Who has money on Pascal's Wager?

[Richard]

I don't know if anyone is watching this thread anymore, so I'm only going to post a few short questions and comments (mainly for Xysea but I've no objection if anyone else answers). If no one weighs in, I'll just call them rhetorical.

Xysea wrote, "You still haven't answered *my* question: If God can be proven to exist ... then what is the point of 'faith'?"

It's theists, not atheists, that make the claim that faith is valuable in the first place, therefore it falls on theists to explain the value of faith. The question should be, what is the point of faith to the theist? Furthermore, if faith is so valuable that God hides his existence for the benefit of faith, then why has he spoken directly to so many people (Adam, Eve, Cain, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, etc.) thereby spoiling their experiences of faith? If faith is so valuable then why does it exist only for the fleeting time we're on Earth, to be replaced after death by an eternity of faithless certitude? Finally, if faith is so valuable that proof of God's existence would be a bad thing, then why do so many faithful philosophers, authors, bloggers and Youtubers keep trying to prove it?

The claim has been made here several times that all knowledge is faith-based (this is untrue but let's assume it's so for the sake of argument). A second claim is made that atheists are unable to understand faith because they don't experience it. If all knowledge is faith-based then doesn't it follow that everyone, atheists included, must experience it?

Xysea wrote, "People of faith are always asked to prove God's existence, but I have yet to see an atheist prove that God does not exist. If we are talking reason, logic, etc, please feel free to use all that apply to prove God does not exist and we'll call it a day."

When you claim that something exists, the burden of proof is on you, not the skeptic. That is logic. Generally speaking, nothing can be disproved to exist. No one can prove that Allah, Zeus, Thor, Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, unicorns, and fairies don't exist; should we therefore sit on the fence concerning all of those things? Are they all equally likely as unlikely?

Xysea wrote, "I think history is against you. For all time we've recorded so far, Man has believed in God."

Abraham, the founder of monotheism, lived at most five thousand years ago. Homo sapiens has been around for at least one hundred thousand years. So much for history. In any case the point is moot; the length of time that a belief has been held has no bearing on its veracity.

Xysea wrote, "In the words of Douglas Adams in The Hitchhikers Guide To the Galaxy: 'I refuse to prove that I exist, says God, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'"

I have to point out that Douglas Adams was an outspoken atheist and skeptic. He was not endorsing faith, he was ridiculing theism.

[Trevor]

Yes, I am almost positive the quote from The Hitchhikers Guide is from the description of the Babel Fish and was used in the book as proof (with some typically twisted logic) for the non-existence of God - as producing something so unquestioningly useful could only have been done by an intelligent being and thereby disproving his existence by removing need for faith - but I haven't bothered to check.

The book is a comedy, after all, and if the faithful need to rely on a comedy written by an atheist to defend their claims, they really are on hard times.

Dawkins claims Adams is the only person he knows he converted to atheism - Adams claims he gave up on God after reading The Selfish Gene.

[Marina]

I read the Adams passage in which God disappears in a puff of logic to mean that a God whose existence could be "proven" would be definable, and have qualities and properties that humans could measure and understand. Humans can't define gravity, but organized religion doesn't worship a God who keeps food on the table, literally. Why? Because gravity is free, and available to believers and non-believers alike. The Bible's, "Greater things shall ye do," passage suggests that its authors knew humanity would evolve, that the progress of scientific knowledge would enable them to unravel the mysteries of the time. People drinking 33 AD Cabernet did not think they had it all figured out, and kept exploring the difficult questions modern religion asks you, the faithful, to stop considering. It is because of the progress of science, i.e. because people can build churches with electricity and air conditioning, that people can get together and talk about faith on tax-exempt property, and pray that their kids get jobs at Google. And it is because science has improved the lives of people of all faiths that people can conceive of a God concept more complicated than the invisible-but-probably-very-large guy who'll give me a good hunt or keep my crops alive. Ancient people did not know the solutions to the problems of the time, but knew there were answers to be had. Who or what would guide them to those answers? Some unseen force that would inspire intelligent men and women to help humanity rise above disease, social and political conflict, and all of the "sins" that held civilization back and made life miserable at times. It is because of them that you can now bring your drive-thru Starbucks to a church discussion group to talk about how unfortunate it is that everyone hasn't accepted Jesus as their personal savior. You owe them better than "faith." God, ostensibly a master of the dimension of time and ironic inside jokes, didn't speed up the progress of science to end suffering, nor did he reveal himself clearly enough to inspire the fear or love required to unite humanity. The whole shebang, then and now, hinges on the quality of human thought, regardless whether God exists or not. The fate of every kind of animal on Noah's arc hinges on it too. It simply won't do to read the picture bible at the dentist's office or go to Sunday school and accept it all as truth. And even if everything you learned actually were true, it wouldn't be OK to just accept it because you were told to, and then rest assured that all will be well with you and your friends on Rapture day. Since I started this thread and it got to a place where the faithful say they believe in God because it is a very effective and long lived idea-virus, let me pose a more specific question, to everyone. Why do you believe what you believe? And by that I mean, is your mental house in order? How much randomness or laziness have we, people living in the most advanced civilization yet, let creep into our thinking? For example, does the result of a card game depend on whether you shuffled twice or three times? Did the Cubs or Mets lose because you didn't wear your lucky hat? Do you love, or tolerate, or not-so-much of either, your fellow man, and why? Let's all dig deep and keep discussing...and if some of the people participating in this forum don't buy your explanation, consider it free advice.

[Xysea]

I left this discussion because it was fairly repetitive, and the people involved were more interested in preaching to the converted than trying to find common ground, and I don't see any point to your post, though I decided you deserved a response - just based on the amount of effort you took in picking apart my views.

I don't owe you anything, least of all justification or 'proof' of my belief system.

If you believe something, take responsibility for it. If you believe in atheism, take responsibility for the actions of the atheists you support - just as you are asking believers to take responsibility for the actions of other believers. To do otherwise is hypocritical and disingenuous, at best. You ask me to prove the validity of my beliefs and them hem, haw and dissemble when I treat you equally, telling me you aren't obliged to do so. Well, neither am I.

But I find that is often the case.

Atheists have no massive social movement of their own to help the poor, the downtrodden, etc. Secular efforts to do so, particularly in the US, are sketchy at best. But they have no trouble shitting on the efforts of the religious, if only because they are religious. Atheists rely on flawed science - remember, humans are flawed, and their processes are flawed, so anything they do is flawed - including science AND religion. Science does not get an exemption. Science isn't even better at policing itself against corruption, as articles here and here demonstrate:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/art...

http://www.book-of-thoth.com/thebook/...

Telling me that religion is the only entity that sticks its head in the sand is a bald-faced lie. People will, in the interest of advancement, falsify information to make results fit a theory. But we don't throw science out the window because we do, do we? Yet, that is what you are asking the religious to consider. And you have no interest, or idea, in long term consequences for those believers, do you? Because if you think it's no good, therefore it must be no good for everyone else? (If you thought religioin was a good thing, we would not be having this discussion. It would be 'live and let live.')

I've read Douglas Adams, I've read Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris AND Richard Dawkins. I daresay I've given atheists more a chance to convince me with their arguments than you've given any theist throughout the history of your life. And I still believe in what I want to believe. How you think personally addressing me with a post on GoodReads is going to change that, I dunno, but that's a form of condescension and hubris that I have found is typical of most atheists. They always think they've considered something you've never considered before.

I believe in God. I do not have proof of his existence. Some people believe in String Theory, though they have no proof of its existence. So what? What you're arguing, in essence, is policy and procedure of believe. I find that kind of ridiculous. 'My sytem is better than your system.' Why not pull out a ruler and measure you manhood? It's the same kind of thing.

We can't all believe the same thing, nor do we, nor should we. You can argue that my beliefs are rigid, unfounded, responsibile for genocide, etc. I can argue the same thing. In the end, where does it get us? Nowhere. At least I have the sense to recognize that.

I'll leave you with this parting thought:

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismqu...

When participating in such discussions, it is important for atheists to remember that not all theists are wildly irrational and illogical — if that were so, it would be much easier to simply dismiss them. Some are genuinely attempting to be reasonable, and some manage to do a decent job. Treating them as if they never heard of logical arguments will only serve to put them on the defensive in the end, and it is unlikely that you will accomplish anything.

This raises a very important question: if you are engaging a theist in a debate, why are you doing it? You must understand what your goals are if you have any hopes of getting anywhere. Are you just looking to “win” an argument or vent your negative emotions about religion and theism? If so, you’ve got the wrong hobby.

[Trevor]

Xysea,

I still find it amazing that you can write thousands of words on this topic and still not say a word about the topic at hand other than that the original question is rigged.

[[deleted user]]

I'd like to address that initial question on no one's behalf but my own, namely, "Who has money on Pascal's wager?"

Pascal's wager is silly. The belief systems and required activities involved in believing or ACTING as if one believes in a supreme being or beings varies religion by religion. For Pascal's wager to be truly useful, one would first have to make a dangerous decision to follow one or another religion for the promised rewards. To go through ALL THAT WORK and EYEBROW-LOWERED, TOOTH-GRINDING SINCERITY with only a small percentage chance of having picked the right God is daft.

It's a stupid question, REALLY stupid. Pointless.

But I know what he was getting at: Should we behave in such a way as to honor a PARTICULAR god we're not sure about, because as a nonbeliever one is guaranteed, in some religions to suffer in eternal hellfire?

But I picked my religion and people for reasons other than worry about eternal salvation or damnation. Likely most people do the same, even if they DO say that it's because of rewards or penalties after death. Those people are dangerous.

[Trevor]

Yes! I think the idea of picking a religion is completely fascinating. Someone said they became a Catholic because it was the most absurd religion and therefore would require the most faith to accept.

I think most people don't pick a religion at all - it is something you are born with and often not really something you think about at all.

This topic was actually not properly named - the original question had to do with faith and the question if there a rational basis for it - as illustrated by Russell's teapot in space. Very early on I said I felt the religious could answer this by saying that faith is not rational in the sense science is rational, but relies on revealed truth. I still think this is the only answer the religious have to this question. If there is another answer, then I would be interested in hearing what it is.

My problem with this answer is that it ends discussion. You know, I worry about revealed truths - they are the sorts of truths that make it seem like a good idea to fly planes into buildings.

Much of modern philosophy denies the existence of a 'pure reason' - this would also seem to be a fruitful line of attack by the religious against those who do not believe, but I worry about the consequences of relativism too.

Reason may not be a very good tool, it may not even be up to the task at hand, but if not that, then what?

[[deleted user]]

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. "

Hamlet

[Trevor]

"But tis strange, and oft times, to win us to our harm, the instruments of darkness offer us truths, win us with honest trifles, to later betrays in deepest consequence.” MacBeth

If one must have a God, Shakespeare is as good as any other I can think of.

[Xysea]

Trevor,

Many people rely on many things, comedy and reason, among them, to express their point of view.

I am no dogmatic Christian. In fact, I could hardly be called a Christian at all, except in the most loose and forgiving sense of the word. I practice no organized religion, I don't worship at any Church and I barely read the Bible anymore, though I spent several years studying it as both a religious text and a literary and historical document.

I am well aware of the flaws of religion, and that is what all of these discussions end up reverting to in the end.

As an educated woman, the daughter of someone who was a physician who believed in both the healing powers of medicine (science) AND religion, I cannot take things as black and white as you all do.

I have seen things MIRACULOUS, and I use the word in CAPS specifically. Things medical science cannot or will not explain to our feeble minds what rely on 'empirical evidence' and are haunted constantly by the words 'prove, prove, prove.'

You cannot prove to me your way is the correct, right, better, proper, more intellectual, more realistic way of viewing things. You simply cannot. So, I will go on the face of the things that I have experienced, and seen, on the death bed of loved ones and in my own life.

See, I consider the experiences of life to be my proof that there is a God. Or some reasonable facsimile thereof. Maybe not God, but a driving, collective unconscious force in the universe. Somewhat Jungian in nature. Maybe not. I don't try to characterize 'God' as any particular person, place or thing. I don't believe the Bible is the literal Word of God. It's too fucked up for that. I simply accept that there is something beyond the here and now, greater than myself and which inspires me and makes me feel connected to everything else. Call that whatever you want, but (a) don't tell me I don't feel it because you can't possibly know what I feel and (b) don't tell me I'm deluded, rationalizing etc because again, you couldn't possibly know.

Perhaps your experience is simply different than mine? Atheists cannot accept this; they must justify, justify, justify. They'll fight with anyone, no matter what - maybe it's a Napoleon complex? I don't know. I'm finding I no longer care.

Another HUGE mistake every atheist I know does is engage in discussions with theists assuming we are all Bible-thumping, dogmatic proselytizers who are just foaming at the mouth to convert them to our 'brand' of theology. Nothing could be further from the truth. I could care less if you believe, don't believe or stick it up your bum and whistle a tune.

I will not sit back and be told that I am irrational, delusion, unthinking, responsible for genocide, corruption, abuse, that I am not entitled to respect for my beliefs - especially when you demand respect for your own.

No one here is throwing rocks at the moon, so let's dispense with that line of bull right now.

How my decision was made? Well, there is a historical Jesus. A person. He's spoken of outside the Bible, theology. His teachings seem pretty real to me. And they're not a bad idea, in general. Good suggestions for a peaceable society, I have no trouble at all with the concepts of charity, love thy neighbor, do unto others, etc. Is Christianity the only place to go for these teachings? No, but that is where it started for me, and I accept that.

Why this and no other?

Well, I've read the Koran, the Torah, the I-Ching, Buddhist texts. I haven't studied Zoroastrianism or Hinduism, but I have studied yoga, meditation, Chinese thought and a few other different cult-like groups and dismissed them all as they didn't work for me, or speak to me on the same level as Jesus' teachings.

I took ideas from all of them, because they all have validity to me. Their similarities to me are more striking than their differences; it is a long, told story. I've seen the movies, the documentaries, that say the Messiah story is based on constellation theories, that it's just a myth like a Norse myth. But that still doesn't deal with the fact that Jesus was a real person while the Norse myths have never been proven to have had actual living participants.

But it became quickly apparent to me that a lot of the other 'trappings' of religion are just that, trappings. Constructs of man. Obstructions of man. Manipulations of man. I reject them all. I am not required to accept anything whole hog. For example, I don't believe in traditional concepts of Heaven and Hell, but I do believe our soul goes on for various reasons.

I'm not sure if I really believe in reincarnation, I'm still thinking about it. I don't think physical death is the end of consciousness, for a variety of personal reasons that I will not elaborate on here.

I am open to having my religious beliefs updated; the news that Jesus was black, for example, was not distressing to me. Nor would it have been distressing to find out Jesus was married and fathered children. None of these things shatter, or challenge, my belief systems.

Jesus, like a swami or guru, was a wise man. A great teacher, whose influence can (rarely?) sometimes be seen today. Like any teacher, from grade school through a college professor, you learn from, formulate and adjust your positions over time - but the teaching still remains part of you, part of your make up.

This is how I see Jesus, and religion.

Yet I cannot dismiss the possibility of God so rea
dily, and Jesus to me is the Son of God, but much in the way that Buddha reached enlightenment. He tapped into a level of consciousness not currently reached by most people; I see that as 'God', if you will. Again, I don't try to qualify God as something in particular, period. I just accept the fact that there is something greater than myself, something to aspire to becoming.

I wish religion would evolve. It has, somewhat, over time, but not at a pace in line with humanistic thought and secular/scientific thought. There are a lot of people resistant to the ideas of homosexuality or abortion being mainstream ideas, but they are already for the most part. We don't stone people who wear cloth of two fibers, for example, nor do most Western societies require women to menstruate away from men. I know Reform Jews who eat pork. To say that religion is incapable of flexibility, or understanding, or deveopment, is beyond understanding when the demonstrations of it are available to us in our everyday lives.

I have trouble with a lot of religious thought; Christian views on women, etc. I have problem with Muslim views on women, and Judaism's views on women, too. But that doesn't mean I dismiss everything because I don't agree. It just means I spend longer thinking about it and how I choose to address it. To be honest, though, in modern society, it matters little in my day to day life.

A lot of atheists don't understand that personal beliefs are that. Personal. They want to mine the personal lives of people, along the way pointing out flaws in thinking etc, and have no idea (it seems) how completely offensive that is. I've given you more of myself today than any one of you has deigned to give me - despite the inevitable picking apart of my beliefs, my logic, my personal value system, etc. I have to wonder, do you do the same to the Muslim, the Jew, the Hindu, the Zoroastrian? Do you? If not, then it seems like the goal here is probably something other than what has been stated by the intial rejection of Pascal's Wager.

It's simply to make sport of believers, to chew them up and spit them out for your own entertainment, already knowing in advance they can never satisfy your queries, never help you to understand that which you willfully choose not to understand.

As I said in the quote yesterday, (paraphrasing) you should probably find another hobby.

[Xio]

(ahem, thanks Brendan!) TREVOR! asked (a long time ago, sorry! I was swept off into other discussions!): "I’m afraid to ask what “The problem is a matter of action-solution in the living part of existence.” could possibly mean – you see, already I’m hoping it means nothing. When people start using language in this way, not seeking to be clear, but seeking to devise their own system of meaning only accessible to the initiated, I get very concerned and feel that if I had any sense at all I would run for the nearest exit."


That meant the problem as I see it is the problem of how to act, how to understand our world, what form of justification we concoct for our actions.

"The main weakness of English – as with everything in life – is also its greatest strength and that is its abundance of synonyms. I don’t know that faith really is the same as trust and hope and risk – as you seem to be making it. In that case wouldn’t casinos be the new temples? Aren’t they where one can take the most risk and therefore display the most faith? And yours is an odd description of economics – particularly given the current problems with the sub-prime mortgage crisis – to say that it is one of faith. Surely the problem with Ninja Loans (No Income, No Job, No Assets – the sort of loans that brought about this crisis in the first place) was that the banks had too much faith. You see, faith used in this all-too-vague way ends up meaning nothing. But once one starts using faith in this sense then someone will suggest that the way out of the current economic crisis will be prayer. Sooner or later the vagueness you have here introduced to the term will suddenly get lost again and faith will go back to meaning belief without reason."

Since I hold the opinion that capitalism is a religion, I tend to agree that casinos are the new temples, as are shopping malls. Think carefully about the roles Temples, churches and whatnot play in society. Aside from a place that is organized to create an inner sense of astonishment, wonder and awe they are all places designed to reinforce faith in the particular system, bring people together in a single activiity and to reinforce strategies for ideologically-based behaviors.

Faith can never mean 'nothing' because faith is an activity. It affects the world. As for 'belief without reason', well I think there are many people who carry on their inherited faith unreflectively. Also there are those who claim to reflect but are really looking for ways to reinforce what they believe or perhaps to destroy it, based upon new beliefs or systems creeping in. The problem for me is when all of this personal wrangling moves into the public sphere and begins to dictate what I am supposed to do with myself. That said:

As for this notion of 'personal belief' I tend to hold the opinion that this is a fallacy and somewhat suspect. How can you claim to not act on your own fundamental beliefs? Once you act it is no longer a personal issue, it is either a negotiation or an imposition.

[[deleted user]]

I believe you meant Trevor.

EDIT: Yeah, who cares? I'd lump us all together, too. No harm, no foul.

[Wendy]

It is as easy to prove the God of the Old Testament or the New Testament does not exist as it is to prove that Zeus does not exist etc. An atheist is someone who simply believes in one less God than the Christian.

[Wendy]

"If we look at Pascal's Wager, again, you'll see I lose nothing by believing - I only gain". The fallacy is that if you decide to adopt the belief on that basis, you are betting you can "fool an omniscient God" that you are believing NOT for that reason! That reveals the fallacy in "choosing faith" to be on the winning side of Pascal's wager.

[Richard]

Trevor wrote:

"Yes, I am almost positive the quote from The Hitchhikers Guide is from the description of the Babel Fish and was used in the book as proof (with some typically twisted logic) for the non-existence of God"

That was it.

Curious that a parody of theology is barely distinguishable from theology itself, isn't it?

Douglas Adams wrote:

“‘But,’ says Man, ‘The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t. QED.’

“‘Oh dear,’ says God, ‘I hadn’t thought of that,’ and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.

“‘Oh, that was easy,’ says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing."

[Richard]

Marina wrote:

"[L]et me pose a more specific question, to everyone. Why do you believe what you believe?"

Suppose there are two groups that hold incompatible beliefs. (For example, group A believes that its members will go to heaven and those of group B will go to hell, whereas group B believes the opposite.) Obviously, at least one of these positions must be false; they can't simultaneously be true.

Using faith, it's impossible, even in principle, to determine which belief is false. No evidence, no argument, can ever persuade either side. There's no hope of progress. What's more, faith has led at least one group (and possibly both) to falsehood, without hope of escape. This falsehood is not a result of human error, or a misapplication of the rules of faith; it's the inevitable product of faith.

On the other hand, if there are two rational groups holding opposing viewpoints, they can actually talk about the disagreement. They can challenge each others' opinions, examine one another's evidence, and hone one another's arguments. Eventually one (or both) of them will concede that their idea was wrong, and a false idea will be discarded. This is how civilization progresses, this is how science progresses.

In short, reason is simply better at dealing with reality than faith is.

[Richard]

Xysea wrote: "I don't owe you anything, least of all justification or 'proof' of my belief system."

No one said that you did, and indeed you don't. It was your choice to post your beliefs in a public forum, so there's no reason for you to take umbrage with anyone for choosing to discuss those beliefs.

X wrote: "If you believe something, take responsibility for it. If you believe in atheism, take responsibility for the actions of the atheists you support - just as you are asking believers to take responsibility for the actions of other believers."

Strawman. I never asked you to take responsibility for the actions of others. I only posed specific questions pertaining to specific statements that you made. Questions which you've chosen to ignore, for whatever reason.

X wrore: "To do otherwise is hypocritical and disingenuous, at best."

I didn't ask you to take responsibility for anyone else's actions. In any case, no one is responsible for the actions of distant others solely because they happen to share some belief.

X wrote: "You ask me to prove the validity of my beliefs and them hem, haw and dissemble when I treat you equally, telling me you aren't obliged to do so."

What in the Dawkins are you talking about here?

X wrote: "Atheists have no massive social movement of their own to help the poor, the downtrodden, etc."

Atheism is not, nor has it ever been, organized in any way. This is partly do to the hostility of theists towards atheists, and partly due to the fact that atheism is not a belief system, but rather a very simple and specific non-belief. People tend to get together based on commonalities, not non-beliefs.

X wrote: "But they have no trouble shitting on the efforts of the religious, if only because they are religious."

What exactly are you talking about here? I've never heard of any atheist putting down any legitimate humanitarian effort solely on the grounds that it's being carried out by theists.

X wrote: "Science isn't even better at policing itself against corruption..."

The mere fact that corruption exists in science demonstrates only that scientists are human; it does not demonstrate, as you incorrectly assume, that science "isn't even better at policing itself." Of course science is better at policing itself. In every instance of fraud, the lie has been uncovered by other scientists. Can a similar claim be made by any other institution? For instance, has every corrupt politician been uncovered by an honest one? Has every pedophile priest been turned in by a decent priest?

X wrote: "Telling me that religion is the only entity that sticks its head in the sand is a bald-faced lie."

I never said that. Savor the irony; your accusation is a lie.

X wrote: "People will, in the interest of advancement, falsify information to make results fit a theory."

Rarely. And when that happens it's always uncovered, "for nature cannot be fooled." Also, peer review is an enourmously effective tool for keeping a field honest.

X wrote: "Yet, that is what you are asking the religious to consider. And you have no interest, or idea, in long term consequences for those believers, do you?"

Presumptuous ad Hominem. Is that mean-spirited and false accusation a demonstration of superior theistic morality?

X wrote: "If you thought religioin was a good thing, we would not be having this discussion. It would be 'live and let live.'

In what way am I not letting you live? Apparently you feel that if someone merely questions your statements that he's attacking your beliefs. This is irrational.

X wrote: "I daresay I've given atheists more a chance to convince me with their arguments than you've given any theist throughout the history of your life."

Another presumptuous ad Hominem. Apparently, you really don't care for the whole evidence thing.

X wrote: "but that's a form of condescension and hubris that I have found is typical of most atheists. They always think they've considered something you've never considered before.

In your world view, merely questioning your statements is an indication of arrogance and condescension? That's sad.

X wrote: "What you're arguing, in essence, is policy and procedure of believe."

That's not what I argue at all in general, and certainly not in this thread.

X wrote: "We can't all believe the same thing, nor do we, nor should we."

This is one thing we can agree on.

X: "You can argue that my beliefs are rigid, unfounded, responsibile for genocide, etc."

Faith is rigid by definition; you yourself said that you would never change your mind on the existence of God. On the other hand, I'll change my mind when new evidence is presented, or a better argument comes along.

X: "I can argue the same thing."

Make the same claim, certainly. It's a logical fallacy to assume that all arguments, or all claims, are equally valid.

X: "In the end, where does it get us? Nowhere. At least I have the sense to recognize that."

Well, you came on this thread in order to express your beliefs, just as everyone else did, so your claim that you're doing something more sensible than anyone else is absurd. Why are you here, if not to persuade someone else to your point of view? (Not to your religious beliefs perhaps, but certainly to your beliefs about belief.)

[Xysea]

Rick,

I wasn't speaking to you. Hence the address, 'Trevor' at the beginning of the post.

I am ignoring you because I have no interest in rehashing what I've been saying the last 4 pages.

I have other things in my life besides this thread, and responding to someone who doesn't look at me with respect or as an equal from the start.

Good luck.

[Marina]

Wendy, you are way off in what you are saying. You could have an almost infinite number of ideas of things that can't be proven *not* to exist, but that doesn't make any of them true, real, or worth believing in.

Consider the emotional and intellectual baggage dedicated to a major belief system, or religion, and what else you might do with your time, thought, and energy if God made no demands of you. I suspect you don't think there is an alternative; your unique concept of God has become entrenched, and therefore even though you are actually faithful, Pascal's Wager applies to you because considering other ideas would make you feel unthinkably disloyal to God, and probably guilty and/or afraid of the consequences, either here on earth or in the afterlife. I think if you realized there were other ways to think, you wouldn't invent weak justifications for your beliefs like everything is uncertain and atheists only believe in one less God than Christians, and you would probably do better things with your headspace. Being free of the emotional and intellectual baggage required by religion is a pronounced difference between atheists and Christians. And besides, you seem to believe that because Zeus and God are equally un-disprovable, you are justified in believing in God, but you probably do not believe in Zeus...so there is some reason why you believe in one and not the other, right? What is that? Is it that you were taught to believe in one and not the other?

[Richard]

Xysea,

"I wasn't speaking to you. Hence the address, 'Trevor' at the beginning of the post.
I am ignoring you because I have no interest in rehashing what I've been saying the last 4 pages.
I have other things in my life besides this thread, and responding to someone who doesn't look at me with respect or as an equal from the start."

The thread was quiet for six days before I posted, and then you posted about twelve hours later. There's no address in that post.

As for rehashing, who says you need to keep repeating yourself?

As for respect, you've shown nothing but contempt for atheism in all of your posts, so it's slightly hypocritical to take offense at what you perceive to be disrespect.

[Trevor]

Marina,

I understand where you are coming from, but I think Wendy's saying the opposite of what you are taking her to be saying. She is saying that there have been an infinite number of gods that have been believed in, but those with faith in any one particular god are atheists when it comes to all the others that exist or have existed.

Gosh Rick, you seem to have enlivened this little thread, haven't you?

It is almost midnight here, I've just seen all this furious activity, but I've work in the morning and must sleep now.

But I can't help myself - I do worry when people say "personal beliefs are personal" - Xio says something I quite agree with, that personal belief is an activity – I need to think about this some more, but not tonight. It is not just people flying planes into buildings - but other things happen in our world on the basis of people's beliefs. Stem cell research isn't funded in certain countries, mostly due to faith. So, I would be more than happy to allow the personal to be personal, if people would keep their beliefs to themselves and not impose them on everyone else. But as Xio says, this is almost impossible.

Xysea, I will not use your life story against you - but I probably won't tell you my life story. My reason isn't just that my life story is not all that interesting, and it would seem unfair to bore you to death – I am prepared to say that I've had much less contact with 'faith' than you assume and much less negative contact than you assume. But I'm worried that if I tell you I was raised a Minister's son in an evangelical rock band or that I was brought up an atheist by people who had been burnt by the Mormons or that I had been brought up by people who are Clears in the Church of Scientology or that they are Marxists who escaped from Nicaragua, only to find themselves in Greece worshiping Apollo - well, you would just go - Ahh, you see, that explains it.

Some people who have been sodomised by their local priest go on to reject all religion, others go on to become priests themselves. I don't think it is just your life history that gives meaning to your ideas - I think we can distance ourselves at least that much from our lives. I am not going to use your life to go “Ah, A+B obviously we get C”. I don’t think there are such obvious algebraic equations in people’s lives. I’ll relieve you of the temptation of doing this to my life, if you don’t mind.

People too often want direct lines - life is more interesting in the squiggles.

I think all religions, Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, Christian, Whatever, Etc, and so on - are based on faith and that as far as that faith is beyond access to reason, it will, in the end, be dangerous. That does not mean I want to round up everyone of religious faith and exterminate them. But I do think before they go imposing their views on others, by flying planes into buildings, starting crusades, blowing up abortion clinics, - well, I just don't think it is too outrageous for me to have the right to ask, "Oh, by the way, do you have any reasons for doing that, you know, like, real reasons, other than you thinking you know the will of your imaginary friend?"

And yes, I do understand that not all religious people do these sorts of bad things – but faith that is covered in an impervious coating against reason really frightens me, even in its mild forms. Sometimes I think it is a luxury humanity can no longer afford.

It is now almost one – bugger – I want to say something about irrationalism from what you have said, but not now.

[Lona]

Marina, You make it sound like the only people who come to faith are those who grew up in Sunday School being beaten over the head with a King James Bible every day. I want you to know there are absolutely people out in the world who have come to believe in the existence of a creator and a God and a savior having never seen a Bible, gone to church, spoken to a pastor or even heard the name of Jesus before. I have spoken to some of them myself. As far as religion not being a philosophical or intellectual pursuit, then why have so many men and women far more intelligent than your or I been analyzing and discussing religions and religious books for all these years? Believe me, it is not to be politically or socially correct or to win friends and to influence people, it's because they do have a brain and a heart that longs for truth.

[Lona]

People too often want direct lines - life is more interesting in the squiggles.

I find it fascinating that you would say that, since it is the squiggles in life that usually require a little faith in something, not so with the straight lines.

[Wendy]

Marina

You completely misunderstood my posts so I apologize for not being as clear that I actually was making the same point as you were making in response to my posts! Please reread them.
I was saying that the Pascal's wager argument was fallacious. I began that post by quoting someeone else.

I am an atheist and have been one for 30 plus years and before that, I would have called myself a Unitarian (or a Deist like Thomas Jefferson)

I said that it was just as difficult to disprove that Zeus exists as it was to disprove the
Christian God (or any religion's god or gods )exist.

Perhaps because I am free of the "emotional and intellectual baggage required by religion", I suppose I take this less seriously. That is why I
remarked that an atheist believes in one less god than a Christian...which was perhaps too flip to interject in such an intense discussion.

Not believing in something that you can neither prove exists, see, or feel exists and is not relevant to one's own life is certainly easy enough so that one may be an atheist without having to convince oneself that this god or that god or spirit does not exist.

However, I have enjoyed reading this thread as I enjoyed The God Delusion as one of the latest encouraging spate of books (like Sam Harris's) on the subject.

I agree with the person who posted who said he expected believers to fall back on an argument from "revelation". People who believe that they have had a personal revelation or experience of a supernatural nature have to somehow put that in a context and that context is often that of a religious faith common in their culture and time.
Their faith then is anchored by it. The rest of us are not obliged to be convinced by something we did not experience personally..(it is not a revelation to us!)and we are not on common ground in discussing it.
We may still be able to discuss, debate and speculate with them on what that experience/revelation/hallucination..whatever.could mean but are unlikely to persuade them that they did not have it! Likewise, if people "want to believe" in something...whether its a romantic love or mythology because it feels good, is comforting,is emotionally satisfying in some way, they will. I would like to agree with Rick that two rational groups could eventually resolve differences over ideas but I have come to appreciate the difference between scientific inquiry and methods of making progress, even overcoming emotional and cultural biases in doing so on the one hand and in ways to arrive at progress in this area of religion.

Thomas Paine did a good job of dissecting the Bible and pointing out the many self contradictions, and flaws in it...Thomas Jefferson and others summarily dismissed much of it as nonsense and borrowed from pagan mythology.
Yet, hundreds of years later, apparently rational people cling to it as the infallible word of God and ignore scientific refutation of parts of it, and the brutal savagery and immoral commandments supposedly issued by its deity outlined in its pages. Here in America, we have people who proudly say they do not believe in evolution...running for President! Talk about not conceding that old ideas needed to be discarded!I will bet that some of those believers actually think men have one less rib on one side due to the use of Adam's to make Eve!
All we can do, is speak out and make it more socially acceptable to speak out and actually have intellectual discussions among people on these matters as we are in this thread. Trevor, Rick, Marina Brendan and others who do so , regardless of your differences , are to be commended for engaging in this and I respect you all for it.

[Wendy]

Brendan
Thanks for understanding my initial posts. I was beginning to wonder if the lateness of the hour had indeed hamstrung my ability to communicate. I guess we were all of us a bit tired.
I loved your post.
Your humorous reference to "people finding themselves in Greece worshipping Apollo" was particularly amusing to me and ...actually, when I was in Greece...I had an interesting experience that I wouldnt mind sharing that is relevant to the issue of religion and cultural contexts.
I assume most of the bloggers here have read some of Joseph Campbell's work or even (showing my age) Sir James Frazier's early early work, The Golden Bough. Beyond the fascinating material now available to us from archealogy (went to Malta and saw the most ancient stone temple ruins in the world,)and translation of
early religious writings of all sorts, we now have wonderful new resources and avenues for exploring the human mind and experience, bringing in biology, psychology,etc that may help us understand the impetus for religion in the prehistoric mind.

[Trevor]

Lona, my experience is that faith turns all the squiggles into straight lines.

[Trevor]

Xysea, there are always choices and the choices we make can sometimes say interesting things.

For some time now I have assumed that nothing I say to you will be heard – I suspect you feel the same about me. This is becoming an increasingly pointless discussion and one that will not lead anywhere, as there is no where for it to go given where we have come and how we have gotten here. That is a pity, but I can live with that.

Part of the reason for my stopping talking previously was that one of the lessons I really do need to learn in life is when to shut up – when not to have the last word. One thing I do know is that the self-help books are wrong: recognising a problem often does not move us a single inch towards fixing our problem.

Back to choices. I find it fascinating that you have chosen to attack what you see as my tone, rather than the substance of my argument. Let’s say that you are completely right and I am arrogant, contemptuous, an intellectual snob and aggressive. You could, quite reasonably, attack me for those characteristics – as you have done, repeatedly. But you do realise that is a choice you are making – and one that says something about the other choices you have rejected in taking this particular option.

For example, you could, just as easily, have been confident enough in your beliefs for you to feel that my arrogant and flippant rejection of what you know to be true would be like water off a ducks back.

Let’s look at what you are saying. You are saying that beyond the apparent world there is a deeper world of meaning. That deeper world offers you comfort, support and one might even say protection. You know this world exists. You can’t explain why you know it exists, can’t even see a reason to explain how you know, but its existence is not something that you could possibly doubt. Much of your life might not even make sense without these beliefs. This is what I take you to have said in your long post above.

If this was true, if this was how you felt about your beliefs, if your beliefs were as certain as this, I suggest you would not have spent so much time attacking me for what you perceive as my attitude or tone. Rather, you would look on someone who is blind to this wondrous world of care, protection and love as someone missing out on perhaps what is best about life. I would be more to be pitied than laughed at – someone who should be approached more in sorrow than in anger. My admissions to having no access to this world should make you feel much the same way I feel when someone tells me they don’t like Bach or that Shakespeare is over-rated or that Picasso didn’t really paint, but just made ugly marks and splashes. At those times I think, ‘what a horribly sad and barren life this person must lead - what cauchemar!’.

“I will not sit back and be told that I am irrational, delusion, unthinking, responsible for genocide, corruption, abuse, that I am not entitled to respect for my beliefs - especially when you demand respect for your own.”

And nor should you. I have tried previously to explain why I think faith is irrational, even changed this to non-rational, as I could see it was annoying you to be called irrational. I have definitely not said your beliefs do not deserve respect - and I respect them enough to engage them. You have chosen to ignore most of what I have had to say about what I take to be our common responsibility for the actions taken in our name – which is your right – but I hardly think what I’ve said on this score really deserves such censure from you. You can also choose to exaggerate what I have said about this to the point where it sounds like I am holding you personally responsible for genocide - but I have never said this and don't hold you responsible for that.

Like I’ve said, I don’t expect anything now but a barrage of abuse from you about my wilful twisting of your beliefs to suit my purposes. I do not believe there is anything I can say, in any imaginable way, that will be heard by you. And that strikes me as quite a sad thing.

[Marina]

Wendy, sorry for misinterpreting your posts. I too am glad that everyone is posting with enthusiasm because it means they're thinking enough about their beliefs to write about them. The exercise is worthwhile and should be repeated often.

[Xysea]

I probably should have stopped at this thought,

"It's unlikely to have a productive conversation when you consider me intellectually, emotionally inferior from the start, both irrational and delusional."

And left it at that.

But I thought I'd try to explain to you the other side. That's all I was trying to do.

I don't hate atheists. I hope atheists don't hate me. It's hard to tell though, because their arguments are often so aggressive and, well aggressive, that it really does feel like one is being attacked.

It's not just the tone, Trevor, but you must admit when you meet a stranger out of nowhere and proceed to call something they hold very important and dear 'irrational' and accuse them of being short of reason and logic that it may well strike them as an insult, even though you claim no insult was intended.

In the end, I cannot prove the existence of God. I can't. You can't. No one can.

You asked for reasons why I believe as I do much earlier in this thread, and I gave them to you. None of them, naturally, are satisfying to you. I'm sorry you feel that way. I won't be arrogant and condescending enough to feel 'pity' for you, because I am not that way. I don't believe I know what's right, any better than you do. I maintain that is a difference between us, as from your posts it seems you definitely believe you know yourself to be right and me to be wrong.

My posts were an attempt to give my point of view, and my experiences as to why I have faith and I believe there is something more than this
existence. That is all.

I engage you, specifically, because although we don't agree and have had heated words at least I know you've read my words, you make me think about my reasons, you take time and write thoughtful, well-considered posts. Therefore, I find it worth my time to respond to you, even if I choose not to engage elsewhere.

It's exhausting, trying to explain something so intrinsic to your life. Try explaining in great detail the idea of love, how you come to love, what defines love to you, how you know someone loves you back and what love means to someone who has no idea what emotions are, but who demands proof of this thing called 'love' that you speak of. Give it a whirl; it's damned hard.

The accusation seems to be that I came to have faith without really thinking it through, but nothing could be further from the truth. It is quite difficult, especially in this medium, to articulate oneself in a way that everyone can appreciate. My frustrations stem mostly from feeling largely misunderstood. Other posts on this thread are so full of misunderstandings and all-out cock-ups that it would take too long to correct them all in order to respond.

It seems, Trevor, that the goalposts shift whenever we have this conversation. If you were looking for a point by point rebuttal of specific topics, then I apologize. I did not respond that way. I didn't realize there was any formal style for response. I haven't ignored what you said; I've digested it and given you back my answer as best I could. If that method isn't satisfactory, then I don't know what to say.

I am hearing you, I am just not agreeing with you. There is a difference between the two. I believe that you think in order to 'hear' you, I will naturally come to view it your way and agree with you.

I don't know what it is you think I should be hearing from your posts. I certainly don't think I've been 'abusive' anymore than I've been 'abused' on this thread. If any attacking was done, it was in response to having beliefs attacked. And to claim less than that was happening on this thread is to be dishonest.

I am asking you to be honest about your reasons, because at one point - hugely frustrated - it dawned on me that nothing I say will be adequate to convince you that (a) I am not delusional and irrational and (b) that in order to engage believers in a debate on theism (or lack thereof), before you start you might want to examine your reasons for doing so - and your approach. Otherwise it will end, just as this conversation is ending - with sadness, and continued misunderstanding and bad feelings on both side.

That is all I was trying to say. Probably poorly. Lord knows, I'm not perfect. (ha!)

I wish you the best. I wish you all, on this thread, the best.

Peace.

[Wendy]

Thank you Trevor for understanding and amplifying my comments. I have appreciated your thoughtful and intelligent comments thruout this discussion.
The nuances conveyed in voice and facial expression lost in this medium would help reassure those who feel abused. I think you have been measured and reasoned and thoughtful. I suppose, ironically, that we must ask those who are believers and feel on the defensive to "take it on faith" that we are not attacking them personally when we do in fact consider their beliefs not "off limits" to logical argument and debate and suggest when they seem to argue from emotion, or feeling not reason.(One can of course say your reason for a belief is simply that it makes you feel good..like believing in the Easter Bunny..but it cannot qualify as an argument for that belief that would not draw obvious fire )
Having been on the receiving end of aggressive attempts to convert me to some religion, I have felt annoyed... not assaulted by logic though pummeled by the passion of proselytizers who sought to demonstrate their own faith by the vehemence and zeal ... It was sought to "make me" believe by this which was ridiculous...but I did not feel that their performance was for me alone.
By keeping our own "powder dry" we can keep the focus on a civilized exchange of views (which I think you have)
I hope that we can continue to have these discussions in a manner geared as much as possible to those intelligent participants with whom we are having them.
Unfortunately, too often we find ourselves discussing these matters with people who are not capable of much reasoning in this area and this venue offers a refreshing change from that.

[Trevor]

Jesus tends to get a very good rap – even Dawkins says that he has a t-shirt with “Atheists for Jesus” written on it. But I’m not as keen a supporter of Jesus as others are. I do think the golden rule is quite a neat statement of an important moral principle – but there were things Jesus did, as reported by his followers in the Gospels, that are definitely questionable. The withering fig tree has always been a problem for me – as much for what is not said as what is said. And don’t get me started on Paul!

There are two versions of this story, one in Mark 11 and the other in Matt 21. Naturally, they differ in virtually all particulars – but the ‘lesson’ seems to be fairly consistent in both versions. I’m going to go with Matt, even though I think the Mark version is better for my case, but it is split and I don’t want to be accused of leaving things out.

"18Early in the morning, as he was on his way back to the city, he was hungry. 19Seeing a fig tree by the road, he went up to it but found nothing on it except leaves. Then he said to it, "May you never bear fruit again!" Immediately the tree withered.
20When the disciples saw this, they were amazed. "How did the fig tree wither so quickly?" they asked.
21Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. 22If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."

Now, I’m not going to do the boringly obvious with this and say: the Bible here is making what looks to me like fairly obvious and testable claims – let’s go find ourselves a mountain and I’ll get the Pope and…

My problem with this is even more fundamental. Jesus is taken to be god in the Bible – a three person god in which all persons are the same person. As such he constituted the laws of the universe. He was the one who decided what season the figs would be available to passing saviours. It seems a little petulant to curse the fig tree for all eternity because it didn’t have any fruit when you were passing.

The other version is better on this point, as it says it wasn’t even fig season. Given he set up the seasons, making the tree barren for all time does seem somewhat harsh.

The sub-text to this story is Jesus saying to his followers – when I come and ask for fruit from you, you had better be ready or else you will also suffer the same fate of the fig tree. Never mind that we have been constituted by this creator god to have desires and needs that often seem explicitly opposed to his rule and law. Surely we are being told that what God may ask of us may be literally impossible for us to give, and he then threatens us with eternal punishments for not being able to do the impossible.

This seems to me to be pretty much what all faiths asks on some level. It says, I know it sounds like I’m asking for the impossible from you, but if you give me the impossible, I will give you the impossible in return. I worry that this sort of hope is counter productive in a world like today when we face real problems that only real actions will address.

Also the punishments for a lack of faith always seem remarkably disproportionate to what I think is the offence of not believing.

If, or perhaps when, I ever set up a universe I don’t think I will punish my creations for all eternity just because they follow the path I laid out for them in creating them in the first place. Call me a softy, but it really doesn’t seem too moral to me to get on like that.

There are other times when Jesus makes it clear that there are pretty horrible punishments awaiting those who cannot believe. That this man gets to be considered one of the nicest guys that ever lived does require fairly selective reading.

I would much rather Socrates. He also believed some remarkably daft things too – but at least you could talk with Socrates (I wouldn’t recommend drinking with him, though, but you could talk with him) and you might even change his mind on things, well, if your argument is good enough.

[Meh]

I hate to sound like some preachy, holier-than-thou evangelical, but I find that as a lowly 17-year-old Mormon, I have an answer for each and every question everybody on this thread has asked. I do believe in organized religion, despite all the horrible things it has been used for. Probably the only reason for this all of you will accept was that I was raised in it. I have other reasons, but I doubt that under an extensive scientific inquiry they would hold water. Mostly it goes back to my faith. The faith I have I gained through my own experiences and feelings. I won't try to describe them, because you can't rationally explain a feeling, can you? Not even any feeling at all. Try it sometime, go up to say, a loved one, and try to lay out all your reasons for loving them. Humans aren't machines. We're not inherently rational beings. It's good that we try to be, but should we be wholly rational all the time? Can we judge artwork and music wholly by the scientific method? It doesn't really work that way. There's a part of every human being that isn't rational. I can't say anything about other churches, but at least my church tries to accept that and teach that irrational part how to be an ethical human being. I won't try to defend other religions, because I don't agree with the practices of many of them. Yes, religion and faith have been the excuses for atrocities in the past. Some of these people even now, are, at best, confused. (Think Al Qaida.) But I can freely say that my church has never been involved in them. Go ahead, dig up all the dirt on the LDS church. (Here's a hint: try polygamy and the mountain meadows massacre. But REALLY research them before you make up your mind.)I promise, I'm not trying to convert you. I won't present rational arguements for the existence of God. All I'm saying is, do a little more research. I am quite willing to take responsibility for the actions of my faith, and prove that my faith is a good thing. That's my little LDS advertisement. Now pick me apart, I promise I won't get angry. In fact, I kind of look forward to it. I honestly want to know your opinion.

[Angela]

I don't know if anyone will read this or care and I am certainly not desiring to cause a firestorm but I just found the last question of the first
post interesting because the Iliad and the Odyssey are both considered credible text(they know Homer existed and they have found archilogical evidence to support both in fact quite a few scholars are more accepting of these two texts are credible than the Torah,and what Christians refer to as the New Testament.) but I do understand your frustration.

[Angela]

Also willing admit that it is Religion's fault there is such a wide gap between it and Science in what seems like a war that in fact does not have to exist at all.

[Trevor]

Nothing causes the firestorm this topic does - well, unless one was to debate the pro-side of pedophilia.

[Meen]

I just found this thread from Trevor's pedophilia post on my update feed (Oh, Trevor, you do make me laugh!), and I'm not at all surprised that in the year or so that it's been going the believers still believe and the non-believers still don't. We really are speaking two different languages here, one is based on attempting to pursue knowledge via something like the scientific method (harder to do with social science, of course), the other on faith (which is not scientifically testable, no matter how creationism tries to "science" it up). I find the "debate" pointless b/c as Trevor said in an earlier post I found before I got tired of reading through this thread, at some point in the "debate" the believer ends up responding with "I believe" and takes the argument out of the realm of the rational, which is where non-believers are trying to argue from. It really is pointless. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to criticize religion, especially when fundamentalisms of all stripes are trying to take over the world (and our government).

[Clinton]

Héctor wrote: "The best fiction books are: the Bible and the Corán..."

Don't forget Darwin's Origin of Species.

[Nsmith]

Wendy wrote: "It is as easy to prove the God of the Old Testament or the New Testament does not exist as it is to prove that Zeus does not exist etc. An atheist is someone who simply believes in one less God th..."

Wendy, Your statement is completely untrue. No one has ever proven or disproven the existence of God. If they did, we'd all belive, and become either theists or atheists. I wouldn't even rule Zeus out as a possibility either, because the real truth is, I don't know, and neither does anyone else. You don't really imagine that you've somehow managed to prove something no one else in the entire history of mankind has managed to acheive, now do you?

If you don't believe in God, Hey, believe what you want, but that's just your opinion, which you're trying to schelp off as a proven fact. It's not, and attempting to claim otherwise, is not only untrue, deceptive and underhanded, it's dishonest.

The existence of God has never been proven, or disproven and I doubt it ever will. Please note that I qualified my statement by using the term "I doubt", because I know the difference between an opinion, and a fact.

I have no proof that God exists, but you have no proof that he doesn't. Yet, you are 100% positive that God doesn't exist? Do you really not understand that your belief is based on nothing more than pure faith? Just like mine! If you don't know that, then as far as I'm concerned, you're only fooling yourself.

"Faith" is believing in something, with 100% certainty, and holding fast to that belief, in the absence of proof.

Every single claim in Dawkins book has been refuted and debunked in numerous books and articles, point by point, using "logic and reason" which is every bit as sound as his. If you disagree? Well, that may be your opinion, but that's all it is. We all have our own opinions, and no doubt you know what body part it is, that opinions resemble the most.

By attempting to contend that your opinion is somehow more scientific? Please! Real scientists develop a theory, and then test that theory, using a process known as "the scientific method." A real scientist does not claim to have "proven" a theory unless, and until, it is supported by the results obtained by use of the scientific method. The use of the scientific method to obtain that proof is not optional, and can not be substituted by conjecture, theatrics, and philosophical ramblings.

Dawkins supposed claims of scientific "proof" are about as nonsensical as my attempting to claim that finding colored eggs in my living room is proof of the existence of the Easter Bunny! See? Theists can use the same ridiculously obnoxious examples to ridicule the beliefs of atheists as well. If you think my argument was juvenile? No different than yours sound to me. You have no more proof to support your beliefs than I.

I however, am perfectly aware that my belief in God isn't based on proof, but rather n faith.

Pretending that you are just trying to hold a rational, logical adult conversation, while resorting to 3rd grade humor, drawing colloations between God and: The Easter Bunny, Flying Spagetti Monsters, and invisible pink unicorns,to ridicule the beliefs others hold dear, is about as nasty, rude, and intolerant as it gets.

You don't think your atheists beliefs are religious? Oh, that's not just my opinion, but rather it's already been determined by court decision. Atheists have already taken their case to court, to seek legal recognition and protection to practice their faith-based beliefs, by having atheism declared a religion, and they won! In federal court, no less, on the basis that atheism contains all the necessary elements that define it as a religious belief. No, lack of a diety is not a necessary element, because there are already number of atheist religions. Buddhists do not recognize or worship a diety, but that doesn't make Buddhism any less of a religion.

Still don't agree? Atheists are even starting their own churches, such as the "First Church of Atheism", see this link: http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

This will be my only post on this thread. I will not read or respond to any subsequent posts. Been there, done that, don't care, have better things to do with my life.

Now, I'm gonna go have a wonderful day :)

[cHriS]

Clinton wrote: "Héctor wrote: "The best fiction books are: the Bible and the Corán..."

Don't forget Darwin's Origin of Species."

......and of course The God Delusion, fiction at it's best.

[[deleted user]]

Nsmith wrote: " Do you really not understand that your belief is based on nothing more than pure faith? Just like mine! If you don't know that, then as far as I'm concerned, you're only fooling yourself. "

There are glaring errors in the logic of your entire post, but this might be the most interesting of all of them. The aphoristic reply to such a sentence that you have typed is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. To put it another way, atheists can rest easy knowing that the burden of proof is not in their hands, but in the hands of those who claim for a divine presence. Also, I'm 99% sure that Dawkins says the same thing in his book. It's been awhile since I've read it, so I might be wrong about Dawkins' inclusion of such a statement.

The fundamental issue with your post is the belief in pure subjectivity. You keep relying on "hey, it's just your opinion, man" in order to make your point that atheism and belief in theism are equivalent. Unfortunately, subjectivity and "atheism = theism" are two very different things you've totally conflated.

In terms of subjectivity, there are such things as experts. We can ultimately agree that there are scientists and theologians who are more knowledgeable than we are. Their discourse is more nuanced than ours. To pretend we know the ultimate answer (and then to describe such an answer on a thread on Goodreads) is facetious.

In terms of atheism being akin to theism, well that's just simply ludicrous and misses out on the fundamental difference of meaning between the two. Whether or not some atheist convinced a court to uphold his or her definition of atheism as a religion does not mean that atheism in general equates to a belief in higher power, or even organized religion. The courts are not the authority on theology or science. Relying on such an argument, that the courts have upheld atheism as religion, is a strawman, and should not be taken seriously.

To think that atheism reduces itself to a belief in a lack of deity is, as aforementioned, reductive and simplistic.

You reach to the scientific method as some sort of proof to your overall point, but I'm not sure if I quite understand what you're reaching to. You say that Dawkins' proofs are not proofs because they are nonsensical, but this doesn't quite work. Dawkins, like most scientists, do not adhere to dogmatic beliefs, which is the core tenant of a dogmatic religion. If he doesn't believe in dogmatism (which he has explicitly claimed in numerous places) then he has no faith in dogmatic religion. Because of his disavowal of dogmatism, his beliefs in certain scientific principles can be shaken. Not just "can be shaken" but "should be shaken". As Dawkins outlines, science isn't about final statements but about making general observations about how the world works. Thus, if superior evidence can disprove previous generalizations, then the definition of how the world works needs to be updated.

What I'm trying to say is that I think you've misinterpreted Dawkins' adherence to scientific faith. Or rather, faith in science. It's not equivalent to religion because one is fundamentally dogmatic.

Your agnosticism is admirable in light of such vitriolic rhetoric from both sides, but it is unfortunately lacking in the logic that it seems to admire on the surface.

Unfortunately, as some have already pointed out in this thread, there is no middle ground to be had. Either one believes in something supernatural, or one does not. Agnosticism is fundamentally flawed as a position. It can be taken apart more easily than either of the extreme ends.

I mean no malice with my reply. I just wanted to point out that there are some flaws with your argument.

[[deleted user]]

Also, it's 2012, who still thinks that Darwin's theory of selection is fiction? I mean, the evidence is positively overwhelming. Unless you're an evolutionary biologist, you have nothing to disprove Darwin's particular theory and its nuances discovered over the past 150 years.

[Benjamin]

Pascal's wager has flaws however I haven't seen anyone here address the actual point. The wager is not meant to prove the existence of God but to show that faith has the highest net benefit. People will bring up that it then assumes that the Christian God is the only way to go. Let me present this no other religion besides Christianity and Islam have a concept of hell for non-belief to the best of my understanding. Therefore a belief in Christ would at least give you a 50/50 chance of ultimate benefit. Now all of this is flawed in that a belief based simply on a wager cannot be considered genuine.

[Dan]

macgregor wrote: "Also, it's 2012, who still thinks that Darwin's theory of selection is fiction? I mean, the evidence is positively overwhelming. Unless you're an evolutionary biologist, you have nothing to disprov..."

exactly. and since this is a thread based on a Dawkins books, I will quote him because he said it best:

“You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution.”
—Richard Dawkins

[Benjamin]

“You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution.”
—Richard Dawkins
That is a classic example of begging the question, he doesn't address it but rather brushes away any dissent.

[Dan]

Benjamin wrote: "“You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution.”
—Richard Dawkins
That is a classi..."

maybe im misunderstanding you, what is he brushing away?

[Артём]

Benjamin's "That is a classic example of begging the question" is a classic example of misusing technical jargon.

[[deleted user]]

Benjamin wrote: "That is a classic example of begging the question"

It would be begging the question if Dawkins had only said that and nothing else. Instead, his entire output in evolutionary biology supports his claim.

[[deleted user]]

Артём wrote: "Benjamin's "That is a classic example of begging the question" is a classic example of misusing technical jargon."

+1

[Benjamin]

macgregor wrote: "Benjamin wrote: "That is a classic example of begging the question"

It would be begging the question if Dawkins had only said that and nothing else. Instead, his entire output in evolutionary biol..."
Yes, this is true, but the fact that he tries to use this as an argument just seems like an excuse not to address the issue at hand. When he is discussing evidence from his findings, that is a different story.

[[deleted user]]

Benjamin wrote: "but the fact that he tries to use this as an argument just seems like an excuse not to address the issue at hand"

I don't think I understand what you're saying here. Are you saying that Dan is deploying the quote as a means of "begging the question"?