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.
Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, concept or thing, or a belief that is not based on proof.[1][2] Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true,[3] belief in and assent to the truth of what is declared by another, based on his or her supposed authority and truthfulness.
It would be mitigating the overwhelming dominance of the concept of "God Exists" to call it "popular opinion".
"God Exists" has been sooooooo prolific, for sooooooo long...it can be considered a "Standard of Human Understanding".
So, to answer your question: YES...when "popular opinion" reaches a "saturation point" that is to such a degree that it is considered to be "The Standard"...a position that deviates from that will have to prove itself to be given merit against the long established standard.
Just like Galileo had to PROVE the universe DOES NOT revolve around the Earth, since that concept was in opposition to the "long established standard" that it did...the Atheists will have to PROVE God DOES NOT exist, if they want their concept to be accepted as valid.
BTW...good luck with that. It will be much harder for you than it was for Galileo...since he was right, and you are wrong.
Well, as I have said, many times before, no one can prove that god does not exist and no one can prove that god does exist. Like most atheists, I do not claim to know that there is no god. I just don't believe there is a god. I don't demand that you prove a god exists because I know that you can't. Your current argument is with others not me. I was simply hoping to aid the communication between you and your opponent(s) by offering a possible clarification of what you were trying to say.
Instead of atheists and theists challenging each other to prove god does or does not exist (which of course no one can anyway), I think it would be more effective to talk about why various evidences and arguments are or aren't persuasive.
We could talk about why the creator argument is persuasive to theists and not persuasive to atheists. We could talk about why a sense of awe and wonder persuades theists to believe a god exists and why atheists don't believe that a sense of awe implicates a god behind it. Of course, we are already having these conversations here, but the "prove the existence of god" or "non-existence of god" threads are pointless because no one will ever be able to do either.
No one can prove whether or not BigFoot exists either, but we could discuss why or why not we find the video footage that has been made public persuasive or not. We can discuss the merits of footprints and hair samples and lack of carcasses.
Last edited by Hueffenhardt; 05-11-2011 at 10:30 AM..
Well, as I have said, many times before, no one can prove that god does not exist and no one can prove that god does exist. Like most atheists, I do not claim to know that there is no god. I just don't believe there is a god. I don't demand that you prove a god exists because I know that you can't. Your current argument is with others not me. I was simply hoping to aid the communication between you and your opponent(s) by offering a possible clarification of what you were trying to say.
Instead of atheists and theists challenging each other to prove god does or does not exist (which of course no one can anyway), I think it would be more effective to talk about why various evidences and arguments are or aren't persuasive.
We could talk about why the creator argument is persuasive to theists and not persuasive to atheists. We could talk about why a sense of awe and wonder persuades theists to believe a god exists and why atheists don't believe that a sense of awe implicates a god behind it. Of course, we are already having these conversations here, but the "prove the existence of god" or "non-existence of god" threads are pointless because no one will ever be able to do either.
No one can prove whether or not BigFoot exists either, but we could discuss why or why not we find the video footage that has been made public persuasive or not. We can discuss the merits of footprints and hair samples and lack of carcasses.
Points taken.
So, "at the end of the day":
Absent "objective proof" from either side (that will satisfy the "other side)...all we have to go with, is the "majority rule factor".
Given that Theism trounces Atheism at a rate of approx 85% to 15% (if it was seen as an election, it would be the biggest "landslide" win EVER), Theism will remain the "World Standard" it has been for thousands of years.
If one is to go with your, "no one can prove that god does not exist and no one can prove that god does exist"--then the case is pretty much closed, and Atheism is a moot concept relegated to the "nothingness" it's always been...unless something changes in what can be "proved".
So, I guess it's settled for the time being...glad we got that "squared away".
So, "at the end of the day":
Absent "objective proof" from either side (that will satisfy the "other side)...all we have to go with, is the "majority rule factor".
Given that Theism trounces Atheism at a rate of approx 85% to 15% (if it was seen as an election, it would be the biggest "landslide" win EVER), Theism will remain the "World Standard" it has been for thousands of years.
If one is to go with your, "no one can prove that god does not exist and no one can prove that god does exist"--then the case is pretty much closed, and Atheism is a moot concept relegated to the "nothingness" it's always been...unless something changes in what can be "proved".
So, I guess it's settled for the time being...glad we got that "squared away".
No. If this is a popularity contest, then sure, theism is more popular than atheism. But, so what? Even as you have conceded earlier in this thread, just because a belief is popular doesn't mean it is true.
I'd rather be right than on the side of popular opinion.
What is this "World Standard" nonsense? WTF? World standards are decided by committees, such as the official atomic clock by which all other clocks are measured; the official meter and the official kilogram, by which all other rulers and scales are measured. Theism is not the world standard; popularity does not make something the world standard.
And as for majority rule, that is only true in democracies and such when a vote is taken. In Saudi Arabia, majority doesn't rule, the king rules. His rules apply regardless of what the majority thinks. For majority to rule, even in a democracy, a vote must be taken, and in America, even that is not enough, because the US Constitution rules above all. It does not matter what the majority wants, if it is deemed unconstitutional, then it would not stand as law.
So, you can't just willy nilly apply terms like World Standard and Majority Rules to a situation that is clearly just a matter of popular belief.
I think a recent poll showed that the majority of Americans believe in ghosts. That certainly does not make belief in ghosts the national standard, nor does that belief win any power or authority by majority rules. That is simply ludicris.
Belief in god is a popular belief, that is all. It does not mean that non believers in god have any special responsibility to provide proof just because their belief is not as popular.
The constant appeal to numbers put forth by some is meaningless and should be ignored...There is a good reason it's called a fallacy, but that seems to be the only argument some have.
No. If this is a popularity contest, then sure, theism is more popular than atheism. But, so what? Even as you have conceded earlier in this thread, just because a belief is popular doesn't mean it is true.
I'd rather be right than on the side of popular opinion.
What is this "World Standard" nonsense? WTF? World standards are decided by committees, such as the official atomic clock by which all other clocks are measured; the official meter and the official kilogram, by which all other rulers and scales are measured. Theism is not the world standard; popularity does not make something the world standard.
And as for majority rule, that is only true in democracies and such when a vote is taken. In Saudi Arabia, majority doesn't rule, the king rules. His rules apply regardless of what the majority thinks. For majority to rule, even in a democracy, a vote must be taken, and in America, even that is not enough, because the US Constitution rules above all. It does not matter what the majority wants, if it is deemed unconstitutional, then it would not stand as law.
So, you can't just willy nilly apply terms like World Standard and Majority Rules to a situation that is clearly just a matter of popular belief.
I think a recent poll showed that the majority of Americans believe in ghosts. That certainly does not make belief in ghosts the national standard, nor does that belief win any power or authority by majority rules. That is simply ludicris.
Belief in god is a popular belief, that is all. It does not mean that non believers in god have any special responsibility to provide proof just because their belief is not as popular.
When I use the term "World Standard" for Theism, it's a "figure of speech"...I assumed that was understood. Like when I say it's the "Champion Concept" or that it "holds office".
That you call it "nonsense" and exclaim "WTF" shows me you didn't understand that. I didn't think I needed to explain it...but I guess I do.
Like "shoe-string" type french fries being the "World Standard" of fast-food french fries, or Windows being a "World Standard" personal computer operating system, shaking hands being a "World Standard" greeting gesture, or petroleum being a "World Standard" internal combustion engine fuel...once something reaches what I called "saturation point" then it carries a certain power and influence that something only carries through being so prolific.
The fact that MOST people like a particular kind of music, or think a particular girl is beautiful, or favor a certain kind of beverage...will then give those things/people power and influence that things/people that aren't as popular possibly won't have.
I NEVER said it's the ONLY way something/somebody can have power and influence...just a very effective way.
Theism is the "poster child" (hope I don't have to explain that too) for the ability of a concepts' vast and overwhelming acceptance to give it great influence and power to motivate action.
I'm not saying whether that is a good or bad thing...just that that is "the way it is"...and that it is undisputable.
Would you admit that you could be wrong? OR that you could possibly have a change of mind in the future?
I doubt I am wrong. I was involved in christianity for a very, very long time. It took me many years to get out of religion, there's no way I would ever change my mind after all the reading and self reflection I have done. I am much happier and content as an atheist.
I doubt I am wrong. I was involved in christianity for a very, very long time. It took me many years to get out of religion, there's no way I would ever change my mind after all the reading and self reflection I have done. I am much happier and content as an atheist.
You can't say it can you? You can't say that you might be wrong. And I bet when you where a christian you said the same thing. Weird look what happened there. People change, the mind changes. The person you are today might not have the same beliefs as you 10 years from now.
You can't say it can you? You can't say that you might be wrong. And I bet when you where a christian you said the same thing. Weird look what happened there. People change, the mind changes. The person you are today might not have the same beliefs as you 10 years from now.
I'm almost 48 years old, I highly doubt my mind is suddenly going to change. My mind is evolving, becoming religious again would mean I have de-evolved which simply won't happen unless I become senile. I know I am not wrong but saying that on a forum makes you look conceited.
I'm almost 48 years old, I highly doubt my mind is suddenly going to change. My mind is evolving, becoming religious again would mean I have de-evolved which simply won't happen unless I become senile. I know I am not wrong but saying that on a forum makes you look conceited.
You obviously don't understand evolution. Changing your mind does not mean you evolved. And to say with certainty that you are not wrong, I must now say prove it.
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.
