Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many reasons. A person might want to believe that a particular horse will win a particular race. A person might want to believe that a particular crime will go undetected. A person might want to believe that the price of a favorite tipple will halve. And so on.
Why would a person believe in something that he or she admits there is no proof for?
Who knows.
Why would a person believe in something that he or she admits there is no empirical proof for?
Because there is non-empirical proof.
The "explanation" that 'if we could prove it, we wouldn't need to have faith/believe in it' makes no sense.
Hey, I'd love for there to be some kind of afterlife just so I could have a cuppa with Jim Morrison.
shibata: The desire to have a certain horse win a race, etc. ("e.g., "I just know he's gonna win") is hardly the same thing as believing a load of supernatural mythology. This is something one bases his life and worldview upon, unlike a comparatively trivial horse race. For something so serious, I would need more than simply wanting to believe in it. Does that mean that if one wants to believe in unicorns, that makes them real, or at the very least that the belief deserves to be respected as somehow valid?
shibata: The desire to have a certain horse win a race, etc. ("e.g., "I just know he's gonna win") is hardly the same thing as believing a load of supernatural mythology.
Believing what? Let's analyse this.
'A load of'. Outside physics and engineering, the word 'load' is generally associated with manure, or garbage waste. If this is the intended sense, it needs to be proved that theism is garbage. So here we have possible evidence for circular argument- it's not the language of philosophy, anyway.
'supernatural'. This word does not mean 'impossible'. Indeed, the miraculous could be a means of an agency beyond the cosmos of drawing attention to a message to the cosmos. To imply that it means 'impossible' is to exclude a possibility. Again, possible circular argument.
'mythology'. Yet more possible circularity. This word does not necessarily mean 'falsehood', as is so often supposed. Myth is often an allegorical expression of what is believed to be abstract truth, and one would need to tackle any particular myth using fact and reason in order to prove it false. In any case, theism may have material evidence in its favor, not speculation.
So the belief that one will get away with a murder is indeed not the same as belief in a rational case for a feasible deity- but they may both be what is termed matters of life and death.
Quote:
This is something one bases his life and worldview upon, unlike a comparatively trivial horse race.
Indeed. But a belief that one can get away with murder may have consequences that could be considered serious.
Quote:
For something so serious, I would need more than simply wanting to believe in it.
And very reasonably, too. Likewise, one would need more than a simple desire to avoid possible consequences of theism to accept an atheist view.
Quote:
Does that mean that if one wants to believe in unicorns, that makes them real, or at the very least that the belief deserves to be respected as somehow valid?
Is the concept of a unicorn self-contradictory? Is it conceivable that a unicorn could exist- or has existed?
On what exactly are you basing your statement that "true agnostics are 50/50 on every supernatural issue"? I'm agnostic and personally I reckon the chances of there being a personal, biblical sort of God at far below 50/50; I put the likelyhood closer to 90/10, against. But, as my old friend Archie McNally was fond of saying, "One never knows, do one?"
Thus the term "a-gnostic." Literally, "not-knowing"--since "gnosis" is the Greek for knowledge. No one ever said anything about our uncertainty having to be 50/50. The thing is this: we agnostics are usaally persons who love and respect science and knowledge, not superstition. Have you ever heard of the "empirical method" that science uses? Basically it means that all knowledge must be based on testing and facts and experimentation. And someting is determined by those means, we have the courage and humility to admit we don't know.
An atheist on the other hand, is actually more closed-minded than we agnostics, and has somehow or another ruled-out even the remote possibility of a God. We usually prefer to keep and open mind.
Albeit a highly doubtful and skeptical one.
'A load of'. Outside physics and engineering, the word 'load' is generally associated with manure, or garbage waste. If this is the intended sense, it needs to be proved that theism is garbage. So here we have possible evidence for circular argument- it's not the language of philosophy, anyway.
I didn't realize we were restricted to using 'the language of philosophy'. I'd say theism is garbage, or at the least navel-gazing, until proven otherwise. The multiplicity of belief systems argues against any of them having a lock on The Truth.
Quote:
'supernatural'. This word does not mean 'impossible'. Indeed, the miraculous could be a means of an agency beyond the cosmos of drawing attention to a message to the cosmos. To imply that it means 'impossible' is to exclude a possibility. Again, possible circular argument.
No, it doesn't mean 'impssible', at least to the extent that no one can prove it absolutely doesn't exist. But what it could be in theory certainly isn't equivalent to what it is.
Quote:
'mythology'. Yet more possible circularity. This word does not necessarily mean 'falsehood', as is so often supposed. Myth is often an allegorical expression of what is believed to be abstract truth, and one would need to tackle any particular myth using fact and reason in order to prove it false. In any case, theism may have material evidence in its favor, not speculation.
What "material evidence"? Yes, I'm aware that mythology isn't necessarily 100% fantasy. But there are many theists who regard it as much more than an allegory. We are discussing religious myths, aren't we, and not Aesop's Fables?
Quote:
So the belief that one will get away with a murder is indeed not the same as belief in a rational case for a feasible deity- but they may both be what is termed matters of life and death.
Indeed. But a belief that one can get away with murder may have consequences that could be considered serious.
It seems as though you were responding to yourself there. I'd have to know what you consider "a rational case for a feasible deity". And how did murder get involved?
Quote:
Likewise, one would need more than a simple desire to avoid possible consequences of theism to accept an atheist view.
I can asure you that I am an atheist for other reasons. Besides, if by "possible consequences of theism" you mean eternal punishment meted out to unbelievers, being an atheist would hardly avoid those consequences. If you mean the irrationality and danger in the world that theism leads to, I'm all for that.
Quote:
Is the concept of a unicorn self-contradictory? Is it conceivable that a unicorn could exist- or has existed?
There is no mention of such an animal in the evolutionary record. Only in mythology.
I didn't realize we were restricted to using 'the language of philosophy'.
We aren't. Humanity can use false arguments, personal abuse, rhetoric, evasion, you name it, we thought it up.
Quote:
I'd say theism is garbage, or at the least navel-gazing, until proven otherwise.
Is that classed as rationality, or bigotry? Help me decide, someone.
Quote:
The multiplicity of belief systems argues against any of them having a lock on The Truth.
There's no logic in that. Just because 99 are wrong, doesn't mean that a hundredth is. The 99 might be trying to overwhelm the hundredth.
Quote:
No, it doesn't mean 'impssible', at least to the extent that no one can prove it absolutely doesn't exist. But what it could be in theory certainly isn't equivalent to what it is.
Who knows what it is?
Quote:
What "material evidence"? Yes, I'm aware that mythology isn't necessarily 100% fantasy. But there are many theists who regard it as much more than an allegory. We are discussing religious myths, aren't we, and not Aesop's Fables?
Do Aesop's Fables illustrate the value of folly, or of poor morality?
Quote:
It seems as though you were responding to yourself there.
Pity that I had to. You missed the crux of the matter, somehow.
Quote:
I can asure you that I am an atheist for other reasons.
Go on, then.
Quote:
Besides, if by "possible consequences of theism" you mean eternal punishment meted out to unbelievers, being an atheist would hardly avoid those consequences.
But it could encourage people to live immorally.
Quote:
If you mean the irrationality and danger in the world that theism leads to
Danger to the immoral, yes indeed.
Quote:
There is no mention of such an animal in the evolutionary record.
But the evolutionary record is based on an estimated 5% of all species that ever existed, and in any case, belief in unicorns predates the ToE. Another failure to address the question.
Atheism has been reduced to asininity. Even when it uses the false argument of analogy, it falls flat on its face.
On what exactly are you basing your statement that "true agnostics are 50/50 on every supernatural issue"? I'm agnostic and personally I reckon the chances of there being a personal, biblical sort of God at far below 50/50; I put the likelyhood closer to 90/10, against. But, as my old friend Archie McNally was fond of saying, "One never knows, do one?"
Thus the term "a-gnostic." Literally, "not-knowing"--since "gnosis" is the Greek for knowledge. No one ever said anything about our uncertainty having to be 50/50. The thing is this: we agnostics are usaally persons who love and respect science and knowledge, not superstition. Have you ever heard of the "empirical method" that science uses? Basically it means that all knowledge must be based on testing and facts and experimentation. And someting is determined by those means, we have the courage and humility to admit we don't know.
An atheist on the other hand, is actually more closed-minded than we agnostics, and has somehow or another ruled-out even the remote possibility of a God. We usually prefer to keep and open mind.
Albeit a highly doubtful and skeptical one.
That is patently false. Atheism is just a word used to describe those who do not have a belief in god. Do you currently believe in any god? Which one? From the sounds of it ("90/10 against"), it appears that you do not presently hold a belief in any. That would make you an atheist. Atheism has nothing to do with whether or not one is open to the possibility of god. It just describes whether or not one holds a belief in any god. I am an atheist who would like to believe in god and am open to the possibility, but have not been convinced (by the lack of convincing evidence) to believe in one. That could always change in the future!
What word is used to describe those who believe that there is no deity?
That would be atheism too. Atheism encompasses all who have no belief in god for whatever reason! The lowest common denominator which applies to ALL atheists is that they have no belief in god. To hold the positive belief that there are no gods is a step above and beyond the base definition of atheism and does not apply to all atheists. Just like I wouldn't say that all theists believe in reincarnation. That would be a belief above and beyond the base definition of theism. The common denominator among theists is that they do have a belief in god (in most cases).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
