Atheism is a Religion (Split from Blessing Human Rights thread)

[coaster]

Originally Posted by kirant

A quick skim, but it doesn't say that God MUST answer. It might be a definition thing, but it seems there's a difference between hearing your request and answering them. It doesn't have the complete connection that if God hears, he will answer. There are lots of limitation on whether or not God would even hear a prayer though.

If (and that's an if) that's a comprehensive analysis on the Bible's listed statements on God answering prayer, I think there's reasonable doubt in thinking that we could accurately determine existence of God purely by a prayer's answered type of measurement. Now of course, that's something that may be lost with time too. Maybe in the original language and in the original context, these two concepts were more connected. I'm not well read enough to find or understand an original version of the Bible though. If someone like that is around, that'd be an interesting topic to talk about.

John 15:7 ESV

If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by kirant

A quick skim, but it doesn't say that God MUST answer. It might be a definition thing, but it seems there's a difference between hearing your request and answering them. It doesn't have the complete connection that if God hears, he will answer. There are lots of limitation on whether or not God would even hear a prayer though.

If (and that's an if) that's a comprehensive analysis on the Bible's listed statements on God answering prayer, I think there's reasonable doubt in thinking that we could accurately determine existence of God purely by a prayer's answered type of measurement. Now of course, that's something that may be lost with time too. Maybe in the original language and in the original context, these two concepts were more connected. I'm not well read enough to find or understand an original version of the Bible though. If someone like that is around, that'd be an interesting topic to talk about.

Our prayers must be asked in faith. Concerning our prayers James 1:6-7 says, "But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord." We must have faith in God and if we are faithful and obedient to Him then He will hear and answer our prayers, otherwise we will receive nothing. Jesus says in Mark 11:24, "Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them." So we must have faith if we expect God to answer our prayers.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

The reason that distinction wasn't made is because they were talking about theists, not deists. The difference between deism and theism is that deists don't believe in a personal and intervening god, while theists do. They didn't mention that difference because it wasn't relevant.

As for the part of god acting on faith-based requests,
given only faith, mountains can be moved. Seems legit.

Deism is a segment of theism. Theism is the belief of existence of one or more supreme beings, while deism is the belief of one or more supreme beings exist but don't intervene. Fundamentally, most people can be divided into "Yes" (Theist), "No" (Atheist), and "I don't know/Can't be answered" (Agnostic). Deism would be a specific type of theism (and deism itself could be broken even further).

As for the quote, I certainly don't believe the Bible much, if at all (the more likely in my book) - I doubt virtually all things that happen in there (especially since the multitude of translations have made things harder to discern), but I think you can't connect lack of prayers answered to lack of any type of supreme being flat out (as I state below, I think we might be able to rule out the existence of the Biblical definition of God, but I refer here to the concept of all supreme beings). There are too many questions being left unanswered and too many ways that this might not work.

Originally Posted by Cheese

Our prayers must be asked in faith. Concerning our prayers James 1:6-7 says, "But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord." We must have faith in God and if we are faithful and obedient to Him then He will hear and answer our prayers, otherwise we will receive nothing. Jesus says in Mark 11:24, "Therefore I say to you, whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them, and you will have them." So we must have faith if we expect God to answer our prayers.

Definitely messed the first bold. The second seems to refer more to the concept that you must expect that God will answer your prayers if you are to receive them, a statement that seems to be into grounds of "you can't halfheartedly believe". If (and again, I'm not scholar with literacy in older languages) this could be seen into the original translation in the original context (as linguistics changes over time...see even simple examples as the usage of the word "gay"), I think we could theoretically test it for accuracy of the Bible's section on this. Even if we can shake this as false, how can we be sure the Bible just isn't wrong? It's not like the thing is known for its accuracy. Of course, by the same stretch of argument, we could say that if the Bible is false, we're believing in something because a book with known lies in it is telling us to. Why would it be accurate on the existence of a God if it can't nail down his plans for answering prayers? The whole thing could very easily be a set of lies. Though, we can deduce that statistically, the more we identify as false, the less likely it is that any of the Bible actually makes sense, existence of "God" and all.

I guess in short, what I'm trying to get at is that there are too many assumptions that we know what a supreme being is and that we can test it with such a simple set up. Biblical definition of a God? Sure, if we assume the Bible is accurate. Any form of supreme being? Harder to test.

I do see that the video discusses "God" as oppose to "supreme being", meaning they likely talk about the traditional Biblical definition of a supreme being. My main concern is how they convert that from "Biblical religions" to all theism though, as theism refers to any number of supreme beings and not elusively to a single holy text's definition.

This post was written while I was watching a movie, on TV, so I apologize if any of it is mistaken...hopefully I didn't make too many errors when typing.

[photon]

Originally Posted by kirant

I guess in short, what I'm trying to get at is that there are too many assumptions that we know what a supreme being is and that we can test it with such a simple set up. Biblical definition of a God? Sure, if we assume the Bible is accurate. Any form of supreme being? Harder to test.

This is why the first reply to someone who asks "do you believe in God" should be "which God?"

Even Dawkins (whom many would put as one of the most strident atheists) talks about this in that his confidence on a scale (from 1 to 7) changes depending on what kind of god one is talking about. If one sticks to a Biblical definition of God one can be more confident since the Bible makes specific claims that can be tested (so absence of evidence does become evidence of absence), but if one gives a vague hand waving definition like a deist type god that maybe set the universe in motion but that's it, it's harder to be as confident about a conclusion.

Originally Posted by kirant

I do see that the video discusses "God" as oppose to "supreme being", meaning they likely talk about the traditional Biblical definition of a supreme being. My main concern is how they convert that from "Biblical religions" to all theism though, as theism refers to any number of supreme beings and not elusively to a single holy text's definition.

That kind of goalpost moving is easy to do and happens a lot from either side of the fence, it's hard to stay focused on a specific definition of god in those kind of discussions. Theists will use arguments for deist type gods and mistakenly apply them to their specific god, and atheists will use the argument against a specific definition of god and generalize it to all god concepts.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by photon

Even Dawkins (whom many would put as one of the most strident atheists) talks about this in that his confidence on a scale (from 1 to 7) changes depending on what kind of god one is talking about. If one sticks to a Biblical definition of God one can be more confident since the Bible makes specific claims that can be tested (so absence of evidence does become evidence of absence), but if one gives a vague hand waving definition like a deist type god that maybe set the universe in motion but that's it, it's harder to be as confident about a conclusion.

I'd never heard of that scale. Off to Google I go.

[Vulcan]

I don't pray in the biblical sense. I rarely consciously ask for anything except maybe like, I hope I'm not late for an appointment. For prayer though I don't see anything wrong with Jesus' "Lords Prayer"

The Lord's Prayer Words

(traditional)


Our Father, which art in heaven,
Hallowed be thy Name.
Thy Kingdom come.
Thy will be done in earth,
As it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
As we forgive them that trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,
The power, and the glory,
For ever and ever.
Amen.

It's pretty simple and doesn't ask for a Mercedes Benz.

I also like this quote

Matthew 6:7-8 (NET)
6:7 When you pray, do not babble repetitiously like the Gentiles, because they think that by their many words they will be heard. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. ©NET Read More.

[photon]

Originally Posted by kirant

I'd never heard of that scale. Off to Google I go.

It's just an arbitrary scale, no knowledge is certain so everything is always a level of confidence in a conclusion.. On a scale of 1 to 7 I'm 6.99999999 confident that gravity will work tomorrow, but there's always a chance...

Lemme see if I can find it...

Originally Posted by The God Delusion Page 50

Let us, then, take the idea of a spectrum of probabilities seriously, and place human judgements about the existence of God along it, between two extremes of opposite certainty. The spectrum is continuous, but it can be represented by the following seven milestones along the way.

1 Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'

3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

4 Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

6 Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

7 Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'

I'd be surprised to meet many people in category 7, but I include it for symmetry with category 1, which is well populated. It is in the nature of faith that one is capable, like Jung, of holding a belief without adequate reason to do so (Jung also believed that particular books on his shelf spontaneously exploded with a loud bang).

Atheists do not have faith; and reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist. Hence category 7 is in practice rather emptier than its opposite number, category 1, which has many devoted inhabitants. I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - 1 am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.

And that people might change their position depending on the definition of god is self evident since often the definitions of god can be mutually exclusive.

[Dion]

not worth it

[Alberta_Beef]

I am a bit late to the party but I see atheism as religion. I think that is because I would define religion as a structure of beliefs based around the existence of a deity, whether that be for or against it's existence.

Personally I don't believe in a higher power, I believe that the answers we seek and the strength we need is already in each and every one of us and "god" was invented way back in the day as a way to give people hope that weren't able to find the answers they needed within themselves because for many it is easier to believe in a god than in yourself.

I also believe faith is very important, but faith in your beliefs does not have to include a higher power.

But to each their own.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I am a bit late to the party but I see atheism as religion. I think that is because I would define religion as a structure of beliefs based around the existence of a deity, whether that be for or against it's existence.

I don't structure my beliefs around the non-existence of a deity. My beliefs are based on my upbringing and experience. At no point have I ever said to myself "what would non-Jesus do?"

[Alberta_Beef]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

I don't structure my beliefs around the non-existence of a deity. My beliefs are based on my upbringing and experience. At no point have I ever said to myself "what would non-Jesus do?"

You could ask "what would my dad (or anyone else) do?" Asking about anyone other than Jesus is asking what non-Jesus would do.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

Personally I don't believe in a higher power, I believe that the answers we seek and the strength we need is already in each and every one of us and "god" was invented way back in the day as a way to give people hope that weren't able to find the answers they needed within themselves because for many it is easier to believe in a god than in yourself.

Hey I agree, it's just that this higher power is in each and everyone of us. As Socrates said, "know thyself".

[jamoro]

I'm not really sure if you guys are getting the main part of the prayer discussion in the youtube video.
The main point is not if god answers prayers, The main point is that if god DOES answer prayers you SHOULD be able to measure the invisible force that helped.
As they said when people pray for a football game, and then belief that god helped them win. physicists should be able to measure how god may have had a hand in changing how the ball changed directions. things like that

[Thor]

An intervening God is something science can look into, unlike a deist notion of a non interventionist God.

So like they mentioned in the video, claims made by the bible and claims from the followers of the Abrahamic religions certainly can be challenged, at least a great number of claims.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by Dion

not worth it

Ok I can sum up the video as I watched it all.

It was mostly about research that states anybody who can watch a 45min you tube clip shows incredible patience and they could guarantee that individual would also be a fantastic lover.

It also stated that people who couldnt be bothered to watch were terrible in the sack.

That is was what I mostly took from it anyway.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by jamoro

I'm not really sure if you guys are getting the main part of the prayer discussion in the youtube video.
The main point is not if god answers prayers, The main point is that if god DOES answer prayers you SHOULD be able to measure the invisible force that helped.
As they said when people pray for a football game, and then belief that god helped them win. physicists should be able to measure how god may have had a hand in changing how the ball changed directions. things like that

It was mostly about a little note I made in last post. I had wondered if the Bible actually said that God would answer all prayers, as I had not read the book in a while (I have made it a point to attempt to read most holy texts at some point...the Bible was the first and one I did in grade school).

The comment came when one of the debaters made an assumption that we can push that test into flat out determining if a supreme being exist. This sort of test would determine if a supreme being exists that answers prayers. If we go back to the Bible as we were discussing earlier, we could say that we can make tests using claims the Bible makes, such that if you are a good person, faithful to God (in specific), ask of his will, and so forth, that we could test whether the claims from the Bible are accurate. However, this doesn't stretch into all supreme beings, as the definition of a supreme being is so nebulous and the area of theism so wide open that it's much tougher to confirm or deny such an existance.

It was just something I had picked out of it from the sections I did hear that made me wonder if the concepts and arguments that would come from a theist were simplified because a theist wasn't in their panel to point them out as they made the leap from the testable work and lumped it to define theism as a whole. Though I lean more to an atheist belief (on that Dawkins scale, Dawkins claimed he was a 6, while I find myself on the side of 5 to 5.5 overall), it felt a bit like a one-sided conversation.

More on topic - In reference to Dion's questioning of the video: It's worth the listen. If you're at the computer answering e-mails or typing something up for work, just plug it in to go over as you work.

[SeeBass]

[HELPNEEDED]

lol, this thread is atheisim vs. Christianity. Most of the atheistic views would be void when applied to other monothestic religions.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Alberta_Beef

I am a bit late to the party but I see atheism as religion. I think that is because I would define religion as a structure of beliefs based around the existence of a deity, whether that be for or against it's existence.

Ridiculous. Lack of belief in something constitutes religion as much as not wearing an eye patch makes a person anti-pirate.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by HELPNEEDED

lol, this thread is atheisim vs. Christianity. Most of the atheistic views would be void when applied to other monothestic religions.

WTF? Please feel free to substantiate this remark, I have a feeling it will be quite a side-splitter when I read it later today.