Christianity as Faith; Atheism as Blind Faith

[SoundMaster]

I believe that invisible men masturbate in everyones bathrooms when noone is looking,I read it in a 2year old book I wrote and I see it´s presence in the sky,complexity of humans and shit like that.
Prove that it doesn´t exist!

Although this was surely said in jest, realistically speaking, is it radically different from proclaiming that a supernatural being exists?
How is this so different than any of the gods that have been proposed to exist over the course of the millenia?
Seriously.

 

[milkman]

I believe that invisible men masturbate in everyones bathrooms when noone is looking,I read it in a 2year old book I wrote and I see it´s presence in the sky,complexity of humans and shit like that.
Prove that it doesn´t exist!

Made my day that much better.

But umm... if they were invisibile then why would they have to wait until nobody is looking to masturbate. Or, rather, nobody *could* be looking if they were in fact invisible. Discuss.

 

[JColtrane]

To Soundmaster:
1)If atheists do not believe in evolution, how do they intend to explain the universe? What you said may be true, but I was writing to the vast majority who explain the world through evolution.
2)Yes, I do think atheism is a worldview. It effects enough things to be considered that, IMO.

 

[SoundMaster]

To Soundmaster:
1)If atheists do not believe in evolution, how do they intend to explain the universe?

I think others here have already posited an answer to this: if we don't know, we simply don't know.
As you've stated, evolution does not supply an explanation for as to where the matter that coalesced into the proposed "big bang" comes from. The answer has simply yet to be discovered.

Do you think it's wise to simply "create" an answer simply for it's own sake?
Again, that's a hallmark of "unwisdom", as I like to say.

In my view, NONE of the world's religions have ever answered this question competently either. It's simply always been a case of "fill in the blanks". Gee, we don't know the answer, we cant explain it so it must be God!! Fill in the blanks with the "god of the gaps".

That just doesn't work for me.

 

[Øjeblikket]

To the Haida, Raven is the Bringer of Light.

One day, long ago, Raven was on a desolate beach. Alone, he needed company and came upon a half-open clamshell. When he examined the shell, he saw tiny people inside. The people were shy and slowly peeked out of the shell. "Come out! Come out!" called Raven. The tiny beings opened the shell and climbed onto the sandy earth. These were the first Haida.

http://www.worldandi.com/public/1998/cljul98.htm

 

[Justin S.]

Demiurge and others are taking on particulars, so I thought I could contribute on the general end.

Bottom line is that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim or proposition. To claim something is true, and then point to others lack of refutation as support, is ad Ignoratium. Already in this thread we have an example of how this thinking can be stretched to accomodate any claim.

Knowledge is only obtained through induction. Again, the only defensible position is to say "all I know is what I can know" and leave it at that. Metaphysics are what the name implies; something we cannot determine the validity of because they are beyond our senses, the only tools we have to evaluate reality.

Whats also interesting is the problem with syllogistic logic, or deduction. I recently read John Stuart Mill's analysis of the fallacy of petito principii (begging the question) inherent in deductive reasoning. What this means is that deduction is a proof for pre-existing knowledge, not a method of discovering truth.

Why this is important is that nearly all the claims and premises of the method of belief (whatever it manifests as) all fall victim to this fallacy of presupposing their conclusion with their premises...

Educated athiests or agnostics dont put blind faith in anything. 'Science' is not some mystical force or thing with content, it is a method, and the only method we have to work with.

The central problem here is that people are still thinking through religious filters... black and white scenarios of objective truth and so forth are a byproduct of religious thought, not mathematical science.

I appreciate the effort Coltrane, but you are essentially arguing with yourself in a closed system (religious perspective).

 

[anonymousnick2001]

To claim something is true, and then point to others lack of refutation as support, is ad Ignoratium. Already in this thread we have an example of how this thinking can be stretched to accomodate any claim.

Well, how do we know? How do we know pink giraffes don't inhabit empty rooms and disappear when people enter? Or search for them? Outside of what we can claim as fact, what exists? We don't know. It could be anything.

As a believer, I take the laissez faire route and simply say to each their own. I know only what I believe, and that I believe it. That's about all I really know. I just wonder what will happen if we someday discover a supernatural being did create everything. If the off chance occurs and one of the world's many faiths is the "truth." What then?

I only hope that if that day comes, everyone can say that they don't regret living the life they did. I won't, even if I'm wrong.

 

[SoundMaster]

I just wonder what will happen if we someday discover a supernatural being did create everything. If the off chance occurs and one of the world's many faiths is the "truth." What then?

I only hope that if that day comes, everyone can say that they don't regret living the life they did. I won't, even if I'm wrong.

If this become scientifically proven - tested and proven - then legions of atheists, such as myself, will become theists. It's quite simple actually.

However, IF a supreme immortal being is "discovered", that only implies just that. It does not necessarily imply that he/she/it is the creator of any of the specific world religions. Hence, the lives we lead may be meaningless to him/her/it and no hells, etc., may have been created.

To assume so is to jump way ahead of ourselves.

 

[SoundMaster]

Educated athiests or agnostics dont put blind faith in anything. 'Science' is not some mystical force or thing with content, it is a method, and the only method we have to work with.

The central problem here is that people are still thinking through religious filters... black and white scenarios of objective truth and so forth are a byproduct of religious thought, not mathematical science.

I appreciate the effort Coltrane, but you are essentially arguing with yourself in a closed system (religious perspective).

Brilliantly stated. You've covered every aspect of this discussion.
(bold highlights are mine)

 

[the alumnus]

(In response to the alumnus)
As I said, for the Christian nature is seen as evidence of God. I did not say it was the only evidence that a Christian has of God's existence. I do not mean to say that their faith comes from the evidence of nature, but that nature gives history and validity to the faith that they already have. And it is a history with a beginning.

i don't see how nature is evidence for god. nature gives a history that contradicts the bible, therefore i don't see how it is faith affirming.

Obviously, I was not dealing with all different views within atheism in this essay.

As a worldview, atheism is lacking an explanation of the origin of matter. I consider this a very essential element in a worldview.

Also, no where in this essay did I discredit the theory of evolution, which you seem to think I have.

i don't see why the origin of matter is essential to a worldview. that makes no sense to me.

 

[Hypnos]

Demiurge and others are taking on particulars, so I thought I could contribute on the general end.

Bottom line is that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim or proposition. To claim something is true, and then point to others lack of refutation as support, is ad Ignoratium. Already in this thread we have an example of how this thinking can be stretched to accomodate any claim.

Knowledge is only obtained through induction. Again, the only defensible position is to say "all I know is what I can know" and leave it at that. Metaphysics are what the name implies; something we cannot determine the validity of because they are beyond our senses, the only tools we have to evaluate reality.

Whats also interesting is the problem with syllogistic logic, or deduction. I recently read John Stuart Mill's analysis of the fallacy of petito principii (begging the question) inherent in deductive reasoning. What this means is that deduction is a proof for pre-existing knowledge, not a method of discovering truth.

Why this is important is that nearly all the claims and premises of the method of belief (whatever it manifests as) all fall victim to this fallacy of presupposing their conclusion with their premises...

Educated athiests or agnostics dont put blind faith in anything. 'Science' is not some mystical force or thing with content, it is a method, and the only method we have to work with.

The central problem here is that people are still thinking through religious filters... black and white scenarios of objective truth and so forth are a byproduct of religious thought, not mathematical science.

I appreciate the effort Coltrane, but you are essentially arguing with yourself in a closed system (religious perspective).

well, i think this was the BEST post i've EVER read on ultimatemetal.com. i think the black-white type of thinking is the factor that limits the people's thinking most nowadays. you see, there is no single aspect of life which consists only of positive or negative, thus of white or black only. all that what whe can perceive is just a grey shaded manifestation of that greater construct we try to perceive limited by our five sences...i think being an atheist for me means being the ultimate sceptic...

 

[Kenneth R.]

i don't see why the origin of matter is essential to a worldview. that makes no sense to me.

just entered this debate, i'd actually have to admit i agree with arguments from both sides. however, this one i thought i'd answer.

scientists have used telescopes to seek back to the "big bang" that some believe exists. they have shown "images" of this at 1s after, .5s after, .00005s after, etc. but they have never shown time 0. nor any time before the "bang". they suppose what may have existed at and before, but these suppositions are as yet unconfirmed. further, as JColtrane points out, science cannot explain the reason for existance. why is matter here? where did it come from? trying to comprehend the case of "it was always here" presents the problem of "what came before that, and before that, and before..." until we reach a situation where we'd have to take the limit of the situation as time goes to negative infinity. we can predict this, perhaps prove it mathematically, but never observe it to verify its reality. so science can't explain the origin of matter. you may not care about such things, but this shows the limitation of science, if science is the method for understanding reality as we best can. even science requires faith to achieve these impossibilities (such as the example above, a scientist would conduct experiments until he observed the "limit" trend as time went to negative infinity and then suppose what that limit is, based on data, despite not knowing precisely.)

so i'd say theism requires faith due to its nature, and atheism as well. some deny it, and others abuse it, but it is a device of thought apart from religion, though central to it.

 

[SoundMaster]

science cannot explain the reason for existance.
why is matter here? where did it come from? trying to comprehend the case of "it was always here" presents the problem of "what came before that, and before that, and before..." until we reach a situation where we'd have to take the limit of the situation as time goes to negative infinity. we can predict this, perhaps prove it mathematically, but never observe it to verify its reality. so science can't explain the origin of matter. you may not care about such things, but this shows the limitation of science, if science is the method for understanding reality as we best can. even science requires faith to achieve these impossibilities (such as the example above, a scientist would conduct experiments until he observed the "limit" trend as time went to negative infinity and then suppose what that limit is, based on data, despite not knowing precisely.)

When will any religion step forward and finally answer these questions? So far, none have.
And, if the "what came before it" question perturbs you so, then you must have an issue with the concept of an "eternal god"! From where did the gods of god come from? Why should be boldy - and in the face of zero evidence - simply accept the notion that some, or one, have always existed? It's a major cop-out, IMO.

Oddly enough, it's the theist who is guilty of the crime you speak of, and not the atheist. Again, the atheist says "at this point, we DON'T know". He doesn't try to fill in the gap. He's NOT saying what existed before "time began". He lets evidence explain things. Where no evidence exists, he says "I simply do not know".

 

[Justin S.]

...this shows the limitation of science, if science is the method for understanding reality as we best can.

Current limitations, although I definitely see your point. I also think the definition of "faith" is not clear, and can often lead to fallacies of confusion.

By faith, I mean a factually (empirically) unsupported belief that X event(s) have or will occur.

Induction would be the opposite, a state of unknown until information is gathered. After that point predictions can be made (inference) but those estimates of future possibilities are grounded on evidence and on mathematical reality, not wishful thinking. Probability is not the same thing as faith, simply because they both concern themselves with the future.

 

[SoundMaster]

Current limitations, although I definitely see your point. I also think the definition of "faith" is not clear, and can often lead to fallacies of confusion.

By faith, I mean a factually (empirically) unsupported belief that X event(s) have or will occur.

Induction would be the opposite, a state of unknown until information is gathered. After that point predictions can be made (inference) but those estimates of future possibilities are grounded on evidence and on mathematical reality, not wishful thinking. Probability is not the same thing as faith, simply because they both concern themselves with the future.

You deserve a medal for eloquently articulating these points.
(seriously....this is not sarcasm)

 

[Justin S.]

Soundmaster and Hypnos,

I really appreciate your kind words. I spend a lot of time on these topics and Im glad you guys find my posts worthwhile.

Cheers,

Justin

 

[the alumnus]

just entered this debate, i'd actually have to admit i agree with arguments from both sides. however, this one i thought i'd answer.

scientists have used telescopes to seek back to the "big bang" that some believe exists. they have shown "images" of this at 1s after, .5s after, .00005s after, etc. but they have never shown time 0. nor any time before the "bang". they suppose what may have existed at and before, but these suppositions are as yet unconfirmed. further, as JColtrane points out, science cannot explain the reason for existance. why is matter here? where did it come from? trying to comprehend the case of "it was always here" presents the problem of "what came before that, and before that, and before..." until we reach a situation where we'd have to take the limit of the situation as time goes to negative infinity. we can predict this, perhaps prove it mathematically, but never observe it to verify its reality. so science can't explain the origin of matter. you may not care about such things, but this shows the limitation of science, if science is the method for understanding reality as we best can. even science requires faith to achieve these impossibilities (such as the example above, a scientist would conduct experiments until he observed the "limit" trend as time went to negative infinity and then suppose what that limit is, based on data, despite not knowing precisely.)

so i'd say theism requires faith due to its nature, and atheism as well. some deny it, and others abuse it, but it is a device of thought apart from religion, though central to it.

there are a few problems in your argument. first, you assume that scientists can never know the origin of matter. within the last 100 years scientists have made many important strides in cosmology. who is to say that science will not one day discover a method of deducing such things? but the origin of matter isn't the most important topic of research. currently bigger questions are:
-were there big bangs before "the" big bang which created our universe?
-where is all the unaccounted for matter in the universe?
-what other subatomic particles may have existed at the point of the big bang?
-are there other dimensions/parallel universes? if so, were they destroyed with the big bang, or do they still exist right now?

the topic of the origins of matter are important to know, but not of singular importance. certainly physics has other topics to tackle with voracity, such as a unified field theory.

the converse side of the argument leaves much to be desired. what does christianity say about the origin of the universe? little to nothing. god created it. how? where did he get the matter? how did he make it come into being? in fact, christians can't agree on that matter. did he form the earth out of nothing, or form it out of a formless state?

 

[JColtrane]

I appreciate the effort Coltrane, but you are essentially arguing with yourself in a closed system (religious perspective).

Thanks a lot. I think we can all realize through this thread how difficult it can be to communicate to someone with a completely different view on life, and I think we all did a fairly good job of it.

 

[JColtrane]

Oh yeah, one more thing: Atheist is a great band. Anyone pick up that LP boxset along w/ me?

 

[anonymousnick2001]

This thread officially became beyond awesome.

My congrats to the heavy hitters, Coltrance and Justin S., as well as Soundmaster and Hypnos.