Hindu's to Christians in India: "convert or die"

[photon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Spin it this way....

Since nobody really 'knows' whether or NOT God Santa exists....you must have 'faith' that he does, or doesn't exist.

Would you say that is equally true if I change God to Santa, or Zeus?

It doesn't require faith to not believe in something that has no evidence. It may take "faith" to make a positive statement that Santa doesn't exist, because you can't be totally sure, but I wouldn't really call that faith. It's easier to just recognize that no knowledge is 100 certain and there are always provisions and assumptions, and that operating on those is fine until more or better information comes around.

[Antithesis]

Interesting, thanks for that Jammies, I'd not categorize myself as faithful, and perhaps its semantics or just fundamental disagreement, but I will have to agree to disagree with you. I suppose that what it boils down to be is that faith - to me - is belief that something is true despite a lack of evidence. To me, I suppose there is no evidence for either side, which is why I generally find myself choosing the middle way: agnosticism!

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Azure

So you think that being an atheist requires some level of faith? Isn't that a knock against atheism, considering it is supposedly against the basic tenet of religion....faith?

Did you not read my posts? Any response to your question would just be regurgitating what I just posted.

Really, it's an argument that falls apart on both sides because of issues with semantics, as Jammies said.

Really, there don't exist "knocks" against atheism that don't exist also for religion. And there are myriad knocks against religion that don't exist for atheism.

Explanation A has problem C.
Explanation B has problems C, D, E, F, G, H, I...

Therefore we conclude explanation A (atheism) is the best.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

They are both matters of faith in my mind; no one can KNOW that there is a God any more than someone can KNOW that there isn't one. I'd love to listen to someone try to debate otherwise without resorting to ridicule (that means don't bother, evman) and to have a serious discussion about it.

I agree that it would be a matter of faith if what you said was the case, but it isn't. I don't think you'd find any atheist that would say they KNOW there is no God, as I already posted you'd have to determine which God you're talking about, and then it'd be a level of confidence in the position, not an absolute.

And the dig against evman isn't very constructive.

Originally Posted by Azure

Was I the only one who laughed at what Lithium posted?

I found it funny in the way I'd find a political cartoon funny. It's not something I would do because it'd be annoying to the store employees, but it's funny because it raises an viewpoint in a unique and unexpected way. I'm sure people who are targeted by political cartoons can appreciate the humour of the cartoon even if they are the target of the joke, and can accept some of the truth inside. If everyone looks at their own position as so "right" that they can't even accept the possibility that they can be made fun of because of some of the quirks in their position, well they're taking themselves too seriously.

I'm a nerd, I don't get offended by nerd jokes.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

To me, I suppose there is no evidence for either side, which is why I generally find myself choosing the middle way: agnosticism!

Ah but agnosticism isn't the middle between theism and atheism, it's about something different. You can be an agnostic theist (deist) or agnostic atheist (weak atheist).

Agnosticism doesn't say anything about God, it says something about the question of God itself.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by photon

I agree that it would be a matter of faith if what you said was the case, but it isn't. I don't think you'd find any atheist that would say they KNOW there is no God, as I already posted you'd have to determine which God you're talking about, and then it'd be a level of confidence in the position, not an absolute.

And the dig against evman isn't very constructive.

Hm, perhaps I am reading people's posts incorrectly, but I definitely seem to get that vibe from the things people post in here. Many of the posts seem so dismissive (of either side, really) that there seem to be a lot of people who DO feel that they KNOW. In all honestly, photon, you've been one of the most reasonable people posting in this thread so it's a pleasure to discuss with you.

As to the slight - perhaps it's not constructive, but at the same time, few of his posts are constructive at all, either, but I agree, two wrongs do not make a right so I'll leave it there.

Funny enough, I have always understood that agnosticism meant that the person believed that it was impossible to determine the existence (or lack of existence) of a supreme being, and yet, I posted that. Perhaps I'm mistaken? I suppose by middle way, I meant more, what I consider to be a more reasonable approach, if that makes any sense.

That being said, I have to admit to over-reacting to the Bibles in the Fiction section thing; when you look at it as a political cartoon type thing, it does have humor.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

Would you say that is equally true if I change God to Santa, or Zeus?

It doesn't require faith to not believe in something that has no evidence. It may take "faith" to make a positive statement that Santa doesn't exist, because you can't be totally sure, but I wouldn't really call that faith. It's easier to just recognize that no knowledge is 100 certain and there are always provisions and assumptions, and that operating on those is fine until more or better information comes around.

Yeah, jammies explained it better though.

[Dogbert]

Just what the world needed: more people killing other people because invisible men in the sky told them to.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

Hm, perhaps I am reading people's posts incorrectly, but I definitely seem to get that vibe from the things people post in here. Many of the posts seem so dismissive (of either side, really) that there seem to be a lot of people who DO feel that they KNOW. In all honestly, photon, you've been one of the most reasonable people posting in this thread so it's a pleasure to discuss with you.

I think it's partially just because it's easier to talk about one's position as knowing.

When I talk about something scientific I talk about it as if it were a fact and were true, because it's easy. But below it all there should be an understanding that all scientific knowledge is provisional, it's all about evidence, new evidence can knock it over, etc etc.. but all that's assumed.

Same with things like these belief type discussions, the devil is always in the details and it's easy to read into a simple post and see someone's position as one thing, but when you actually get down to the nitty gritty it's more complicated with provisions and nuances.

As to the slight - perhaps it's not constructive, but at the same time, few of his posts are constructive at all, either, but I agree, two wrongs do not make a right so I'll leave it there.

If you see something you don't like, report it.

Funny enough, I have always understood that agnosticism meant that the person believed that it was impossible to determine the existence (or lack of existence) of a supreme being, and yet, I posted that. Perhaps I'm mistaken? I suppose by middle way, I meant more, what I consider to be a more reasonable approach, if that makes any sense.

I would agree with your definition. By middle I was thinking along a line where theism and atheism are at opposite ends, I don't really see agnosticism as on that line, as you say it's about the know ability of God, or rather about the nature of knowledge.

Some agnostics say yes it's impossible to know but believe anyway for whatever reason, which I don't find reasonable at all.

I imagine it more like a graph where theism is on the x axis and gnosticism is on the y axis.

That being said, I have to admit to over-reacting to the Bibles in the Fiction section thing; when you look at it as a political cartoon type thing, it does have humor.

I try to see things from the other side's point of view; turn the situation around and think how would I react, and is that reaction reasonable. Or in religious terms I just replace "Christian" with "Liberal" and "Atheist" with "Conservative" (just to make it more fun) and see if the idea still logical (it'll be dumb, but will it be logical).. often it falls apart.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yeah, jammies explained it better though.

Being concise isn't one of my gifts, that's for sure. Though I wouldn't necessarily agree that one side can't really understand the other, I've been on both sides of the fence and I wouldn't really say I've settled anywhere for sure, and I still feel like I can appreciate the why and how of religious beliefs; I spent the better part of 30 years there.

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

They are both matters of faith in my mind; no one can KNOW that there is a God any more than someone can KNOW that there isn't one. I'd love to listen to someone try to debate otherwise without resorting to ridicule (that means don't bother, evman) and to have a serious discussion about it.

One important distinction - atheism is falsifiable, whereas theism is not falsifiable. A god that can speak the universe into existence could certainly do something that could prove beyond a doubt that he exists. The sign would have to be more convincing than some faith healings 2000 years ago. The return of Jesus as described in Revelations might do it for me. The fact that such evidence is completely lacking is evidence that atheism is correct.

Theism, on the other hand, cannot be falsified. Neither can Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns.

Atheism does not require faith. I believe atheism is correct because the evidence does not support the alternative.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

They are both matters of faith in my mind; no one can KNOW that there is a God any more than someone can KNOW that there isn't one. I'd love to listen to someone try to debate otherwise without resorting to ridicule (that means don't bother, evman) and to have a serious discussion about it.

And how are my posts in this thread deserving of this drive-by? I realize I can be a tad offensive in a small percentage of my posts, but certainly not in this thread.

Oddly enough it seems like we're actually reasonably close in opinion on this issue.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by stuck_in_chuk

One important distinction - atheism is falsifiable, whereas theism is not falsifiable. A god that can speak the universe into existence could certainly do something that could prove beyond a doubt that he exists. The sign would have to be more convincing than some faith healings 2000 years ago. The return of Jesus as described in Revelations might do it for me. The fact that such evidence is completely lacking is evidence that atheism is correct.

Theism, on the other hand, cannot be falsified. Neither can Santa Claus or invisible pink unicorns.

Atheism does not require faith. I believe atheism is correct because the evidence does not support the alternative.

There's an old saying... absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Imagine if all human beings were blind... would colour still exist in the world around us even if we had no evidence for it?

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

There's an old saying... absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Imagine if all human beings were blind... would colour still exist in the world around us even if we had no evidence for it?

Right, the 'have you ever seen one million dollars?' argument. Why is there this sentiment that atheists can't prove the absence of god? I don't have magical powers that let me speak to things that are not physically there....Does being a person of faith give you magical powers or something? I've flat out tried talking to god, and you know what happened? Nothing. It's just silly, and that's the bottom line of supernatural beliefs, they are just not rational. There's another old saying...If you tell a lie enough times, you'll start believing it yourself.

Round and round we go.

EDIT: I just realized how much this post sounds like the end of Bill Maher's film....Oh well.

[photon]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

There's an old saying... absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Which is why stuck_in_chuk used the word believe rather than "know" or "proves". Absence of evidence is not positive evidence of absence, but it does justify taking the default position of non-belief until further evidence comes forward.

Imagine if all human beings were blind... would colour still exist in the world around us even if we had no evidence for it?

That's a tough analogy because humans ARE blind to most colours, from infrared down and ultraviolet up, but we know this because there's evidence for it.

[stuck_in_chuk]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

There's an old saying... absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Imagine if all human beings were blind... would colour still exist in the world around us even if we had no evidence for it?

Well, that is kind of my point in pointing out that theism is non-falsifiable. It would be stupid to not believe in something in which there is proof, or strong evidence for. I can't prove there is no god, because it is an unfalsifiable claim. Just like I can't prove that there is no Santa Claus.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

There's an old saying... absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There should be another saying..."the absence of evidence is evidence that the evidence is absent".

That's enough for me right now. It's just not there.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by photon

I didn't see Lithium bitching about Christians spreading the word, so to call it hypocritical doesn't make any sense. Wait until someone actually does something before calling them out for it.

I said people "like" Lithium.

And most people who would actively try to un-convert people have reasons to do so, they probably wouldn't agree that religion is constructive and have well thought out reasons for thinking so. You may agree or disagree with their reasons, but you can't disagree that those reasons exist.

I'd have to know what their reasons are, but on this board, it seems to be mostly a smug superiority complex that relies on tangibility for legitimacy.

Correlation does not equal causation. Christianity was a huge component of society the last 2000 years, I'd be shocked if Christianity wasn't at the roots of most of the countries founded while Christianity was very strong.

Correlation does not equal causation, too, but you would have to be ignorant not to at least consider the correlation if not debunking it.

And that's just an appeal to consequence fallacy; just because a Christian worldview results in more developed countries (I don't think that's true but just making a point), doesn't mean there's any truth to it.

I never said there needed to be truth to it in order to be constructive. Parents tell their kids they have to bee good fot Santa to give them gifts. Is that such a bad thing?

Plus studies show that there's an inverse correlation with the religiosity of a country and the quality of life in that country; the more religious a country things like teen pregnancy and life expectancy and such get worse, not better.

I'll believe that when I see it.

Why does one have to be a believer to grasp a concept? I don't believe in a flat earth but I can understand the concept.

I didn't say you had to be a beleiver, i actually said some people do not, and some people chose not to.

Most of the world doesn't believe in the Christian God, but those places that don't aren't a "chaotic smorg of selfish culture based on dog-eat-dog mentalities that ultimately doom themselves".

I agree, but my statement wasn't meant to be a blanket across all countries and cultures, it was an observation based on my previous correlation.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by photon

Though I wouldn't necessarily agree that one side can't really understand the other, I've been on both sides of the fence and I wouldn't really say I've settled anywhere for sure, and I still feel like I can appreciate the why and how of religious beliefs; I spent the better part of 30 years there.

Can you really, though? I assert that it is like pain; you THINK you know what pain is like, but experiencing pain is qualitatively different than merely remembering it. The same with belief - intellectually you may be able to manipulate the ideas that correspond to what a believer holds true, but that is not at all the same as experiencing that belief. Further, because the belief itself affects how the ideas are related, you cannot think as a believer thinks no matter what your facility with the symbols; you stand outside the process whereas they are inside it.

Many people, to be sure, don't care and act more like automatons in matters of faith - they don't think about it and do not have more than a cursory understanding of why they think what they think. There are also degrees of belief, and might even be possible to switch between belief and disbelief in the same person over brief periods of time, but that to me is the result of not knowing your own mind - such people are the ones who can be argued to a side, as they have only partial comprehension (or attachment) to either frame, and they only understand arguments insofar as they are moved into a particular worldview: you do not gain a deeper appreciation of faith by rejecting it, nor does accepting a faith incline you towards tolerance of apostasy.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by alltherage

I'll believe that when I see it.

High human development

1. Iceland
2. Norway
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. Ireland
6. Sweden
7. Switzerland
8. Japan
9. Netherlands
10. France

Low Human Development

167. Burundi
168. Congo
169. Ethiopia
170. Chad
171. Central African Republic
172. Mozambique
173. Mali
174. Niger
175. Guinea Bassau
176. Burkina Faso
177. Sierra Leone

I'm quite sure that the countries at the bottom of that list have considerably higher levels of religious belief than the ones at the top.