Burden of Proof

[KC]

I'm hoping that this thread doesn't turn into a debate, and I'm hoping to get this stickied. I'm going to supply a list of articles to read on who has the burden of proof in this argument and I suggest others to do the same.

Who Has The Burden of Proof? Atheism vs. Theism (http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/burdenofproof.htm)
Atheism, Agnosticism, and Burden of Proof (http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/FBurdenOfProof.htm)
Burden of Proof (Logical Fallacy) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_%28logical_fallacy%29)
Do Atheists Bear A Burden of Proof? (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/keith_parsons/mcinerny.html)
Fallacy: Shifting The Burden of Proof (http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/burden.html)
Burden of Proof In Debate (http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/criticalthinking/irf.burden.html)
Logical Fallacies (see Argumentum ad ignorantiam) (http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html)

SEE:
Occam's Razor
Argumentum ad ignorantiam
Burden of Proof
Shifting the Burden of proof
Temporal Logic
Rules of Debate





burden of proof

Burden of proof is a fallacy where a claimant asserts that he does not have to prove his claim, but that his opponent has to disprove it.

Often, a debate will grind to a halt because both claimants will assert that they don't have to prove anything, but that their opponent has to disprove each other's case. The debate will then gravitate away from the facts and degenerate into an argument about who has the burden of proof.

examples

You can't prove that there are no invisible unicorns, so it is reasonable for me to continue to assert that they exist.

Sure, there is no evidence that the defendant committed the crime, but we will execute him if he can't prove that he is not guilty.

Nobody has been able to prove that psychic powers are impossible, so I am sensible to assert that I have psychic powers, even though evidence in my favour is also lacking.


In debate, the proposing team in a debate round is usually (but not always) assumed to have the burden of proof, which means that if the team fails to prove the proposition to the satisfaction of the judge, the opposition wins. In a sense, the opposition team's case is assumed true until proven false. But the burden of proof can sometimes be shifted; for example, in some forms of debate, the proposing team can shift the burden of proof to the opposing team by presenting a prima facie case that would, in the absence of refutation, be sufficient to affirm the proposition. Still, the higher burden generally rests with the proposing team, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition.

[LSD]

I think this is an excellent idea.

I would also recommend reading the Agnosticism debate (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=38361).

Stickied! :)

[BillHicks]

The debate is pointless. We've evolved past religion, and I don't mean that in the Darwinian sense, but rather socially, traditional religion is no longer relevant.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 06:54 PM
The debate is pointless. We've evolved past religion, and I don't mean that in the Darwinian sense, but rather socially, traditional religion is no longer relevant.
For communists this is true. But the majorities of people arent communists and many still partake in religion.

[BillHicks]

For communists this is true. But the majorities of people arent communists and many still partake in religion.
I'm not keeping them from doing so, but it's abundantly clear that traditional religions are obselete and that what is needed is a new religion, not steeped in bad faith and intrinsic exclusivity but one that fits us as opposed to asking us to fit into it.

Pardon if it smacks of a bit too much futurism for you lol.

< --- &#39;Pataphysicist ;)

[patrickbeverley]

The sad thing, Kayembii Communique, is that your post is completely right - but it won&#39;t convince anyone of anything.

It takes more to make someone give up their religion than explaining to them that they have the burden of proof. That said, it might make them shut up with their "you can&#39;t prove God doesn&#39;t exist" shit.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 10:42 PM
It takes more to make someone give up their religion than explaining to them that they have the burden of proof. That said, it might make them shut up with their "you can&#39;t prove God doesn&#39;t exist" shit.
You might have noticed when reading over the definition of burden of proof that it works both ways in the theism/atheism argument. If someone proposes that there is no God first, yet doesn&#39;t have to prove his claim and only asks his opponent to disprove it, then the logic of the burden of proof applies to the unexistence of God as much as to the existence.

[LSD]

No, the existance of "God" is always the positive conjecture. Just like the existance of "tachions" and "dark matter".

Until something is demonstrated to exist, it must be assumed to not exist. Otherwise it is impossible to formulate a materialist conception of the universe and science would unravel.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 09:22 PM
No, the existance of "God" is always the positive conjecture. Just like the existance of "tachions" and "dark matter".

Until something is demonstrated to exist, it must be assumed to not exist. Otherwise it is impossible to formulate a materialist conception of the universe and science would unravel.

In debate, the proposing team in a debate round is usually (but not always) assumed to have the burden of proof, which means that if the team fails to prove the proposition to the satisfaction of the judge, the opposition wins. In a sense, the opposition team&#39;s case is assumed true until proven false. But the burden of proof can sometimes be shifted; for example, in some forms of debate, the proposing team can shift the burden of proof to the opposing team by presenting a prima facie case that would, in the absence of refutation, be sufficient to affirm the proposition. Still, the higher burden generally rests with the proposing team, which means that only the opposition is in a position to make an accusation of argumentum ad ignorantiam with respect to proving the proposition.

If the proposal is "God doesn&#39;t exist" then the proposers have the burdern of proof to prove that "God doesn&#39;t exist". They will then assert that there is no proof that God does exist, which doesn&#39;t matter since they have the burdern to prove their assertion.

[LSD]

Firstly, this isn&#39;t a formal debate and even if it were, the kind of "case" you&#39;re making is what&#39;s called a "status quo case" and is generally disallowed.

This is a scientific issue, however, and in science contentions are positive when they propose an addition.

The existance of "God" is such an addition and until proven must be assumed to be false.

[Fistful of Steel]

Even then, say I refuse to subscribe to the scientific paradigm, rather I try and think logically and straight-forward. If I do avoid applying to "if it&#39;s unfalsifiable it&#39;s false" which ignores the fact that it&#39;s still a possibly, if I avoid that then I can think it is entirely possible there is a God either way. Which doesn&#39;t have to do with the burden of proof at all.

[Fistful of Steel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 10:07 PM
The existance of "God" is such an addition and until proven must be assumed to be false.
Is it just me or is that if something is unfalsifiable it&#39;s assumed to be false the most backwards ass logic I&#39;ve ever heard.

[LSD]

Is it just me or is that if something is unfalsifiable it&#39;s assumed to be false the most backwards ass logic I&#39;ve ever heard.

It&#39;s not a matter of unfalsifiableness.

Any concept is assumed to be false before it is proven. That applies to physics, chemistry, and common life.

The easter bunny, for instance, is (possibly) falsifiable, but it is nonetheless not required to be proven false before we reject it. Similarly, we don&#39;t have to actually go to the North Pole to disregard Santa Clause.

Positive conjectures are by their nature requiring of evidence if they are to be considered. If none is available than the concept in question must be returned to its a priori state of effective nonexistance.

That is, before the idea was "dreamed up", no one had heard of a "God". Accordingly, in the paradigm of the time, "he" did not exist. If the concept is then imagined and no proof can be found for it, it would be illogical to then add into the paradigm.

Accordingly, we must move back to the prior state and once againt hold a paradigm which is sans "God".

Simple, no?

[Vageli]

I often debate my peers on matters of religion. Finally, I have realized that no matter what I say, I won&#39;t convince them. They firmly believe that a higher being exists, and no matter the evidence they will hold true to what they believe in because religion is based on faith and not facts. Just my &#036;.02

[Sentinel]

I often debate my peers on matters of religion. Finally, I have realized that no matter what I say, I won&#39;t convince them. They firmly believe that a higher being exists, and no matter the evidence they will hold true to what they believe in because religion is based on faith and not facts. Just my &#036;.02

In these debates, there is a very small chance indeed that anyone involved changes their mind, even though that might happen sometimes it&#39;s rather rare.
If someone has made up their mind about something serious, especially "faith", it&#39;s very hard to convince them otherwise.

But as long as there are other, doubtful individuals that get to hear, or in the case of a messageboard like this one, read them, there&#39;s a huge opportunity to accomplish something. That makes it worth it. :)

So the next time you debate your parents, do it while some younger relatives are listening&#33;

[Vageli]

Well I think that it is worth mentioning that, I had first started debating for the fun of it. But as I got more and more into it, the less I believed. The debates I have though, center around Christianity because the bible is a heavily flawed book and thus works in my favor :P

[CubaSocialista]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 08:27 PM
The debate is pointless. We&#39;ve evolved past religion, and I don&#39;t mean that in the Darwinian sense, but rather socially, traditional religion is no longer relevant.
This is an old post.

However, I&#39;d like to make something clear.

Religion is politically and socially irrelevant. However, individual comrades who keep their theories or wonderings or pipe-dreams, delusions, or philosophies of the metaphysical within their personal lives or with others of a similar spiritual creed should not be denied the right to practice or congregate.

This is because a) Religion should always be kept irrelevant from all pragmatic and realistic matters. It should never leave homes or places of worship, or be present in any area where it is not merited.
b) suppressing religion draws curiosity, and eventually, those struggling to go "against the grain" will find fanatical "radical" relations with faiths.
c) comrades with a religious affiliation, if they refrain from any spiritual or irrelevant references, should be allowed among us, as their practical contributions (assuming they have them. if they dont, they wouldnt be there.) may be too valuable to ignore.

Basically, we should take to religion the same way Cuba has.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

The burden of proof is blatantly with Theism, as they are making the positive claim. If the burden of proof was with Atheists, the logic then follows that the burden of proof is also with those who deny that there are invisible pink fairies at the end of your garden. You have to disprove that&#33;&#33;&#33; Idiots. This debate isn&#39;t worth having. We should stop acknowledging it, it lends the argument too much credence.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

The burden of proof is blatantly with Theism, as they are making the positive claim. If the burden of proof was with Atheists, the logic then follows that the burden of proof is also with those who deny that there are invisible pink fairies at the end of your garden. You have to disprove that&#33;&#33;&#33; Idiots. This debate isn&#39;t worth having. We should stop acknowledging it, it lends the argument too much credence.

-Alex

[BurnTheOliveTree]

The burden of proof is blatantly with Theism, as they are making the positive claim. If the burden of proof was with Atheists, the logic then follows that the burden of proof is also with those who deny that there are invisible pink fairies at the end of your garden. You have to disprove that&#33;&#33;&#33; Idiots. This debate isn&#39;t worth having. We should stop acknowledging it, it lends the argument too much credence.

-Alex

[gilhyle]

While it is possible in science to proceed on the basis that the burden of proof is with the formulator of a proposition of existence, that is not so in common life - and could not be so. No one has ever proven the existence of this computer I am assuming the existence of.

The burden of proof is with she who desires to change the belief of the other.

Marxists should not desire to change the belief in the existence of God - they should try instead to oppose to social aspirations of religions to determine medical, educational and public morals policies of the state.

If that is their focus, burden of proof is not with the Marxist - it is with the believer who (although this is not true of Catholics who take a jesuitical view of political argument) wish the State to determine its political policies to comply with the wishes of some unperceived entity of uncertain stature who may or may not be part of this universe and who supposedly communicates with us through inspired human writings - but who seems to have writers block ever since the Mormons got their book in the 1820s.

[*[email protected]*]

I suggest each time a major debate between a Religious group and an Atheist group happens, the Atheist side should bring automatic rifles and sub machine guns.
That way when the debate reachs the Burden of Proof point, then the Atheist&#39;s can bring out the guns, shoot dead the Religious group and they will find out if their wrong or right :o





Just kidding....or am I....? :lol:

[lawnmowergoWHUMMM]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 08:04 PM
Any concept is assumed to be false before it is proven. That applies to physics, chemistry, and common life.
No, sorry. Life is full of uncertainties and I&#39;m sorry if it&#39;s going to unravel your scientific materialism but trying to dig to the truth has a tendency to rip everything to shreds, so here we go.

I propose to myself in my mind that a girl may be attracted to me. I don&#39;t yet want to ask her directly because sometimes this can make a person feel awkward and want to distance themselves from you if they don&#39;t yet feel about you the way you feel about them.

ANYWAY, she might be attracted to me, and I&#39;m not asking her yet. Maybe she winked at me a certain way, maybe I&#39;m just projecting my own attraction. Whatever. There&#39;s grounds to investigate it but no proof yet.

If I wanted to say "she IS attracted to me," this would be an assertion that I would have to find evidence to prove. However, you claim that in this meantime of not knowing, that we must assume that the premise is false. NO - this would require DISPROVING that she is attracted to me, or PROVING that she is NOT attracted to me.

Saying something exists is an assertion. Saying something doesn&#39;t exist is ALSO as much as an assertion as the former. You can&#39;t assume the opposite just because you&#39;re not sure of one. Both sides need proof. The only person not bearing the burden of proof is the one who says, "I don&#39;t know whether or not this girl is attracted to me." The only assertion is that I don&#39;t know, and that&#39;s not hard to prove at all.

I don&#39;t think this interferes with science at all, actually. Theories are usually described as working models which current evidence supports so far but are still able to be contradicted by future evidence. Thus models of atoms being superceded by other models of atoms. There was an experiment that blew away old evidence or provided even more detail for each change the scientific community had in the way it viewed atoms.

However, even the Bohr model is just a theory, and we may yet have plenty to learn about atoms or the smaller subparticles. Are there times at which it seems pretty obvious that a theory is undeniably correct? Yes. But then, there have been times when people have felt this way and new evidence blew away their paradigms.

The only garuanteed way to never be wrong is to assert nothing, positive or negative.

edit: btw I like extremist&#39;s idea.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Lawnmower guy - Occam&#39;s Razor. Simple. In your analogy you ought to be agnostic as to whether the girl likes you, by your logic. Technically you are correct, in that you don&#39;t know, and there isn&#39;t evidence either way.

However, what if I were to tell you that there was an invisible, intangible pebble in your hand? You have no evidence that there isn&#39;t, yet no evidence that there is, just like your attraction analogy. Should you decide to be agnostic about it, or should you assume that i&#39;m talking horseshit?

Like I said, Occam&#39;s razor. Don&#39;t unneccessarily multiply entities, or something like that.

-Alex

[CNT-FAI]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2006 10:26 pm
The debate is pointless. We&#39;ve evolved past religion, and I don&#39;t mean that in the Darwinian sense, but rather socially, traditional religion is no longer relevant.
It remains relevant to many & if we cut ourselves off from religion then once again we isolate ourselves from the people.

In my view proof is neither here nor there since faith is not a matter for Cartesian logic. It has its own logic which is existential & works itself out in the process of life itself. If we assume that we can define & pass judgement on everything, then we just replace one Pope with thousands of Popes.

The truth of spirituality/religion IMO can be determined only through experience & not thru a purely intellectual process. In short, religion is something to live out & not dissect. But again my concern is how we can connect with the working majority & for that reason we can&#39;t afford a scornful attitude to religion.

I recommend the later books of the Trappist monk Thomas Merton for one modern, mature version of Christianity.

In my view the more comprehensive & open we can be & willing to learn from other perspectives, then the better radicals we can be.

Father Ernesto Cardenal, former member of the Sandinista Directorate:

http://www.nndb.com/people/542/000114200/e...nal-1-sized.jpg (http://www.nndb.com/people/542/000114200/ernesto-cardenal-1-sized.jpg)

[BurnTheOliveTree]

The truth of spirituality/religion IMO can be determined only through experience & not thru a purely intellectual process.

Rubbish. Experience is massively inferior to logic. It feels as if the earth is flat to me, if I trusted my experience purely I&#39;d end up with all kinds of weird opinions.

In any case, for this to be practically applicable, you&#39;d need to experience every single religion out there, significantly, and judge each one objectively. It&#39;s not happening.


we can&#39;t afford a scornful attitude to religion.

Why the fuck not? I&#39;m supposed to respect and take seriously the view that an invisible personality called Allah created absolutely everything, inspired a book, and will punish me with fire for eternity if I fail to accept it&#39;s ludicrous claims? I couldn&#39;t if I tried. <_<

-Alex

[anarchista feminista]

COMPASS: ROOT OF ALL EVIL? Part Two The Virus of Faith
Sunday 27 May at 21:30

Channel 4

In this strongly authored two-part series, Professor Richard Dawkins accuses the three main religions – Christianity, Islam and Judaism – of beliefs that defy science, and of stunting the mind’s capacity for understanding. He embarks on a personal, controversial and, at times, humorous journey to prove that religion is the root of all evil.
In the first episode Professor Dawkins challenges what he describes as &#39;a process of non-thinking called faith&#39;. He ranges from the political influence of rich and powerful Christian fundamentalist institutions in America to the deadly clash of Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the Middle East. He describes the Holy Land as the least enlightened place in the world, a microcosm of the threat to rational values and civilisation posed by religion, whose irrational roots, he says, are nourishing intolerance and murder.
On his journey he takes a humorous look at the more bizarre expressions of religious fervour, such as the vision of the Virgin Mary in a grilled-cheese sandwich.

This is just a summary of what was on compass, on the ABC last night. I haven&#39;t been able to get anymore information on it. Ian had told me it was on, maybe someone else got to see it aswell. I&#39;ll try to get a bit more on it as it was really interesting and quite relevant to this debate. The story should be posted up soon.

EDIT: updated summary, they haven&#39;t posted the story transcript as of yet.

[cubist]

you both have the burden of proof,

and you cant edicate blind faith,

[Fodman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2006 10:27 pm
That said, it might make them shut up with their "you can&#39;t prove God doesn&#39;t exist" shit.
the argument should go like this:

Atheist - "Prove that God exists"
Theist - "Prove that God doesn&#39;t exist"
Atheist - "Okay then, prove to me that there isn&#39;t a giant invisible unicorn flying over our heads right now"

the Theist will probably answer with: "oh&#33; thats ridiculous&#33;"

so the Atheist should reply - "believing in that which cannot be proven is ridiculous"

[spartan]

yeah and one thousand years into feudalism and capitalism still did not exist&#33; sometimes somethings take time jasmine and sometimes you have just got to be patient.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Jasmine, if you critically examined why those revolutions failed, you would understand that there is definite material and political reasons that can only be examined subjectively, and that&#39;s not some sort of evasion or a cover-up, or some sort of inability to deal with reality, but merely a fact.

In The German Ideology, Marx said the following,


"A development of the productive forces is the absolutely necessary practical premise [of Communism], because without it want is generalized, and with want the struggle for necessities begins again, and that means that all the old crap must revive."

"…so long as the productive forces are still insufficiently developed to make competition superfluous, and therefore would give rise to competition over and over again, for so long the classes which are ruled would be wanting to be impossible if they had the "will" to abolish competition and with it the state and the law."

"Only at a certain level of development of these social productive forces, even a very high level for our modern conditions, does it become possible to raise production to such an extent that the abolition of class distinctions can constitute real progress, can be lasting without bringing about stagnation or even decline in the mode of social production."

In other words, Marx said that the ability to reach our objective; a communist society, is severly limited on the basis of the material level that currently predominates; that unless there was a high state of development of the productive forces, what we are aiming for would be impossible, and "all the old crap will revive itself" if we are materially unable to dissolve ourselves as a class.

In My Life, Trotsky wrote about the conditions of Russia at the time of the civil war: "All the aftermath of the war was then just beginning to make itself felt.... One wondered if a country so despairing, so economically exhausted, so devastated, had enough sap left in it to support a new regime and preserve its independence. There was no food. There was no army. The railways were completely disorganized. The machinery of state was just beginning to take shape. Conspiracies were being hatched everywhere." Not only that, but there was the historical and economic backwardness of Russia to deal with - it was mostly an agrarian-based economy that was barely able to feed itself due to yearly bad harvests and natural disasters that created a recipe of malnutrition, even in non-war times.

As so, they were stuck in a situation in which "all the old crap" started to come back; the proletariat was weakened as a class due to their material deprivation - they were starving in the streets, freezing in their own homes, and became increasingly reliant on the bureaucracy to support themselves. Not only that, but the dual character of the workers&#39; state was becoming it&#39;s downfall - factory and technical managers from the former bourgeois class were beginning to take ahold of the party out of this situation. Though the silencing of revolutionary opposition, the bureaucracy finally substituted itself, and brought back "all the old crap". Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky predicted their very own defeat before any anarchist or capitalist ever did.

As for Germany, the Communist Party displayed weak leadership, taking an abstentionist position while the Nazis were excelling amongst the rank-in-file in the realm of electoral politics. On the thoroughly bureaucratized Comintern&#39;s orders, they also refused to engage in an alliance with the Social Democrats, who were at the time a mass party, which would of honestly created an opportunity to beat back the fascists.

I can get into your other examples, but I think you were in agreement with me - Stalinism, or the bureaucratic tendency that was forming in the Communist International, pretty much derailed any chances of socialist revolution. If you acknowledge that the bureaucratic stratum arised out of material conditions, rather than appearing out of the pits of hell, then you are understanding this from a Marxist perspective.

Capitalism has only jumped a little in the preceding years after the fall of the Soviet Union; with low-cost regions and cheap labor, profits have never been higher for multinational corporations. However, if we think realistically, we can determine that over a billion people on the sweatshop and factory floor across the world do not like to be payed under a dollar a day; we know that workers will not permit to be placed under such a fowl, disgusting conditions. With the tendency for profits to drop, which was by far proven to be correct by Marx, we can only expect that with a rise of the class struggle, profits will embark on it&#39;s last trip of inevitable decline, in which fascism or world war would be the only resolution (for only a little while also) to preserve this system. The world wars, and the stablization that occured right after, proved Marx correct by far. He has proved that this system will not last forever.

[jasmine]

I will reply but much of this thread has disappeared, where to?

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31, 2007 09:03 pm
I will reply but much of this thread has disappeared, where to?
Some of the thread was probably split and either trashed or made into a seperate thread.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Here is a site us atheists should check out (I have looked, but no one seems to have linked to it yet):

http://anonym.to/?http://www.strongatheism.net/

[ibn Bruce]

The debate is pointless. We've evolved past religion, and I don't mean that in the Darwinian sense, but rather socially, traditional religion is no longer relevant.

Seemed pretty relevant to Malcolm X. It may not be relevant amongst the fortunate parts of secular 'liberal-democracies', but for most of the world, it remains a primary lens for interpreting subjective reality.

[minarchist]

I don't think there's a "burden of proof" on anyone. It's outside the realm of science and the empirical. No one will EVER prove of disprove it either way. It's a matter of personal belief and faith.

It really annoys me when my "fellow" Christians try to attack science (like evolution) because they think it threatens their religion. It doesn't! Science and religion are not opposites and don't occupy the same realm. Religion is about the question of "why", and science is the question of "what" and "how". Use your religious beliefs to live a good life according to your values and morals -- not try to teach a freakin science class, lol. At what part in the Bible does it start rambling on about super novas and black holes? Or start discussing how single-celled organisms organelles work? ;)

[minarchist]

Well, I should say also: Just believe or not, and make your own choice. Hunting "proof" is a waste of time! :cool:

[IronEastBloc]

I don't think there should be a burden of proof in a debate such as this one. it's like debating whether love or happiness exist. pretty subjective, don't you think? also religions are so different from culture to culture to person to person, you cant argue for one religion as a whole against atheism.

therefore, both sides should present their arguments, and let them be judged that way.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't think there should be a burden of proof in a debate such as this one. it's like debating whether love or happiness exist. pretty subjective, don't you think?

How is that subjective? Even if one doesn't experience it personally, once cannot deny that there is something which we generally call "love" or "happiness". It can be observed in people, whereas God cannot be observed at all.


also religions are so different from culture to culture to person to person, you cant argue for one religion as a whole against atheism.

True, but depending where one lives certain religions may dominate. So, since most people in the West are Christians, it necessarily means that anti-religious arguments in the West revolve mainly around Christianity and monotheism.


therefore, both sides should present their arguments, and let them be judged that way.

That's what happens. But if you want to debate on a scientific level, you have to concede that you cannot simply posit something without any positive evidence to go with it.

Christians can say "prove that God doesn't exist", but that is unfair since Christians can also come with an infinite amount of excuses to explain away the ongoing absence of God - for example, the idea that God permits suffering because it's "part of His plan".

[ComradeMan]

How is that subjective? Even if one doesn't experience it personally, once cannot deny that there is something which we generally call "love" or "happiness". It can be observed in people, whereas God cannot be observed at all.

Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.

:thumbup1:


True, but depending where one lives certain religions may dominate. So, since most people in the West are Christians, it necessarily means that anti-religious arguments in the West revolve mainly around Christianity and monotheism.

Well then they shouldn't call themselves anti-religious, but rather anti-Christian or anti-Abrahamic. It would be like someone arguing against one theory in one branch of science and declaring themselves anti-science.


Christians can say "prove that God doesn't exist", but that is unfair since Christians can also come with an infinite amount of excuses to explain away the ongoing absence of God - for example, the idea that God permits suffering because it's "part of His plan".

Many Christians are also fools who do not seem to know their own religion as such. God does not permit suffering because it's part of his divine plan, in Christianity the doctrine of free will means that humankind creates its own good and evil.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Ubi caritas et amor, Deus ibi est.

:thumbup1:

No. Charity and love are human concepts. God doesn't get any credit for that.


Well then they shouldn't call themselves anti-religious, but rather anti-Christian or anti-Abrahamic. It would be like someone arguing against one theory in one branch of science and declaring themselves anti-science.

Most of the arguments against Christianity specifically can be adapted to other Abrahamic religions - compare "God is love" and "Allah is merciful".

Also, the influence of monotheistic imperialism means that formerly polytheistic religions such as Hinduism try to pass themselves of as monotheistic, with the various murtis as aspects of a singular Divine. Not to mention that a lot of arguments could easily apply to a pantheon just as much as a single Godhead - polytheism just multiplies the problem.

Further, general arguments about the supernatural apply to polytheistic and even non-theistic religions.


Many Christians are also fools who do not seem to know their own religion as such. God does not permit suffering because it's part of his divine plan, in Christianity the doctrine of free will means that humankind creates its own good and evil.

That's no excuse. Leaving aside the issue of whether free will actually exists or not (it doesn't), human criminals can be said to have "free will" yet we don't drag our feet in punishing them unless someone has interest in doing so. Similarly, why does God supposedly wait until people die to punish them? Especially if the transgressor manages to avoid justice until he dies?

[ComradeMan]

No. Charity and love are human concepts. God doesn't get any credit for that.

God can't win with you eh?

Also, the influence of monotheistic imperialism means that formerly polytheistic religions such as Hinduism try to pass themselves of as monotheistic, with the various murtis as aspects of a singular Divine. Not to mention that a lot of arguments could easily apply to a pantheon just as much as a single Godhead - polytheism just multiplies the problem.

Where did you read that?

a) Hinduism is difficultly described as one religion.
b) Hinduism is more panentheistic than polytheistic
c) The monotheistic and henotheistic currents in Hinduism pre-date Christianity and Islam by centuries and it is doubtful that Judaism would have been influential.
d) The world's oldest surviving monotheistic religion as we may understand it is Zoroastrianism which sprung from the same Vedic religious/cultural terrein as modern Hinduism and other Vedic religions.
e)

Rigveda: pada 1.164.46c,
ékam sád víprā́ bahudhā́ vadanti

"To what is One, sages give many a title" (trans. Griffith)
and hymns 10.129 and 10.130, dealing with a creator deity, especially verse 10.129.7:

iyám vísṛṣṭiḥ yátaḥ ābabhûva / yádi vā dadhé yádi vā ná / yáḥ asya ádhyakṣaḥ paramé vyóman / sáḥ aṅgá veda yádi vā ná véda

He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, / Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not. (trans. Griffith)

He knows truth who knows
This God as one.Neither second or thirdNor fourth is He is called;Neither fifth nor sixthNor seventh is He called;Neither eighth nor ninthNor tenth is He is called.He surveys all that breathesAnd that breathes not.He possesses the Power of SupremeHe is One,The One Alone.In Him All divine powers Become the One Alone.
Atharva Veda 13.5. 14-21

Added to which the old idea of polytheism turning into monotheism seems to be losing favour inmany circles especially seeing as many of the "oldest" religions are in a sense monotheistic/monistic.

[ZeroNowhere]

I'm not sure why it is required that people prove or disprove the idea of thought preceding time and hence change and motion. It doesn't make any sense, so there's nothing to either prove or disprove, any more than one may prove or disprove the idea that the asymptote is riggydiggy.

[ComradeMan]

I'm not sure why it is required that people prove or disprove the idea of thought preceding time and hence change and motion. It doesn't make any sense, so there's nothing to either prove or disprove, any more than one may prove or disprove the idea that the asymptote is riggydiggy.

Thought is not the same as consciousness.

[Revolution starts with U]

I would refer one to Epicurus, Comrademan.
If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to God.
If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to God's nature. (this one specifically for your free will argument)
If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god.
If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?"

(Just to clarify, I"m less of an atheist than I am an ignostic pantheist)

[red cat]

I didn't read the posts here. Are theists trying to justify their beliefs ? Sounds interesting. :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

God can't win with you eh?

Haven't you noticed that God gets all the credit for the good things in existence, but all the bad stuff is blamed on something else, whether it be the influence of Satan, humanity's fallen nature (a doctrine that is more revolting than it at first appears), or in your case, free will.

Tell me, what does "free will" have to do with people killed, maimed and/or made totally destitute by hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tornados, mudslides, tsunamis, or any other natural disaster or event you care to mention?


Where did you read that?

a) Hinduism is difficultly described as one religion.

Irrelevant. Whatever branch or sect is under scrutiny, arguments can be brought against it.


b) Hinduism is more panentheistic than polytheistic

OK, so what? There is still the matter of evidence; where is the evidence that Brahman is supporting everything?


c) The monotheistic and henotheistic currents in Hinduism pre-date Christianity and Islam by centuries and it is doubtful that Judaism would have been influential.

Regardless, monotheism and henotheism have valid arguments against them.


d) The world's oldest surviving monotheistic religion as we may understand it is Zoroastrianism which sprung from the same Vedic religious/cultural terrein as modern Hinduism and other Vedic religions.

OK, but what do you think is responsible for the chauvinistic perception that monotheism is somehow more "advanced" than polytheism?


e)

Rigveda: pada 1.164.46c,
ékam sád víprā́ bahudhā́ vadanti

"To what is One, sages give many a title" (trans. Griffith)
and hymns 10.129 and 10.130, dealing with a creator deity, especially verse 10.129.7:

iyám vísṛṣṭiḥ yátaḥ ābabhûva / yádi vā dadhé yádi vā ná / yáḥ asya ádhyakṣaḥ paramé vyóman / sáḥ aṅgá veda yádi vā ná véda

He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, / Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not. (trans. Griffith)

He knows truth who knows
This God as one.Neither second or thirdNor fourth is He is called;Neither fifth nor sixthNor seventh is He called;Neither eighth nor ninthNor tenth is He is called.He surveys all that breathesAnd that breathes not.He possesses the Power of SupremeHe is One,The One Alone.In Him All divine powers Become the One Alone.
Atharva Veda 13.5. 14-21

I see a lot of baseless assertions here, typical of religious texts, which rely on their own authority instead of appealing to evidence.


Added to which the old idea of polytheism turning into monotheism seems to be losing favour inmany circles especially seeing as many of the "oldest" religions are in a sense monotheistic/monistic.

So monotheistic foolishness is perhaps older than we at first thought. But old folly is still folly.

[red cat]

It should be mentioned that ancient India had an atheist and materialistic school of thought as early as 6th century BC. It was probably the first of its kind in the whole world.

[ComradeMan]

I would refer one to Epicurus, Comrademan.

1. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to God.
2. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to God's nature. (this one specifically for your free will argument)
3. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god.
4. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?"

(Just to clarify, I"m less of an atheist than I am an ignostic pantheist)

The problem is that good and bad are human ideas- they don't exist in nature? Is a lion bad for killing a gazelle? Is a gazelle good because it's a vegan? Emotions, good, bad etc are creations of the human mind.

The problem with Epicurus' argument is it is based on applying human characteristics to God which underneath the veneer do not exist in a Judaeo-Christian context.

I am not trying to preach to anyone, but it is difficult to discuss with some on this issue because they tarnish the discussion with their own anti-confirmation bias if you like.

I was also attempting to present the Judaeo-Christian argument of free will.

You want my own opinion? We are no more important than the smallest single-cell microbe in terms of any morality. There is no good and bad- we create it.

[ComradeMan]

Haven't you noticed that God gets all the credit for the good things in existence, but all the bad stuff is blamed on something else, whether it be the influence of Satan, humanity's fallen nature (a doctrine that is more revolting than it at first appears), or in your case, free will.

Define good and bad.

What is your interpretation of the myth of Genesis?


Tell me, what does "free will" have to do with people killed, maimed and/or made totally destitute by hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tornados, mudslides, tsunamis, or any other natural disaster or event you care to mention?.

As sad as they may be do you cry when an ants nest is flooded?

Have you not thought that if humankinds entire historical effort had been put into progressive/creative and progressive/enlightened works the things you now mention would be of little consequence?


Irrelevant. Whatever branch or sect is under scrutiny, arguments can be brought against it.

Irrelevant and unacademic approach. On that basis you could criticise evolutionary biology from the point of view of geology because they are both sciences. Some common ground yes, but it's just silly to talk about "Hinduism" in one monolithic block- it isn't. Hindus don't worship the same way, don't all believe the same things and generally speaking it would be better to speak of the Hindu religions.



OK, so what? There is still the matter of evidence; where is the evidence that Brahman is supporting everything?

I am not arguing for the evidence, I am not arguing for or against Brahman- I was pointing out the monotheistic/monistic current in Vedic religions from the earliest times in support of the argument that "Hinduism" is not really a polytheistic religion as is generally understood.


Regardless, monotheism and henotheism have valid arguments against them.

Yeah, but we weren't really arguing that.


OK, but what do you think is responsible for the chauvinistic perception that monotheism is somehow more "advanced" than polytheism?

Well considering that most monotheistic religions and/or monotheistic/monist religions may actually represent the oldest forms of spiritual belief then it might be that they are perceived to be the original forms of whatever belief/philosophy.

Who says they are more advanced? It is like schools of martial arts :lol: each one tends to consider itself superior to the other in a way. With Abrahamic religions there is the added dimension that some grudging acknowledgement is given by their respective followers that it's the same God they are worshipping.


I see a lot of baseless assertions here, typical of religious texts, which rely on their own authority instead of appealing to evidence.

That's up to you.


So monotheistic foolishness is perhaps older than we at first thought. But old folly is still folly.

Anti-confirmation bias?

Look, I don't personally care if someone is an atheist or not, that's his or her decision but if you are going to critique religion and belief try to do so on a level higher than the Westboro Church or whatever it's called.

Wakan tanka kici un!
;)

[Revolution starts with U]

The question is who does the burden of proof rely on. The problem with God is, even if it were to exist, it cannot be known, nor explained (at the very least all attempts have failed). It is irrelevant to human existence and social cooperation.
If bad things happen which are irrelevant of God, then God is irrelvant. All there is, is us. Like yous aid, we create the world.

[Sasha]

i think i'll just leave this here:


The Babel fish is small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe. It feeds on brain wave energy, absorbing all unconscious frequencies and then excreting telepathically a matrix formed from the conscious frequencies and nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain, the practical upshot of which is that if you stick one in your ear, you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language: the speech you hear decodes the brain wave matrix. It is a universal translator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_translator) which simultaneously translates from one spoken language to another. It takes the brainwaves of the other body and what they are thinking then transmits the thoughts to the speech centres of the hosts brain, the speech heard by the ear decodes the brainwave matrix. When inserted into the ear, its nutrition processes convert unconscious sound waves into conscious brain waves, neatly crossing the language divide between any species.
The book points out that the Babel fish could not possibly have developed naturally, and therefore both proves and disproves the existence of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God): Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful could evolve purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing". "But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed on the next zebra crossing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_crossing). Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys. But this did not stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme for his best selling book, Well That About Wraps It Up for God. Meanwhile the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different cultures and races, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

As sad as they may be do you cry when an ants nest is flooded?

No, but a being that sees us as little better than ants is not a being worthy of any kind of worship.


Have you not thought that if humankinds entire historical effort had been put into progressive/creative and progressive/enlightened works the things you now mention would be of little consequence?

They would still happen. Maybe they wouldn't be as devastating, but people would still be hurt and killed for no good reason. If God created the universe then He is the one responsible.


Irrelevant and unacademic approach. On that basis you could criticise evolutionary biology from the point of view of geology because they are both sciences.

Those fields support each other, you fucking donut.


Some common ground yes, but it's just silly to talk about "Hinduism" in one monolithic block- it isn't. Hindus don't worship the same way, don't all believe the same things and generally speaking it would be better to speak of the Hindu religions.

I'll be sure to clarify things if I ever come up against a Hindu in a debate. In the meantime, I'll be busy criticising the dominant religion in the West as well as superstition in general.


I am not arguing for the evidence, I am not arguing for or against Brahman- I was pointing out the monotheistic/monistic current in Vedic religions from the earliest times in support of the argument that "Hinduism" is not really a polytheistic religion as is generally understood.

And I'm pretty sure you could find a Hindu who would disagree. So fucking what? Humans are incredibly inventive when it comes to superstition.


That's up to you.

If a text makes grand, sweeping claims about the universe, why just accept what it says?


Anti-confirmation bias?

Look, I don't personally care if someone is an atheist or not, that's his or her decision but if you are going to critique religion and belief try to do so on a level higher than the Westboro Church or whatever it's called.

Fuck you. Not once have I stated that religious believers deserve an eternity of hellish torment, unlike what the Westboro Baptist Church says about homosexuals and others. I have never harassed a mourning family. The mere fact you made such a droolingly facile comparison exposes you for the mealy-mouthed cretin that you are - you don't even have the stones to stand up for your beliefs properly, instead going on tangents about irrelevant shit.

Fuck off, shitpiece.

[mikelepore]

............. Science and religion are not opposites and don't occupy the same realm. Religion is about the question of "why", and science is the question of "what" and "how". Use your religious beliefs to live a good life according to your values and morals -- not try to teach a freakin science class, lol. At what part in the Bible does it start rambling on about super novas and black holes? ............

Cardinal Bellarmine shoved it in Galileo's face that Psalms 104:5 says that the earth is fixed and it cannot move. There have been many times when religion has made pronouncements about issues that are in the domain of science. I don't know that religion has ever limited itself to advice for living a good life.

[Sasha]

on a more serious note, i would explain my position but i just saw that ricky gervais (!) did it better:

Why don’t I believe in God? No, no no, why do YOU believe in God? Surely the burden of proof is on the believer. You started all this. If I came up to you and said, “Why don’t you believe I can fly?” You’d say, “Why would I?” I’d reply, “Because it’s a matter of faith”. If I then said, “Prove I can’t fly. Prove I can’t fly see, see, you can’t prove it can you?” You’d probably either walk away, call security or throw me out of the window and shout, ‘’F—ing fly then you lunatic.” :lol:

source: http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2010/12/19/a-holiday-message-from-ricky-gervais-why-im-an-atheist/

[ComradeMan]

No, but a being that sees us as little better than ants is not a being worthy of any kind of worship.

Why? Are you more important than an ant in the great scheme of things? If so prove it empirically. :lol:


They would still happen. Maybe they wouldn't be as devastating, but people would still be hurt and killed for no good reason. If God created the universe then He is the one responsible.

Are gorillas evil? Male gorillas will kill often kill the young sired by other males, as do lions and other species. Are they evil?

Nature does not have good and evil. If you want to argue from a cold scientific basis and not add compassion and humanity to the argument- but wait a minute? Can those be proven or are they abstract concepts- much like, err, God?


Those fields support each other, you fucking donut.

Do they really? Does no branch of science ever conflict with another?

Does Quantum physics not base itself on assumption otherwise the theory would be in conflict with accepted theories of physics?

Have a look at this:-

What Came First in the Origin of Life? New Study Contradicts the ' Metabolism First' (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100108101433.htm)



I'll be sure to clarify things if I ever come up against a Hindu in a debate. In the meantime, I'll be busy criticising the dominant religion in the West as well as superstition in general.

Well until you do clarify those things I would suggest you shut your big mouth on them. If some religious nut came here spouting outdated stuff about science you'd be quick enough to attack their position, but you on the other hand can make pronouncements about stuff you don't know about. It seems you are just as bigotted intellectually as the religionists you attack.



And I'm pretty sure you could find a Hindu who would disagree. So fucking what? Humans are incredibly inventive when it comes to superstition.

99% sure means 100% don't know. Great logical fallacy there. :lol:


If a text makes grand, sweeping claims about the universe, why just accept what it says.

Indeed, but I wasn't asking you to accept it was I? The text is the text, you can accept it or reject it as you please. The text was included to show the intrisic monotheism/monism in Vedic religion which you claimed to be otherwise- without actually knowing much about it of course.



Fuck you. Not once have I stated that religious believers deserve an eternity of hellish torment, unlike what the Westboro Baptist Church says about homosexuals and others. I have never harassed a mourning family. The mere fact you made such a droolingly facile comparison exposes you for the mealy-mouthed cretin that you are - you don't even have the stones to stand up for your beliefs properly, instead going on tangents about irrelevant shit.

Fuck off, shitpiece.

Where was I abusive to you? Where did I insult you in the thread, but okay....

Why don't you fuck off you ignorant tosser? Someone was trying to engage in a discussion and all you come out with are tried and staled attacks based on what exactly? Based on your infinite knowledge of the universe and its entirety? The point about the Westboro Church was basically your anti-religion arguments are on the same level as their anti-science arguments and quite frankly your both a complete pain in the ass.

You know fuck all about religion(s) and what they actually say and on what level beyon a few nutcase extremist groups yet you make inaccurate pronouncements on them so you can sound oh so avant-garde and when someone pollitely challenged you on your erroneous and paucitous argumentation you become abusive and insulting.

Your arguments against religion are pitiful at best and would be tantamount to someone else condemning science because those wonderful scientists gave us Zyklon-B gas, H-bombs and Agent Orange.... but of course we'll conveniently ignore anti-biotics, vaccinations and electricity etc...

Fail.

[Thirsty Crow]

All people, atheists and folowers of specific religions, should accept the fact that there cannot be evidence for an existence of the Divine, however we are to present its attributes, whatever tradition of religious thought we take up. The problem is the ascertaining of attention, and quite simply - one just cannot justifiably ascertain the existence of intention when it comes to a Supreme Being creating the universe and every single entity within it.
Atheists don't have a problem with this, in my opinion, although it is absurd to ask for evidence of God's existence. Religious people, it seems, have some problems with this simple fact, and would rather shift the terms of debate sometimes to the problem of what constitutes "evidence". And that is evading the more general question, "Why do you believe in/that X", and moreover, in the debate between the most broadly conceived positions on the process of proving something (divided into the position of experience/a priori thought vs. empirically verifiable knowledge) these religious folks have no recourse but to disregard obvious facts which make "scientific reasoning" more reliable, that is, supreme to experiential/theological/whatever position.

What remains is to question the function of religious belief with regard to two areas that may be only analytically separated (in concrete reality, in my opinion, these levels or areas form a indisolluable continuum):

1) the level of personal psychology

2) the level of social activity, social formations and its history

[ComradeMan]

Re Geology and Evolutionary Biology...

They support each other "doughnut"---- well then explain the faint sun paradox that cause a great problem between the fields of evolutionary biology, astrophysics and geology.

Smart ass.

[ZeroNowhere]

Thought is not the same as consciousness.A conscious actor is a thinking actor. An action which is not a product of thought is an unconscious action. Please elucidate your notion of a conscious prime mover who does not think.

[ComradeMan]

A conscious actor is a thinking actor. An action which is not a product of thought is an unconscious action. Please elucidate your notion of a conscious prime mover who does not think.

Plants have consciousness, they do not have a brain and therefore should be unable to think as we can't do an MRI scan on them... yet.....

http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/philosophy/Personnel/susan/LucyRhiannonRuth/CB%20ground%20breaking.html

[ZeroNowhere]

Backster? Backster? I don't think that even merits a response.

Nonetheless, the topic of discussion is conscious creation of time and the universe. Plants do not create things consciously. This is because they do not think.

[ComradeMan]

Backster? Backster? I don't think that even merits a response.

Nonetheless, the topic of discussion is conscious creation of time and the universe. Plants do not create things consciously. This is because they do not think.


Consciousness is not thinking, as was demonstrated by Baxter and many other scientific experiments that people don't want to consider.

When you have a thought- who is it that hears the thought inside your head?

[Revolution starts with U]

Are gorillas evil? Male gorillas will kill often kill the young sired by other males, as do lions and other species. Are they evil?

Nature does not have good and evil. If you want to argue from a cold scientific basis and not add compassion and humanity to the argument- but wait a minute? Can those be proven or are they abstract concepts- much like, err, God?
Yes, and if this is the nature of God it is absolutely irrelevant to one's existence. I cannot know it, nor verify it in the real world. If it must be taken on faith, it makes no difference. You believe in it if you want, I won't. And we will both rot in the ground when we're dead. No magic fairy land w/ harps and daisies. No eternal hellfire.
If the traditional conception of "god" is right, it should be able to be proven. Given that it hasn't been proven, and has been disproven many times in many forms, some say it is because it cannot be proven. If it can't be proven, why should we even bother discussing it?

[ComradeMan]

If the traditional conception of "god" is right, it should be able to be proven. Given that it hasn't been proven, and has been disproven many times in many forms, some say it is because it cannot be proven. If it can't be proven, why should we even bother discussing it?

There is no traditional conception of God.

[ZeroNowhere]

Consciousness is not thinking, as was demonstrated by Baxter and many other scientific experiments that people don't want to consider.
I think you mean 'pseudo-scientific'. As in, parapsychology pseudo-scientific. Nonetheless, even Backster's argument was essentially that plants read your mind and then act upon this. I don't think that a prime mover has much place for responding to external stimuli.

[Revolution starts with U]

There is no traditional conception of God.

Kind of my point... no, thats exactly my point. It is absurd. We can wax and wain all day on the nature of God, we will never know (maybe until we die). It is pointless.
Either it is an acting body on/in the universe and can be known. Or it cant and is pointless.

[hatzel]

Kind of my point... no, thats exactly my point. It is absurd. We can wax and wain all day on the nature of God, we will never know (maybe until we die). It is pointless.
Either it is an acting body on/in the universe and can be known. Or it cant and is pointless.

Can't it be an acting body outside the universe? Or an acting body which is the universe? Both of these suggestions could never be proven false. Critically, they could never be proven true, but they could never be proven false. If proof of existence can only be applied to that within the realms of human reach, ruling out proof of anything outside the universe, or in contrast to something which is not the existence, which would rule out proof of anything which encompasses the whole known universe. Time to get some new interpretations of the nature of the deity, methinks...

Anyway, why does proof even matter? What's this idea of proof being a necessity to render an idea non-pointless?

[Crimson Commissar]

Can't it be an acting body outside the universe? Or an acting body which is the universe? Both of these suggestions could never be proven false. Critically, they could never be proven true, but they could never be proven false. If proof of existence can only be applied to that within the realms of human reach, ruling out proof of anything outside the universe, or in contrast to something which is not the existence, which would rule out proof of anything which encompasses the whole known universe. Time to get some new interpretations of the nature of the deity, methinks...

Anyway, why does proof even matter? What's this idea of proof being a necessity to render an idea non-pointless?
Because without proof, why should anyone believe what you're saying? 1000 years ago some shitty book might have counted as proof, but not in the modern world.

[Revolution starts with U]

Can't it be an acting body outside the universe? Or an acting body which is the universe? Both of these suggestions could never be proven false. Critically, they could never be proven true, but they could never be proven false. If proof of existence can only be applied to that within the realms of human reach, ruling out proof of anything outside the universe, or in contrast to something which is not the existence, which would rule out proof of anything which encompasses the whole known universe. Time to get some new interpretations of the nature of the deity, methinks...

Anyway, why does proof even matter? What's this idea of proof being a necessity to render an idea non-pointless?

Back and forth, back and forth, yet this still proves my point. Either it can be proven, and has yet failed to. Or it can't and is utterly pointless. ANything anyone has to say on the unprovable God is nonsense because noone can know and everyone wants to guesss.
It has absolutely no impact on human morality nor our liberation.

[Che a chara]

As i said on another thread, can you not use those millions who on a daily basis claim to be in contact with God as some sort of proof, or are they all delusional ? What about other millions of non-religious folk who claim to see ghosts or apparitions, are they imagining things ? would that at least not be considered as proof that there might be something more than meets the eye ? Why just write it off and be ignorant and closed minded about it ?

[Revolution starts with U]

No, what I am saying (idk about the rest of them) is even if GOd exists, if he can't be objectively known, it is nonsense. WHy discuss it? If "miracles" are actually miraculous, and not an apparition of nature, then we can never recreate them (and I can assure you, chanting to a sky wizard has yet to do so on even close to a consistent basis). Let's stick to what we can control, be good people, and if there's a God, hope he rewards as such.

[ZeroNowhere]

As i said on another thread, can you not use those millions who on a daily basis claim to be in contact with God as some sort of proof, or are they all delusional ? What about other millions of non-religious folk who claim to see ghosts or apparitions, are they imagining things ? would that at least not be considered as proof that there might be something more than meets the eye ? Why just write it off and be ignorant and closed minded about it ?
This is known as argumentum ad populum. It is widely considered a fallacy.


Can't it be an acting body outside the universe? Or an acting body which is the universe?An acting body would be a part of the universe. The universe being a conscious body is a proposition which has no sense, as much as, "These two books are a conscious being," or, "Society is a conscious being." Ultimately, to have a god, one must have Descartes' 'extensionless substance', else one simply has an alien. Extensionless substance, of course, is also a literally nonsensical concept. It's words, but they don't mean anything.

[hatzel]

Because without proof, why should anyone believe what you're saying? 1000 years ago some shitty book might have counted as proof, but not in the modern world.

How does that answer the question posed? We could take a scientific example...Big Bang theories. There are many. And scientists talk about what they think there was before, all these various ideas. The idea of the universe being one of many, the idea of the universe being on the other side of a black hole, the idea of the universe being a growth in the shit of some other universe...there's no proof to any of these suggestions. These various scientists can give you their 'proof', their various calculations, but if there was real proof, then there wouldn't be these different ideas. They remain theories. Are they therefore pointless? Using the logic put in here, the suggestion is obviously yes.


An acting body would be a part of the universe.

Why exactly? I could happily make a 'universe' out of LEGO, with houses and little people and everything. If I then throw a bucket of water on it, I act on the LEGO universe, but am not part of the LEGO universe.


The universe being a conscious body is a proposition which has no sense.

Pantheism and panentheism both exists as concepts, and are held by various religious groups. So one should be sure to address such concepts if one is going to talk about the burden of proof, otherwise one is at risk of just talking about...I dunno...Catholics or something. To deny the existence of a deity, merely addressing the mainstream Christian interpretation is insufficient. One must be flexible enough to move on and take other ideas into consideration, and search for arguments against them. Rather than just repeating the ideas posited against the Christian deity, with no explanation of why they are relevant to pantheist, panentheist or other ideas...

Just saying :rolleyes:

[ZeroNowhere]

Pantheism and panentheism both exists as concepts, and are held by various religious groups.One also has many schools of philosophy which also makes no propositions, albeit with the pretensions of so doing, as Wittgenstein has shown. Religious propositions are not meaningless (Feuerbach's main point), they are simply not propositions, and meaningless as propositions. I may say that green is run, but it doesn't fit the formal concept of 'green', and is meaningless.


Why exactly? I could happily make a 'universe' out of LEGO, with houses and little people and everything. If I then throw a bucket of water on it, I act on the LEGO universe, but am not part of the LEGO universe.That's a false analogy, however. If there is a bucket outside the universe, or any non-'extensionless' substance, it is not outside the universe. That is the difference between our conception of the universe and your analogy.

[Che a chara]

This is known as argumentum ad populum. It is widely considered a fallacy.

Which still doesn't really disprove anything either way. Using 'argumentum ad populum' is a way of not arguing against something which can't be proven false, especially in this case

[ZeroNowhere]

Which still doesn't really disprove anything either way. Using 'argumentum ad populum' is a way of not arguing against something which can't be proven false, especially in this caseYou were the one making the appeal to popularity, not me. Your point rested upon it. There was nothing to argue against.

[Che a chara]

You were the one making the appeal to popularity, not me. Your point rested upon it. There was nothing to argue against.

All your basically doing is discounting 'witness testaments'. Why should these experiences not even be taken into account or even logically criticised/discussed ?

[ZeroNowhere]

All your basically doing is discounting 'witness testaments'. Why should these experiences not even be taken into account or even logically criticised/discussed ?
I'm perfectly willing to take them into account, and I think that some interesting research has been done into infrasound and such on this matter. Your argument was that it constituted some sort of proof of something. For example, the fact that millions of people claim to be in correspondance with god is supposed to constitute proof (evidence would be a better term, given that this isn't Maths, but anyhow) of something. That's an appeal to popularity. What it is evidence for is that millions of people claim to be in correspondance with god.

[Che a chara]

If we're going to argue against these experiences, i'd prefer some conspiracy theroies i.e. mind control, hallucinogenic spiking or brainwashing :D than to just using a term for the sake of it.

[Che a chara]

I'm perfectly willing to take them into account, and I think that some interesting research has been done into infrasound and such on this matter. Your argument was that it constituted some sort of proof of something. For example, the fact that millions of people claim to be in correspondance with god is supposed to constitute proof (evidence would be a better term, given that this isn't Maths, but anyhow) of something. That's an appeal to popularity. What it is evidence for is that millions of people claim to be in correspondance with god.

Outside of religion, such claims would be deemed as delusional and the person in question would probably be advised to seek treatment/evaluation.

[ZeroNowhere]

I notice that this thread was not supposed to turn into a debate.

[Revolution starts with U]

How does that answer the question posed? We could take a scientific example...Big Bang theories. There are many. And scientists talk about what they think there was before, all these various ideas. The idea of the universe being one of many, the idea of the universe being on the other side of a black hole, the idea of the universe being a growth in the shit of some other universe...there's no proof to any of these suggestions. These various scientists can give you their 'proof', their various calculations, but if there was real proof, then there wouldn't be these different ideas. They remain theories. Are they therefore pointless? Using the logic put in here, the suggestion is obviously yes.

Obviously yes. And those scientists will tell you as such. That's the difference. The "scientific" mind starts with the evidence and creates a theory to be tested, only judging it to have truth value based on it's verifiability. The "theistic" mind startts with and then searches for evidence/justification for it.
If you want to talk about miracles, the atheist/ic community would rather you do it like noetic "scientists." At least try to delve a little deeper than "god did it."




Why exactly? I could happily make a 'universe' out of LEGO, with houses and little people and everything. If I then throw a bucket of water on it, I act on the LEGO universe, but am not part of the LEGO universe.

ANd if you did these things there would be traceable evidence. And that would be fine, we could explore the nature of god every day. I have my doubts that it does but...
But here's my point. Either belief in/prayer to this force does something, empowers us in some way, or it doesn't, and is therefore pointless. Leave it be. Else one starts to be good in fear of punishment, rather than good for goodness sake. :thumbup1:



Pantheism and panentheism both exists as concepts, and are held by various religious groups.
So do Hale Bop and other cults. Just because people believe it doesn't make it any more nonsensical.

To deny the existence of a deity, merely addressing the mainstream Christian interpretation is insufficient. One must be flexible enough to move on and take other ideas into consideration, and search for arguments against them.
We must address every God ever thought of yet, or that will be thought of in the future? I think that is a rather massive burden of proof.
How about we just say, "i don't have to prove unicorns to you, don't make me prove space wizards/mystical unintelligeble forces."

[Che a chara]

Either belief in/prayer to this force does something, empowers us in some way, or it doesn't, and is therefore pointless.

This is my opinion on why a belief in a God should not be shunned moreso than me actually really believing he exists. The power of prayer is a very comforting thing. Many feel fulfillment and many can be rehabilitated by such a belief/practice. I'm aware that these people are not necessarily reactionary or irrational, which is why prayer/belief can be progressive.

What definitely can be opposed and challenged is organised religion itself.

[Sensible Socialist]

This is my opinion on why a belief in a God should not be shunned moreso than me actually really believing he exists. The power of prayer is a very comforting thing. Many feel fulfillment and many can be rehabilitated by such a belief/practice. I'm aware that these people are not necessarily reactionary or irrational, which is why prayer/belief can be progressive.

You don't need to have an illogical belief in order to lead a comforting life. Prayer only helps to clear the mind and focus ones thoughts. I used to be very involved in prayer, because I thought it helped. Then, when I drifted away from my religious thoughts, I found that simply calming down, taking deep breaths, and running over my daily events and thoughts was just as helpful.

A skyman is not needed, and in fact should be opposed.

[ComradeMan]

Objection to religionists-

Stop using logical fallacies to forward "medieval" arguments.

Objection to militant/hardcore atheists.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Objection to both parties.

Ignorance of evidence is evidence of ignorance.

Perhaps the Apsalookee people had the right idea- everyone sticks to their own personal revelation. (revolution ;) ???)

[Revolution starts with U]

My personal revelation says that only red heads are fit for this plane of existence. Alll other's shall be put to the mercy of the lord. These orders came straight from God. You don't have to believe me, it's my revelation. But, I ask you to please respect my religious beliefs. ;)

[ComradeMan]

My personal revelation says that only red heads are fit for this plane of existence. Alll other's shall be put to the mercy of the lord. These orders came straight from God. You don't have to believe me, it's my revelation. But, I ask you to please respect my religious beliefs. ;)

Great strawman.

Where have I, or any of the other non-atheist people here at RevLeft condoned "jihadism" or forcing personal beliefs on others?

I think that some of the atheists here forget that the non-atheist RevLefters do not tend to be of the extremist fundamentalist church type, you're speaking to the wrong people in the wrong way.

[Revolution starts with U]

You missed the point. You said, leave it up to your own personal revelation.
And what if that is what God told me?
The religious community very often falls back on "let me believe what I want to believe." Which is fine, in most circumstances. But if I should let you have your beliefs, why shouldn't I let Charles Manson have his?

[ComradeMan]

You missed the point. You said, leave it up to your own personal revelation.
And what if that is what God told me?
The religious community very often falls back on "let me believe what I want to believe." Which is fine, in most circumstances. But if I should let you have your beliefs, why shouldn't I let Charles Manson have his?

You should- but then in a sense Charles Manson "forced" his beliefs on others- there's the difference.

[Azraella]

For communists this is true. But the majorities of people arent communists and many still partake in religion.
Religious communist here. Religion and spirituality is likely to persist as long as we have Big Questions and that's probably going to be forever.


I often debate my peers on matters of religion. Finally, I have realized that no matter what I say, I won't convince them. They firmly believe that a higher being exists, and no matter the evidence they will hold true to what they believe in because religion is based on faith and not facts. Just my $.02

People tend to be stuck on what they believe is the truth. I believe that everything in the universe has a spirit and in the Aesir and Vanir and is an expression of a interconnecting divine force, but if I want to be intellectually honest with myself I have to admit that despite the fact it feels right with every fiber of my being, I can't say that I know it to be true.

To "know" is to have an awareness of absolute truth, of unshakable, unassailable, unquestioned, total understanding. It's really not something covered by science as it is intended to be used, since it would make further exploration of knowledge invalid. A lot of scientists behave as if their knowledge is an absolute in casual conversation (I certainly do anyway), but when pressed are usually willing to acknowledge that they have an awareness that is as well evidenced as it can be based on current methods of acquiring and analyzing information. Everything always comes with an attached caveat of "Until proven otherwise." that often goes unsaid.

To believe is different things to different people, some relying on evidence, some on logical extrapolation and others on faith... or for most people, some combination of all three.

It's part of why real hardcore, absolute atheism is viewed as being as much a product of belief as any religion is, evidencing a negative is difficult. Proving a negative as an absolute is even harder.

.

This is because a) Religion should always be kept irrelevant from all pragmatic and realistic matters. It should never leave homes or places of worship, or be present in any area where it is not merited.
b) suppressing religion draws curiosity, and eventually, those struggling to go "against the grain" will find fanatical "radical" relations with faiths.
c) comrades with a religious affiliation, if they refrain from any spiritual or irrelevant references, should be allowed among us, as their practical contributions (assuming they have them. if they dont, they wouldnt be there.) may be too valuable to ignore.

Basically, we should take to religion the same way Cuba has.

I agree with this attitude. I think revolutionary groups should take an "agnostic" approach.

Just my two cents >.>

I understand that this is an old thread but this sums up my thoughts on the matter. I'll also note that organized religion is a plague and one that I stand against. Personal faith is another matter entirely.

[The Insurrection]

Religious communist here. Religion and spirituality is likely to persist as long as we have Big Questions and that's probably going to be forever.

Big questions such as what? And actually, I reject that opinion. Religion and spirituality will cease to exist when it ceases to be a necessary distraction.


People tend to be stuck on what they believe is the truth. I believe that everything in the universe has a spirit and in the Aesir and Vanir and is an expression of a interconnecting divine force, but if I want to be intellectually honest with myself I have to admit that despite the fact it feels right with every fiber of my being, I can't say that I know it to be true.

Why do you believe that? It seems like a pretty stupid thing to believe.


To believe is different things to different people, some relying on evidence, some on logical extrapolation and others on faith... or for most people, some combination of all three.

But you seemingly believe in both, which seems pretty inconsistent to me. I mean, presumably you believe that the working class exist and that the ruling class exist and that their interests are at odds? And you believe that because of objective, testable observations? So what gives...Why do you use "logic" for one set of beliefs and "faith" for others?

Or do you think that class is just a figment of our imaginations and exploitation some horrid nightmare that if we wish hard enough will just disappear?


I agree with this attitude. I think revolutionary groups should take an "agnostic" approach.

You mean be cowards?

[RedGrunt]

I see religion as having to be interpreted non-literally, and philosophically, but actually believing there are concrete, personal, deities is silly. I see the gods and religions of ancients, and moderns alike, as being a way to try to understand and explain forces unknown, obscure, or vague. It represents a natural human aspect to try to understand the world around us. The thing is, modern philosophy and science do this better than religion which is primarily an old understanding of the world.


"When we consider and reflect upon Nature at large, or the history of mankind, or our own intellectual activity, at first we see the picture of an endless entanglement of relations and reactions, permutations and combinations, in which nothing remains what, where and as it was, but everything moves, changes, comes into being and passes away. We see, therefore, at first the picture as a whole, with its individual parts still more or less kept in the background; we observe the movements, transitions, connections, rather than the things that move, combine, and are connected. This primitive, naive but intrinsically correct conception of the world is that of ancient Greek philosophy, and was first clearly formulated by Heraclitus: everything is and is not, for everything is fluid, is constantly changing, constantly coming into being and passing away." Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

While this is talking about dialectics, I see it applicable to what I am saying about religion. It was a primitive way of looking at the world, solely: as a whole, without understanding its parts. This is what materialism and science has done, it has studied and shown us the parts of the whole and now we understand that the concepts man once held were incorrect.

But as Engels explains in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, materialism arose first very crudely; mechanically, viewing reality as parts and very narrowly: a-->b-->c. Cause and Effect and effect and effect, as opposed to everything existing in relation to everything else, a constant flux. This is what the dialectic was meant to be solving, to take the holistic, primitive, view of early philosophy, and unite it with the crude, materialist philosophy. There are aspects of even idealism, philosophy, and religion that are very useful but simply have no grounding, and that's what Marx saw in hegel's dialectic, a correct concept but one that needed to be grounded: to be turned on its feet. Modern science very well unites the positives of both idealism and materialism; the holistic concepts with the material parts and proof.

God, as a personal and literal being(anthropomorphic), is dead. Let's move on.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

[Azraella]

Big questions such as what?




And actually, I reject that opinion. Religion and spirituality will cease to exist when it ceases to be a necessary distraction.


Why is it a distraction?

Human purpose, the existence of god, those types of big questions. I have stuggled with these questions for years.


Why do you believe that? It seems like a pretty stupid thing to believe.


A mix of reasons. Have you ever read Teilhard and Bohm? They envisaged a thing... a force that I can only tentatively describe with much rigor and analysis. Lonergan, despite being Catholic, made the best and most convincing arguments for definitive qualities of God. I am heavily influenced by minds much more brilliant than me. My personal spirituality is a mix of agreeing with Jung's ideas about archetypes, being a Gnostic, and preserving my ancestor's faith.


I mean, presumably you believe that the working class exist and that the ruling class exist and that their interests are at odds?

Yep.



And you believe that because of objective, testable observations?


Yes and no. I actually read Das Kapital and agreed with it's criticisms of capitalism, though my real objection to capitalism is because it's an incredibly hierarchical system. I agree with equality and freedom as ideals and thus, I'm an anarchist. (I actually base the reasons for supporting anarchism on historical fact and based on my own biased perceptions on the world)



Why do you use "logic" for one set of beliefs and "faith" for others?

Your assumption that we all think logically is laughable. People experience emotion before they ever think logically or rationally. It's a product of how our minds developed. Emotion is what makes our species survive, especially if it's a "fear" response. Faith is something some people need emotionally and others come to their beliefs through other means. I might come to the logical conclusion that eating animals is bad(for whatever reason) but that is informed by my emotional predilections. I can admit that being a vegan was not a completely rational choice for me. The same goes for other beliefs -- I have strong emotional feelings about inequality and freedom -- thusly I come to the conclusions that hierarchy and capitalism are bad. When it comes to faith, again, it's an emotional need to understand the big questions. These questions will always exist as long as our species survives.



Or do you think that class is just a figment of our imaginations and exploitation some horrid nightmare that if we wish hard enough will just disappear?



Nope.



You mean be cowards?


No. It isn't cowardice to support religious freedom. Fuck off with that assumption.

[Revolution starts with U]

Why is it a distraction?

Human purpose, the existence of god, those types of big questions. I have stuggled with these questions for years.


... instead of focusing on more pressing matters. I believe you've answerd your own question.



When it comes to faith, again, it's an emotional need to understand the big questions. These questions will always exist as long as our species survives.


Probably because it's the wrong question ;)




A mix of reasons. Have you ever read Teilhard and Bohm? They envisaged a thing... a force that I can only tentatively describe with much rigor and analysis. Lonergan, despite being Catholic, made the best and most convincing arguments for definitive qualities of God. I am heavily influenced by minds much more brilliant than me. My personal spirituality is a mix of agreeing with Jung's ideas about archetypes, being a Gnostic, and preserving my ancestor's faith.


2.4 The point of the proof.
The proof in a nutshell is this: "If I am seriously trying to understand fully the world I live in, then I am already convinced that God exists."
You take that seriously?

Other than that tho, I like what he has to say. And I like Teilhard and Bohm.

http://sophia.smith.edu/~qquesnel/lon11.html
http://www.bizcharts.com/stoa_del_sol/imaginal/imaginal5.html

[Azraella]

... instead of focusing on more pressing matters. I believe you've answerd your own question.



Fair enough. At any rate, to me I no longer require answers, I'm just ready to see what the Implicate has planned for me*. It knows me better than I know it. I'll just take my ancestor's attitudes: I'd rather die for a better world than live maintaning a mediocre one.

* I don't believe in human free will. Well absolute free will. It's complicated. >.>


Probably because it's the wrong question. ;)



I seriously think that human beings are like Parcival and we fail to ask the right questions. Though at the same time we are Amfortas, who knows how to suffer. One requires the other. (think about it) :)



You take that seriously?


Sort of. Before I ever read anything by Lonergan, I was already convinced of god's existence. (I was a huge fan of deistic thought, had a "spiritual awakening" and explored Gnosticism and paganism, read some profound ideas, and here I am today). Though, I am also pretty sure that my mind could be playing tricks on me. People see what they want to see so it confirms their bias.

[Revolution starts with U]

My thoughts on G-D; The Way that can be known is not the True Way

That about sums it up for me. So, imo, if you posit a G-D that can be known, the burden of proof is on you.

On Free Will; the world acts as if I have a choice. There's nothing I can do but continue "choosing" and Let Be the consequences.

[The Insurrection]

Why is it a distraction?

It's irrational, it's anti-intellectual, as well as being something that diverts energy away from the real world.


Human purpose, the existence of god, those types of big questions. I have stuggled with these questions for years.There is no purpose. There is no god. Unless you can provide some contrary evidence, why would you assume any different?


A mix of reasons. Have you ever read Teilhard and Bohm? They envisaged a thing... a force that I can only tentatively describe with much rigor and analysis. Lonergan, despite being Catholic, made the best and most convincing arguments for definitive qualities of God. I am heavily influenced by minds much more brilliant than me. My personal spirituality is a mix of agreeing with Jung's ideas about archetypes, being a Gnostic, and preserving my ancestor's faith. What a waste of energy.


Yes and no. I actually read Das Kapital and agreed with it's criticisms of capitalism, though my real objection to capitalism is because it's an incredibly hierarchical system. I agree with equality and freedom as ideals and thus, I'm an anarchist. (I actually base the reasons for supporting anarchism on historical fact and based on my own biased perceptions on the world)You cannot agree and disagree that the working class exist and that the ruling class exist and that their interests are at odds based on testable, objective observations at the same time.

If you agree with Das Capital's criticism of capitalism, then you accept materialism. How can you believe in materialism and in the immaterial at the same time?


Your assumption that we all think logically is laughable. People experience emotion before they ever think logically or rationally.I'm not making the argument that we always behave rationally, I am suggesting that you have two divergent ways of understanding reality that you operate seemingly at the same time. I want to understand how that's possible without you being insane, which I'm assuming (despite the belief in things that aren't there) that you're not insane.


Emotion is what makes our species survive, especially if it's a "fear" response.Emotion isn't a thing outside of logic. Emotion is a quantifiable, observable fact based on chemical reactions. Fear is an instinctive survival response triggered by chemical reactions. These are proven facts.


Faith is something some people need emotionally and others come to their beliefs through other means. I might come to the logical conclusion that eating animals is bad(for whatever reason) but that is informed by my emotional predilections. I can admit that being a vegan was not a completely rational choice for me. The same goes for other beliefs -- I have strong emotional feelings about inequality and freedom -- thusly I come to the conclusions that hierarchy and capitalism are bad. When it comes to faith, again, it's an emotional need to understand the big questions. These questions will always exist as long as our species survives.Yeah, you're not really addressing what I actually said. Your emotional feelings have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.


No. It isn't cowardice to support religious freedom. Fuck off with that assumptionPeople who take an agnostic opinion are cowards.

[Azraella]

I had a rant that was uncalled for. I don't have to justify my beliefs.

[ComradeMan]

I had a rant that was uncalled for. I don't have to justify my beliefs.

Madame.... allow me...


It's irrational, it's anti-intellectual, as well as being something that diverts energy away from the real world.

Define what you mean by the real world? Why is philosophy and the application of logical reasoning and meditation on existential "realities" in any way anti-intellectual. I'd say the attitude of "I don't believe it-so you ARE wrong and it's all bullshit, is pretty damn anti-intellectual.


There is no purpose. There is no god. Unless you can provide some contrary evidence, why would you assume any different?

First, inasmuch as logically no one can prove the existence of G-d then no one can disprove it either- therefore you assertion may also be questioned. However, without wishing to fall into a logical
trap of demanding proof of a negative, I'd like you to say what evidence you would, theoretically, accept as evidence of G-d?


What a waste of energy.

In your opinion.


You cannot agree and disagree that the working class exist and that the ruling class exist and that their interests are at odds based on testable, objective observations at the same time.

Define the working class, you might find that not even Marx defined class and the working class so tightly. Now, with logic prove to us how these interests are at odds- if you can also define an interest empirically that is.


If you agree with Das Capital's criticism of capitalism, then you accept materialism. How can you believe in materialism and in the immaterial at the same time?

It's an economic theory- also open to criticism. What is this about accepting? That sounds like "belief" OMG OMG.... material does not per se exclude the possibility of spirit. In fact, if we want to get really smartassish about it- according to a lot of quantum physics "material" itself in terms of "matter" is open to question.


I'm not making the argument that we always behave rationally, I am suggesting that you have two divergent ways of understanding reality that you operate seemingly at the same time. I want to understand how that's possible without you being insane, which I'm assuming (despite the belief in things that aren't there) that you're not insane.

Sanity is a minority of one my friend. Again, you are applying a very subjective term, from the point of view of stark, cold, rational objectivity, as an objective term.


Emotion isn't a thing outside of logic. Emotion is a quantifiable, observable fact based on chemical reactions. Fear is an instinctive survival response triggered by chemical reactions. These are proven facts.

A loves Y- what is the logical formula for this? You are mistaking the effects for the causes. What causes the emotion? Why does one person react differently to another to the same set of variables?


Yeah, you're not really addressing what I actually said. Your emotional feelings have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

But if her emotions are all explainable, according to you, in a quantifiable, observable and thus empirical manner then they are part of a material reality, are they not?


People who take an agnostic opinion are cowards.

Brave words, but why? How can an intellectual/philosophical position on a personal matter be cowardly if the person in question is in full acceptance thereof?

[Azraella]

I'll just say the only only logically consistent position to agree with is radical skepicism and be agnostic towards everything.

[The Insurrection]

I had a rant that was uncalled for. I don't have to justify my beliefs.

Well. Actually, you do. This is a message board. If you put your ideas out there into the world, then you have to justify them. That's the point of a debating message board. If you want to just have your beliefs and never talk about them, then I suggest you stop posting about them on a message board.

[The Insurrection]

Madame.... allow me...

Ooohh I'm shaking.


Define what you mean by the real world?The real world is an object, that you can observe and test.


Why is philosophy and the application of logical reasoning and meditation on existential "realities" in any way anti-intellectual.That's not what's anti-intellectual...


I'd say the attitude of "I don't believe it-so you ARE wrong and it's all bullshit, is pretty damn anti-intellectual.Well, since that's not what I've said, I guess I don't have to worry.


First, inasmuch as logically no one can prove the existence of G-d then no one can disprove it either- therefore you assertion may also be questioned.You can't prove a negative. I cannot prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist.

If I say to you that there is an orange in my hand, when you cannot see it, or touch it, or smell, or hear it, or feel it, then you'd have to conclude that it wasn't there. Unless of course you have some way of proving the orange is in my hand without seeing it, smelling it, feeling it, touching it etc etc.


However, without wishing to fall into a logical
trap of demanding proof of a negative, I'd like you to say what evidence you would, theoretically, accept as evidence of G-d?As an object that I can test and observe.


In your opinion.Yep.


Define the working class,Those people who do not control the means of production and have to sell their labour within in the means of production in order to substantiate their existence.


you might find that not even Marx defined class and the working class so tightly. No I wouldn't.


Now, with logic prove to us how these interests are at odds- if you can also define an interest empirically that is. The working class work in the means of production (objets; testable and observable) and the ruling class control them. For the working class to be able to succeed and survive they require ceasing control of the means of production, which is at odds with the interests of the ruling class.

I think that interest is empirically defined based on the fact that it's a major aspect of reality. Karl Marx talked quite explicitly about the conflict between classes.


It's an economic theory- also open to criticism.Yes, but it's an economic theory based on a materialist understanding of reality.


What is this about accepting? That sounds like "belief" OMG OMG....You can call accepting materialism a belief if you want. I jsut never considered accepting reality to be a belief.


material does not per se exclude the possibility of spirit.Materialism explains that reality is based on testable and observable objects (the means of production as an example), so therefore you cannot accept that this is what reality is, while simultaneously claiming the possibility that something that is not testable or observable as an object or as anything else, also exists.


If something is not ob In fact, if we want to get really smartassish about it- according to a lot of quantum physics "material" itself in terms of "matter" is open to question.But not as something that's not there. The fact that there is matter proves that there is matter.


A loves Y- what is the logical formula for this? You are mistaking the effects for the causes. What causes the emotion? Why does one person react differently to another to the same set of variables?What on earth are you talking about? Emotions are caused by chemical reactions in the brain...It's not complicated.


But if her emotions are all explainable, according to you, in a quantifiable, observable and thus empirical manner then they are part of a material reality, are they not?Erm...Yes...Obviously her emotions are part of what I am literally talking about, as in they exist in reality. They are just not what I was talking about when I asked "Why do you use "logic" for one set of beliefs and "faith" for others?".

[Azraella]

No one ever comes out of religious debates without being asshurt. I posted my opinions about belief and what a socialist group should do in regards to those. These kinds of debates will cause people to lose their tempers such as when I was about ready to. I am not a materialist and I find it as a philosophy to be incredibly shallow.

When I said this: Religion and spirituality is likely to persist as long as we have Big Questions and that's probably going to be forever.

I very well mean it. It might not be rational, but our minds don't think in complete rational mode all the time. I will probably never clearly explain why faith is a fundamental building block to who I am. I can explain my beliefs all day, but the reason I believe in my gods and Wyrd are complicated. I went to Asatru on my own, and I studied and incorporated Gnosticism into my spiritual beliefs. I always believed in God. It seems rational as it did then to believe that there is something bigger than ourselves. I had a sort of spiritual awakening and went to paganism. The tree in my avatar is supposed to be Yggdrasil -- the world tree.

Faith is interesting because with material analysis which doesn't explain religious anomolies like Asatru, I'm apparently grasping onto my beliefs because I'm oppressed. What nonsense. I can't begin to tell you what sense of purpose and responsibility to end oppression because of my faith. Yes, my religion has done a lot of brutish nasty things in it's previous incarnation with the cults of Odin and Tyr's ulfhednar. That's not now or what I want. Hell, I'm likely to get a coward's reward and go to Helheim because I'm a pacifist. I don't believe in free will -- sure, but I am hardly any less revolutionary because of it. That sense of doom I feel from knowing that I might be fated to fail, gives me a sort of masochistic joy. It's that rush of fighting against the tides, that makes me excited in a way that I never felt before.

Religion might be for the people, but mine isn't opium, but a strengthening medicine to help me live my life in the best possible way. I feel very happy to be part of a community that includes many strongheaded and individualistic characters from every field of life, scholars, artists, doctors, IT people. I might differ in political thinking and sometimes in the interpretation of the lore, but I can agree that there are many ways to the Gods. Which is, in my opinion, also a gift of the wish and the will to maintain Frith, and if it is achieved, it's the ultimate blessing to a community.

That is my two cents.

[ComradeMan]

Ooohh I'm shaking.

Well, I think it would be cowardly not to help a friend, and Madame Catherine is a virtual friend. It says more about you that you see that as some kind of threat.... touché monsieur... (for some reason it just has so much more class in French :cool:.)

En garde...


The real world is an object, that you can observe and test.

All of it at the same time? :laugh: I suppose to an untrained eye it might seem that way... but seriously, we can only observe that which is observable to us.


That's not what's anti-intellectual...

So what is then?


Well, since that's not what I've said, I guess I don't have to worry.

You are challenging the person in question with an assertion of which you are seemingly 100% assured, yet on a logical basis it is not an assertion you can prove either.... :crying: Your assertion is also without evidence. It's only the fallacy of proving a negative if L-C says "I believe this, prove me wrong". This is more like, she says "I believe this <stop>." and then you say "You are wrong- despite the fact I can't prove my assertion either".

You can't prove a negative- is a negative in itself. ;)


You can't prove a negative. I cannot prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist.

Can you prove that this message is not non-existent? If you can demonstrate that p is true then you can also demonstrate that p is not untrue. At the end of the day inductive arguments only really make a conclusion probable

Your basic assertion is that something doesn't exist... hmmm.... can you be so sure that an omniscient and omnipresent "being" does not exist in the universe unless you possess infinite knowledge of that universe- this would of course require you to become omniscient and omnipresent and thus you would become that being you seek to disprove... and err... ooops- paradox heading like a freight train...


Those people who do not control the means of production and have to sell their labour within in the means of production in order to substantiate their existence.

Who controls the means of production exactly? Define control. If the worker refuses to work there is no production, it's about the level of control of the production and its eventual outcomes.


The working class work in the means of production (objets; testable and observable) and the ruling class control them. For the working class to be able to succeed and survive they require ceasing control of the means of production, which is at odds with the interests of the ruling class.

Only two classes- very simplistic. No room for class mobility in this either... it happens.


Yes, but it's an economic theory based on a materialist understanding of reality.

How empirical and scientific is it seeing as it a) when it has been tried it seems to have gone wrong in the process or b) it has never been tried and is therefore not falsifiable?


You can call accepting materialism a belief if you want. I jsut never considered accepting reality to be a belief.

What is reality?


Materialism explains that reality is based on testable and observable objects (the means of production as an example), so therefore you cannot accept that this is what reality is, while simultaneously claiming the possibility that something that is not testable or observable as an object or as anything anything, also exists.

Russell's chicken thought the same before the farmer came one day not to feed him but to slaughter him.


What on earth are you talking about? Emotions are caused by chemical reactions in the brain...It's not complicated.

No, they are the reactions to something that causes them. You've got it the wrong way round. Do you love something because of the chemical reactions or are the chemical reactions because you love something?:cool:


Erm...Yes...Obviously her emotions are part of what I am literally talking about, as in they exist in reality. They are just not what I was talking about when I asked "Why do you use "logic" for one set of beliefs and "faith" for others?".

How logic is logic? Have you ever seen quarks? Yet you accept they exist.... etc.

[Azraella]

CM...

Socialists and communists only agree with two classes, the proletariat and the bourgeois and who owns the means of production.


No room for class mobility in this either...
Vertical class mobility only exists up to a point. There are levels of wealth beyond what we think of as classifying a person well off, wealthy, rich or even incredibly rich. There is the demographic for whom increasing wealth does not increase quality of life (above a certain point everything is already the best) and merely a way of keeping score. There is no reason why we should allow individuals to possess such ridiculous amounts of capital; the only reason we do is because we like the idea that they can. If they can maybe some day we can, but this will never happen. There are rare lucky individuals who do land in incredible wealth, but this does not happen ordinarily, and it is not a game of skill or determination. A man may work hard all his life, he may save, be clever, etc. He will never have billions of dollars. This is just a fact of life. The unlimited freedom we give this demographic to piss away, accrue (not earn) and hoarde finite resources for little or no reason is a sad indication of our priorities.

[ComradeMan]

Socialists and communists only agree with two classes, the proletariat and the bourgeois and who owns the means of production.

That's not quite accurate. We have bourgeoisie, petite bourgeoisie, proletariat and lumpenproletariat. Futhernmore the definitions of what constitute these classes are not always the same.

I am not arguing that social mobility undermines socialist theory- I do argue that there are no 100% absolutes in this. Anyway, post-marxism, i.e. the 21st century not-stuck in the 1970s, moves away from class struggle and class contradictions as the sole and central factors within society and the struggle for social change.

[Azraella]

That's not quite accurate. We have bourgeoisie, petite bourgeoisie, proletariat and lumpenproletariat. Futhernmore the definitions of what constitute these classes are not always the same.

I am not arguing that social mobility undermines socialist theory- I do argue that there are no 100% absolutes in this. Anyway, post-marxism, i.e. the 21st century not-stuck in the 1970s, moves away from class struggle and class contradictions as the sole and central factors within society and the struggle for social change.

Ah. Thanks.

I'm interested in learning more about post-Marxist ideas. They sound interesting. Though, I'm an anarchist and I have my own ideas of what is bad (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secB1.html#secb13) ;)

[ComradeMan]

Ah. Thanks.

I'm interested in learning more about post-Marxist ideas. They sound interesting. Though, I'm an anarchist and I have my own ideas of what is bad (http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secB1.html#secb13) ;)

Therborn, Negri, Hardt and see also Zygmunt Bauman.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/mar/07/marxism-post-marxism-goran-therborn

[hatzel]

The annoying thing is that I have this strange urge to become the new Rosa. Like how she'd always appear as soon as anybody mentioned dialectics and start complaining. Well, I'm in a similar boat whenever I roll into a thread full of Enlightenment thinking and false modernist assumptions, and I want to call people out for it. But then I don't want to get a reputation or anything :)

Let's just say that there are things that could be said about some of the recent stuff in this thread...

[Azraella]

The annoying thing is that I have this strange urge to become the new Rosa. Like how she'd always appear as soon as anybody mentioned dialectics and start complaining. Well, I'm in a similar boat whenever I roll into a thread full of Enlightenment thinking and false modernist assumptions, and I want to call people out for it. But then I don't want to get a reputation or anything :)

Let's just say that there are things that could be said about some of the recent stuff in this thread...


Ok. Great. I just thanked you. :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No one ever comes out of religious debates without being asshurt. I posted my opinions about belief and what a socialist group should do in regards to those. These kinds of debates will cause people to lose their tempers such as when I was about ready to. I am not a materialist and I find it as a philosophy to be incredibly shallow.

When I said this: Religion and spirituality is likely to persist as long as we have Big Questions and that's probably going to be forever.

The thing is, the notion of "Big Questions" presupposes that those Questions have Answers.

But since there have been vastly different Big Answers to the Big Questions throughout human history, that tells us something important - either the Questions are meaningless, or we don't know the Answers yet.


I very well mean it. It might not be rational, but our minds don't think in complete rational mode all the time. I will probably never clearly explain why faith is a fundamental building block to who I am. I can explain my beliefs all day, but the reason I believe in my gods and Wyrd are complicated. I went to Asatru on my own, and I studied and incorporated Gnosticism into my spiritual beliefs. I always believed in God. It seems rational as it did then to believe that there is something bigger than ourselves. I had a sort of spiritual awakening and went to paganism. The tree in my avatar is supposed to be Yggdrasil -- the world tree.

And yet, billions of people the world over sincerely Believe in Answers completely different to yours, to the point where a not insignificant part of them would consider your beliefs to be the consequence of ultimate universal evil (Satan, in this case).

You and them can't both be right, surely?


Faith is interesting because with material analysis which doesn't explain religious anomolies like Asatru, I'm apparently grasping onto my beliefs because I'm oppressed. What nonsense. I can't begin to tell you what sense of purpose and responsibility to end oppression because of my faith. Yes, my religion has done a lot of brutish nasty things in it's previous incarnation with the cults of Odin and Tyr's ulfhednar. That's not now or what I want. Hell, I'm likely to get a coward's reward and go to Helheim because I'm a pacifist. I don't believe in free will -- sure, but I am hardly any less revolutionary because of it. That sense of doom I feel from knowing that I might be fated to fail, gives me a sort of masochistic joy. It's that rush of fighting against the tides, that makes me excited in a way that I never felt before.

But how do you know that what you believe is actually true? Bits may be true (e.g. free will may indeed turn out to be an illusion, as I suspect it is), but that would not confirm the whole ball of wax. If the gods are nothing more than the abstract fictional creations of human beings, what purpose is served by treating them as anything else?


Religion might be for the people, but mine isn't opium, but a strengthening medicine to help me live my life in the best possible way. I feel very happy to be part of a community that includes many strongheaded and individualistic characters from every field of life, scholars, artists, doctors, IT people. I might differ in political thinking and sometimes in the interpretation of the lore, but I can agree that there are many ways to the Gods. Which is, in my opinion, also a gift of the wish and the will to maintain Frith, and if it is achieved, it's the ultimate blessing to a community.

That is my two cents.

Feeling part of a community of like-minded individuals doesn't require belief in man-made gods, unless that belief is a requirement of belonging in the first place, in which case I wonder whether a shared belief in an unevidenced supposition is really the kind of thing that non-dysfunctional communities are made of?

[Revolution starts with U]

No one ever comes out of religious debates without being asshurt. I posted my opinions about belief and what a socialist group should do in regards to those. These kinds of debates will cause people to lose their tempers such as when I was about ready to.

That's your problem, not theirs. As long as you remain so attached to your expectations, you will be a slave to desperation. You will find yourself trapped in the feedback loop of your own ego; guiding you, deciding for you, and creating for you a false reality. Embrace the void and find Peace; Let it be. Om :thumbup1:



Faith is interesting because with material analysis which doesn't explain religious anomolies like Asatru,
Technically materialism says "if it happened it happened." So even if there is spirit or faith, it is material; it happened.
I've never understood this concept of something other than existence.




Let's just say that there are things that could be said about some of the recent stuff in this thread...

Say them Rabbi, we can take it :D We are not our reputations

[ComradeMan]

The annoying thing is that I have this strange urge to become the new Rosa. Like how she'd always appear as soon as anybody mentioned dialectics and start complaining. Well, I'm in a similar boat whenever I roll into a thread full of Enlightenment thinking and false modernist assumptions, and I want to call people out for it. But then I don't want to get a reputation or anything :)

Let's just say that there are things that could be said about some of the recent stuff in this thread...

Rabbi.....bring down the full weight of the da'at!

[Smyg]

h is interesting because with material analysis which doesn't explain religious anomolies like Asatru

I'd love to know why asatro (I roll with the Swedish spelling) is a anomaly.

[Azraella]

You and them can't both be right, surely?


I don't care if I'm right or wrong, I have no fear of hell or even the nonexistence of an afterlife. Faith does not need to be correct. That is why it is faith. Faith is belief in spite of all evidence, or spite of the absense of evidence, and that is all.



But how do you know that what you believe is actually true?


How about ..... "I don't know".

How about ..... "I would dearly like to know but I look through the glass, darkly".

How about.... "I may believe in gods, but what I believe makes not a jot of difference, whether it is our fantasies of Viking stories or what we think were the beliefs of Vikings, or the stories of desert wanderers and sheep-herders, both of whom's beliefs made no more difference than ours do - which is zilch".

Meanwhile we have liars and thieves stealing our reputations, and our children, our possessions, and our dignity.

THAT is incontravertible and what actually matters -- not someone's beliefs and their differences with others.


in which case I wonder whether a shared belief in an unevidenced supposition is really the kind of thing that non-dysfunctional communities are made of?

People tend to do better in communities where shared values and beliefs are similar. This is why I feel uncomfortable in some anarchist circles because of the blatant antitheism but in some cases I feel really uncomfortable in some Asatru circles because I'm [usually] the only person that exhibits socialist attitudes. Though this is anecdotal.



I'd love to know why asatro (I roll with the Swedish spelling) is a anomaly.

It's interesting and an anomaly because it's cosmology, ethics, and theology all point to a complete opposite of why anyone would pick a religion especially to a materialist. It is not a comforting path. It very much requires a type of strength that other religions do not. Reputation, honor, and duty is important to those who follow the religion. We do not have a happy conception of the afterlife and in some cases we believe in reincarnation, some of us do not believe in either. Some of us are even atheistic. (Reconstructionist religions are interesting in that way)



As long as you remain so attached to your expectations, you will be a slave to desperation. You will find yourself trapped in the feedback loop of your own ego; guiding you, deciding for you, and creating for you a false reality. Embrace the void and find Peace; Let it be. Om


Interesting. So a sort of Buddhist like nihilism? Cool. :)

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don't care if I'm right or wrong, I have no fear of hell or even the nonexistence of an afterlife. Faith does not need to be correct. That is why it is faith. Faith is belief in spite of all evidence, or spite of the absense of evidence, and that is all.


So it matters not to you that when you call out to your gods, the universe remains utterly deaf to your pleas?

What kind of comfort is that?


How about ..... "I don't know".

How about ..... "I would dearly like to know but I look through the glass, darkly".

How about.... "I may believe in gods, but what I believe makes not a jot of difference, whether it is our fantasies of Viking stories or what we think were the beliefs of Vikings, or the stories of desert wanderers and sheep-herders, both of whom's beliefs made no more difference than ours do - which is zilch".

If there's no evidence, does that not then make religion of no more consequence than Harry Potter fandom?


Meanwhile we have liars and thieves stealing our reputations, and our children, our possessions, and our dignity.

THAT is incontravertible and what actually matters -- not someone's beliefs and their differences with others.

Beliefs matter, because they influence actions. Someone who genuinely believes in the Abrahamic god is going to behave differently to someone who is 99.999% certain there's no such creature.


People tend to do better in communities where shared values and beliefs are similar. This is why I feel uncomfortable in some anarchist circles because of the blatant antitheism but in some cases I feel really uncomfortable in some Asatru circles because I'm [usually] the only person that exhibits socialist attitudes. Though this is anecdotal.

I agree that humans do better in communities, but I was pointing out that a sense of community does not have to hinge on religious belief, and if that belief has no evidence then it seems a pretty flimsy basis for a community.

[Azraella]

Sorry for the delay Noxion.



So it matters not to you that when you call out to your gods, the universe remains utterly deaf to your pleas?


No. Whether or not my gods exist does not matter to me. They are real to me whether or not they exist.



What kind of comfort is that?




I suppose this would be going back to my past to fully explain it. There was a time when I was an angry angry person, very self destructive and misanthropic(mostly as a reaction to some bad things that have happened to me). I found anarchism when I was in college, but it's humanistic values weren't enough to really change me. I aquiesesced to hubris and arrogance. I was on a path to damnation. I found religion shortly after I found anarchism. Asatru gave me a sense of purpose and a way to assuage my guilt and anguish. In time I have fully developed and adopted the worldview and theistic ideas.

I have struggled with my Holy Grail because I failed to ask the right questions, and to reach deep within myself and find the treasure that is within every human being. I suffered for it. There are times I write as the Fool, but lacking integrity, authenticity, and character. Hertzeloyde(heart's sorrows) has no place in directing my life. There are other times I write with the Wound that never Heals, because I know how to suffer and it's because of my own failings, my aqcquisence to hubris and arrogance, that I try to warn others' against. I am not perfect. I tend to get disappointed in others more easily than myself. Both the Innocent Fool and the Wounded King can cure the other and we all have both within us.

I am faithful because it has helped me find my Holy Grail. It has helped me ask another essential question: Who does the Grail serve? I am an anarchist. My Holy Grail can solve all of the ills of the world, if only others would find their's -- their authenticity, integrity, and character our world can be a better place.

And for the record, you don't need faith to find your Holy Grail. :) But you must ask the right questions, the compassionate questions to obtain yours.

I am certainly a better person for it.



Beliefs matter, because they influence actions.


Sure they do. But there's a certain point where someone believes and then someone believes. It's not the same thing. I can say I believe in God and believe in the redemptive power of Christ, but it doesn't mean much. As my Christian husband says: it's not easy being Christian. I have personally encountered people that have sincerely hold faith and desire to know God and live by Christ's example, just as I have encountered those who have had only a lukewarm interest in their faith. The differences in behavior are remarkable.

I'm not perfect. There are days when I am only lukewarm and don't live by example of my ancestors, when those not of my faith hold my principles better than I. But there are days when I am better than that, and I feel strong and invigorated from my beliefs -- balls to the wall and ready to live by the virtues of my ancestors.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Sorry for the delay Noxion.

No problem.


No. Whether or not my gods exist does not matter to me. They are real to me whether or not they exist.

Solipsism has a very poor track record. Reality is what it is no matter how much we might wish or think it otherwise.


I suppose this would be going back to my past to fully explain it. There was a time when I was an angry angry person, very self destructive and misanthropic(mostly as a reaction to some bad things that have happened to me). I found anarchism when I was in college, but it's humanistic values weren't enough to really change me. I aquiesesced to hubris and arrogance. I was on a path to damnation. I found religion shortly after I found anarchism. Asatru gave me a sense of purpose and a way to assuage my guilt and anguish. In time I have fully developed and adopted the worldview and theistic ideas.[/quote

I have struggled with my Holy Grail because I failed to ask the right questions, and to reach deep within myself and find the treasure that is within every human being. I suffered for it. There are times I write as the Fool, but lacking integrity, authenticity, and character. Hertzeloyde(heart's sorrows) has no place in directing my life. There are other times I write with the Wound that never Heals, because I know how to suffer and it's because of my own failings, my aqcquisence to hubris and arrogance, that I try to warn others' against. I am not perfect. I tend to get disappointed in others more easily than myself. Both the Innocent Fool and the Wounded King can cure the other and we all have both within us.

I am faithful because it has helped me find my Holy Grail. It has helped me ask another essential question: Who does the Grail serve? I am an anarchist. My Holy Grail can solve all of the ills of the world, if only others would find their's -- their authenticity, integrity, and character our world can be a better place.

And for the record, you don't need faith to find your Holy Grail. :) But you must ask the right questions, the compassionate questions to obtain yours.

I am certainly a better person for it.

But since you yourself admit you have no reason to believe your religion to be true beyond faith (which precludes evidence), would it not be more accurate to say that whatever personal transformations you have undergone have origins that are ultimately human in origin? As far as you can tell with any degree of certainty that evidence can offer, you're passing on the credit for your own achievements (which you can justifiably take pride in) to a fiction, as well as those of any fellow humans who helped you along your way.

If honesty is a virtue of yours, would it not make more sense to give credit where it's due? You and the people who contributed to your formation may not have been perfect, in fact doubtless some of them were/are even mendacious, but at least you know with at least a degree of certainty who to credit and who to blame.


Sure they do. But there's a certain point where someone believes and then someone believes. It's not the same thing. I can say I believe in God and believe in the redemptive power of Christ, but it doesn't mean much. As my Christian husband says: it's not easy being Christian. I have personally encountered people that have sincerely hold faith and desire to know God and live by Christ's example, just as I have encountered those who have had only a lukewarm interest in their faith. The differences in behavior are remarkable.

It is indeed the case that piety varies from believer to believer. But I don't consider it a coincidence that the more moderate a believer is, the better behaved they tend to be. Holy books sanction many behaviours that most people these days would consider repulsive and anti-social. Little wonder that moderate religionists quietly ignore the wackier parts of their scriptures while playing up any "good stuff" that they can find.


I'm not perfect. There are days when I am only lukewarm and don't live by example of my ancestors, when those not of my faith hold my principles better than I. But there are days when I am better than that, and I feel strong and invigorated from my beliefs -- balls to the wall and ready to live by the virtues of my ancestors.

But what makes those virtues virtuous? Are virtues loved by the gods because they are virtuous, or are they virtuous because they are loved by the gods? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma)

[statichaos]

To get back to the OP: Speaking as a believer (tending towards panentheism, as opposed to pantheism), I would say that if the believer is attempting to convince others of the objective truth of his or her belief, then the burden of proof is certainly on the believer. However, since my experience of the divine is entirely personal, subjective, and even mystical, I find myself in the position of believing wholeheartedly in something that I cannot prove to others. Therefore, rather than waste time in fruitless debate over whether or not my beliefs are 100% accurate, I simply attempt to live by my own imperfect understandings of my experiences, and the beliefs that I have developed from them. Preaching and evangelizing from this viewpoint is not only counterproductive and intellectually dishonest, but it also strikes me as a bit tacky.

[Gary]

You aren't actually correct on this one. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in a god or belief that it hasn't met its burden of proof, not the claim that there isn't one. Therefore, unless the individual states that there absolutely is no god then the burden of proof, as always, is with the person making the positive claim. And that's just what the burden of proof is, the need to prove the claim that you're making. Besides, as I have stated before, everybody is an atheist about all religions other than theirs, so if a theist asks for proof that their particular god isn't real, then not only are they misunderstanding who has to prove what. They're also being a hypocrite, as they don't feel the need to prove that their god is more likely or believable than the others.

[Gary]

The burden of proof is quite simple really. It lies with the person making the positive claim. It should always rest with the theist rather than the atheist as the theist is the one making the claim, atheism merely being the lack of belief in a god and not the claim that there isn't one. However, it also would rest with the atheist should he choose to use the phrase"there is no god" as this is then a claim. Also worth note is that all people are atheistic, even theists, about all religions other than their own.

So, back to my point. The burden of proof rests with the person making the positive claim such as, "god exists", or, "god doesn't exist", or, "bigfoot exists". Quite simple really. Most theists don't get it merely because they don't want to as they know that their position is indefensible. And as such shifting the burden of proof onto you is their only defense. You can't after all disprove nothing can you?