|
Post by wdmundt on Nov 9, 2007 18:41:56 GMT -4
I'm not trying to prove whether God exists or not. I'm showing that there is no rational reason to believe God exists.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 9, 2007 18:41:57 GMT -4
Why do we have to pray? Can't we see if it has an effect in other's people's lives? My mother-in-law is a devout Mennonite, with Fundamentalist leanings. She prays constantly, all the time, for everyone in her life. Yet she is miserable most of the time, could be because her husband died four years ago. She worships Jesus as the center point in her life, yet she despairs over her children's beliefs (or lack of), she gives money (lots of it) to fundamentalist preachers (Benny Hihm etc) who guarentee 'results' for her donation, but I've yet to see anything positive come of it except for the fact that she believes she will be with Jesus when she dies, and it gives her comfort to know the Lord.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Nov 9, 2007 20:55:17 GMT -4
I'm showing that there is no rational reason to believe God exists.
But that is OK, right? With morality supposedly being subjective, rational is not necessarily better than faith for all people.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 10, 2007 13:31:02 GMT -4
Jason, I am not using a form of circular logic. We started with a discussion of beliefs. I explained that for a belief to be accepted as true, the belief must be capable of rational demonstration. Beliefs that require faith as an explanation and are not capable of rational demonstration can't be accepted as true in the realm of reason. It is impossible to rationally demonstrate that you love someone. You can take actions to show this, such as marrying them, but you could be lying, or fooling yourself. So since there is no way to demonstrate it rationally, does that mean it's not true? An agnostic position (we don't know either way) can be held to be logical. An atheist position (we do know, and he doesn't exist) is not. So does that mean you do know that God doesn't answer prayers, or the reverse?
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 10, 2007 13:37:48 GMT -4
An agnostic position (we don't know either way) can be held to be logical. An atheist position (we do know, and he doesn't exist) is not. This is just your straw man, which isn't getting anyone anywhere.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 10, 2007 13:40:45 GMT -4
My mother-in-law is a devout Mennonite, with Fundamentalist leanings. Is her family that she prays for destitute? If not then perhaps it is having some effect. Fundamentalist preachers who guarantee results for donations are not something I consider authentic. God doesn't need money. Any good that comes of giving money to a religious group comes from the act of sacrifice the person makes, the wilingness they show to not become over-attached to perishable material goods.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Nov 10, 2007 14:07:14 GMT -4
An atheist position (we do know, and he doesn't exist) is not. As an atheist myself, I feel you have misrepresented my position, which is: I see no evidence that god exists, and I do not see any necessity to believe in things for which there is no evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Nov 10, 2007 14:46:02 GMT -4
It is impossible to rationally demonstrate that you love someone. You can take actions to show this, such as marrying them, but you could be lying, or fooling yourself.
Your actions constitute your love for someone. Lying or fooling yourself are constituted by a different set of actions, such as going back to Vegas the next day to annul the midnight marriage.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 11, 2007 20:05:16 GMT -4
An atheist position (we do know, and he doesn't exist) is not. As an atheist myself, I feel you have misrepresented my position, which is: I see no evidence that god exists, and I do not see any necessity to believe in things for which there is no evidence. By my book you are only an atheist if you deny God's existence. I would call the position you describe a variety of agnostic. EDIT: And perhaps it is a straw man position in the context of this forum, but there are people out there who seem to hold to it.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Nov 12, 2007 15:07:20 GMT -4
Well, the rest if us will stick with the more accurate definition, thanks all the same.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 12, 2007 18:44:24 GMT -4
As long as we both know what the other is talking about, no problem.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 12, 2007 19:45:50 GMT -4
a·the·ist
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. [Origin: 1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist]
—Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1
ag·nos·tic 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Well, according to this, then I'm an atheist. since I disbelieve the existence of a supreme being or beings. I can't be agnostic because I don't think it is impossible to know anything about God.
Jason, didn't you have these two meanings switched around?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 12, 2007 19:54:13 GMT -4
Again, appeals to a dictionary seldom impress me, and these are only possible definitions among many possible uses of the word.
I'm not going to argue what an atheist or agnostic "really" are, or what most people mean by the terms. I told you what I mean by them in the context of this thread, and that should be enough for communication.
EDIT: And may I add that long arguments over the meaning of words is what I call "the semantics game". It goes nowhere and ignores any actual issue being discussed.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Nov 12, 2007 20:02:25 GMT -4
That's okay with me Jason. But are you trying to convert atheists to agnosticism? You know where that leads to...
|
|
|
Post by Bill Thompson on Nov 13, 2007 2:44:45 GMT -4
How does one define good and bad outside religious context?
|
|