|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,918 Year: 4,175/9,624 Month: 1,046/974 Week: 5/368 Day: 5/11 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The experience of converting | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
accepting that there is no god does not entail the acceptance of any particular dogma or ritual, since there is no dogmas or rituals associated with atheism.
Are you talking about "strong" athiesm, as in you're sure there is no god? Then there is one bit of dogma right there, that god definitley doesn't exist. You don't know this one way or another and if you believe that god certainly doesn't exist, then this requires faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
Right,
You don't have proof that the Easter Bunny, as it is presented, does not exist. So to say with absolute certainty that it does not exist requires belief without knowing and a level of confidence in your belief without knowing that would put it into faith territory. The Easter bunny, though is pretty specific. So is the Abrahamic God. So, it would require about the same amount of faith to believe in either. BUT, to totally deny the possibility of any kind of omnipotent or even supernatural being with such a degree of confidence and certainty as to be absolute, then that's faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
IPU?
The Inter-Parlaimentary Union? Well, whatever the IPU is, if it is something like Interplanetary Union or something involving aliens, then no I don't have faith that it doesn't exist, because I don't know one way or another.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
Axioms may be thought of as concepts or 'givens' so fundamental that disputing them would be unimaginable;
You think the existence of something beyond our understanding is beyond dispute? Do you think that the non-existence of god(s) is so impossible that to dispute their non-existence is simply absurd? Here's what else Wiki had to say about axioms:
quote:Are you saying that the non-existence if god(s) is self-evident? In what way? A person who does believe in god(s) will tell you exactly how self-evident the existence of god really is. I guess that's just an axiom of their religious philosophy and not dogma at all.
I don't know one way or the other whether there is an elephant standing in the corridor at the other end of the building, but I believe that there certainly isn't one. You might call this faith if you want, but it seems to trivialize the word "faith", at least for the purposes of this conversation. To me faith means certainty without evidence. Your statement about the elephant and your certainty as to his non-existence is based on previous experience. It's based on what you know about corridors around you and what you know about elephants and your confidence level or certainty level is based on that. Now, to say that you are 100% all the way certain, without peeking, is a matter of faith, I believe. You put faith in your ability to predict outcomes based on previous experience. Now, where is your experience of the supernatural?I would wager that you have none, so perhaps you don't have any previous experience upon which to base a conclusion. But you have drawn a very sweeping conclusion about the supernatural by sayingthat you are certain it doesn't exist. This, to me, is faith (certainty without evidence.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
I see!
How can it be invisible and pink at the same time? {shrug} If that's the rub, then I can say by definition, something can't really be pink and invisible at the same time, but I could be wrong. If I said that I was certain beyond dispute, then yes, that would be faith. Then do or anyone here have FAITH that intellegent extra-terrestrial being don't exist, never existed, and will never exist?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
I don't see how it's a dilemma.
We can't say for certain that it doesn't exist. If I said that I know it does...faith.If I say that I know it doesn't...faith. If I tell the truth and say that I don't know one way or the other and probably never will, that's agnosticism. This message has been edited by gnojek, 07-05-2005 05:27 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
Indeed she will. That's a funny thing about axioms -- they are fairly arbitrary. The only requirement is that the logical conclusions derived from them are self-consistent and consistent with reality.
So saying "God exists" is merely an axiom, and not dogma is what you're saying? And then, saying that God created the world in 6 days, that would be the dogma? Maybe I could say that this is pretty self-evident and make it an axiom. Can a statement be axiomatic and dogmatic simultaneously?
Do you think that it is self-evident that given a line and a point not on that line, exactly one line passes through that point and is parallel to the first line? To someone working in Euclidean geometry it is pretty self-evident.
Actually no, because I don't think you finished your thought here...If the one point (not on the first line) had a line passing through it, then it could be parallel or not. To someone working in Lobachevian geometry, it is equally self-evident that there are infinitely many lines parallel to the first line that passes through that point.
Since you are analogizing this way, then you would say that another's belief in god(s) is just as valid as your outright dismissal of the possibilty simply because you are operating in different geometrical spaces? Ok, forget the geometry, what you seem to be saying is that your dismissal of god(s) is based on just as tenuous a foundation as another's belief in it/them? That belief in Christianity or the IPU is just as valid in a superstitious mind as non-belief is in a less-superstitious mind seems to be what you are saying here. You just decided to say with utter confidence that there is definitely zero god(s), without testing that hypothesis.You made a leap of faith. All you can honestly say is that, so far, you haven't come across any convincing evidence. edit:I don't care if you get confrontational, no big deal to me.. In fact, I cannot think of a single belief that is based on faith, according to your definition. I'm sure there are some, but they seem to be so rare that it seems to me that your definition of faith is limited in its usefulness.
No, I think perhaps people are calling things faith when they are not faith at all. Like you said, a xian will profess his strong faith and say how his faith is unshakeable, but if he is basing his beliefs on emotional "evidence" then this really isn't faith in the pure sense. But really, can emotions be considered "evidence" as we define this term? Maybe. If not, then this person is exercising faith (certainty without evidence). This message has been edited by gnojek, 07-05-2005 05:55 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
So, are you saying that it is possible for immaterial and invisible unicorns to exist and are now roaming the streets?
I don't know if it's possible or not.
Well, according to our current official definition of the word faith, it is an unsupported belief in something, not unsupported disbelief. Otherwise, every human thought could be considered as faith. Get my drift?
I got your drift, but disbelief can be "strong" or "weak."You can be incredulous. The Bears won! I don't believe it! Or you can be totally convinced that something is totally impossible.In this case, it requires faith to hold that position. It's all a matter of the confidence level of the believer or non-believer.
Well, good for you.
..and you too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gnojek Inactive Member |
Convincing evidence?
Right, as in evidence that has convinced you.
Concincing seems to be an subjective standard, does it not?
Exactly.
I find the absense of evidence for the existence of god, but for some reason you don't.
Well, I seem to never find the absense of anything.But I have no evidence for God and I also have nothing to prove that something like that is impossible. The fundamentalist Christian feels she has convincing evidence that her entire religious belief system is truth
Ok.
I don't believe that, but who am I to judge whether this evidence is convincing or not?
If it didn't convince you, then it's not convincing.If it convinced the xian, then it is. If the xian is basing his beliefs on evidence and not faith, then under their system, from what I understand, this is bad.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024