Actually I was saying that you named one God, and one interpretation of that God, and mistakenly spoke of that God like it was two completely separate Gods.
You reject two books which are nothing more than stories and a set of rules, but it's the exact same God, so you when you're talking about the Christian God, you're also talking about the Islamic God.
Might as well know what you disbelieve in right?
Not really, it's the concept I disbelieve in, I guess I'm not as detail oriented as yourself.
If you're telling me every religion worships the same God, you might as well tell me we are all blood related because a brother and sister had sex and started the whole human race.
Not really, it's the concept I disbelieve in, I guess I'm not as detail oriented as yourself.
If you're telling me every religion worships the same God, you might as well tell me we are all blood related because a brother and sister had sex and started the whole human race.
Uh no.
There is a God that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism believe in. It's the same God. Not every religion believes in that God.
You can disbelieve in the concept all you want, you just look silly if you talk about one version of the concept like it's separate versions. If you're ok with looking silly, then let rock it! Do your thing!
The Following User Says Thank You to Chill Cosby For This Useful Post:
The quote is too long to repeat, but Chill, I think you are bringing up a common confusion between "belief" system and "faith". For your definition of belief system, every individual has a belief system, and so far as that goes, why even argue about it. What athiests tend to hear, is that athiesm is a belief system in the sense, in that they "believe" there is no god, as if taken on faith, as there is now way to prove the non-existence of anything. This is not an accurate statement, however, as I think it is more proper to say that an athiest does not accept a god without any evidence of same, in the same way he or she doesn't accept unicorns. If compelling evidence is asserted for the existence of god, then an athiest should be more than willing to accept, as it fits within his or her views. You might suggest that this is more of an agnostic view, but that is a problem as well, as there is a connotation with that view that those people are more "fence sitters" who think it is more of a 50/50 proposition that god exists, whereas athiests would likely argue that it is way more likely a god doesn't exist, based on our understanding of the universe, than not. Never a 100% certainty that god does not exist.
Edit: I see Troutman has linked to a similar issue above, and it is far more eloquent than I can come up with.
Last edited by Fighting Banana Slug; 09-12-2014 at 11:37 AM.
Uh no.
There is a God that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism believe in. It's the same God. Not every religion believes in that God.
You can disbelieve in the concept all you want, you just look silly if you talk about one version of the concept like it's separate versions. If you're ok with looking silly, then let rock it! Do your thing!
OK, so Westboro Baptist and ISIS pray to the same God, and believe in that same Gods message, so they would look silly, bad mouthing each others God?
The quote is too long to repeat, but Chill, I think you are bringing up a common confusion between "belief" system and "faith". For your definition of belief system, every individual has a belief system, and so far as that goes, why even argue about it. What athiests tend to hear, is that athiesm is a belief system in the sense, in that they "believe" there is no god, as if taken on faith, as there is now way to prove the non-existence of anything. This is not an accurate statement, however, as I think it is more proper to say that an athiest does not accept a god without any evidence of same, in the same way he or she doesn't accept unicorns. If compelling evidence is asserted for the existence of god, then an athiest should be more than willing to accept, as it fits within his or her views. You might suggest that this is more of an agnostic view, but that is a problem as well, as there is a connotation with that view that those people are more "fence sitters" who think it is more of a 50/50 proposition that god exists, whereas athiests would likely argue that it is way more likely a god doesn't exist, based on our understanding of the universe, than not. Never a 100% certainty that god does not exist.
Edit: I see Troutman has linked to a similar issue above, and it is far more eloquent than I can come up with.
Agreed. A belief system does not concern itself with faith, it CAN be religious in nature, but it can also be philosophical, or concerned simply with ideas. It's a set of beliefs followed by a community. Denying that Atheism is a belief system just sounds like "Belief? That's icky!" To me.
I think the same can be said of both. If God came down and proved his existence, wouldn't most people, regardless of Atheism or Agonisticism or religions where God wasn't a factor, believe then in God? In much the same, if Science ultimately showed that God was an impossibility by giving un-refutable proof, don't you think those who believe in him who cease?
Both are likely impossible, and certainly won't happen in out lifetime, but things change. Only once God himself appears in an undeniable way, or all that is unknown to us becomes known, will one side cease to have reason for being.
I don't know if I care for the idea that Atheists would believe in God if there was proof of God, because I think the same could be said about Christians if there was proof of no-God.
OK, so Westboro Baptist and ISIS pray to the same God, and believe in that same Gods message, so they would look silly, bad mouthing each others God?
Not just silly, ridiculous and idiotic.
EDIT: because it's worse when people who worship the same God suppose their God is different. It's a hugely comical issue when you look at how the American Religious Right talks about Islam.
EDIT: because it's worse when people who worship the same God suppose their God is different. It's a hugely comical issue when you look at how the American Religious Right talks about Islam.
That's not really how it's viewed. The reason the antipathy towards each other is that one believes the other had insulted God by twisting their version of the true God. The histrionic God may be the same, but they certainly don't have the same God. The two God's have different desires, disciples, punishments, etc
[/QUOTE]I don't know if I care for the idea that Atheists would believe in God if there was proof of God, because I think the same could be said about Christians if there was proof of no-God.[/QUOTE]
I just think it is totally consistent for the athiest to believe in god, if presented with scientific evidence. I don't think the same could be said of the Christian, as they are taught that faith (belief without evidence) is a virtue. There are many Christians (and others of faith) who refuse to accept the evidence supporting evolution, the age of the earth, etc., based on, what I can gather, faith.
Not really, it's the concept I disbelieve in, I guess I'm not as detail oriented as yourself.
If you're telling me every religion worships the same God, you might as well tell me we are all blood related because a brother and sister had sex and started the whole human race.
Chill Cosby already said this, but to re-iterate: not all religions worship the same god(s), the God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is the exact same supernatural entity. It's referred to as the "God of Abraham" because all three of those religions trace their origins back to the prophet Abraham.
Here's a very quick and dirty explanation of the three major Western monotheistic religions:
Judaism came first. Their holy book, the Torah, consists of the first five books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy) of what Christians know as the Old Testament of the Bible. They believe in a monotheistic God (referred to as "Yahweh" in Hebrew), and important figures in Jewish mythology are characters you probably recognize from Bible stories like Jacob, Isiah, Moses, etc.
Christianity came second. Christians are essentially Jews who believe that Jesus Christ (himself a Jew) is the son of God and that he died on the cross for the salvation of mankind. Jesus is considered an important prophet in Judaism, but they do not believe he is the messiah. The Christian holy book, the Bible, includes the five books of the Torah in addition to the New Testament which mostly deals with the life and teachings of Jesus. The God of both the Jewish and Christian faiths is one and the same.
Islam came third. The prophet Mohammad is the most influential and important figure to Muslims, but the God of Islam (referred to as "Allah" in Arabic) is also the exact same being as the god worshiped by Christians and Jews. The holy book of Islam, the Quran, also includes many of the same characters from the Torah and the Bible such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Solomon, Jesus, etc.
So when you make comments implying that you think Christians and Muslims have different gods, you're making factually incorrect statements. All three Western monotheistic religions have the same god; where they differ in in details about the teachings of certain prophets and whether Jesus is the messiah or not.
The Following User Says Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
EDIT: because it's worse when people who worship the same God suppose their God is different. It's a hugely comical issue when you look at how the American Religious Right talks about Islam.
Isn't that the whole essence of religion though? blind faith. My God is right, because, well, just because.
Isn't this why there are so many wars being waged over religion? Whats that conflict about in Iraq?
I honestly don't see how this stuff is silly.
We're Hockey fans and we bash the Edmonton Oilers( a team) constantly, but it's still Hockey.
Are we silly, ridiculous and idiotic for doing that? Should we all just cheer for,,,,,, Hockey.
EDIT: because it's worse when people who worship the same God suppose their God is different. It's a hugely comical issue when you look at how the American Religious Right talks about Islam.
Does it matter? Islam is just the flavor of the decade for another freakazoid religion. maybe in 50 years people will murder in the name of the easter bunny or kermit the frog. in the end it's still a belief that it's "ok" to murder.
Here's a good ass whoopin for people who think otherwise.
I don't know if I care for the idea that Atheists would believe in God if there was proof of God, because I think the same could be said about Christians if there was proof of no-God.
I just think it is totally consistent for the athiest to believe in god, if presented with scientific evidence. I don't think the same could be said of the Christian, as they are taught that faith (belief without evidence) is a virtue. There are many Christians (and others of faith) who refuse to accept the evidence supporting evolution, the age of the earth, etc., based on, what I can gather, faith.[/QUOTE]
Which concerns itself with a lot of the "What is proof" discussion. Science is imperfect, so to get someone of faith to trust science, it would have to be undeniable. It's a matter of seeing is believing for some people. Much in the same way Atheists reject God, some religious people have difficultly trusting Science they cannot definitively experience.
It's kind of a pointless conversation to have really. We're supposing the outcomes of a belief system based on the idea that what they believe to be true is someone undeniably proven false. I think that no matter what, if you give someone undeniable evidence of something, most people will believe you. If there is even an element to it that's deniable, you'll find some people to deny it.
Which concerns itself with a lot of the "What is proof" discussion. Science is imperfect, so to get someone of faith to trust science, it would have to be undeniable. It's a matter of seeing is believing for some people. Much in the same way Atheists reject God, some religious people have difficultly trusting Science they cannot definitively experience.
This is very confusing, science is imperfect (well, everything is, even math) and it's a matter of seeing is believing, so they trust something that is imperfect and they cannot see or definitively experience?
It seems like you're contradicting yourself.
I think for some people it's not seeing is believing, it's believing is believing. They believe in belief, not in understanding.
Because while science isn't perfect, the imperfections are identified and outlined where possible, while with faith the imperfections are what makes belief possible at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
I think that no matter what, if you give someone undeniable evidence of something, most people will believe you. If there is even an element to it that's deniable, you'll find some people to deny it.
Sure, that's just one of many cognitive biases humans have. The problem is pretty much everything is deniable if you do enough mental gymnastics, thus the reason cognitive biases are identified and should be kept in mind when deciding one's beliefs.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
This is very confusing, science is imperfect (well, everything is, even math) and it's a matter of seeing is believing, so they trust something that is imperfect and they cannot see or definitively experience?
It seems like you're contradicting yourself.
I think for some people it's not seeing is believing, it's believing is believing. They believe in belief, not in understanding.
Because while science isn't perfect, the imperfections are identified and outlined where possible, while with faith the imperfections are what makes belief possible at all.
Sure, that's just one of many cognitive biases humans have. The problem is pretty much everything is deniable if you do enough mental gymnastics, thus the reason cognitive biases are identified and should be kept in mind when deciding one's beliefs.
Religion is contradictory! lol
My point is only that for an Atheist to believe in God, there would have to be undeniable proof of God.
For a Christian to cease belief in God, there was have to be undeniable proof of no-God.
That said, I'm tapping out of this conversation. I feel like I'm going in circles and I'm struggling to make myself clear. I disagree with religion, I disagree with Atheism. You're all a bunch of weirdos and I'm taking my ball and going home!
The Following User Says Thank You to Chill Cosby For This Useful Post:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chill Cosby
I just think it is totally consistent for the atheist to believe in god, if presented with scientific evidence.
I think your definition of "believe" is not in congruence with the word's generally accepted meaning, mostly, it seems, because you have a strange need to have atheism and theism as different expressions of the same mindset.
If I was presented with scientific and compelling evidence of the existence of some God, I would provisionally accept the existence of that God as a hypothesis with a strong degree of probability, similar to how I currently think that the existence of a God is a hypothesis with a very weak degree of probability. That isn't belief, that is reason. Belief is specifically something that is thought to be true WITHOUT evidence.
Further, if presented with evidence, I would then become a theist, not an atheist, because I would no longer think (not believe - THINK) that there is no God. That is the crucial difference you're not getting, not believing there is a God is not also a belief any more than not having a donut is also a donut. If atheism was a belief, then evidence would not change my mind, because evidence is evaluated and judged by the faculty of reason, not by faith.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
I don't think there can be irrefutable proof either way, but if there was absolute proof that God did or didn't exist, I can't believe that any non-believer or believer wouldn't change his/her opinion. That would have to be a pretty stupid person - either way.
The Following User Says Thank You to MoneyGuy For This Useful Post:
I don't think there can be irrefutable proof either way, but if there was absolute proof that God did or didn't exist, I can't believe that any non-believer or believer wouldn't change his/her opinion. That would have to be a pretty stupid person - either way.
Disagree, if something started moving mountains before my eyes or rose a family member from the dead and told me he/she/it was god I think I might believe. since there's just as good a chance of an alien spacecraft landing in my backyard I won't start practicing my praying just yet.
Most Athiests believe in common sense and believe what they can see and feel, there is no proof ever of a "god", there is no proof ever of a "miracle" if there was any proofs it would be impossible to hide them.
Gods for this, Gods for that, miracles..etc... common sense says these things are either fraudulent leaders trying to control and the stories grow wings over time or just plain figments of human imagination.
My point is only that for an Atheist to believe in God, there would have to be undeniable proof of God.
For a Christian to cease belief in God, there was have to be undeniable proof of no-God.
I don't think that atheists require undeniable proof of God in order to believe in God. Most atheists would only require compelling or cogent or convincing evidence of God before they would believe in God.
Also, there is nothing equivalent about the two positions you outline above.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
Disagree, if something started moving mountains before my eyes or rose a family member from the dead and told me he/she/it was god I think I might believe. since there's just as good a chance of an alien spacecraft landing in my backyard I won't start practicing my praying just yet.
