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.
Strawman. I say again, I don't know what you believe, but I suspect your claim to be atheist, like some others do.
I don't need to - that's still valid because of the intense amount of effort you put into apologetics for Christianity.
...
Of course, we can't KNOW for certain what's inside Vic's heart and soul, so we can only judge him here by what he writes. And I can't conceive of anyone not coming to the presumption that Vic is a religionist. There is such a thing as playing devil's advocate, but if that's what he's doing, he's making a career out of it with a sense of dedication to playing that role that is beyond any devil's advocate that I've ever seen (and I've played that role -- on other topics in life -- more than once). Long post after long post after long post...that's beyond devil's advocacy...that's believing.
But it's not just "belief". It's an acknowledgement of factual truth, versus outright denial. If someone is always denying what is in front of their face, no one will ever take them seriously.
Philosophy is pretty much always relevant, but more so when dealing with metaphysical issues like the god question. You have to be able to analyze your findings, and determine just what the implications of them really are. You have to know what questions to ask, and identify logical fallacies, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Nope. I've found that Philosophy is spectacularly unhelpful because it consistently seems to ignore validated evidence and prefers to talk about ways of thinking. I prefer logic, which of course has a place in Philosophy, or out to. As I hay, Philosophical evidentialism (as I looked it up) as philosophical naturalism, are both logically untenable, so why should I even bother with it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Yet again, I'm an atheist! (That means I don't believe in a god) You can stop pretending this hasn't been said numerous times already.
1. The point was that you don't know you're experiencing reality. You are having experiences which you trust are veridical even though you don't (and can't) have evidence outside of those experiences to support that trust.
2. If you're going to claim that theism is a delusion, you will need to support that claim. I await your argument to show that there is no god!
You are simply confused about what philosophy is. It doesn't ignore evidence but evaluates it. It is asking the important questions, sometimes interacting very directly with scientific findings that might (or might not) be evidence for a given conclusion.
I guess I misunderstood what you meant by "god -claimants". Yes, theists have been wrong on several issues and claims. Same goes for non-theists. But I thought we were talking about whether or not theism itself is true and/or rationally held.
Philosophy is not Arq's strong suit. It requires a mode of thinking that is anathema to his concrete mind. He truly seems incapable of engaging in it. Contradicting theism requires engaging the very question they prefer to ignore using a default of "no God" for our inevitable ignorance about it and demanding "proof" of the existence of God. He ignores point#1 and evades point#2 by proclaiming it is only his belief there is no God. Yet he refuses to allow the theist the same privilege using belief there is a God despite the fact that they are BOTH just beliefs. It is a frustratingly lost cause that is no different than the one encountered engaging religious fundamentalists. Philosophy is simply NOT their intellectual venue.
But it's not just "belief". It's an acknowledgement of factual truth, versus outright denial. If someone is always denying what is in front of their face, no one will ever take them seriously.
ozzy, they only do facts that support the "we fear religion so much we must do anything to stop it." there are no facts that don't help them in that. Tio them anyway. anymore than there are facts that show the fundy theist "err, no, that's not it."
Philosophy is not Arq's strong suit. It requires a mode of thinking that is anathema to his concrete mind. He truly seems incapable of engaging in it. Contradicting theism requires engaging the very question they prefer to ignore using a default of "no God" for our inevitable ignorance about it and demanding "proof" of the existence of God. He ignores point#1 and evades point#2 by proclaiming it is only his belief there is no God. Yet he refuses to allow the theist the same privilege using belief there is a God despite the fact that they are BOTH just beliefs. It is a frustratingly lost cause that is no different than the one encountered engaging religious fundamentalists. Philosophy is simply NOT their intellectual venue.
I think arg actually bought into the dogma of "we fear religion we are justified in deny everything". he, like christians on quest of jesus, he thinks he knows what best for us. he is going to "save us with the one true savor "deny it all".
ozzy, they only do facts that support the "we fear religion so much we must do anything to stop it." there are no facts that don't help them in that. Tio them anyway. anymore than there are facts that show the fundy theist "err, no, that's not it."
Good point. If it's a fact that doesn't support their prejudices, they can pretend it's somehow in error.
Discussions of faith on religion forums always seem to result in confusion. Another active thread exemplifies this confusion. Many seem to think faith is some unique “religious thing” believers must defend.
If I climb onto a 30-foot ladder to fix my roof, I’m placing faith in the ladder. The unknown is “Will this ladder hold me?”
If I know nothing about the ladder, this is blind faith. If I know the history of the ladder and inspect it carefully, I’ll have an informed faith and probably a strong conviction but still can’t know to a certainty it won’t collapse.
Religious faith is no different in substance from this. It’s different only in degree. At least I can be sure the ladder exists. With religious faith, the threshold question is whether the ladder (God) exists at all. (A comparable situation would exist if I were blindfolded and trusting someone's word that I was climbing onto a ladder and not stepping into a 30-foot pit. Here my faith would be in the person - hopefully someone I know and trust!)
All anyone can do is exercise all possible due diligence in deciding whether any God exists. I decide what constitutes the best evidence and arguments and then reason my way to a position, yes or no. Belief can be as informed and rational as unbelief, although the believer and unbeliever may strongly disagree. Belief can also be as uninformed and irrational as unbelief.
Merely answering yes or no to the question of God's existence has no real consequences. If I haven’t exercised much diligence, my yes or no may be a very tentative one that doesn’t cause me to act upon it. Even if I have exercised all possible diligence, I may not think the position I’ve reached has any real bearing on my life (for example, deists believe God is a distant and disinterested being). In either case I’ve simply reached an abstract intellectual position.
If I have a strong enough conviction, I'll demonstrate my faith by how I live – as though there is a God or as though there isn’t a God. I'll step onto the ladder of belief or unbelief and begin the climb.
For an unbeliever, nothing further is required. She can simply live as though there is no God (while hopefully continuing to exercise diligence in keeping abreast of new evidence and arguments that might change her mind).
The believer, however, faces secondary questions: Who or what is this God? Does this God have anything to do with my life? Am I going to have to answer to this God?
The believer now has a new area in which all possible due diligence is required: evaluating the best evidence and arguments for particular religions and deciding which one (if any) most closely approximates the Truth. Having done this, she steps from the first ladder (belief in God) onto a second (belief in the God of Christianity, for example). She demonstrates her faith by living as though Christianity were true.
In short, faith isn’t some unqiue “religious thing.” Believers and atheists both have faith in their positions, at least if they live in accordance with their beliefs. Religious faith is inherently no more or less rational than atheistic faith. The only real basis for disagreement is over what constitutes the best evidence and arguments, which is what serious believers and atheists actually do argue about.
(I’m ignoring for purposes of this discussion the fact that many believers including me insist they have experienced God and thus “know” that unbelievers are wrong. This experience carries no weight with anyone other than the person who has experienced it.)
Faith is not rational and logical faith is spiritual!!!!!
Philosophy is not Arq's strong suit. It requires a mode of thinking that is anathema to his concrete mind. He truly seems incapable of engaging in it. Contradicting theism requires engaging the very question they prefer to ignore using a default of "no God" for our inevitable ignorance about it and demanding "proof" of the existence of God. He ignores point#1 and evades point#2 by proclaiming it is only his belief there is no God. Yet he refuses to allow the theist the same privilege using belief there is a God despite the fact that they are BOTH just beliefs. It is a frustratingly lost cause that is no different than the one encountered engaging religious fundamentalists. Philosophy is simply NOT their intellectual venue.
Of course, we can't KNOW for certain what's inside Vic's heart and soul, so we can only judge him here by what he writes. And I can't conceive of anyone not coming to the presumption that Vic is a religionist. There is such a thing as playing devil's advocate, but if that's what he's doing, he's making a career out of it with a sense of dedication to playing that role that is beyond any devil's advocate that I've ever seen (and I've played that role -- on other topics in life -- more than once). Long post after long post after long post...that's beyond devil's advocacy...that's believing.
quite so - and the internal evidence that makes me suspect that he is a God -believer is mounting up. The link he gave to what appears to be a declaration on non -belief, could still be a cunning evasion. There is no reason at all why an atheist cannot settle the matter by posting "I do not believe in any god". That he doesn't but refers back to what could be an evasion increases the doubt rather than settles it.
Just one line, and I'll accept what he says.
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.
