God, Jesus Or Man: Who Led You Away?

[Checkmate]

"Read Why I Think Less Of Theists"

 

Mr Grinch, are you a fundamentalist ? I don't agree with all that is written in the above essay about theists. Contrary to what it says I respect you as an atheist, how could I not respect somebody who makes me laugh! . The only real objection I have to atheism in its purest sense is the requirement for faith in something that by its very nature cannot be proven.

 

I'm putting on my hard helmet now.

You said, "atheism in its purest sense is the REQUIREMENT for faith". Please explain this.

 

Because as an atheist, I have ZERO faith in anything. Particularly in god. Atheism means WITHOUT GOD BELIEF. There is no "requirement" needed. No effort to put forth. It's a statement of what I DON'T have. Atheism does NOT say, "I know there is no god." It says, "I don't have belief in god." It's agnosticism without the question mark.

 

And I don't know how to answer the fundamentalist crack.

 

When I oppose the bible and Christians, I, out of necessity, take the stance of a literalist. I don't believe one can argue something if there is no concrete, common ground of understanding. If everyone is allowed to interpret and believe whatever their heart desires, then you may as well quit arguing. Hence I don the robes of a Fundy Literalist when I argue with Christians. It makes things easier. Plus, it is the fastest route for demonstrating how stupid the religion is!

 

If this doesn't answer your questions, try again, because I'm not sure what you're getting at. (Except the part where you said that you don't agree with all the article says. And that is OK with me. I didn't write the darn thing, so what do I care? )

[Young Mother Atheist]

You said, "atheism in its purest sense is the REQUIREMENT for faith". Please explain this.

 

Because as an atheist, I have ZERO faith in anything. Particularly in god. Atheism means WITHOUT GOD BELIEF. There is no "requirement" needed. No effort to put forth. It's a statement of what I DON'T have. Atheism does NOT say, "I know there is no god." It says, "I don't have belief in god." It's agnosticism without the question mark.

 

 

As an Atheist, it really gets under my skin when people don't understand what it means. It doesn't mean that we KNOW there is no god because that is impossible. It means we haven't seen a god therefore we don't believe in one. It's just like not believing in unicorns because there is no proof. I don't understand how everything else in life requires proof to be believed, but then people require gods to be completely disproved before they will not believe. It should be the other way around.

[EdwardAbbey]

Replying to God, Jesus Or Man: Who Led You Away?

 

 

Neither of any of those led me away. My mind led me away. Actually it was my mind that led me forward to reality. Christianity and all it's craziness isn't based on reality. It is a delusionary idea born out of a primitive race of people who were obsessed with fear of the unknown.

 

It was my rational mind that became engaged from the perspective of reason that led me to the truth. The truth that the God of the bible was nothing more than a compilation of man's delusion of what a god would be like if he was god himself.

[Golden Meadows]

"Read Why I Think Less Of Theists"

 

Mr Grinch, are you a fundamentalist ? I don't agree with all that is written in the above essay about theists. Contrary to what it says I respect you as an atheist, how could I not respect somebody who makes me laugh! . The only real objection I have to atheism in its purest sense is the requirement for faith in something that by its very nature cannot be proven.

 

I'm putting on my hard helmet now.

You said, "atheism in its purest sense is the REQUIREMENT for faith". Please explain this.

I person cannot prove there is a God - it takes an act of faith. An atheist cannot disprove the same that is why both use words like "belief". When xtian says the apostles creed, for example, they are not saying that they know for certainty the God Father and all the other stuff is a scientific fact, instead they say "I believe in God the father almighty......". Is there not words to the effect in the bible that says the xtian must live by faith and not sight? Since an atheist cannot disprove the existence of God they to have to make an act of faith by saying "I don't have belief in God". Does this make sense?

 

Because as an atheist, I have ZERO faith in anything. Particularly in god. Atheism means WITHOUT GOD BELIEF. There is no "requirement" needed. No effort to put forth. It's a statement of what I DON'T have. Atheism does NOT say, "I know there is no god." It says, "I don't have belief in god." It's agnosticism without the question mark.

See this essay by Betrand Russell:

http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2002/09...or-agnostic.php

 

 

You said, "atheism in its purest sense is the REQUIREMENT for faith". Please explain this.

 

Because as an atheist, I have ZERO faith in anything. Particularly in god. Atheism means WITHOUT GOD BELIEF. There is no "requirement" needed. No effort to put forth. It's a statement of what I DON'T have. Atheism does NOT say, "I know there is no god." It says, "I don't have belief in god." It's agnosticism without the question mark.

 

 

As an Atheist, it really gets under my skin when people don't understand what it means. It doesn't mean that we KNOW there is no god because that is impossible.

Ordinarily a true xtian does not know that God exists, they have to live by faith and thats why they say "I believe...". I think there is a misunderstanding because words like faith and belief have different meaning to to different people.

It means we haven't seen a god therefore we don't believe in one.

See my relpy to Mr Grinch above.

 

It's just like not believing in unicorns because there is no proof. I don't understand how everything else in life requires proof to be believed,

In a religious context thats not the case. See point about semantics above.

but then people require gods to be completely disproved before they will not believe. It should be the other way around.

Even xtianity teaches its members must live by faith not by scientific proof. But like I say its more about what words mean in context. The link to Betrand Russells essay in previous post might be worth a look

[freeday]

so athiesm is not so different than christianity. you have a belief there is no God, due to no evidence of his existence. i have a belief in God due to no evidence of his non-existence. here is my conclusion. In the end, God’s existence must be accepted by faith (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark, it is safe step into a well-lit room where 90% of people are already standing. (this percentage is not just limited to christianity)

[ped]

do you really believe that. i think you need some time to reflect about how deceptive you are to yourself.

 

so you are an athiest to the one true master, the FLM. or it takes faith to not believe in santa claus. well prove he doesnt exist!

 

wow your dumb.

[KT45]

athiesm is not so different than christianity.

Wrong

[Vigile]

so athiesm is not so different than christianity. you have a belief there is no God, due to no evidence of his existence.

 

Do you have a belief that Zeus does not exist or do you just choose not to believe it because there is no credible evidence? It does not take faith to deny the existance of Zeus. It does not take faith to deny the existance of biblegod.

 

See, that was easy.

 

 

In the end, God’s existence must be accepted by faith (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark, it is safe step into a well-lit room where 90% of people are already standing. (this percentage is not just limited to christianity)

 

An appeal to large numbers is a logical falacy. Large numbers of people also believe that Phil Collins is a good musician. Large numbers of people just happen to be wrong

[Golden Meadows]

so athiesm is not so different than christianity.

Only with respect to both involving an act of faith.

you have a belief there is no God, due to no evidence of his existence.

Actually I do, as an act of faith, believe in God but not yours because the bible take on God is not good.

i have a belief in God due to no evidence of his non-existence. here is my conclusion. In the end, God's existence must be accepted by faith (Hebrews 11:6).

Yes, ordinarily God does not present himself to the clear light of senses and make his existence self-evident.

Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark, it is safe step into a well-lit room where 90% of people are already standing.

You contradict even your own saints. Did Paul not say something about "seeing through a glass darkly"

(this percentage is not just limited to christianity)

According to you everything is so well lit in this room of faith that everybody should agree as to who and what God is but that is not the case. Is it?

 

Faith, from the human point of view, is choosing to believe in something or the absence of something, when the evidence either way is not open to the senses. Thats the definition I am using, it may differ from yours. I suspect we are all using our own definitions of "faith". Some may argue , like Aquinas, that the existence of God can be proved by pure logic but thats another issue.

 

Have look at the link below:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

[Checkmate]

Golden Meadows, I seriously don't understand what the problem is. It is not semantics. Atheism does not require faith.

 

If I am NOT holding an apple, does it require "faith" to "believe" that I am NOT holding an apple?

 

Does it require "faith" to NOT "believe" in Santa Claus?

 

Does it require "faith" for me to "believe" that I cannot fly ala "Superman"? More importantly, does it require "faith" for YOU to "believe" that I can't fly?

 

It requires ZERO "faith" to NOT believe something. You either have it, or you don't.

 

Atheism is PASSIVE, while faith is ACTIVE. At no time in my life do I wake up each day trying to convince myself that there is no god. Meanwhile, god-believers do JUST the opposite. They MUST strive to "keep the faith" lest it all fall apart. My atheism requires no such bolstering.

 

To be an atheist does not require that I disprove god. How does one disprove something which one does not believe exists? If god believers can't prove "god", then how can I disprove "god"? The burden of proof is NOT upon me to disprove god. "God's" absence is "proof" enough. Just like my inability to fly is proof enough that I can't fly. No "faith" is required.

 

With all due respect to you and Bertrand Russell, but I stand by my logic and reasoning. Atheism does NOT require "faith". I don't require "faith" to "believe" that I don't have something.

 

Atheism = Without God Belief. I don't have god-belief. No "faith" involved. It doesn't get any simpler than this.

[Vigile]

so athiesm is not so different than christianity.

Only with respect to both involving an act of faith.

 

Uh... nuh!

 

See my answer to FD above. Atheism is the distinct lack of faith.

[Golden Meadows]

Golden Meadows, I seriously don't understand what the problem is. It is not semantics. Atheism does not require faith.

 

If I am NOT holding an apple, does it require "faith" to "believe" that I am NOT holding an apple?

No because the evidence is open to your senses, it can be proved scientifically.

 

Does it require "faith" to NOT "believe" in Santa Claus?

No because the evidence for his non existence is open to the senses. Followers of Santa Claus say that he comes down every chimney at xmas. They say he lives at the north pole. All this can be checked as it is open to the senses. Santa Nicholas is another matter.

 

Does it require "faith" for me to "believe" that I cannot fly ala "Superman"?

No because you can determine by emprical means that you cannot fly like superman.

More importantly, does it require "faith" for YOU to "believe" that I can't fly?

No, because you are a human being like me and I cannot fly, furthermore I have seen plenty of other evidence open to my senses that indicates that this is indeed the case.

 

It requires ZERO "faith" to NOT believe something. You either have it, or you don't.

Let me try another deifinition of faith and see if this helps: Faith is making a choice or decision about something when, through the vary nature of thing, there is a lack of evidence open to the senses.

 

Atheism is PASSIVE, while faith is ACTIVE.

At the risk of complicating things I will say no to this as well. A choice is having to made on a subject matter where the evidence is lacking one way or the other.

 

At no time in my life do I wake up each day trying to convince myself that there is no god.

A person who believes in God could make the same statement. You might say its a foolish state of mind whereas a xtian or muslim might say its a gift from god that quietens doubts in the absence of scientific evidence.

 

Meanwhile, god-believers do JUST the opposite. They MUST strive to "keep the faith" lest it all fall apart.

Not necessarily so, see previous point.

 

My atheism requires no such bolstering.

Some atheists do have doubts at times and they are open about it. Maybe you have the gift of faith the xtians and muslims go on about - or should I call it anti-faith

 

To be an atheist does not require that I disprove god.

By its very nature God cannot be proven or not proven since the evidence is not verifiable. Sorry for keep repeating myself.

 

How does one disprove something which one does not believe exists?

A invalid question. The act of disproving implies something which can be verified, measured, something of the senses. This cannot be applied to a metaphysical problem. As best I can tell the standard arguments in favour of diety, the 5 ways of Aquinas, only show that a certain chain of thought is valid based on certain assumptions/principles.

 

If god believers can't prove "god", then how can I disprove "god"?

They cannot prove it and neither can you disprove it. This is why the word faith is used to signify a choice or decission when evidence open to the senses is lacking.

 

The burden of proof is NOT upon me to disprove god.

Like I say faith is the tacit acceptance that proof is lacking either way.

 

"God's" absence is "proof" enough.

No, for the reasons given above.

 

Just like my inability to fly is proof enough that I can't fly. No "faith" is required.

Thats because we are dealing with physics, God transcends physics. God is not contained in physics but rather physics emanate from him.

 

 

With all due respect to you and Bertrand Russell, but I stand by my logic and reasoning. Atheism does NOT require "faith". I don't require "faith" to "believe" that I don't have something.

I suspect that if you chew on this for a while the difficulty will be resolved. The word "faith" comes loaded with a whole set of negative connotations through the antics of fundamentalists and you may have been exposed to their misuse of the word for a long time.

 

 

Atheism = Without God Belief. I don't have god-belief. No "faith" involved. It doesn't get any simpler than this.

Faith=belief in God is too narrow a definition. "Paul" wrote "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

[duderonomy]

Freeday said:

"In the end, God’s existence must be accepted by faith (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark, it is safe step into a well-lit room where 90% of people are already standing. (this percentage is not just limited to christianity)"

 

 

Freeday,

 

If you know of God's existence by your faith, why do you need then to quote a book of which the authorship is unknown? How does that prove your point?

 

As for the rest of what you said; I'll have what Freeday is having. Make mine a double.

[freeday]

Golden Meadows: excellent post, i was just about to write the same thing, but you wrote it much better than i could have.

 

duderonomy: i preffer a vanilla frappe, double expresso shot, whole milk, with whip cream on top. really gets you in the mood for some scripture.

[Vigile]

 

GM, does it take faith to disbelieve in Zeus? In the cookie monster? In the flying spaghetti monster?

 

No? Then it doesn't take faith to disbelieve god either. Your forced definitions of faith are not so far removed from the logical errors that xtians make.

[Golden Meadows]

 

GM, does it take faith to disbelieve in Zeus? In the cookie monster? In the flying spaghetti monster?

Yes, if you believe that anyone one them is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, the creator of all things/natural laws and who chooses to remain unseen. An atheist makes a choice based on no evidence open to the senses, so does a true xtian. Agnosticism is the more technically correct description for what you are hinting at.

 

No? Then it doesn't take faith to disbelieve god either.

When you choose to believe something when there is no firm evidence either way you are making an act of faith. You are no different to me than freeday or any other person who makes a choice when there is no verifiable evidence. Agnosticism refuses to play the faith game.

 

Your forced definitions of faith are not so far removed from the logical errors that xtians make.

The distinction I make between atheism and agnosticism you may not agree with but I am not alone in holding them. I have zoomed in on the word faith in order to highlight what I think is the key issue in the choice of between agnosticism and atheism. I don't have to use the word faith to support my argument but in context it forces a deeper appreciation of the issues. If you find it unhelpful then drop it.

 

 

Golden Meadows: excellent post, i was just about to write the same thing, but you wrote it much better than i could have.

So you think bible God is no good - has freeday come into the light? I think you write in haste.

 

[freeday]

 

GM, does it take faith to disbelieve in Zeus? In the cookie monster? In the flying spaghetti monster?

Yes, if you believe that anyone one them is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, the creator of all things/natural laws and who chooses to remain unseen. An atheist makes a choice based on no evidence open to the senses, so does a true xtian. Agnosticism is the more technically correct description for what you are hinting at.

 

No? Then it doesn't take faith to disbelieve god either.

When you choose to believe something when there is no firm evidence either way you are making an act of faith. You are no different to me than freeday or any other person who makes a choice when there is no verifiable evidence. Agnosticism refuses to play the faith game.

 

Your forced definitions of faith are not so far removed from the logical errors that xtians make.

The distinction I make between atheism and agnosticism you may not agree with but I am not alone in holding them. I have zoomed in on the word faith in order to highlight what I think is the key issue in the choice of between agnosticism and atheism. I don't have to use the word faith to support my argument but in context it forces a deeper appreciation of the issues. If you find it unhelpful then drop it.

 

 

Golden Meadows: excellent post, i was just about to write the same thing, but you wrote it much better than i could have.

So you think bible God is no good - has freeday come into the light? I think you write in haste.

 

 

i am sorry, i should have quoted with what i agreed with you on. funny enough you have made me even more of a litarilist, the more i read. yes i see the light. the light of God's saving Grace!

[Golden Meadows]

 

 

i am sorry, i should have quoted with what i agreed with you on. funny enough you have made me even more of a litarilist,

Its good to read things literally when they are meant to be taking literally the trouble is the bible is composed in various kinds of idioms, not just the literal and this seems to drive people into defending things that ordinarily they would never dream of doing themselves. I think the danger is that after many years of burying the conscience a person starts to become the thing they profess.

 

the more i read. yes i see the light. the light of God's saving Grace!

Good for you I just hope this will be shown in greater tolerance to other human beings who do not share your take on God

[freeday]

 

 

i am sorry, i should have quoted with what i agreed with you on. funny enough you have made me even more of a litarilist,

Its good to read things literally when they are meant to be taking literally the trouble is the bible is composed in various kinds of idioms, not just the literal and this seems to drive people into defending things that ordinarily they would never dream of doing themselves. I think the danger is that after many years of burying the conscience a person starts to become the thing they profess.

 

the more i read. yes i see the light. the light of God's saving Grace!

Good for you I just hope this will be shown in greater tolerance to other human beings who do not share your take on God

 

there is one thing i am strongly working on. and that is not to judge other. how can i say that i am better than you just because of what i believe? i can't. don't ever think that i am judging you. that is not my job.

[Vigile]

sigh... where do I start?

 

GM, does it take faith to disbelieve in Zeus? In the cookie monster? In the flying spaghetti monster?

Yes, if you believe that anyone one them is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent , the creator of all things/natural laws and who chooses to remain unseen. An atheist makes a choice based on no evidence open to the senses, so does a true xtian. Agnosticism is the more technically correct description for what you are hinting at.

 

Do you hear yourself? I asked if it takes faith to disbelieve in these creatures and you turn around and contradict this with "yes, if you believe..." Don't you see how this makes no sense?

 

You are also trying to say that I have to have faith to deny every crazy claim any idiot that runs up to me makes. This is just crazy. No I don't have to have faith. You make a claim about something that is obviously nonsense and don't back it up with any evidence whatsoever, then I can reject it and not even consider it. You are stretching the meaning of faith to the point that it has no meaning anymore.

 

No? Then it doesn't take faith to disbelieve god either.

When you choose to believe something when there is no firm evidence either way you are making an act of faith. You are no different to me than freeday or any other person who makes a choice when there is no verifiable evidence. Agnosticism refuses to play the faith game.

 

Again, do you hear yourself? I am not choosing to believe anything. I am in my natural state of disbelief. Crazy claims demand crazy evidence. Consideration of crazy claims without crazy evidence just makes me crazy. I'm not crazy. Perhaps you should define for me what you think an atheist is before you try painting me into your faith corner.

[Golden Meadows]

Freeday: there is one thing i am strongly working on. and that is not to judge other. how can i say that i am better than you just because of what i believe? i can't. don't ever think that i am judging you. that is not my job.

Good. I have read many posts by visiting xtians and frankly they sound soo very arrogant and judgmental so its nice to hear you won't be doing any of that.

[Golden Meadows]

sigh... where do I start?

 

Maybe this quote from Bertrand Russell helps:

 

"I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God."

 

I agree with this even though he then goes on to make concessions for a popular audience. My argument is that by its very nature there can never be any proof that there is not a God because it is beyond the realms of physics to do so. Do you agree?

 

If you cannot prove there is not a God do you agree that Agnostic is the better description?

 

I am sorry if I come across as being either stupid or crazy to you as you seem to suggest . Frankly this is like the converseration I can have with a bible fundamentalist/literalist and I never find them particularly rewarding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Vigile]

I agree with this even though he then goes on to make concessions for a popular audience. My argument is that by its very nature there can never be any proof that there is not a God because it is beyond the realms of physics to do so. Do you agree?

 

I agree that you cannot prove a negative, yes.

 

If you cannot prove there is not a God do you agree that Agnostic is the better description?

 

Sorry, I cannot agree. Agnostic implies that I wonder if their might be a god. I don't wonder about god anymore than I do about the flying spaghetti monster. Both concepts are just purely conjection, ill defined, and put forth to me in the form of baseless claims.

 

I think you are having trouble with both the concept of what faith is and what atheism is. I do not claim to KNOW that there is no god. That would take some form of faith since I cannot as you say prove it. I merely reject the notion but remain open to someone providing valid and verifiable evidence. If they can do so I will change my position.

 

Agnosticism also lends some credibility to the theological perspective. I do not wish to give it that inch. I'm not agnostic about fairy tale creatures and I'm not agnostic about every claim I've ever encountered about god, whatever god may be.

 

I am sorry if I come across as being either stupid or crazy to you as you seem to suggest . Frankly this is like the converseration I can have with a bible fundamentalist/literalist and I never find them particularly rewarding.

 

 

I don't think you are stupid or crazy. My use of the word crazy in the previous post was not directed at you and was just hyperbole to make a point. I'm sorry if you feel like I'm being a pig headed fundy about this, but frankly I'm not the one making claims about you. You claim I have faith and I'm just defending the position that I do in fact not. Faith is in my oppinion a stupid position to take on anything. I rely on things, but faith and reliance are two seperate animals.

[Vigile]

GM, I just realized there is a very easy way to put this to bed.

 

Christians believe in things with no evidence to back up their beliefs. An atheist refuses to believe in something without evidence. Yet you are saying that both groups have faith. How could that be when the basis of your claim is two opposing positions on the subject?

[Checkmate]

GM, twice now you've used the term fundamentalist. Accusing US of having the mindset of a Fundy.

 

Um...allow me to say, "Pot? This is the Kettle. You're black."

 

YOU have taken up the mantle of Fundy, as you make haste to FORCE us into YOUR concepts of "faith". You can't seem to accept that we ARE atheists and that we don't have faith. You want us to bow to YOUR definition of "faith", and be held strictly to it.

 

THAT is Fundamentalism at it's finest. The reason for your frustration in this discussion is YOUR unwillingness to concede to OUR points raised. Just like a Fundy.

 

Remember, when you point a finger to accuse someone, you have three fingers pointing back at you.

 

Months ago, Asimov and I got into BIG trouble on another thread for daring to question the "rightness" of agnosticism. Agnostics HATE it when we atheists tell them what they SHOULD call themselves. And they are correct in this anger.

 

So, why should we atheists be any LESS angered when you tell us that we aren't truly atheists, because we MUST have "faith" NOT to believe? That we MUST embrace Agnosticism and reject Atheism, because according to YOU, agnosticism makes more sense?

 

I'm an atheist. I have NO faith. Deal with it, or continue to be a Fundy trying to force me into YOUR mold.