theophilus

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your post. I thought that you were saying that the argument from popularity was being presented as an argument for the existence of God.
I do not make this argument and have not seen it.
I do make the observation that it is unreasonable to dismiss theism as a cultural construct when such belief transcends cultures, though in different forms.
Your speculation that man developed theistic beliefs as a coping mechanism is just that, speculation and is not an argument against the validity of theism.
I can speculate that your anti-theism is a coping mechanism developed to avoid confronting your own unbelief - actually that's not speculation. It is, in fact, what the Bible says.

Mageth

theophilus said:

The "reason" I believe is not in question here (it is in fact spiritual).

Are you saying that the reason you believe in god is "spiritual?" So in order for me to believe in god, I first have to believe in "spirit?" On what do you base your belief in spirit?

Quetzal

Ummm, okay. Now you understand why I never argue on EoG. I guess I'm too stupid to see the difference between the above and my restatement "...believers being the only ones capable of evaluating evidence for belief".

You seem to be saying that the existence/non-existence of God is a null hypothesis. There is no evidence that can be imagined that would falsify the claim. That means the premise is merely opinion and communicates nothing except opinion. Okay, I'll buy that. It is your opinion God exists. <shrugs> The question therefore is meaningless - and since it has absolutely no bearing on the physical reality we all live in, it seems pointless to continue a discussion of the subject.

If you restate this to say "the intellect be disengaged", I'll agree with you. Since you are arguing a null hypothesis, no amount of intellect or rational inquiry can prove or disprove your claim. Therefore, to consider the process and intellectual one is factually incorrect. The exception would be if you defined "intellectual process" as a mere mental exercise - a thought piece - in which case I would tend to agree with you.
You've just entered the semantic equivalent of a death spiral: I translate this statement as a belief in the existence of God is necessary for belief in God. IOW, without presupposing God, there can be no spiritual encounter with God, which means there is no possible way for an unbeliever to believe in God without already believing in God so that a spiritual encounter can occur... No wonder I get so confused.
Is this a restatement of "if you don't believe in (my) God, you're going to hell (or equivalent")? How can anyone be accused of rebellion against something for which there is no evidence of existence and that can't be amenable to "natural proof"? I mean, from what you're telling me, the existence/nonexistence of God is some kind of mental exercise or opinion piece for which no possible evidence can be understood except by those who already believe in God. How can my not accepting your opinion be considered rebellion?

No offense. I really simply don't understand you. I don't think we share a common frame of reference and hence will probably never be able to communicate. Ta. <Morpho wanders back to the basement of II where he belongs.>

[edited for clarity]

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Morpho ]</p>

DarkBronzePlant

While I wouldn't be necessarily convinced of the truth of every word, it would be a lot more convincing than some person writing a book, and then claiming that god wrote it.
Excuse me? EXCUSE ME?!!! Musing about flaming words in the sky is stupid, yet believing in global floods, whales swallowing live humans, seas parting, men being made out of mud and women out of ribs, talking snakes and asses, and "commandments" etched in stone are not? "Hello, kettle? This is the pot. You're a pot."

I didn't find it particularly clever-sounding myself, but thanks Anyhow, keep in mind that the Bible is a book that claims that animals talk, the earth is flat and square, and the sun revolves around the earth when you claim that it is not defective.
theo, do you honestly believe that the bible, in its completed, bound, hardcover glory, fell from the heavens and into the hands of men? You realize that it is a book, right? And this book was written by men... you understand that too, right? Certainly books are very reasonable means of communicating... BETWEEN HUMAN BEINGS! How is it that the best god could do was to presumably insist that humans write a book for him?

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: DarkBronzePlant ]</p>

Jamie_L

Point 1 in my OP was saying that, sort of. I have seen in this forum (though I forget where - apologies for the unsupported statement, but I don't keep notes tabs on these informal forum debates). It was asserted that the atheist holds the burden of proof to disprove god, or as you put it, to argue against the validity of theism. I have seen it proposed that the atheist has this burden, and not the theist, because theism is the "norm" in human society. It is the "default" which should be believed if lack of better evidence or arguement is not provided.

My arguement of a coping mechanism may not be a valid arguement agaist theism. However, when someone makes an arguement that the only logical explanation for a widespread belief in god is that god is true, then a speculative but plausible alternative illustrates that the first arguement is flawed. You are correct, however, that it doesn't necessarily swing the scales back in the other direction.

So, the Bible says my "anti-theism" is a way of avoiding my unbelief? I don't avoid my unbelief. I accept it fully. And by definition, I think unbelief entails belief that the alternative, theism, is bogus. But that's another thread entirely.

Jamie

Jamie

theophilus

Belief does not exist as a isolated intellectual phenomena. It is part of a redemptive transaction initiated by God, and effected in the believer. It is not merely an intellectual process, although the mind must have understanding.

Belief and knowledge are two different things. All men know God through the witness of creation. They suppress that knowledge to justify their rebellion.

Faith, i.e., belief, occurs when God removes the bondage of sin which controlls man's life.

theophilus

That's not exactly what I said. The bible explains that all men have knowledge of God through the witness of his creation. They suppress this knowledge to cover their own sin.

HRG

Since our observations of the universe can be explained by various other models (cosmological models or creation by my cat last Thursday), the universe doesn't "witness" anything.

It is of course a blatant and unwarranted petitio principii to call the universe a "creation".

HRG.

theophilus

I only call it that on the authority of scripture. What's your authority for saying your cat made it last Thursday?

Datheron

The holy catnip, of course.

The point is that an appeal to authority only makes sense when the discussion has already preapproved of that authority.