7thangel

You wasted many years on such irrational religion, how would you prove that you are not irrational now? Your very last sentence is irrational, didn't you think about that?

Bill Snedden

Actually, CP wasn't so much mischaracterized as simply not stated fully.

In CP (as articulated by the likes of Van Til, Bahnsen, Douglas, Frame, etc), there is no phenomena, no argument, no proof that can serve as evidence for god. All of CP hinges on an axiomatic acceptance of god's existence. All evidence, all thought, all logic can only be used to demonstrate the impossibility of the contrary.

Thus, Jobar's initial characterization of CP was technically correct: the CP doesn't need evidence for god's existence. The CP can only interpret "evidence" in light of her axiomatic acceptance of god's existence.

Isn't it obvious? The Bible is wrong.

And your aside ("why spend time arguing against something you deny?") is obviously fallacious. I can argue against the proposition, "Bill's hair is green" without accepting its veracity. I can argue that there are no good reasons to believe that there are purple elephants on Jupiter without accepting that they exist.

I absolutely agree with the first part of your statement (although I don't recall seeing Jobar actually make the statement to which you respond). To characterize the behavior of the majority of believers and non-believers as being significantly different would be, I believe, a faulty generalization based on an observation of a few mean-spirited and deluded individuals.

I wonder, however, how many times you will need to be reminded that your mischaracterization of non-theistic ethical theories is both ignorant and false before you stop making such inflammatory statements?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

fishbulb

What else would one argue against? Something he does believe in?

Let me point something out here: "all men know God through creation and in their conscience" is what you say. What does that mean? It sounds like gobbledygook to me. What, exactly, does it mean to "know God through creation?" What creation? How do I, being a man, know God through creation? Biblical is not my first language; is there an English translation of that phrase that might make more sense to me?

You then write that men "supress this knowledge because they are in active rebellion against God." More gobbledygook, I think. If I were actively rebelling against God, wouldn't I be aware of it? Isn't that part of the definition of "active?" And, if I have suppressed my knowledge of God, how could I possibly be actively rebelling against him? How can I actively rebel against something I have no knowledge of?

I can tell you why I don't believe in the God of the Bible: none of it makes any sense. I subject it to the same smell test I subject every suspicious-sounding claim to, and it comes up a little stinky. Believers make pronouncements like these with great conviction. I don't doubt that they believe every word of it. But, to me, it sounds like gibberish; words strung together in grammatically correct but semantically empty sentences. How can I be expected to believe anything based on that? It seems to me that, if God were real and people knew that he were real, that someone would be able to offer a clear and cogent explanation of how they knew, without resorting to ambiguous phrases, strange concepts laden with convoluted symbolism, and words empty of real meaning?

Jobar

fishbulb:
I can tell you why I don't believe in the God of the Bible: none of it makes any sense. I subject it to the same smell test I subject every suspicious-sounding claim to, and it comes up a little stinky. Believers make pronouncements like these with great conviction. I don't doubt that they believe every word of it. But, to me, it sounds like gibberish; words strung together in grammatically correct but semantically empty sentences. How can I be expected to believe anything based on that? It seems to me that, if God were real and people knew that he were real, that someone would be able to offer a clear and cogent explanation of how they knew, without resorting to ambiguous phrases, strange concepts laden with convoluted symbolism, and words empty of real meaning?

Well said.

And yet they claim that God wants us all to know Him, and loves us. Yet for fear of abrogating our Free Will (another of those gibberish terms) He will not provide one single solitary factual proof of His existence.

:banghead:

doodad

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fiach

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55 5+ Billion people believe in some kind of god, so apparently you are the minority A majority of the world is also illiterate, can't do geometry or trigonometry, doesn't know basic facts about the Earth, Sun and solar system, can't define galaxies. So it is not surprising that they majority believe in invisible beings of some sort. So, yes, we Atheists are a minority in the world, 30% or so overall, 51% or more in Scotland, Netherlands, and Russia as opposed to only 8% in the USA, Ireland, and Portugal. So what? Numbers do not determine truth. Al Gore got the most numbers in your presidential election, but Bush, the minority candidate won. In this situation of Atheists being fewer than Theists, I consider it to mean that I am in an intellectual elite of rational thinkers who sees no evidence for God. and the one considered irrational. Actually Atheists are in the vast majority of fields of studies considered most rational (Science, Medical Research, Computer science, academic philosophy). Atheists are recognised for their rationality by most christians. I never heard anyone actually call us "irrational." Our basic thinking processes are based on reason not authority as are yours. You intended it as an insult not a serious statement. My question to you, is why do you hate us so intensely? How is our non-belief a threat to you? Ha, you made my day. I am among the world elite thinkers. I feel good about that. Fiach

Must something be rational in order to be of value?

The intellectual elite? What do you do for a living? Rationality has it's merits but is it the only virtue associated with knowledge.
You seem to be saying that theists cannot be rational in ways other than in their beliefs.

Knowledge and reason are valuable assets to a scientist, but unless he controls his output we have Frankensteins. The people who developed the a-bomb were intellects, and many of them were against using it on moral grounds. The point is this, reason or intellect does not produce wisdom.

A politician, Harry Truman, made the decision to drop the big egg.
Was he of the intellectual elite? I doubt it, but in his own way he was an accomplished leader. You brag about your countries and others having a higher percentage of non-believers than the ignorant US and yet as a country you people couldn't beat the shit out of your shorts. It takes more than brains to get some jobs done, and the American GI proved that in WWI and again in WWII. Those intellectual professional generals from the European states thought they knew all there was to know about fighting a war, and yet they couldn' win a cake walk. The dumb-shit God fearing GI made them look like a bunch of lackies. Americans may not be the most sophisticated bunch on the planet, but what they lack in smarts they make up for in effort.
By the way, how many moon shots have the Scots made to date?
What are your major advances in science that we should know about?


Many so-called truths are based upon a consensus of opinion, and this is sometimes the case in science. At a point in time we go with what we have, so the truths of today may be false tomorrow. One such example is the American philosopy of testing a patient for allergies. One camp thinks that skin tests are the only way to get a good reading where others prefer the RAST testing method. Either way works, and the results to be had either way are somewhat dependent upon the doctor who reads the test results. It's a value call. Is one camp ignorant and the other a bunch of elitists? My doctor, who uses RAST testing on me, has successfully treated me for allergies, and the clown from the elitist establishment crowd who uses skin tests doesn't have the brains to read his results or the balls to doing anything about what he finds. So in real terms, who delivers me relief, the brains or the guy who's willing to go with what data he receives from the tests, regardless of the method. The empirical method has its virtues, and they can be measured in terms of results.

I don't claim there is a God in real terms, but to call people irrational or ignorant because they believe there is just
shows your own ignorance.

Belief in God isn't based upon ration or evidence, but is a matter of desire, so the view that it is irrational begs the issue. There's little that is rational about the fact that nice boobs turn me on where nice butts don't, but the end result is that I get turned on.
Why fight it?

theophilus

You misunderstand the nature of belief in God. If you truly believed in God, i.e., acknowledged his authority to be and to govern his creation in any manner consistent with his will and accepted his word as the necessary foundation for all your knowledge, you would not abandon that belief.
What you had was a conditional belief; conditioned on God satisfying your expectations, desires, and demands (how he should be and what he should govern his creation).

Why don't you go over the the Evidence for God thread and read some of my posts?

doodad

Theo, believers are not monolithic in their beliefs or in the degree or intensity of their beliefs. I've heard your argument presented time and time again, and all I get from it is that it's some kind of a defensive tactic.

IMO the average layman does not devote his entire energy or time to his spiritual beliefs so I doubt the perfect or ideal believer you portray exists in significant numbers. Anybody with half a brain and a little reasoning power will probably question some of religious doctrine, will accept some of it, will reject some of it, and will be indifferent to the rest. In fact I think the typical believer has a conditional belief. If not he's as dense as these people claim he is.

The nature of the belief in God is just this, a fantasy, or a desire, and the facts be damned. People believe in God for at least two reasons, one in hopes of gaining something from it, and one in hopes of avoiding something (the divine punishment) from it. It's a mind game, and to a certain extent I play the game. However I am reasonable in my expectations and try not to be hooked on my beliefs to the point that I make a fool of myself.

I really believe if the religious zealots would stay out of other
peoples' faces and would simply live and let live we'd all be better off. To me practicing religion is a bit like using alcohol or smoking tobacco in that moderate use of it is pleasurable and relatively harmless, but when you overdo it you run the risk of harming yourself and others around you.

I think one of the problems with believers is that they have been sold a line of bull and they are too proud to admit it.

Fiach

[QUOTE]Originally posted by doodad
Theo, believers are not monolithic in their beliefs or in the degree or intensity of their beliefs. I've heard your argument presented time and time again, and all I get from it is that it's some kind of a defensive tactic.

Religious belief is a subjective delusion with a brain circuit substrate. It is programmed by input from family and ambient culture. Due to variances in brain synaptic numbers and regulation, the substrate varies. Input also varies according to the particular beliefs of each parent or perhaps a local community variant. No two Christians have entirely identical beliefs. Even we atheists have differences over why we reject hypothetical invisible beings.

IMO the average layman does not devote his entire energy or time to his spiritual beliefs so I doubt the perfect or ideal believer you portray exists in significant numbers. Anybody with half a brain and a little reasoning power will probably question some of religious doctrine, will accept some of it, will reject some of it, and will be indifferent to the rest. In fact I think the typical believer has a conditional belief. If not he's as dense as these people claim he is.

Almost all believers that I know, now a minority in my country, pick a choose what to believe or reject. My next neighbour is Anglican. He and his wife believe Jesus came to Earth to overthrow the rule of Satan the God of the Old teatament. That takes care of Old Testament Atrocities. JHWH is Satan. They are Anglican Christians but not typical, and maybe Albigensians. I don't know anybody in my shire who favours Bible based magical creation over scientific evolution. They mold their religion to make the fact of Evolution ("Just God's method.)

The nature of the belief in God is just this, a fantasy, or a desire, and the facts be damned. People believe in God for at least two reasons, one in hopes of gaining something from it, and one in hopes of avoiding something (the divine punishment) from it. It's a mind game, and to a certain extent I play the game. However I am reasonable in my expectations and try not to be hooked on my beliefs to the point that I make a fool of myself.

See my post on choice in belief to follow.

I really believe if the religious zealots would stay out of other
peoples' faces and would simply live and let live we'd all be better off. To me practicing religion is a bit like using alcohol or smoking tobacco in that moderate use of it is pleasurable and relatively harmless, but when you overdo it you run the risk of harming yourself and others around you.

Yes it is annoying. However in their defence I would say that I think their motives are positive. The believe we are headed to Hell, and trying to save us from that in their minds. We should not forget that when debating them.

I think one of the problems with believers is that they have been sold a line of bull and they are too proud to admit it.

I don't think so. If they recognise that it is bollocks, they are rational enough to reject it. Read Dan Barker's Book, "Losing Faith in Faith." He is a former evangelist who saw that he was pushing rubbish and he underwent a painful transition to atheism.

Fiach

Fiach

I don't think that any of us choose to believe anything. We believe that the Rocky Mountains exist because we and every person with eyesight can see them. We don't choose to believe that they exist as we stand at the Lodge at Lake Louise. We don't choose to believe that we are tired after working 10 hours without a break. We can't see Atoms and protons but we know they exist because of the abundant scientific data, the secondary results of chemical reactions etc. We know atoms are real, we don't choose to believe in atoms.

We don't believe in cubical spheres, the square root of minus one, or that a snail can play Lord Gordon's Reel on a fiddle. We know that those are not possible by any natural law. We don't believe them; we don't choose to not believe.

God is in a different category. He is invisible, inaudible, intangible, and non-tactile to our investigation. But so is outer space dark matter. He is or is not the creator of the universe. If he is such a creator we don't know if he is sentient (conscious) and intelligent or on a level different from human mentality. As a result some people believe and others do not. It might seem like choice but I can tell you it is not. If it were simple choice, I would have been a believer since childhood.

My life would have been far nicer if I could have honestly identified as a believer. There is no advantage anywhere in being a non-believer, only varying degrees of negative social stigma.

So here is my question. If I did (and I did) spend years wrestling with the question of God's existence. I was taught standard Christian (Anglican almost Catholic) theology. I studied the bible and had as I said taken a theology elective in each of my four years at university. I had counselling with our local pastor. I did this because I "wanted" to believe. I tried to choose to believe but it just wouldn't stick. Now as I note a few grey hairs among my formerly solid black mane, I note my approaching mortality. I want to be "right". So I try to find a reason, even an excuse to believe in God and have immortality. That is a very desirable situation.

An Atheist believes that at death, all is over forever. That is not very pleasant. So I am motivated to find that I am wrong. I know that my elder years would be nicer if I looked forward to an afterlife and a good afterlife.

So, when I die, I may not have not yet found the key data to convince me that God is real. Then I am face to face with God. Everyone tells me that it is too late then to say, "Corblimey, you are real."

Do I get an "A" for effort at trying hard to believe, but failed the final exam because I couldn't programme it into my brain?

Fiach

theophilus

Aside from showing poor manners for reading someone else's mail, your post is merely gratuitous.

If you would have read carefully, you'd have seen that I defined belief. By that standard, which is what "true" belief requires in any context, aach was not a believer.

If you want to argue some other standard, enjoy yourself.

Please specify your standard for "we'd all be better off" and explain why your standard should be authoritative.

Let's see "I think one of the problems with (un)believers is that they have been sold a line of bull and they are too proud to admit it."

BTW, please explain the biological basis for pride and why it should prohibit me from admitting I'm wrong. After all, my self-preservation depends on knowing the truth, doesn't it?