts the Bible as many people read it.

EDIT: Emphasis.

Well, fewer people believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, if only because it's already contradictory. There are two storeis of the creation of Adam and multiple stories of Judas's death, and that's just for starters. All the fossil record does is indicate that the creation story of genesis might be slightly more complicated than originally told, which is consistent with the rest of the Bible.

As for the house of cards theory, I don't think that's how most people's faith in God or the Bible actually works. If you were to show my undeniable proof that, say, The Israelites were never in egypt at all, that's not going to change the way I view God. I would just know that Exodus is a bit more metaphorical than I originally thought.

Finally, people that believe in the Bible tend to also believe in an Omnipotent god. So there are fossils, who cares? God simply put them there. Maybe to test our faith (not my favorite theory) or maybe it's to hide all evidence of divine creation so that human reason can operate free from any evidence of God (my personal theory). If person says that God created the world 6000 years ago, why couldn't they also say that he created it to appear 6 billion years old?

Don't make the mistake of thinking that the Bible is evidence, trying to prove that god exists. It's not. It's a well respected collection of stories that involve god and his peoples, and there is enormous value in them, but even if nothing in the Bible were true, I would still have faith in God as I know him.

Now, if the goal is to show that biblical truths are not really physical empirical truths, and that both are good avenues of exploration, then I'm all about it.

Polonius: I like it, I have to agree with your way of thinking. Nicely said..

Elessar wrote:
The same applies to Atheists. I am an atheist, as I'm sure you figured out. I do not believe in a god or gods. I cannot PROVE there is no god, but I believe it is less likely than the non-existence of a god. By god with a small g, I mean also the supernatural as a whole, 'magic', unicorns, leprechauns, ghosts, flying spaghetti monsters, Nurgle, whatever. I AM an atheist because I deny the existence of god through challenging the hypothesis (if you contest that it is a fact or even theory, please look up the scientific definitions of these words, as I am using scientific terminology) of 'his' existence.

You're going to run into three problems:

1) Very few definitions of Atheism deal in the total rejection of the supernatural. What you're really describing here is a form of Atheistic naturalism, which is a bit different from simple Atheism.

2) The lower case form of god should actually be taken (in my view anyway) to hold a meaning much closer to its Greek origins. Essentially a being that is good. Not perfect, maybe not even admirable, but good. The difference between god and something like a spirit is simply that the goodness of the spirit is not implied by the term.

3) There are more than a few divisions of the major faiths which would not accept the notion that the existence of God is a hypothesis because they would not presume to grant him any real agency in the world. He is the ultimate cause, but not anything recognizable as a thing. The obvious conclusion being that it is better to refer to him as 'nothing' than 'something'.

Elessar wrote:
In addition, I believe that the Christian God, as a relatively recent one compared to many Ancient Eygyptian, South/Central American, Far Eastern etc religions, is even less likely than the existence of god at all. I know I cannot prove 'his' non-existence, but I only believe things I have reason to believe, and I have no reason to believe this. Popularity does not make it true, especially when some of the methods through which much of this popularity was garnered are despicable to any humanitarian.

Mystically oriented theologians would say that the Christian God is not distinct from the gods of Egypt or Central America. Only their mode of worshiping him varies.

Elessar wrote:
Those who claim there CANNOT be a god, and also BELIEVE it, are not Atheists by the definition that fits me. Atheist is really the wrong term for me, rather than them, but no term exists for my demographic that suffices. In its original definition, atheism was literally anti-theism -- and anti-theists are dogmatic by definition, they believe, with no evidence, that there is no god. If you choose to call that faith I cannot argue, although it is slightly different from belief in a particular God.

Yeah, its a kind of negative mysticism really. A good example would be Nietzsche.

Elessar wrote:
As I cannot scroll through the whole thread in my little box below (should have used Quick Reply ) I cannot check who made the point about the definition of Atheism throughout history. Hopefully I have answered it.

That was me, but it seems we're in agreement.

Elessar wrote:
Also, we need to make a distinction between Theism, and Deism, something Websters is seemingly unaware of. Theism is the belief in a PERSONAL God, one who cares about your everyday life, and you as an individual. Deism is the belief in a supernatural force or forces that either control things behind the scenes, or just started the whole thing running and sat back to see what happens.

That doesn't seem quite right. To my understanding Theism is simply a belief in anything that could be called God, or god. While Deism is literally to worship at the station God takes in one's life. Both of these can include personal understanding of the almighty which are inclusive of interventionism. The key difference is that a Deist would probably state that God intervenes only through revelation via the station, while a Theist would see God as either universally interventionist (which is really the same as being completely non-interventionist) or as an old man in the sky (the worst possible choice).

Elessar wrote:
The stereotypical Far-Right American Deep South Christian falls firmly under the former category, for an example. I think the majority of well educated religious people would subscribe to the latter, although they may not realise or admit it. I accept that I could be wrong of course, it's merely a hypothesis.

Yeah, the American religious Right generally subscribe to fundamentalist Theism. Which is unfortunate for them, because once you start referring to God as a tangible thing he becomes falsifiable and the whole project comes down around your ears.

Elessar wrote:
EDIT: Dogma, a true Atheist could not actually believe in any element of the supernatural, regardless of definition. They eat fish.

Again, Atheism only relates to the belief in God, or gods. There are plenty theories about supernatural beings that do not fit the definition of those terms.

Elessar wrote:
Generalgrog: Sorry, but secular humanism is a set of beliefs about what's right - a moral code. It is not a faith system, as it has no supernatural elements.

I would disagree. When you start dealing in 'human flourishing' you are necessarily conceiving of a metaphysical concept. I say this because emotions (as the primary barometer of human flourishing), while material in origin, do not operate in a sense which can be considered physical according to human activity. They are 'seemings' that are covered by the partially ineffable theory of qualia.

Elessar wrote:
Also - earlier I asked (was it you dogma?) if you meant it was easier to defend metaphysical concepts, and you said yes as they cannot be proven wrong - but the lack of evidence gives us no reason to believe either. With no reason to either believe or disbelieve, I think disbelief has to be the only option. I think this is the fundamental difference in our worldviews, only, if I may, mine is more consistent. You have no reason to believe leprechauns, ghosts, unicorns, aliens etc don't exist, so you should believe they do, but I doubt it. Although if you do believe in them, I apologise, and you prove me wrong. Aliens are perhaps a bad example - they are a statistical likelihood.

No need to apologize, I don't hold a belief in any particular thing. I would accept 'God' as a valid articulation of what I believe in, but I would not generally say that I believe in God. I'm what might be called a critical agnostic. I believe there are right and wrong ways to deal with the human religious instinct, but I'm not concerned with the matter beyond archetypal similarity. Its a cool position if I do say so. I get to attack fundamentalism while respecting the more positive aspects of faith and religion.

In reply to your statement about the metaphysical:

Because belief is the defining characteristic of any metaphysical position evidence exists insofar as you process it in a way which is defined by the belief. A good example of this which does not deal in leprechauns is Einstein's addition of the cosmological constant to his general theory of relativity. He believed the universe was static, so he bent his equation to make it so. Despite a lack of supporting evidence.

In any case, I think you're hung up on the notion that a belief in one thing necessarily excludes belief in another. I could very easily believe that something causes rainbows to form, and that such a thing could be described as a synthesis of leprechaun magic, light diffraction, and unicorn urine. Each of these cause would be simultaneous, mutually reinforcing, and indistinguishable. Its simply a matter of semantics, and consensus, which generates our understanding of truthful exclusion.

When i was small i was raised as a prodestant but when i was about 10, in school we did a histoy leson about world war 2 and this made me think about the suffering in the world and how god could allow this, witch eventualy lead me to not beleiveing in god

Polonius wrote:
Well, fewer people believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, if only because it's already contradictory. There are two storeis of the creation of Adam and multiple stories of Judas's death, and that's just for starters. All the fossil record does is indicate that the creation story of genesis might be slightly more complicated than originally told, which is consistent with the rest of the Bible.

Except that they don't have to be contradictory at all.

There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day. Genesis two is a recap and a more detailed explanation of the sixth day, the day that Adam and Eve were made. The recap is stated in Gen. 2:4, "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven." Then, Moses goes on to detail the creation of Adam and Eve as is seen in verses 7 thru 24 of Gen. 2. Proof that it is not a creative account is found in the fact that animals aren't even mentioned until after the creation of Adam. Why? Probably because their purpose was designated by Adam. They didn't need to be mentioned until after Adam was created.

The differing accounts of Judas' death can be attributed to different states of Judas' death. It's entirely possible that after Judas hung himself, his body fell and broke open. there has also been some discussion as to whether or not "hanged" really means to be hanged with a rope, or to have been "impaled".

Also as I mentioned before the fossil record is hardly proof enough to discount a young earth or the literal reading of a six day creation.

A good book I can recomend is "Evolution, The Fossils Still Say No" By Dr Gish.


GG

dogma wrote:
Yeah, the American religious Right generally subscribe to fundamentalist Theism. Which is unfortunate for them, because once you start referring to God as a tangible thing he becomes falsifiable and the whole project comes down around your ears.

Use hyberbole much?

I would like to see how "the whole project comes down around your ears"

Did I misunderstand your point?

GG