Defiant Heretic

But what about those of us who once had that faith but later lost it when confronted with the evidence (or lack thereof)? I used to be a Christian (until about age 13), and I certainly had a fair amount of faith. I still came to the conclusion that Yahweh does not exist.

K

agapeo:

Yes, I do agree. But then, I have no choice - I'm deterministic .

Actually, I'm not completely certain of anything but my own consciousness. However, I believe there is plenty of evidence to support the position, and I have yet to see any that refutes it.

I'm perfectly willing to discuss the issue (actually, it's one of my favorite topics), I'm just not sure it's appropriate for me to hijack this thread to the philosophy forum..

Brahma's atheist

I keep saying this. If gods were real then there would be no atheists. We're talking about beings that supposedly created everything, apparently independantly of each other and in many interesting and improbable ways. If they were real then you wouldn't 'believe' in them, they would just be. They would just be part of life like breathing or the ground beneath your feet.

NOGO

Yes but the NT says that those who don't believe will be condemned.

agapeo

That may be true, NOGO, but is being condemned the same as being punished? I kinda think of being condemned in the sense of an abandoned building. If it's left empty for too long it becomes condemned and razed. Making room for new construction. (Hmm . . . that last comment may be a poor analogy. Can I retract it later? )

Stephen T-B

Brahma's atheist wrote: “I keep saying this. If gods were real then there would be no atheists. We're talking about beings that supposedly created everything, apparently independently of each other and in many interesting and improbable ways. If they were real then you wouldn't 'believe' in them, they would just be. They would just be part of life like breathing or the ground beneath your feet. “
Well, B.a, it’s what I’ve been saying for a bit too. In other words, the mere fact that Jamie_L is able NOT to believe in gods suggests that gods aren’t real.

But perhaps the question here is semantic: what do we mean by “real”?

A “real” entity is one whose existence is not disputed and is therefore not open to belief or disbelief. Thus you won’t find people who “believe” or “don’t believe” in trees. That’s because they are real.
On the other hand, you will find people who “believe” or “don’t believe” in gods. That’s because they aren”t real.

The trap believers fall into is to confuse the reality of their belief with the reality of what they believe in.

[ October 14, 2002: Message edited by: Stephen T-B ]</p>

agapeo

I agree that the question is one of semantics but I somewhat disagree with your definition of "real." Surprise!
Thus you're saying that for someone who has never seen a tree, a tree is therefore not "real"? Does it count as a valid belief for someone who hasn't seen an actual tree but has been told of its existence? Would the tree still exist and be real if such said person didn't believe it was real?
Could be so. I've never seen an actual dinosaur. Were they real? Oh! oh! I know we have bones don't we.
The funny thing about this believing thing is that I've been told I had a father even though I've never seen him. Supposedly he died before I was born. Now I've seen pictures of a man they claim was my father. He looked like I look. Shoot, I even have the same name that they claim he had. (They being my Mother, brothers, grandparents, etc., etc., etc.) All these people claiming that this man I've seen in a photograph was my father. What do you think? Should I believe what they say? Could he have actually been real? All I know for sure is that I'm real and I owe my existence to some man. Might as well be the man in the photograph. So far it's the best explaination I've heard of who fathered me.

Stephen T-B

Hello Agapeo. (I’ve been to heaven since we last exchanged ideas. It is called Wimereux and is on the coast of northern France.)

I’ll try to address your points.
quote: “Thus you're saying that for someone who has never seen a tree, a tree is therefore not "real"?

The person who has never seen a tree must take the word of other people that such a thing exists, and I would say that in the first instance he / she would be entitled to say “I don’t believe in trees.”
But this sceptic could get a book which described and defines trees, and in it see photos of them. This sceptic could search out people who claimed to have seen trees, and then compare their experiences with the descriptions in the book. If he found a consistency he would be justified in concluding that trees are real. Indeed, it would be unreasonable - in the light of this common consent - to remain sceptical.

In terms of gods, we cannot adopt that approach because although many religions ascribe general basic characteristics to the gods they worship, there is no “standard” reference work to which they all subscribe. Indeed, within a single congregation, there are worshippers whose individual concept of the god in which they believe is quite distinctive. That’s because gods exist within the realm of the human mind, and every mind is different. The god you envisage is therefore different, in subtle ways - or not so subtle - from the gods envisaged by your fellow worshippers because although you all take your lead from the Bible, the Bible is ambiguous, and although your Minister repeatedly defines the god he believes in, there are aspects of it which everyone in the congregation can go along with and some which they can’t. So when he makes a declaration which chimes in exactly with their own concept, they nod their heads and smile - perhaps they shout “Hallelujah!” -or perhaps they think: “that’s an aspect I hadn’t thought of before, but it sounds reasonable.” And now the god they have in their mind is slightly altered. But
when the preacher makes a declaration with which they positively cannot agree, they subconsciously erase it from their memories.

As for your father, you cannot be sure who he was. I cannot be sure who my father was. He is dead and cremated so his and my DNA cannot be compared. I am therefore entitled to say “I believe J.T-B was my father.” I am equally entitled to say: “I do not believe J.T-B was my father.” But this doesn’t mean my father never existed; only his identity is open to doubt, and therefore to belief or disbelief.
For me to say “I don’t believe I have a father at all,” is very unreasonable, because by common consent, human beings require the coming together of an egg and sperm. That is not in dispute. That we all have fathers is therefore not a matter for belief or disbelief. Fathers, like trees, are real.
.

Jamie_L

agapeo:

Believing the identity of your father is reasonable. You have a long history with your mother and brothers to use in evaluating the likelihood of their honesty. You do, in fact, have the photographs that show resemblance between yourself and the man who is claimed to be your father. The claim being made is not particularly far-fetched. For all these reasons, belief that this man was in fact your father is reasonable.

Now, if people you didn't know were claiming that your father was a space-alien from Venus with super powers, and they had not a picture but an artist's rendering of a man with green skin and red eyes, that would be another story.

Jamie

Jamie_L

agapeo:

Getting back to a previous post:

Since I don't actually believe in God, I don't really prefer anything. My point is that God (if real) is, well, God. He doesn't have to program me. Chritians and non-Christian theists alike have sat down with me and tried to convince me God is real. They have failed. Now, if God were omnipotent and omnisicnet, he could give these guys the information they need to convince me. Or, he could just pop into my living room and say "Jamie, see here, it's like this...", and convince me himself. Or he could leave enough clues and evidence in the universe that I would be just as convinced as everyone else. Other people say "there's enough evidence to convince me." Are they robots? They claim not to be so. Why would convincing me make me a robot?

I would say "some of which are chosen". I didn't choose to be shy, or non-confrontational, or to have a mild assertion phobia. I didn't choose to have skeptical leanings. I may choose when I want to restrain these aspects of my personality (when I have enough self-control to do so), but the underlying aspects are there. There are many people who have aspects of their personalities that make them ask big questions like "why are we here?" and "where did this all come from?" For some reason, I don't obsess over those questions, and I'm comfortable with the fact that they may not have, or need answers. I didn't really choose that either, I don't think.

Maybe I do. I thought the drawing analogy was intended to show how I might interpret God's creation differently than someone else. If that wasn't your intent, then I guess I don't understand the analogy. My point is that if God is the artist, then he ought to be able to make us see whatever he wants. After all, he's God.


I was being a bit flippant. My point was that if I was omnipotent and omniscient, it would be within my power to convince my children to behave. I would know exactly what was required to convince them of the error of their ways, and it would be within my power to make my case as convincing as it needed to be.

The point being: my relationship with my children is a poor analogy to God's relationship with me. Why? Because I'm me, and God is, well, God.

There's recurring theme here...

Jamie

[ October 15, 2002: Message edited by: Jamie_L ]</p>