Atheism isn't a belief?

Alternatively, we can kick the ball into touch with a theory. Theories may satisfy - but not if you want a definitive. Which is possibly why some, when it comes to vital questions, go looking for something which offers such answers rather than "it could be" and "it may be" and "current research shows that". Something that is not as narrowly confined to the total of possibilites that science is. Science is great a picking needles out of haystacks. But some want to know where the haystack came from. Agreed. Religion can be shown to be a man-made entity. It evolution contains infinitely more data than that for biological evolution. Debunking Religion says absolutely nothing about the existance of God. To say that would be to say that the hoaxs and mistakes which have occurred during the history of the religion of biological evolution are proof that biological evolution itself is foundationless. I'm sure you wouldn't agree with that? If you picked a particular God at the start you would be making the same mistake as abiogenesis adherents make in their 'science'. By presupposing particular intitial condition, you subject your results to the charge of unfounded presumption - you found all you limited yourself to finding. Only when you had your model of God reasoned out for yourself should you perhaps then go looking at the God which best fits your model. Basic scientific methodology my dear Schraf

It is entirely irrational to say there is no good evidence when you haven't looked for the evidence on its terms. A birdwatcher who goes crashing through a shopping mall screaming "ARE THERE ANY LESSER-SPOTTED BASHFULWIDGERDO'S HERE!!" might claim after much looking that there isn't any. The bird watcher who realises that his job is to assemble a model of what might allow him to observe said creature and who then applies said model - in the woods, is likely to succeed - if such a creature exists.An appropriate search is always required to obtain any evidence of anything. Appropriate Chiroptera, appropriate. Where would evidence of God be found? That is the question. Not forcing Science/Empircal to do what it patently can't do

True, man was once at the hub of a wheel and all he could know was that Goddidit. Now man has forged out along the spokes of the wheel - only to find at the end of every spoke, an all encompassing rim, to which every spoke leads. Silence at the end. Mystery at the end. "We cannot know"What man does then, caught as he is on the horns of a dilema "I must know" and "I don't know" is to speculate wildly. And that is not Science. That's a Religion called Science.God is the rim of the wheel and everything inside it is a result of Goddidit. Knowledge of how Goddidit doesn't shrink God, it reveals the nature and creativeness of God s'all.God of the Gaps indeed...

---

"..He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance". (2Peter 3:9)

I know, I know. you don't have to tell me again. H.M.S Objectivity is bravely charting the finite oceans of the Universe of All There Is to Know. And up there in the crows nest, helping no end in its navigation, is himself, Petty Officer Seraph. Putting down his favorite edition of Alison in Wonderland, our intrepid explorer raises his eyeglass to scans the horizon once again only to cry out for the umpteenth time: "LAND AHOY... not because there is any...but because no cause is cause a plenty"Shiver me timbers it does not...

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

If you haven't got a Bible, Google: 'Bible' 'on-line' then read Romans 7:15-24 inclusive. Forget the spiritual sounding stuff and just see does anything that this man is saying strike a chord with you. If it does a little then no surprise - you're human. If it does alot, if you can really empathise with that man in some way, then your at the sub-destination. The Law has fulfilled it's task. It will bid you adieu... for nowThe purpose is irrelevant to someone who isn't at the sub-destination: the Law still has some work to do - assuming it can be doneBut for the person at the sub-destination it's different. The purpose of the Law in showing that person that they cannot keep the Law, is to let them know, as it did the man in Romans (and anyone who empathises with him) that he is a sinner. And sinners have but one final destination. Hell (if it exists).This might seem like bad news but not if one considers that the person has got to know this while he is still alive, ie: while there is something can be done about it. And that 'something' does not involve, such a person will be relieved to know, following the Law ('cos that would be Catch-22)

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

Your bright enough to make a bit of a start yourself on this CP. If you do then we could discuss whether the seek-model is a reasonable one or not. Open a thread maybe. Put up one or two thoughts about aspects of a model which is aimed at finding out evidence. A model that looks at the world around and in at yourself and what you know of other selfs. This is the only material you have to make a model with after all.First a model designed to collect evidence > then apply model > then evaluate evidence if it comes. That is the logical sequence. Discussion of evidence needs evidence to discuss. And to discuss both parties need to be party to the evidence.Now for a pint. Night all

Which makes no sense. What is right and wrong cannot be determined by person, community, nation. Man isn't absolute, thus right and wrong will vary. Thus slavery was right once but not right now - which is cleary ridiculous. What is right and wrong is determined only by something which is absoute, eg: by God (i.h.e.). We, as consumers can chose which product, right or wrong, but the manufacturer of the product isn't the consumer, it's the manufacturer. And the point of Pauls piece was to show that everybody choses wrong sometimes (according to mans standard - a shadow, virtual one) and very many times (according to God standard - the one that actually matters).Mostly we don't see it as this. We will typically get a bit of a tug from conscience (which only says what we ought to do - not must do). But we very often ignore that tug, proceed with the 'ought not' and then justify our actions - making them 'right'. This of course only puts another brick in the wall on front of conscience leading to a "hardening of heart". A child molester won't be a normal person one day then abuse a child in the park the next. It'll be a step-by-step progression: fantasy with guilt, then fantasy without guilt, then accidental touching of a nephew, then 'accidental' touching of a nephew, etc... A downward spiral, with bricks building up to silence the conscience all the way down. And when the wall is complete then anything can happen. Hilter, Pol Pot, Stalin? (who happened to head up rabidly athiestic regiemes - not that I slight athiests by this - most are better than me. I slight athiesm at or around it's logical destination: +infinity)If someone is seeking, ie: if something in them doesn't want to do what they ought not to do even though they can't seem to help doing it - then they are being convicted by conscience and are coming to see their actions for what they actually are (rather than what they can be excused to themselves and others to be). They are the man in Romans 7. They are at or around a sub-destination. Lucky them. An athiest can follow God's laws as well as a thiest whether he believes in him or not. An athiest might be even doing better than the theist. The reason for this is that no one, theist, Christian, Buddisht athiest, whatever - can follow all Gods Law. No one. And the first person who says they do, has just lied - so has broken God's Law A short selection of Gods laws to test yourself with:- love God with all your heart, soul and mind
- never look at a woman/man with any lust in your heart
- don't be unrightfully angry with anyone
- treat everyone as you would like to be treated yourself (anybody who says they do here is going to sound like a right twit)
- if somone slights you, defames you, hurts you you should turn the other cheek - and forgive them - even if they do it again and again..Show of hands time. Who has never broken on of these 'Laws'No hands? I thought not--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

Has it ever occurred to you that what you believe about the existance of God has absolutely no influence on his existance. Given that I know God exists (as opposed to just believe it) then I can talk about you and your bb gun. The proof of my knowing cannot be shown to you because the proof occurs in the supernatural. It's not my fault, nor the supernaturals fault. It's your choice by not choosing to seek the proof.On the other hand you just 'believe' natural is everything. And given that there is no natural evidence of this, your position is based on faith rather than knowledge. Your athiesm is thus - just another religion. You can't show me proof not because it's your fault or my fault but because we can both look at the natural and see no proof exists. Saying there will in the future is just more faith in the religionIf you say you don't believe in all-is-natural AND you don't believe in God then you are not atheist, you are a-anything.This message has been edited by iano, 25-Aug-2005 04:41 PM

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

Only in theory. Theoretically, these theories are only tentive in their theoricity. Thus they in truth have nothing to say as to what is or isn't true. And I mean that truthfully, not theoretically.I'm led to believe that followers of certain Religions have to pray 6 times a day. How often to you have to worship the god of Science there d.s. What are the 10 commandments in your faith?1. Objectivity is the Lord thy god. Thou shalt not consider anything at all before him.2. But if thy must consider some other god make it 'Theory is truth -3. Honour thy Occam and thy Mother (nature)4. When thou faith is tested by lack of evidence - speculate.5. Do not covet thy neighbours logic, argument or good sense. If thou doest thus thy might start making some thyself. Instead forsake not thy god (especially commandment 1 and 2)6. ..Bugger!! Is it that time! Am off the the theatre with my Christian (but a touch name-it-and-claim-it mother, my agnostic dad, weak athiest sisters and my weak-to-middling athiest brother-in-law. An Arthur Miller I think they said it was..

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

There have been many words written on this thread and given that it is not proof-read by experts, nor are positions presented the result of years of fine-tuned consideration, inappropriate words can slip in. By and large though, I think the over tenet of what I am saying is not simply that views are wrong but that they do not terminate in rationality.Take "God doesn't/likely doesn't exist due to lack of objective evidence" If I've said that view is 'wrong' what I have more frequently said is that it is not rational, not reasonable. This, given that it is not reasonable to think that objective evidence, in it's empirical, scientific sense, will be available (God would be supernatural). I have said that in requiring such evidence, one is looking for the evidence in the wrong place. "No evidence" is thus rewritten "I am not looking for the evidence where it may be found" Thus the rationale behind athiesm is shown not to be rational I was trying to make the point that it doesn't matter what person thinks constitutes a Christian. Christians don't make Christians, God does. That people who call themselves Christians argue about what a Christian is especially irrelevant - given that calling oneself a Christian doesn't make oneself a Christian either. You would expect disagreement between people who are Christians and people who aren't but think they are, as to what constitutes a Christian. Which is precisely what we find.In my comments on 'your Christian', I pointed out the attributes you mentioned were things that one might (but not necessarily) expect a Christian to do. This does not say however that doing these things makes them a Christian. One can do all the things expected of a person in love with another. But that doesn't mean they love them. There might (take a stunningly attractive 22 year old woman 'loving' an 85 year old billionaire lying on his sickbed for example) be other motivations behind the actions. I don't say the motivations are necessarily nefarious - but what they are is irrelevant if the person isn't a Christian.One doesn't have to refer to the bible to see that these things aren't a sure-fire sign of a person being a Christian. That was the main point.In commenting on the purpose of the law being to make people realise that they can't keep the law, I am referring to a theme which is all over the bible. I would find it strange, and somewhat wasteful of time to have to provide chapter and verse given that it is as obvious as the day is long that this is the case:"The law is a schoolteacher to lead you to Christ"
"By the deeds of the law shall no man be saved"
"It is by grace you are saved not be works (following the law) so that no man can boast"
"For no man shall be justified in his sight by observing the works of the law"
"For the law is to make man recognise sin" (which presumably means that without it man wouldn't)
"If it is the adherents of the Law who are to be made heirs then faith is made futile and the promise of God is made void"But of course you may differ in view in which case my apologies. I thought it was self-evident. In his mind. Is that not believism? What about knowing? Where does that come in? If one knew then one cannot unknow. Google 'know the living God' for scriptural backup that this is not ony possible but frequent.

My point was that there is no absolute right and wrong unless something that is absolute defines right and wrong. Man can't do that as you seem to agree. If you conclude no God, then you also conclude no absolute basis for right and wrong. Thus there is no right and wrong , only right and wrong as defined by whatever age, culture etc you live in. Thus slavery was right then and slavery is wrong now (in our part of the world). Slavery might be right again. But you can't say it is absolutely wrong - for all times because there is no such thing as absolute in your mind. Fair enough.Except to say there is no absolute right and wrong is an absolute statement - which puts you in a Catch-22 situation - because man is not in a positon to make absolute statements.

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

Look at these two statements PY. It is "plain stupid to have no belief" and an athiest "has no belief" You might be on for a bit of a hiding there from some. Me, I don't for a second think that athiests are stupid thus according to your statement an athiest has belief. Not in God but in Nature-is-everything. Since Nature-is-Everything is not shown then belief that it is all (or will be eventually shown to be all) is just that: belief. And when a belief is held by unfounded faith (as opposed to knowing) then that is a Religion.Extrapolation may indicate a likelyhood but it is pure speculation. Folk loose their shirts on the stock market applying exactly the same reasoning. Objects travelling in a straight line will deviate if exposed to an exterior force. No one knows what will be discovered in the future so no one can comment on what forces will occurr to alter the line exptrapolated. Blind guessing is all it is.This message has been edited by iano, 26-Aug-2005 11:00 AM

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

Have you got any reasoned thinking behind that statement. Given that for me to know something myself I only need to show myself.

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

Probably, but it is not possible to know something when in fact it isn't. You wouldn't know it, you would believe it. If you knew it then it would be the case. We back to Ojectivity Rules (in the provable to everyone sense) again. What reason is there for thinking that this is the way it is. It may be a well established theory but a theory is not truth. That some folk have decided that a well-established theory can be for all intents and purposes considered true is only a philosophical position. It is not a true position.In other words PY you say that the only way to know is through objectivity. Reason (which doesn't rely on circular reasoning)?

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8

Would it be an idea to get back on topic? "Athiesm isn't a belief".I say it is - and an irrational one at that. To summarise:"No objective evidence for God" is not a rational statement as to the non-existance of God. It makes the statement that 'objective' an absolute as a way of knowing things when there is no absolute foundation for the view."No belief" is not an athiest position. An athiest holds to something other than God - ie: 'everything is natural'. But he has no way of knowing this. He can only hold that view by belief.Thus unfounded belief in nature on the one hand and no complete way of commenting on the non-existance of God on the other.Atheism is thus irrational - as it only deals with a portion of what is possible not all that is possible. It is a stance based on belief in something without evidence for the something thus shares the attributes of a religion.(What theism is, rational or otherwise is not the issue, just what athiesm is)

---

"But God shows his love for us by the fact that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" Romans 5:8