My Beliefs- GDR

So apparently you'd PREFER to be insulted than to discover that you misunderstood him, and then you can also turn the misbegotten "insult" back on "religious people" although it's irrelevant. Interesting.

Do you have anything pertinent or relevant to contribute or are just going to continue with your Christian persecution syndrome?

Where I'm having trouble is with the definition of atheist. This is what I get from the the meriam-webster on-line dictionary.

quote:

---

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

---

That is what I took it to mean.Here from the same dictionary is the definition of agnostic.

quote:

---

: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

---

Isn't what you are describing closer to agnosticism? Yes, "BUT"' the thing is nobody actually does that. The resurrection is something that can't be proven one way or the other. In this case we can't even really agree on whether the sources are objectively evidenced.If, as "I THINK" you do, start from the position that the existence of a prime mover is unlikely, and with the belief that the Jewish God Yahweh really unlikely, although still possible, then the account of a man dying on a cross, only to be resurrected in a new bodily form and appearing to and talking to hundreds of people looks simply ludicrous.I start from the position that a prime mover is highly likely and that the Jewish God of the OT is quite possible on the understanding that the Bible is not inerrant but that there is a very unfocused understanding of God in those Scriptures.When I consider the resurrection I do consider that the accounts could be credible. I then am open to considering how, seeing as how Jesus was Jewish, a product of that culture, and that all of His first followers were Jewish I have to look at how all of that fits with into the earlier scriptures and what God might or might not do.My point again is that nobody considers the resurrection without their conclusion being heavily influenced by their pre-existing mindset or bias.

I'll start by repeating my reply to oni on this subject. In one sense though doesn't that make us all, (other than for the fundamentalists on either side of the issue, using the definitions above), agnostics and that it is just a matter of degree? I am convinced that God does exist although I acknowledge that I could be wrong, whereas you and oni are convinced that God doesn't exist although you admit that you could be wrong.Here again from the Merriman-Webster dictionary is the definition for materialism. (I used the Merriam-Webster for all definitions and it's been around a long time and by using the same dictionary it provides continuity.)

quote:

---

a : a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter

---

I think that by these definitions that a materialist would always be an atheist but an atheist wouldn't necessarily be a materialist as an atheist presumably could believe in a something other than physical matter without believing in a deity. I guess agnosticism can be a cop-out however I am sure that some people even after considerable study can come to the conclusion that they are unable to come to any conclusion on the matter. The point being that they aren't all pansies.

I'm sorry you took it that way. It wasn't intended to be insulting at all. If you read my reply to Stile you'll see what I meant when I used the term materialism. I'm unclear about what definitions I'm making up. Can you correct me where I've screwed up?

Before we continue you need to get things right. We are NOT convinced god doesn't exist, how many times do Stile, Theo, Hooah, Straggler and I have to tell you that?There is not enough objective evidence for god, therefore I don't believe in a god. In the same way as there isn't enough evidence for bigfoot so I don't actively believe in bigfoot. But I am NOT convinced of this. I just don't believe anything on faith alone - I like there to be objective evidence for things.The only one here that is convinced even though there is a lack of objective evidence is you.- Oni

OK I get that. I suppose convinced is too strong a word but after I used convinced I said that you acknowledge that you could be wrong and then I used it in the same way for my own beliefs.Maybe strongly persuaded instead of convinced. I don't think that we are in disagreement in what mean but in terminology.I used the term convinced in the same way that I might say I am convinced that the Toronto Blue Jays will win the World Series this year.

It is an incorrect definition of atheists.

quote:

---

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

---

I have no such doctrine that there is no diety. I also don't have a disbelief in the existence of a diety. Like with everything else, I simply go were the evidence takes me - objective evidence.I don't have "beliefs" in things that are unevidenced like god, bigfoot, or unicorns. That requires faith, something I don't have either.What atheist say is there isn't any objective evidence so they don't believe in any concept of god. That is not the same as saying "We are convinced there is no god" or saying "it is unlikely there is no god."Furthermore, I am not actually an atheist. I am ignostic. To me the question of "Is there a god" is meaningless because it is unfalsifiable. Not the concept of god, but there term "god" has no meaning in my opinion. I've found that most people can't even give you a coherent definition of god. Most people have no real concept of what they actually believe in.I'll try asking you, which I think I did earlier: What is god? A force? An energy? An actual person? Or can you frankly admit you have no idea? No... You "think" wrong.I DO NOT start from the position that god is unlikely - I start from the position that the concept of god is unevidenced therefore I don't attribute a phenomena to him based on faith in him.Like with bigfoot, if something has been destroyed - I don't start with "It was probably bigfoot" then work my way down to investigating something else, because, since bigfoot is unevidenced you'll never find evidence that it wasn't bigfoot. You'll simply find nothing at all - like in the show Finding Bigfoot - they can just keep looking forever, nothing will ever be evidenced one way or the other. Then the more faithful bigfoot people will say "Well you can't disprove it wasn't bigfoot." But that's not a good arguement because they never proved bigfoot exists in the first place.You're doing the same in saying I can't disprove that god resurrected Jesus. Well, you never proved god existed in the first place. This is utter bullshit. You approach the resurrection that way, but I don't do that. You want to make it seem that way so you're position seems as logical as mine, but it is NOT.I am not influenced one way or the other by any pre-existing mindset or bias. I have no bias at all. When I consider the resurrection and ANY phenomena for that matter, I look at the objective evidence and ONLY the objective evidence.Otherwise I'd be putting the cart before the horse, as you are doing.- Oni

This linkyou gave me Atheist vs Agnostic was very helpful in understanding your position as atheists. Thanks.I'm not sure that those definitions are universally agreed on but it does seem to be your's, oni's, Stile's and I suppose Tangle's and Straggler's position as well. That is pretty much how I have always understood the terms. I believed that atheists were as strong in their convictions of a lack of deity as I was convinced in the existence of one.Actually I see other gods, at least of mainline religions as all recognizing God but having different, and sometimes very different, understandings of the nature of God. As a Christian I don't see other religions as being completely wrong and I have a hunch that some of the things that I believe might not be 100% as well.

Atheism does not equal materialism. They are not synonyms. They do not even deal with the same concepts.

I get that but I'm not "convinced" in anyting that is unevidenced - I simply don't make the leap of faith in any direction. I just say there is no evidence.Obviously, as an ignostic, I go one step further in saying that I don't even know what you guys are talking about when you use the word "god," but I can argue as if I do for sake of this thread. Nope, not that either.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Well then, how about we use the word opinion. Do you have an opinion on whether or not there is such a creature as Bigfoot? If opinion isn't a good word then what would you use. Just to say that there isn't sufficient evidence to confirm its existence doesn't mean that you can't have thoughts on the subject beyond that. I gave this definition in Message 516

quote:

---

It a sense it is all we can do. However, beyond that I see Him as a massive intelligence that exists in another dimension that is interlocked with our own, but that we are unable to directly perceive with our 5 senses.

---

To that I'll add that this intelligence is responsible for the fact that we exist and that this intelligence is perfectly moral and loving for lack of better terms. You seem to agree that you accept the possibility of God but that there isn't sufficient objective evidence to form a conclusion. Fair enough and I agree that there isn't sufficient objective evidence so if I’m to have an opinion I have to look at the subjective evidence, such as if I give credence to the Bible stories, what impact has it had on the world, does it fit with what how I perceive my own life etc. I come at the resurrection as a theist but actually that only opens my mind to the possibility of the resurrection being historical. I don’t form my conclusion based on my theistic beliefs. I am also open to new understandings. There are things that I believed previously as a result of my Christian faith that with, what was new information for me, I have revised my opinion about. For example I previously believed that God could see all of time, past, present and future. I no longer believe that but that God relates to us in time.Bottom line is I don’t accept your idea that I am putting the cart before the horse, at least not more than anyone else. From what you say you are open to the idea that the resurrection is possible. In that way we are starting from the same position. We have reached different conclusions.From a strictly objective POV I have to concede that your position is more rational. We don’t see resurrections ever and we don’t directly perceive God and I agree there is a strong element of faith in what I believe. However I don’t accept any suggestion, (and you haven’t said that this is the case), that my beliefs are irrational. Like I say though, from what we observe your views are more rational than mine which does not prove me wrong though.

When I made that statement it was part of the question of "what is agnosticism"? I have agreed that they are not synonymous.

Well I don't agree that there is no evidence but we have gone around that already. However, in the end it does take a leap of faith. Are you saying because, in your view there is no evidence, you have never formed a view on the likelihood of the existence of a god in any form that could be considered theistic or even deistic.

This is Wiki on Bigfoot:

quote:

---

The scientific community discounts the existence of Bigfoot, as there is no evidence supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature. The evidence that does exist points more towards a hoax or delusion than to sightings of a genuine creature.

---

Do you think the scientific consensus described above is derived from 'putting the cart before the horse'? What we are trying to get across to you here is the fact that an evidence based atheistic conclusion is not derived from the sort of premise led thinking you seem determined to apply. The ones that start with that premise are going to see every event conceivably consistent with that premise as supportive of their evidentially unjustifiable beliefs. Why start with either premise rather than take the scientific evidence led approach?