That being said -
If we are indeed talking about faith, I don't think the law of the excluded middle applies in either direction. Wouldn't you agree that once you know the truth, you no longer need faith?
Sure, but until that point the Excluded Middle says you can either believe in God or not believe in One, you can't do both.
Which is why the agnostic position is harder to write out in simple logic than the other ones.
Just to make sure, it seems you can reasonably state "I believe in the possibility of either without assuming either is 100% true" without violating that principal. You are not assuming both are true at the same time, but merely that based on your knowledge they both have some chance of being true which arises from a lack of having enough evidence to confirm either way, which is to say they both have a chance of being true unless you can prove one is wrong. Or for instance I flip a coin and state "I believe the coin has the possibility to turn up either of heads or tails" you are not suggesting that you think the coin flip will turn up both heads and tails at the same time, and the reason I use that analogy is because if you don't have enough evidence, then it might as well be the flip of a coin if you are assuming one is true over the other.
To say that faith in an omnipotent being who displays such qualities is a lie means that it is faith in a falsehood, and thus that the statement that there is an omnipotent being who possesses such qualities is false.
Just because what someone believes is a lie, it does not mean the conclusion is false.
So.... if I use a lie to get someone to believe in God, then there is no God?
Which isn't what Encendi was saying. You'd know this if you had even a basic understanding of what the hell has been going on in this thread.
Alright, last post on the subject, because either you're intentionally being so dense that conversation is impossible, or such a state just comes naturally to you:
(And keep in mind, this is me explaining to you what the hell we're talking about, since you apparently couldn't be bothered to keep track)
No, the problem with theism is the mindset it conveys: that there's some sort of omnipotent being watching over you, granting wishes, protecting you from harm, and guaranteeing a special place in the afterlife. It makes people feel special. It makes them feel like they're part of something "greater than themselves."
But it's a lie.
In saying this, Encendi is saying that the following:
that there's some sort of omnipotent being watching over you, granting wishes, protecting you from harm, and guaranteeing a special place in the afterlife.
Is false.
As in the objective truth value of the above statement is false.
This requires evidence to justify, as it is a claim, and because it is a claim, falls under the burden of proof.
Crashing00, good luck if you choose to continue with this thread, I'm done.
In saying this, Encendi is saying that the following:
that there's some sort of omnipotent being watching over you, granting wishes, protecting you from harm, and guaranteeing a special place in the afterlife.
Is false.
Again, he clearly stated he was talking about a mindset/feeling, not a fact/proof. And, as you--yourself--said, "things are true or false regardless of whether or not they've yet been proven by human beings."
Additionally, reading the rest of his posts, I think its pretty darn clear he wasn't a Strong Atheist, but a Weak one.
So, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
For example, there are legions of people who walk around the United States without carrying a weapon on their person. They have faith that no one has any ill intent against them and will visit physical harm upon them.
Me? I carry at least two weapons on my person and three in my car. I'm in the process of getting a CHL so I can legally carry a firearm. I have faith that untold numbers of people are waiting to fight me.
There is a middle ground. It's called walking with your head high and the capability to do a Chuck Norris-style roundhouse kick if threatened.
I'm not sure why you're appealing to him. I don't think he was agreeing with either of us.
Of course not; this entire segue about the use of the word "lie" is a palpable waste of time. On one hand, it's obviously a bad idea to use the word "lie" to characterize earnestly held positions of an opponent -- just look what happened here. On the other hand, it's not that much of a stretch of the definition to say that someone who has an undischarged burden of proof but behaves as though they have carried it out is lying -- and a charitable interpretation of Encendi's position shows that that's what he meant. In any case, it has generated no new useful claims or arguments about the actual topic.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
To the Atheists/agnostics out there, I wanted to ask: Is there value in faith?
There is for those who wish to invest their beliefs in faith. However, for myself (I'm an atheist who was raised in a reform Jewish family), I do not believe in faith and I find no value in faith for myself.
I'm talking about:
-believing in things you cannot prove
-believing in spite of a lack of evidence
-believing in thing that you simply because you want to believe(ex. trust)
It's funny that you bring up the issue of "trust" because I always think of trust as having confidence in something or someone because they have proven they can be depended upon. I've never associated trust with faith. Perhaps there's a connection? I just have a hard time seeing it.
Do you see value in taking things by faith? Or is this entire paradigm of thought just stupid, childish, nonsensical, and logically erroneous?
There's value for those who feel they will benefit by having faith in something. I, personally, do not have religious faith in anything. I'm tolerant of others and their beliefs, but firm in my own and do not see any value or benefit from believing in something I do not believe exists or is important in my life.
I tried to circumscribe the discussion. By faith, I wrote I do not mean religious faith per se. That would be like me asking you, an atheist, do you see value in another person's belief in God. I didn't want that discussion. It's too similar to "do you see value in religion?"
My question was, in so far as 'faith' encompasses:
-believing in things you cannot prove
-believing in spite of a lack of evidence
-believing in thing that you simply because you want to believe(ex. trust)
Do you as an atheist see value in those three?
Some atheists will go so far as to hold a position of no: They will not believe in things they cannot prove, or things they lack evidence for, or believe something simply because they want to.
In fact some people have answered my OP just like that.
But it has also been pointed out on this thread that as matter of practicality a person simply has to make assumptions, to have faith--or a trust or belief in things unseen or cannot be fully proven to live normally.
I was raised in a Christian family, attended church every Sunday until the age of 15, but eventually lost my faith. There were very tumultuous times in my family, and God was something used to rationalize pain. I am an atheist now, but I still have a soft spot for Jesus and desire for the knowledge of the actual truths that happened during the foundation of Christianity.
I still believe there is something important about faith. Not necessarily faith in the literal existence of God, but appreciation for the legend of Jesus or whomever better represents your code of morality. Jesus is most effective for me because I was raised looking up to him and can still very easily sympathize with his historical character.
Nonetheless, literal faith still has value for:
Reducing fear of death. Makes it easier to sacrifice self to save lives (or destroy them). Also greatly reduces stress as you get older and know the lights will go out soon.
Belief in divine justice minimizes the need for revenge. It's easier to be forgiving when you know someone will dole out the punishment at a later time. Sometimes people think they are the executors of God's judgement on earth, which is bad.
Strong, moral codes can advantageous not only to oneself, but to those around them. It the morality is based on doing good for others, everyone within the religious community can have strong, healthy relationships thanks to the moral guidelines established in their faith. It yields more comfortable, positive lives for those involved. If the morality is based on doing good for God, things become more repressive as is we are all failures to the creator and must be hammered into shape.
Religious people are easier to control, either self-control or control by others. Belief in God makes it easier for people to minimize their sinning and even use of hard drugs. If someone puts God in control of their lives, it is easier to live the way they choose to live, which would be the way of God. On the other hand, religions have always been involved in state-politics thus the more tangible use of control by religion has been to strengthen the Warlord/Monarch/Despot/State.
I'm a fan of Your Move: with Andy Stanley. It comes on after Saturday Night Live in my region, a very unexpected time and region for a sermon. They are always slightly secular in nature, but get across a positive message themed to Jesus. Here is a clip on him speaking about giving sermons and why.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Decks:
Legacy: RWBG Goblins RRR Burn WBU Affinity UBR Sac-Land Tendrils! BBBPox
Next possible deck: D&T, but that just wouldn't be right.
Modern: R Goblins (work in progress)
Standard: I only care about standard when Goblins is a deck.
Limited: I only care about limited when Goblins are in the set.
Reducing fear of death. Makes it easier to sacrifice self to save lives (or destroy them). Also greatly reduces stress as you get older and know the lights will go out soon.
Belief in divine justice minimizes the need for revenge. It's easier to be forgiving when you know someone will dole out the punishment at a later time. Sometimes people think they are the executors of God's judgement on earth, which is bad.
Strong, moral codes can advantageous not only to oneself, but to those around them. It the morality is based on doing good for others, everyone within the religious community can have strong, healthy relationships thanks to the moral guidelines established in their faith. It yields more comfortable, positive lives for those involved. If the morality is based on doing good for God, things become more repressive as is we are all failures to the creator and must be hammered into shape.
Religious people are easier to control, either self-control or control by others. Belief in God makes it easier for people to minimize their sinning and even use of hard drugs. If someone puts God in control of their lives, it is easier to live the way they choose to live, which would be the way of God. On the other hand, religions have always been involved in state-politics thus the more tangible use of control by religion has been to strengthen the Warlord/Monarch/Despot/State.
The second and third ones are definitely good ends (the first is... arguable!) but I think imagining that an infinitely powerful magic being has your back can lead to some wonky reasoning, to say the least. For example, people tend not to disagree with their own God; that is, their views strongly correlate with what they think God's views are (and sometimes against what their church thinks God's views are). But the idea that your views enjoy basically infinite agreement (God) makes it very hard to have a non-hardcore-philosophical conversation with people about stuff.
Similarly, discounting the need for revenge is great for civilization, but removing it to an infinite third-party isn't really solving the problem (as you say, sometimes people think they're God's judges on earth).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
For example, people tend not to disagree with their own God; that is, their views strongly correlate with what they think God's views are (and sometimes against what their church thinks God's views are).
I'd say the reverse is true. When people change their mind they tend to "discover" that God always agreed with their new belief. The text of Bible has not changed dramatically in the last thousand years but Christianity has morphed and fragmented radically.
For example, people tend not to disagree with their own God; that is, their views strongly correlate with what they think God's views are (and sometimes against what their church thinks God's views are).
I'd say the reverse is true. When people change their mind they tend to "discover" that God always agreed with their new belief. The text of Bible has not changed dramatically in the last thousand years but Christianity has morphed and fragmented radically.
Eh, it's a two-way street.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Faith can be incredibly useful to humans since we live in subjective realities more than we do in the objectively true one. To us, the most important reality is our own perspective. What we believe to be true is quite true for us, regardless of whether or not it's true for everything in the universe.
Due to this human condition, faith can be useful for... anything we want it to be. In terms of what most people use it for (regardless of religion), here are a couple:
1) Money. We have faith that our currencies are actually worth something... so they are worth something (in objective reality, it's just a pile of paper/electronic data; cavemen wouldn't give a damn about your US dollars).
2) Culture. We believe in a shared set of cultural norms and values (what is an insult, what's attractive, what tastes good), that give us a shared sense of community and help us make sense of the word. While it's true for whoever believes in it, culture is not universally the same (see culture shock, look at different countries' cultures, look at the history of our changing tastes even in the same country).
Culture is something we can't really stop believing in, but money is interesting because we used to simply NOT believe in it... and the world economy comparatively sucked because you had to barter goods with the tribe next door.
Faith is of vital importance to everyone, theist or not, since what you personally believe directly influences the reality you live in.
1) Money. We have faith that our currencies are actually worth something... so they are worth something (in objective reality, it's just a pile of paper/electronic data; cavemen wouldn't give a damn about your US dollars).
We have empirical evidence that our currencies are worth something -- billions of times per day, bits of currency are successfully exchanged for things. There's no faith involved in the basic operation of an economic transaction.
Now, there are people that have the (mistaken!) belief that currency has inherent value outside of the pure supply and demand relationship that is dictated by empirical economics, and that (mistaken!) position could rightly be characterized as faith-based.
2) Culture. We believe in a shared set of cultural norms and values (what is an insult, what's attractive, what tastes good), that give us a shared sense of community and help us make sense of the word. While it's true for whoever believes in it, culture is not universally the same (see culture shock, look at different countries' cultures, look at the history of our changing tastes even in the same country).
Again, I don't see any actual faith at work here. What must you believe in the absence of or in spite of evidence, what facts must you ignore, in order to accept the existence of cultural norms?
Culture is something we can't really stop believing in, but money is interesting because we used to simply NOT believe in it... and the world economy comparatively sucked because you had to barter goods with the tribe next door.
Right, this notion is anti-faith. The fact that money improved the economic state of the world in a clearly observable way is empirical evidence of the value of money! No faith necessary.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
1) Money. We have faith that our currencies are actually worth something... so they are worth something (in objective reality, it's just a pile of paper/electronic data; cavemen wouldn't give a damn about your US dollars).
We have empirical evidence that our currencies are worth something -- billions of times per day, bits of currency are successfully exchanged for things. There's no faith involved in the basic operation of an economic transaction.
Now, there are people that have the (mistaken!) belief that currency has inherent value outside of the pure supply and demand relationship that is dictated by empirical economics, and that (mistaken!) position could rightly be characterized as faith-based.
2) Culture. We believe in a shared set of cultural norms and values (what is an insult, what's attractive, what tastes good), that give us a shared sense of community and help us make sense of the word. While it's true for whoever believes in it, culture is not universally the same (see culture shock, look at different countries' cultures, look at the history of our changing tastes even in the same country).
Again, I don't see any actual faith at work here. What must you believe in the absence of or in spite of evidence, what facts must you ignore, in order to accept the existence of cultural norms?
Culture is something we can't really stop believing in, but money is interesting because we used to simply NOT believe in it... and the world economy comparatively sucked because you had to barter goods with the tribe next door.
Right, this notion is anti-faith. The fact that money improved the economic state of the world in a clearly observable way is empirical evidence of the value of money! No faith necessary.
We seem to be working off differing definitions of faith. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're using the second one in the dictionary, the one about belief without sufficient evidence.
I was using the first one in the dictionary, the one where faith and belief are synonyms.
The point is that there is no objective value in the above things we believe if nobody believes in them. They only have value because we subjectively believe them to have value. Belief is often self-fulfilling for humans, even faith based on no evidence.
For religious folk who believe, their lives can actually be transformed, regardless of whether or not their religious beliefs are objectively true. It can be positive or negative; it really all depends on what people believe.
But faith in general is something that all humans use.
Faith, or belief, is how we create meaning, which is completely subjective.
Without it, the universe is actually meaningless. Without humans, and our subjective faith, meaning does not exist. The universe simply is the universe, nothing more or less.
We seem to be working off differing definitions of faith. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're using the second one in the dictionary, the one about belief without sufficient evidence.
I was using the first one in the dictionary, the one where faith and belief are synonyms.
So when you say "everyone has faith" you just mean "everyone believes things" -- a trivial statement that is not informative or useful. Defining faith this way deprives the word of all significance.
This is not the kind of faith that rationalists object to. It's not the faith of Job. It's not the faith spoken of in Hebrews 11. It's not the faith of Tertullian. It's not what Kierkegaard meant when he spoke of a leap of faith.
The point is that there is no objective value in the above things we believe if nobody believes in them. They only have value because we subjectively believe them to have value.
First, you should distinguish between subjective and intersubjective. For instance, the value of currency clearly isn't subjective -- if tomorrow I personally cease to believe that the dollar has value, that doesn't mean businesses will no longer take my dollars.
Better to say the value of currency is intersubjective -- if everyone simultaneously agreed that currency had no value and refused to accept it, then it would indeed cease to have value.
But as you pointed out a few posts back, that's not the whole situation either. With the benefit of historical context, we know that society is objectively better with valuable currency than it is without, so the intersubjective decision to assign value to currency is not actually axiomatic, whimsical, or baseless. At the bottom of all this stuff is an objective process of betterment of the human condition. The assignment of nonzero value to currency is ultimately not subjective at all.
For religious folk who believe, their lives can actually be transformed, regardless of whether or not their religious beliefs are objectively true. It can be positive or negative; it really all depends on what people believe.
Yes, in just the same way that sugar pills can sometimes cure disease. It is usually presupposed in these conversations that the parties are seeking truth, not a placebo effect.
Without it, the universe is actually meaningless. Without humans, and our subjective faith, meaning does not exist. The universe simply is the universe, nothing more or less.
"The universe is the universe and nothing more or less" is a tautology; it could never be more or less than itself.
To the Atheists/agnostics out there, I wanted to ask: Is there value in faith?
By this question, I'm not talking about a religion, like a 'religious faith', or a 'person of the faith'.
I'm talking about:
-believing in things you cannot prove
-believing in spite of a lack of evidence
-believing in thing that you simply because you want to believe(ex. trust)
Do you see value in taking things by faith? Or is this entire paradigm of thought just stupid, childish, nonsensical, and logically erroneous?
"faith" in the religious sense of the word is worthless. Believing in something when the evidence says that it's not true, is counterproductive. It holds back the human race.
Do I find value in the definition of "faith" that is basically "trust"? of course. But that is not the definition of faith when I say there is no evidence to support the claim that a god exists and the response is "but you need faith" That is worthless.
without getting sucked in here, i thought i'd offer my opinion and also some wisdom, if anyone cares to take it to heart.
my opinion:
i don't believe in a god. i'm also not an atheist. Atheism takes on its own unhelpful mantle when discussing religion and philosophy. It can often be regarded as a pseudo-religion in and of itself, so I choose not to associate myself with it.
I do however, see huge benefit in individual faith. it is what gives someone the strength to overcome loss and grief, and the fear of death. some kind of unifying "wholeness" that reassures people that there's some greater purpose to things and it's not all pointless. I love the idea. it has had a very distinct (and helpful) function and purpose throughout human history when we as a species didn't really understand the world around us and wanted answers.
I also love the idea of spirituality. Especially the Japanese take on things where objects and materials themselves take on a sort of "soul", and thus require respect. this is perhaps why Japanese craftsmen are the best in the world, and why so much respect is given to landscape and natural beauty, as well as industrial objects and materiality in Japanese culture. it's a fantastic idea.
I don't personally have any kind of religion beyond believing we should all have a sense of wonder about the universe and want to explore and discover. that's my mantra.
i also recognise religion for what it actually is - various systems of belief created by us to help reassure us of the things we don't understand or fear. it's only natural, and perfectly understandable, but that's all it is. no more. Hundreds upon Hundreds of different religions have come and gone throughout history, all with their own take on things. if you are currently religious, your own religion will be no different, in the grand scheme of things, to one of the old religions lost to time from civilisations long since destroyed. Your own beliefs will not be any more correct than theirs, now ancient and strange to us. People do, however, like to attach unwarranted importance to their own beliefs, like they are "right" and other people's are "wrong". such ideas are false, of course.
so now, i guess, the wisdom. this applies to general religion and i guess a little of the hardcore christian doctrine:
mass-belief systems are crude, unwieldy things. people hold onto them and their ideas for the sake of tradition, without really questioning why. In fact, many religions impress upon people the idea that questioning things in general is evil. there is no better example than at the beginning of the Bible, when Adam and Eve are punished for seeking knowledge about the world around them. what an awful message! ignorance is bliss, i guess. this is a sort of religious failsafe. stop people questioning their beliefs or environment, and they will be pliable and follow your every word. hey presto, it even works.
Religion is entirely a personal thing. you have your own interpretation of the morals and concepts within a religious text or doctrine, and others who may share your overall faith will have (necessarily) an entirely distinct interpretation of their own. Hold onto your own beliefs, they do you credit. Don't impose them on other people; your ideas lose their power when you try to explain what is essentially an emotional connection to someone different to you. no matter how fervent or passionate you are about your religion or faith, you will never be able to adequately express your belief to another individual so that they fully comprehend and are able to share it with you. to assume you are able to do this is to fail to recognise the limits of human communication.
also, while questioning current scientific thinking is basically the entire point of science; don't try to belittle scientific discovery and exploration with made-up ideas from a badly-written book from 2000 years ago. A spade is a spade - and if we are able to conclusively show that lifeforms gradually differ between generations, leading to distinct changes over a long enough period of time for hundreds or thousands of generations to occur (hint: this is evolution), then by gum, it happens. sitting there and shaking your head like it'll all go away won't change anything.
short version:
faith = highly important. it's a psychological human defence mechanism. we shouldn't lose it, and everyone should have their own faith.
belief = dangerous. people are willing to kill or be killed over beliefs, even if they are *ahem* rather ignorant or stupid. just look in a history book and you'll be treated to hundreds of examples. don't ever make the mistake of thinking that our current situation is any different from the stupid things that people did in the past. society has about a 5-year collective memory. anything longer ago than 5 years tends to be a lesson lost, rather than a lesson learnt.
enough talking. continue fellow peeps.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern: G Tron, Vannifar, Jund, Druid/Vizier combo, Humans, Eldrazi Stompy (Serum Powder), Amulet, Grishoalbrand, Breach Titan, Turns, Eternal Command, As Foretold Living End, Elves, Cheerios, RUG Scapeshift
I actually wasn't using "subjective" correctly by the dictionary definition (it being personal); thank you for instructing me in the distinction of "intersubjective"
"At the bottom of all this stuff is an objective process of betterment of the human condition."
Betterment of the human condition is itself something subjective (and intersubjective). The planets and stars do not care about humans being better-fed, stronger, living healthier, etc. Intersubjectively, we have a concept of bettering the human race... but objectively, the ultimate truth is that none of this will matter after we are all dead. Importantly, the fact that none of what we do will objectively matter also does not objectively matter.
In light of that, I prefer to make conscious decisions in what I believe matters rather than to search for a guide in what is objectively true.
I struggled for a long time with religious faith since I used to value what is observable and provable above my religious beliefs. Then I realized that, as a human, I simply did not have to care, and I literally could choose to believe in a religion of my choice without evidence. To me, I have exercised the ability to choose that the lack of evidence does not matter. This is the faith described by Job, by Hebrews 11, by Tertullian, or at least something close to it (I've also chosen to not care so much for the letter of the law prescribed by church hierarchy or theology).
In your perspective, mine may be the viewpoint of a vastly delusional individual. In my perspective, delusion is enough a part of the human condition that I find choosing my religious delusions far more useful than trying to chase after objective truth.
I also want to point out that there is negative atheism (I do not believe in a God due to there being no evidence to support the god claim) and positive atheism (There is no god)
One of them does not make a claim, but rather rejects the god claim as baseless and without evidence. The other makes a positive claim about the existence of god one way or another. (In this case, a positive claim that a god does not exist)
Anyone making a claim of any kind, is therefore subjected to the burden of proof. It doesn't matter if your position is more likely or not. If you are to make a claim of any kind, be it about the existence (or non-existence) of something, the burden lies upon the claimant. ALWAYS.
In the scenario pages back, where one user claimed the existence of god, and the next called the belief in a diety a lie... BOTH people made claims.
first claim: God exists.
Second Claim: That is a Lie.
These two claims are independent of one another, and both, have a burden of proof that neither has provided.
I also want to point out that there is negative atheism (I do not believe in a God due to there being no evidence to support the god claim) and positive atheism (There is no god)
One of them does not make a claim, but rather rejects the god claim as baseless and without evidence. The other makes a positive claim about the existence of god one way or another. (In this case, a positive claim that a god does not exist)
Anyone making a claim of any kind, is therefore subjected to the burden of proof. It doesn't matter if your position is more likely or not. If you are to make a claim of any kind, be it about the existence (or non-existence) of something, the burden lies upon the claimant. ALWAYS.
In the scenario pages back, where one user claimed the existence of god, and the next called the belief in a diety a lie... BOTH people made claims.
first claim: God exists.
Second Claim: That is a Lie.
These two claims are independent of one another, and both, have a burden of proof that neither has provided.
The burden of proof lies with religion. Not with Atheism.
I also want to point out that there is negative atheism (I do not believe in a God due to there being no evidence to support the god claim) and positive atheism (There is no god)
One of them does not make a claim, but rather rejects the god claim as baseless and without evidence. The other makes a positive claim about the existence of god one way or another. (In this case, a positive claim that a god does not exist)
Anyone making a claim of any kind, is therefore subjected to the burden of proof. It doesn't matter if your position is more likely or not. If you are to make a claim of any kind, be it about the existence (or non-existence) of something, the burden lies upon the claimant. ALWAYS.
In the scenario pages back, where one user claimed the existence of god, and the next called the belief in a diety a lie... BOTH people made claims.
first claim: God exists.
Second Claim: That is a Lie.
These two claims are independent of one another, and both, have a burden of proof that neither has provided.
The burden of proof lies with religion. Not with Atheism.
Styrofoam's point is that burden of proof does lie with religion, but that depending on the type of Atheism (disbelief due to lack of evidence vs. a concrete claim that there is no God), it can also lie with Atheism.
He presented a very cogent argument. Do you disagree with his distinction between types of Atheism? If so, why?
I also want to point out that there is negative atheism (I do not believe in a God due to there being no evidence to support the god claim) and positive atheism (There is no god)
One of them does not make a claim, but rather rejects the god claim as baseless and without evidence. The other makes a positive claim about the existence of god one way or another. (In this case, a positive claim that a god does not exist)
Anyone making a claim of any kind, is therefore subjected to the burden of proof. It doesn't matter if your position is more likely or not. If you are to make a claim of any kind, be it about the existence (or non-existence) of something, the burden lies upon the claimant. ALWAYS.
In the scenario pages back, where one user claimed the existence of god, and the next called the belief in a diety a lie... BOTH people made claims.
first claim: God exists.
Second Claim: That is a Lie.
These two claims are independent of one another, and both, have a burden of proof that neither has provided.
Hearing William Lane Craig talk about the debates he does (Which happen often) I would just like to say that at least in a formal debate setting the debater who takes the affirmative stance would usually be laden with the burden of proof while in return would be allowed to go first as to given the opportunity to dictate the pace.
The thing is that the issue of who holds the affirmative stance and who does not can simply be changed by changing the topic. If the debate is 'Does God exist' then the it is natural that the religious person would be the affirmative. If the question is 'Is atheism true' then it really would not be the religious person holding the affirmative position.
So to think that a religious person would have the burden of proof in a debate entitled 'Does atheism exist' is really not true.
The thing is that the issue of who holds the affirmative stance and who does not can simply be changed by changing the topic. If the debate is 'Does God exist' then the it is natural that the religious person would be the affirmative. If the question is 'Is atheism true' then it really would not be the religious person holding the affirmative position.
Correct. A formal debate is asymmetrical; the person defending the affirmative position wins by meeting their burden of proof, while the person defending the negative position wins by showing that the affirmative position has not met his burden of proof.
Simple example:
A: "God doesn't exist because Chewbacca lives on Endor." N: "That doesn't follow."
Negative position wins. She doesn't have to show that God exists, just that the particular argument presented does not work.
However, for precisely this reason, she have not actually shown that God exists. She has left open the possibility that there is another argument proving God doesn't exist, which the affirmative position simply has failed to present. So while she may win the blue ribbon or the trophy or whatever they're competing for, as far as real philosophical discourse is concerned there is much left to be done. A stronger response would be as follows:
A: "God doesn't exist because Chewbacca lives on Endor." N: "That argument doesn't follow, nor can any other argument for God's nonexistence follow, because God in fact exists."
But now the negative position has made a positive claim, and the burden of proof has shifted. She can't just say "God exists" and be done with it, of course; she has to prove it. And the affirmative position can defend his argument simply by showing that the negative position's argument doesn't work:
A: "God doesn't exist because Chewbacca lives on Endor." N: "That argument doesn't follow, nor can any other argument for God's nonexistence follow, because God in fact exists: the Millennium Falcon is the fastest ship in the galaxy, therefore God exists." A: "That doesn't follow."
Affirmative position wins. Really. His own argument may have been a non sequitur, but the negative position didn't call him out for that. She went for the stronger argument instead, and a stronger argument is riskier because it requires more defense of positive claims. Bit of an Icarus thing going on there.
The moral of this story is that, while the burden of proof starts out on the shoulders of the affirmative position, either side can easily end up making further positive claims, and each of those claims has its own burden of proof.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I also want to point out that there is negative atheism (I do not believe in a God due to there being no evidence to support the god claim) and positive atheism (There is no god)
One of them does not make a claim, but rather rejects the god claim as baseless and without evidence. The other makes a positive claim about the existence of god one way or another. (In this case, a positive claim that a god does not exist)
Anyone making a claim of any kind, is therefore subjected to the burden of proof. It doesn't matter if your position is more likely or not. If you are to make a claim of any kind, be it about the existence (or non-existence) of something, the burden lies upon the claimant. ALWAYS.
In the scenario pages back, where one user claimed the existence of god, and the next called the belief in a diety a lie... BOTH people made claims.
first claim: God exists.
Second Claim: That is a Lie.
These two claims are independent of one another, and both, have a burden of proof that neither has provided.
Hearing William Lane Craig talk about the debates he does (Which happen often) I would just like to say that at least in a formal debate setting the debater who takes the affirmative stance would usually be laden with the burden of proof while in return would be allowed to go first as to given the opportunity to dictate the pace.
The thing is that the issue of who holds the affirmative stance and who does not can simply be changed by changing the topic. If the debate is 'Does God exist' then the it is natural that the religious person would be the affirmative. If the question is 'Is atheism true' then it really would not be the religious person holding the affirmative position.
So to think that a religious person would have the burden of proof in a debate entitled 'Does atheism exist' is really not true.
We're talking about 2 different things here. You're talking about formal debate. I'm talking about logic statements.
Of course taking an affirmative position on something bares the burden of proof..... but when someone says "There is absolutely no god in the entire universe" He is taking an affirmative position on the non existence of God.
This is why Someguy25 is wrong. He says that the burden of proof only falls on the theist. It falls on ANYONE making ANY CLAIM at all.
Most atheists (in my experience) are negative (or weak) atheists saying that "I do not believe your claim without substantiating evidence" but if anyone says "There is no god" even I, as an Atheist, ask for the proof they have that what they are saying is true. The difference is, most atheists who say that usually acknowledge they made a mistake. (That or they say They don't have to, in which i have to explain what I just explained)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just to make sure, it seems you can reasonably state "I believe in the possibility of either without assuming either is 100% true" without violating that principal. You are not assuming both are true at the same time, but merely that based on your knowledge they both have some chance of being true which arises from a lack of having enough evidence to confirm either way, which is to say they both have a chance of being true unless you can prove one is wrong. Or for instance I flip a coin and state "I believe the coin has the possibility to turn up either of heads or tails" you are not suggesting that you think the coin flip will turn up both heads and tails at the same time, and the reason I use that analogy is because if you don't have enough evidence, then it might as well be the flip of a coin if you are assuming one is true over the other.
No, that is what believing in a lie means.
Which isn't what Encendi was saying. You'd know this if you had even a basic understanding of what the hell has been going on in this thread.
Alright, last post on the subject, because either you're intentionally being so dense that conversation is impossible, or such a state just comes naturally to you:
(And keep in mind, this is me explaining to you what the hell we're talking about, since you apparently couldn't be bothered to keep track)
In saying this, Encendi is saying that the following:
Is false.
As in the objective truth value of the above statement is false.
This requires evidence to justify, as it is a claim, and because it is a claim, falls under the burden of proof.
Crashing00, good luck if you choose to continue with this thread, I'm done.
Again, he clearly stated he was talking about a mindset/feeling, not a fact/proof. And, as you--yourself--said, "things are true or false regardless of whether or not they've yet been proven by human beings."
Additionally, reading the rest of his posts, I think its pretty darn clear he wasn't a Strong Atheist, but a Weak one.
So, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
I'm not sure why you're appealing to him. I don't think he was agreeing with either of us.
Yeah, I'm pretty spent at this point too.
CU around.
For example, there are legions of people who walk around the United States without carrying a weapon on their person. They have faith that no one has any ill intent against them and will visit physical harm upon them.
Me? I carry at least two weapons on my person and three in my car. I'm in the process of getting a CHL so I can legally carry a firearm. I have faith that untold numbers of people are waiting to fight me.
There is a middle ground. It's called walking with your head high and the capability to do a Chuck Norris-style roundhouse kick if threatened.
Of course not; this entire segue about the use of the word "lie" is a palpable waste of time. On one hand, it's obviously a bad idea to use the word "lie" to characterize earnestly held positions of an opponent -- just look what happened here. On the other hand, it's not that much of a stretch of the definition to say that someone who has an undischarged burden of proof but behaves as though they have carried it out is lying -- and a charitable interpretation of Encendi's position shows that that's what he meant. In any case, it has generated no new useful claims or arguments about the actual topic.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
I tried to circumscribe the discussion. By faith, I wrote I do not mean religious faith per se. That would be like me asking you, an atheist, do you see value in another person's belief in God. I didn't want that discussion. It's too similar to "do you see value in religion?"
My question was, in so far as 'faith' encompasses:
-believing in things you cannot prove
-believing in spite of a lack of evidence
-believing in thing that you simply because you want to believe(ex. trust)
Do you as an atheist see value in those three?
Some atheists will go so far as to hold a position of no: They will not believe in things they cannot prove, or things they lack evidence for, or believe something simply because they want to.
In fact some people have answered my OP just like that.
But it has also been pointed out on this thread that as matter of practicality a person simply has to make assumptions, to have faith--or a trust or belief in things unseen or cannot be fully proven to live normally.
I still believe there is something important about faith. Not necessarily faith in the literal existence of God, but appreciation for the legend of Jesus or whomever better represents your code of morality. Jesus is most effective for me because I was raised looking up to him and can still very easily sympathize with his historical character.
Nonetheless, literal faith still has value for:
I'm a fan of Your Move: with Andy Stanley. It comes on after Saturday Night Live in my region, a very unexpected time and region for a sermon. They are always slightly secular in nature, but get across a positive message themed to Jesus. Here is a clip on him speaking about giving sermons and why.
Legacy:
RWBG Goblins
RRR Burn
WBU Affinity
UBR Sac-Land Tendrils!
BBBPox
Next possible deck: D&T, but that just wouldn't be right.
Modern: R Goblins (work in progress)
Standard: I only care about standard when Goblins is a deck.
Limited: I only care about limited when Goblins are in the set.
Pauper:
RGoblins
URCloudpost
other decks
Goblins.
The second and third ones are definitely good ends (the first is... arguable!) but I think imagining that an infinitely powerful magic being has your back can lead to some wonky reasoning, to say the least. For example, people tend not to disagree with their own God; that is, their views strongly correlate with what they think God's views are (and sometimes against what their church thinks God's views are). But the idea that your views enjoy basically infinite agreement (God) makes it very hard to have a non-hardcore-philosophical conversation with people about stuff.
Similarly, discounting the need for revenge is great for civilization, but removing it to an infinite third-party isn't really solving the problem (as you say, sometimes people think they're God's judges on earth).
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
I'd say the reverse is true. When people change their mind they tend to "discover" that God always agreed with their new belief. The text of Bible has not changed dramatically in the last thousand years but Christianity has morphed and fragmented radically.
Eh, it's a two-way street.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Due to this human condition, faith can be useful for... anything we want it to be. In terms of what most people use it for (regardless of religion), here are a couple:
1) Money. We have faith that our currencies are actually worth something... so they are worth something (in objective reality, it's just a pile of paper/electronic data; cavemen wouldn't give a damn about your US dollars).
2) Culture. We believe in a shared set of cultural norms and values (what is an insult, what's attractive, what tastes good), that give us a shared sense of community and help us make sense of the word. While it's true for whoever believes in it, culture is not universally the same (see culture shock, look at different countries' cultures, look at the history of our changing tastes even in the same country).
Culture is something we can't really stop believing in, but money is interesting because we used to simply NOT believe in it... and the world economy comparatively sucked because you had to barter goods with the tribe next door.
Faith is of vital importance to everyone, theist or not, since what you personally believe directly influences the reality you live in.
We have empirical evidence that our currencies are worth something -- billions of times per day, bits of currency are successfully exchanged for things. There's no faith involved in the basic operation of an economic transaction.
Now, there are people that have the (mistaken!) belief that currency has inherent value outside of the pure supply and demand relationship that is dictated by empirical economics, and that (mistaken!) position could rightly be characterized as faith-based.
Again, I don't see any actual faith at work here. What must you believe in the absence of or in spite of evidence, what facts must you ignore, in order to accept the existence of cultural norms?
Right, this notion is anti-faith. The fact that money improved the economic state of the world in a clearly observable way is empirical evidence of the value of money! No faith necessary.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
We seem to be working off differing definitions of faith. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're using the second one in the dictionary, the one about belief without sufficient evidence.
I was using the first one in the dictionary, the one where faith and belief are synonyms.
The point is that there is no objective value in the above things we believe if nobody believes in them. They only have value because we subjectively believe them to have value. Belief is often self-fulfilling for humans, even faith based on no evidence.
For religious folk who believe, their lives can actually be transformed, regardless of whether or not their religious beliefs are objectively true. It can be positive or negative; it really all depends on what people believe.
But faith in general is something that all humans use.
Faith, or belief, is how we create meaning, which is completely subjective.
Without it, the universe is actually meaningless. Without humans, and our subjective faith, meaning does not exist. The universe simply is the universe, nothing more or less.
So when you say "everyone has faith" you just mean "everyone believes things" -- a trivial statement that is not informative or useful. Defining faith this way deprives the word of all significance.
This is not the kind of faith that rationalists object to. It's not the faith of Job. It's not the faith spoken of in Hebrews 11. It's not the faith of Tertullian. It's not what Kierkegaard meant when he spoke of a leap of faith.
First, you should distinguish between subjective and intersubjective. For instance, the value of currency clearly isn't subjective -- if tomorrow I personally cease to believe that the dollar has value, that doesn't mean businesses will no longer take my dollars.
Better to say the value of currency is intersubjective -- if everyone simultaneously agreed that currency had no value and refused to accept it, then it would indeed cease to have value.
But as you pointed out a few posts back, that's not the whole situation either. With the benefit of historical context, we know that society is objectively better with valuable currency than it is without, so the intersubjective decision to assign value to currency is not actually axiomatic, whimsical, or baseless. At the bottom of all this stuff is an objective process of betterment of the human condition. The assignment of nonzero value to currency is ultimately not subjective at all.
Yes, in just the same way that sugar pills can sometimes cure disease. It is usually presupposed in these conversations that the parties are seeking truth, not a placebo effect.
"The universe is the universe and nothing more or less" is a tautology; it could never be more or less than itself.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
"faith" in the religious sense of the word is worthless. Believing in something when the evidence says that it's not true, is counterproductive. It holds back the human race.
Do I find value in the definition of "faith" that is basically "trust"? of course. But that is not the definition of faith when I say there is no evidence to support the claim that a god exists and the response is "but you need faith" That is worthless.
without getting sucked in here, i thought i'd offer my opinion and also some wisdom, if anyone cares to take it to heart.
my opinion:
i don't believe in a god. i'm also not an atheist. Atheism takes on its own unhelpful mantle when discussing religion and philosophy. It can often be regarded as a pseudo-religion in and of itself, so I choose not to associate myself with it.
I do however, see huge benefit in individual faith. it is what gives someone the strength to overcome loss and grief, and the fear of death. some kind of unifying "wholeness" that reassures people that there's some greater purpose to things and it's not all pointless. I love the idea. it has had a very distinct (and helpful) function and purpose throughout human history when we as a species didn't really understand the world around us and wanted answers.
I also love the idea of spirituality. Especially the Japanese take on things where objects and materials themselves take on a sort of "soul", and thus require respect. this is perhaps why Japanese craftsmen are the best in the world, and why so much respect is given to landscape and natural beauty, as well as industrial objects and materiality in Japanese culture. it's a fantastic idea.
I don't personally have any kind of religion beyond believing we should all have a sense of wonder about the universe and want to explore and discover. that's my mantra.
i also recognise religion for what it actually is - various systems of belief created by us to help reassure us of the things we don't understand or fear. it's only natural, and perfectly understandable, but that's all it is. no more. Hundreds upon Hundreds of different religions have come and gone throughout history, all with their own take on things. if you are currently religious, your own religion will be no different, in the grand scheme of things, to one of the old religions lost to time from civilisations long since destroyed. Your own beliefs will not be any more correct than theirs, now ancient and strange to us. People do, however, like to attach unwarranted importance to their own beliefs, like they are "right" and other people's are "wrong". such ideas are false, of course.
so now, i guess, the wisdom. this applies to general religion and i guess a little of the hardcore christian doctrine:
mass-belief systems are crude, unwieldy things. people hold onto them and their ideas for the sake of tradition, without really questioning why. In fact, many religions impress upon people the idea that questioning things in general is evil. there is no better example than at the beginning of the Bible, when Adam and Eve are punished for seeking knowledge about the world around them. what an awful message! ignorance is bliss, i guess. this is a sort of religious failsafe. stop people questioning their beliefs or environment, and they will be pliable and follow your every word. hey presto, it even works.
Religion is entirely a personal thing. you have your own interpretation of the morals and concepts within a religious text or doctrine, and others who may share your overall faith will have (necessarily) an entirely distinct interpretation of their own. Hold onto your own beliefs, they do you credit. Don't impose them on other people; your ideas lose their power when you try to explain what is essentially an emotional connection to someone different to you. no matter how fervent or passionate you are about your religion or faith, you will never be able to adequately express your belief to another individual so that they fully comprehend and are able to share it with you. to assume you are able to do this is to fail to recognise the limits of human communication.
also, while questioning current scientific thinking is basically the entire point of science; don't try to belittle scientific discovery and exploration with made-up ideas from a badly-written book from 2000 years ago. A spade is a spade - and if we are able to conclusively show that lifeforms gradually differ between generations, leading to distinct changes over a long enough period of time for hundreds or thousands of generations to occur (hint: this is evolution), then by gum, it happens. sitting there and shaking your head like it'll all go away won't change anything.
short version:
faith = highly important. it's a psychological human defence mechanism. we shouldn't lose it, and everyone should have their own faith.
belief = dangerous. people are willing to kill or be killed over beliefs, even if they are *ahem* rather ignorant or stupid. just look in a history book and you'll be treated to hundreds of examples. don't ever make the mistake of thinking that our current situation is any different from the stupid things that people did in the past. society has about a 5-year collective memory. anything longer ago than 5 years tends to be a lesson lost, rather than a lesson learnt.
enough talking. continue fellow peeps.
Betterment of the human condition is itself something subjective (and intersubjective). The planets and stars do not care about humans being better-fed, stronger, living healthier, etc. Intersubjectively, we have a concept of bettering the human race... but objectively, the ultimate truth is that none of this will matter after we are all dead. Importantly, the fact that none of what we do will objectively matter also does not objectively matter.
In light of that, I prefer to make conscious decisions in what I believe matters rather than to search for a guide in what is objectively true.
I struggled for a long time with religious faith since I used to value what is observable and provable above my religious beliefs. Then I realized that, as a human, I simply did not have to care, and I literally could choose to believe in a religion of my choice without evidence. To me, I have exercised the ability to choose that the lack of evidence does not matter. This is the faith described by Job, by Hebrews 11, by Tertullian, or at least something close to it (I've also chosen to not care so much for the letter of the law prescribed by church hierarchy or theology).
In your perspective, mine may be the viewpoint of a vastly delusional individual. In my perspective, delusion is enough a part of the human condition that I find choosing my religious delusions far more useful than trying to chase after objective truth.
One of them does not make a claim, but rather rejects the god claim as baseless and without evidence. The other makes a positive claim about the existence of god one way or another. (In this case, a positive claim that a god does not exist)
Anyone making a claim of any kind, is therefore subjected to the burden of proof. It doesn't matter if your position is more likely or not. If you are to make a claim of any kind, be it about the existence (or non-existence) of something, the burden lies upon the claimant. ALWAYS.
In the scenario pages back, where one user claimed the existence of god, and the next called the belief in a diety a lie... BOTH people made claims.
first claim: God exists.
Second Claim: That is a Lie.
These two claims are independent of one another, and both, have a burden of proof that neither has provided.
The burden of proof lies with religion. Not with Atheism.
Extendo
Read my Blog!
Styrofoam's point is that burden of proof does lie with religion, but that depending on the type of Atheism (disbelief due to lack of evidence vs. a concrete claim that there is no God), it can also lie with Atheism.
He presented a very cogent argument. Do you disagree with his distinction between types of Atheism? If so, why?
Hearing William Lane Craig talk about the debates he does (Which happen often) I would just like to say that at least in a formal debate setting the debater who takes the affirmative stance would usually be laden with the burden of proof while in return would be allowed to go first as to given the opportunity to dictate the pace.
The thing is that the issue of who holds the affirmative stance and who does not can simply be changed by changing the topic. If the debate is 'Does God exist' then the it is natural that the religious person would be the affirmative. If the question is 'Is atheism true' then it really would not be the religious person holding the affirmative position.
So to think that a religious person would have the burden of proof in a debate entitled 'Does atheism exist' is really not true.
Correct. A formal debate is asymmetrical; the person defending the affirmative position wins by meeting their burden of proof, while the person defending the negative position wins by showing that the affirmative position has not met his burden of proof.
Simple example: Negative position wins. She doesn't have to show that God exists, just that the particular argument presented does not work.
However, for precisely this reason, she have not actually shown that God exists. She has left open the possibility that there is another argument proving God doesn't exist, which the affirmative position simply has failed to present. So while she may win the blue ribbon or the trophy or whatever they're competing for, as far as real philosophical discourse is concerned there is much left to be done. A stronger response would be as follows: But now the negative position has made a positive claim, and the burden of proof has shifted. She can't just say "God exists" and be done with it, of course; she has to prove it. And the affirmative position can defend his argument simply by showing that the negative position's argument doesn't work: Affirmative position wins. Really. His own argument may have been a non sequitur, but the negative position didn't call him out for that. She went for the stronger argument instead, and a stronger argument is riskier because it requires more defense of positive claims. Bit of an Icarus thing going on there.
The moral of this story is that, while the burden of proof starts out on the shoulders of the affirmative position, either side can easily end up making further positive claims, and each of those claims has its own burden of proof.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
We're talking about 2 different things here. You're talking about formal debate. I'm talking about logic statements.
Of course taking an affirmative position on something bares the burden of proof..... but when someone says "There is absolutely no god in the entire universe" He is taking an affirmative position on the non existence of God.
This is why Someguy25 is wrong. He says that the burden of proof only falls on the theist. It falls on ANYONE making ANY CLAIM at all.
Most atheists (in my experience) are negative (or weak) atheists saying that "I do not believe your claim without substantiating evidence" but if anyone says "There is no god" even I, as an Atheist, ask for the proof they have that what they are saying is true. The difference is, most atheists who say that usually acknowledge they made a mistake. (That or they say They don't have to, in which i have to explain what I just explained)