Please note: because you're not logged in, you may be viewing older cached versions of pages which are served up to reduce server load.
PrintPage: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Last
 Question about Atheism | |
|
aletheist
Tenured Poster  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Feb 06, 2009 Location: Olathe, KS Total Topics: 15 Total Posts: 1079 |
 #61
Apathy Kills wrote: You are missing my point here. If God exists--in whatever form--then it is possible that the default condition is to be immediately aware of his existence. I am not arguing for any particular brand of theism in this case.Well then we should not presuppose that a God of the theistic tradition would be the default condition. Apathy Kills wrote: Those who know him personally do not seem to think so! God... he sounds like an egoistic prick.   Apathy Kills wrote: Absence or lack of belief entails non-belief, not disbelief. Not knowing means not knowing, one way or the other. baden511 asserted that atheism is the default position because infants are not cognitively capable of belief or knowledge. I argued that even if we accept that premise, it entails agnosticism as the default position--not atheism.Absence or lack of belief entails disbelief, right? Or could one believe and not know it? Apathy Kills wrote: Agreed, I did not mean to suggest otherwise.Conceivability and Actuality are two different things. Apathy Kills wrote: Well, are you a good student? Best wishes! It is certainly conceivable that I may get an A on my philosophy paper, but will I? 
"Be attentive. Be intelligent. Be reasonable. Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984) |
|
aletheist
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Feb 06, 2009 Location: Olathe, KS Total Topics: 15 Total Posts: 1079 |
#62
Incision wrote: My premise is that moral imperfection causes alienation from God. Someone who is morally perfect would never be alienated from God, and thus would have a constant and immediate awareness of his existence; i.e., no reason at all to doubt it. If humans start out as morally perfect, but then make bad choices that make them morally imperfect, then they would also start out with an immediate awareness of God, which they would subsequently lose. Again, this is all speculation for the sake of argument; a thought experiment, if you will.I see how bad choices could put us on bad terms with God, but I don't see how they could make us doubt he exists. Incision wrote: No, because in my scenario, everyone makes bad choices (becomes morally imperfect) and is alienated from God as a result (loses immediate awareness of his existence).
So I'm not convinced there is an explanation for why nearly all people throughout history would have stopped believing in God, and such and explanation seems necessary, because if everyone believed in God at birth, then all else being equal we'd expect that most people would continue to believe in God, and frequency of belief would be even worldwide. "Be attentive. Be intelligent. Be reasonable. Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984) |
|
aletheist
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Feb 06, 2009 Location: Olathe, KS Total Topics: 15 Total Posts: 1079 |
#63
baden511 wrote: Well, I was not born in Iran to Muslim parents, so there is no way for me to answer that question. In any case, as I said before, the fact that most people tend to adopt the religion of their parents tells us nothing about the validity of any particular religion (or all religions in general).If you had been born in Iran to Muslim parents do you think you would be a Christian now? baden511 wrote: I prefer "blessed" to "lucky". It is true that I had no say whatsoever about where or to whom I was born, or what I was taught while growing up. As a Christian, all I can do is acknowledge the grace of God; in fact, I believe that he deserves all of the credit whenever anyone is saved. At the same time, I always had (and still have) the live option to reject my upbringing, including Christianity. However, I have studied enough theology and philosophy over the years to be fully convinced that Christianity is true; thus it would be irrational for me to reject it at this point.Either you are extremely lucky to have been born into the one true religion, or your religion is no more right than theirs. I believe the much more likely and therefore sensible (I didn’t say the only logical) conclusion is the latter. baden 511 wrote: No, it is a comment about the non-belief of the person who asked the question. The rich young ruler did not consider Jesus to be God, so why did he call Jesus "good"?Is this a claim to being a deity: "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone" (Mark 10:18) baden511 wrote: Sure--but if they were all identical, then three of them would be unnecessary!I’m sure you’ll have your own interpretation of that but I think you must know that the gospels present Jesus in very different ways. baden511 wrote: Huh? The very first sentence of Mark's Gospel states, "The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God." At least some (if not most) of Paul's letters pre-date the Gospels, and the entire New Testament was likely written by 70 AD. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul quotes a primitive creed about the death, burial, resurrection, and appearances of Jesus that scholars date to within five years of those events.
I’m not going to go into the whole issue of the synoptic gospels (including Mark which is generally accepted by scholars to have been the first one written) versus the gospel of John, and of the gradual attribution of more and more supernatural elements to Jesus’ character, i.e. the gradual deification of Jesus that culminates with Paul. "Be attentive. Be intelligent. Be reasonable. Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984) |
|
Incision
Dust in the wind  Usergroup: Administrators Joined: Jan 04, 2008 Location: The endless sea Total Topics: 25 Total Posts: 1391 |
#64
aletheist wrote: My premise is that moral imperfection causes alienation from God. OK, but consider this analogous proposition: "at birth, everyone immediately sees that God doesn't exist, but they make bad choices that cause them to believe he does." I think this one has the same cogency as yours; put bluntly, none. What you do you think? I'm sure you don't believe it, but if we can't produce a reason to deny it in preference to yours, then since they are contraries, we ought to assign yours an epistemic probability of no more than one half. If I had to say what's wrong with this proposition, I'd say that bad choices look like they couldn't easily cause belief in God. We have some rough idea of what might get people to believe in God, things like arguments, social pressure and intense experiences. Bad choices aren't among them; they do not, except possibly in conjunction with other circumstances, cause belief or disbelief. The only leaf it drops goes wide, Your name not written on either side. — Robert Frost, "On Going Unnoticed"
|
|
Arkady
Tenured Poster  Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 29, 2009 Total Topics: 24 Total Posts: 1497 |
#65
aletheist wrote: I have studied enough theology and philosophy over the years to be fully convinced that Christianity is true; thus it would be irrational for me to reject it at this point. Given that a majority of philosophers and scientists are atheists (or at least not theists), why in your opinion have the people most equipped to evaluate arguments and evidence failed to be convinced that Christianity is true? "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -David Hume |
|
baden511
McHamlet  Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Oct 14, 2009 Location: Under the rainbow Total Topics: 8 Total Posts: 458 |
#66
aletheist wrote: I am not sure exactly what you mean by "the teleological school of thought," so I cannot say whether I am inclined to try to convince you that it is valid. ? I mean teleology as opposed to metaphysical naturalism. The former assumes an ultimate purpose, the latter does not. Look, your position seems to be that you are blessed, you just happened to have been born into the one true religion. A Muslim will say to me the same thing: I'm blessed, I just happen to have born into the one true religion. And a Jew, and a Hindu and so forth and so forth...Do you really expect me to take that argument seriously? I have yet to hear any argument from you that would make your religion more valid in the eyes of a non-theist than that of any other. If you have such an argument put it forward. Unlike mtboger who has stated that nothing will change his mind and who is therefore really pointless to debate with, I am open to being convinced by anyone of anything so long as evidence is provided. Consider me a jury in a court of law. Just like a jury, I don't accept your word or anyone else's word that their religion is true. You have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. If you can't and you want me to have 'faith' (or your version of faith) then you are simply asking me not to think, and your case is going to be thrown out of court by me or any other reasonable non-theist. Let me re-emphasise: I don't believe that any intelligent person who had not been conditioned into your religion would accept any of your arguments as a basis for believing it's true. I (or anyone else) could make up a religion that's just as convincing as yours. The Mormons and the Scientologists have recently done so and their adherents are as fanatically convinced that they are of the one true religion as you are. "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Moses (Numbers 31:17-18) Quality of life is determined by conscious/unconscious strategies in context that are benficial/detrimental with regard to immediate/anticipated states of consciousness. |
|
Incision
Dust in the wind Usergroup: Administrators Joined: Jan 04, 2008 Location: The endless sea Total Topics: 25 Total Posts: 1391 |
#67
baden511 wrote: Furthermore, as these religions are generally incompatible, they can't all be right and the most sensible conclusion that follows from that is that none of them are right. aletheist is right on this one. In particular, suppose that religious belief systems exhaust the possibilities. Some religions say there's a god, and some say there isn't; some say human sacrifice is permissible, and some say it isn't. I'm not sure you could find a religion for each relevant possible set of beliefs, but maybe you could. If so, then one religion would have to be right. Now, there is a danger of special pleading. If the evidence for aletheist's religion is no better than the evidence for any other then his belief would be unjustified, but you haven't show this. The only leaf it drops goes wide, Your name not written on either side. — Robert Frost, "On Going Unnoticed"
|
|
Incision
Dust in the wind Usergroup: Administrators Joined: Jan 04, 2008 Location: The endless sea Total Topics: 25 Total Posts: 1391 |
#68
Arkady wrote: Given that a majority of philosophers and scientists are atheists (or at least not theists), why in your opinion have the people most equipped to evaluate arguments and evidence failed to be convinced that Christianity is true? I think this line of thought is often appropriate, but misapplied here. It's true that if authorities in an established field have reached a consensus, then there's a strong reason to believe them -- a reason that even overrides some arguments. However, there are no authorities on God. In fact, there are no authorities on most philosophical questions. So it would be a weak argument for compabilism that it's the most popular position, and hard determinists should not have to explain why intelligent people generally disagree with them. The only leaf it drops goes wide, Your name not written on either side. — Robert Frost, "On Going Unnoticed"
|
|
Arkady
Tenured Poster Usergroup: Members Joined: Jul 29, 2009 Total Topics: 24 Total Posts: 1497 |
#69
Incision wrote: I think this line of thought is often appropriate, but misapplied here. It's true that if authorities in an established field have reached a consensus, then there's a strong reason to believe them -- a reason that even overrides some arguments. However, there are no authorities on God. In fact, there are no authorities on most philosophical questions. So it would be a weak argument for compabilism that it's the most popular position, and hard determinists should not have to explain why intelligent people generally disagree with them. I agree with you, Incision. I didn't necessarily ask the question to challenge Aletheist's belief in Christianity. I was just interested in his thoughts on this matter. Quite honestly, I'm not even particularly interested in butting heads with yet another person who is thoroughly convinced of the truth of their religion. Such debates generate much more heat than light, in my opinion, and tend to go nowhere. "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -David Hume |
|
baden511
McHamlet Usergroup: Sponsors Joined: Oct 14, 2009 Location: Under the rainbow Total Topics: 8 Total Posts: 458 |
#70
Incision wrote: Now, there is a danger of special pleading. If the evidence for aletheist's religion is no better than the evidence for any other then his belief would be unjustified, but you haven't show this. If he provides the evidence, I may adjust my position. So far, I haven't heard any. Arkady wrote: Quite honestly, I'm not even particularly interested in butting heads with yet another person who is thoroughly convinced of the truth of their religion. Such debates generate much more heat than light, in my opinion, and tend to go nowhere. You definitely have a point here. "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Moses (Numbers 31:17-18) Quality of life is determined by conscious/unconscious strategies in context that are benficial/detrimental with regard to immediate/anticipated states of consciousness. |
| |
||
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Last
Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.