RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 6:59:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

No, my friend, I'm positing an absense of belief.  To me, the idea of a God is as silly as the idea of a golden cow on the dark side of the moon: there's no reason to believe it, it doesn't make sense, and it wreaks of mythology.  My atheism consists of the notion that it's silly to believe in a golden cow on the far side of the moon, not that there's definetively not one.


I stand corrected. It has appeared to me in the past that you were positing an absence. My apologies, then.

quote:

However, I will argue against the notion of a Christian God as that's inheriently flawed in contradiction.


That depends on the notion. Most humans have contradictory notions of virtually everything.

quote:

I knew you had spiritual beliefs, but do you also support the notion of a God?


Define "a god."

Health,
al-Aswad.




dcnovice -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 6:59:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zensee

How do you spelly irony? d -c - n - o - v - i - c - e


Does that pass for adult reasoning in your world?

quote:

Actually, Philo is in the place of stillness and it is you who is going in circles.


I'm admittedly not a logician, but the sentence Human rights are a function of being human. honestly does strike me as circular.



Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 7:05:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Nah, philosophy, its a recent development tied to the development of Humanism.  The UN was of course also a Western Idea.  Why have not the concepts of Human rights existed in past societies if they are a function of being human?


Minor point in this regard. In Rome, if a man did not claim a child, it was to die from exposure. Early Christians started harvesting these abandoned children, at risk to themselves. Presumably because their faith dictated certain things to them that did not seem like an equally good idea to the Romans, who did not have the same beliefs (obviously).

«On the Genealogy of Morals» is well worth reading to anyone who posits that Humanism does not stem from Christianity.

Which is not to say that I subscribe to Humanism, as my reading indicates that is not what was implied or intended, prior to Saul.

Health,
al-Aswad.



Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 7:08:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

So there are no rights inherent in being human? Just social constructs? If a society fails to recognize and enforce certain rights, do they cease to exist there? I hate to use this example, but the Third Reich neither recognized nor enforced any rights for Jews. Does that mean such rights didn't exist? If so, we we wrong to prosecute those who carried out the Holocaust?


Logical loop. Being wrong implies a moral frame of reference. Such rights did not, and still don't, exist. They did what they did. We did what we did. All of us can invent whatever scaffolding of words will make us feel better about ourselves, our past, and so forth, but that remains our invention, not something inherent. Your only right, if you have any, is to die. The rest is entitlement and whatever somebody is willing to back your claim to. The right of the strong, whether as individuals or as a collective. As it always has been.

quote:

But doesn't the passion required for a sustained fight against unfairness stem from the belief in inherent human rights?


No.

Health,
al-Aswad.



angelikaJ -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 7:13:28 PM)

There was an interesting program last night on Fresh Air:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19096131

It's one of the oldest faith questions: If there's an all-powerful and loving God, why do human beings suffer? In his latest book, religious studies professor Bart D. Ehrman wrestles with that question — and with the implications of the often-contradictory answers he finds. In God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question — Why We Suffer, Ehrman meditates upon how the Bible explains human suffering, why he finds the explanations unconvincing, and why he gave up on being a Christian.



Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 7:14:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

I'm admittedly not a logician, but the sentence Human rights are a function of being human. honestly does strike me as circular.


It certainly seems to be a tautology, at the very least. Whether the statement is circular or not, I'm pretty sure the reasoning that prompted it is either (a) internally self-referential, or (b) systemically self-referential by way of depending implicitly on assumptions that are not supported outside the frame of reference whose self-sufficiency is being called into questionn. That would make the reasoning circular.

Or, more simply: the statement is a profoundly vapid one.

Health,
al-Aswad.



Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 7:18:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: angelikaJ

It's one of the oldest faith questions: If there's an all-powerful and loving God, why do human beings suffer?


It's also one of the simplest questions to answer, although the answer is not simple to put into words. If the man's faith was contingent on such an assumption, and he could not see the answer to this question, it's probably for the best that he realized it was not for him. Hopefully, he will not become a parent at any point, either... there is such a thing as coddling people to death.

Health,
al-Aswad.



Kirata -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 7:42:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro

For most of us non-believers - we agnostics and atheists - the rest of you "believers" seem exactly like children that still believe in Santa Claus. Sadly, you don't get the joke that's been played on you.


Well not so fast....

I am uncomfortable using the word God, because the term has become so inextricably associated with the theologies of the worlds major faiths. But proposing the existence of a "Greater" -- a greater wisdom, a greater power -- is not the same as proposing the existence of a large jolly fellow who lives at the North Pole. Assertions that the reality of such a "Greater" cannot be proven are flawed. You can't prove the existence of such a "Greater" to somebody else, but you can prove it to yourself.

The methods are various and well-documented.

K.



brainiacsub -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 7:50:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: babydriver

[...snip...]
Personally I hate all that. I hate knowing that death is the end of existence. It sucks. And I admit it. I'm scared. Because there's no evidence of any sort of continuation of self after death. Nor can I even conceptualize it. Any time I start to think that there might be a possibility, an endless stream of contrary evidence appears. No amount of wishing can change that fact. All thoughts, all the self talk we do is all done inside our heads - where the brain is.  When it is shut off, thoughts, dreams everything is gone.

That sucks. It really does. The knowledge that this brief life is all there is...well that sucks. It sucks that the vast majority of people who ever lived are gone and forgotten and no one ever knows they existed at all.

And that sucks.

I want to believe. I envy those folks who believe effortlessly who are able to comfort themselves with the belief in demons and angels and god and whatnot.

I'm an atheist by default. I arrived here because I've never seen a single shred of evidence of anything supernatural or anything other than this physical world. I would never deny any believer their faith or beliefs. The more I experience the meaninglessness and absurdity of existence, I envy those who are able to live and believe in an infinitely more comfortable lie.

Amen, brother! This sums up my perspective on my own atheism as well. Bravo!

I was raised in a deeply religious family. All of my family are still devout Christians, although I have been an atheist for more than 12 yrs now. I was really beginning to resent the senselessness of that kind of blind faith. Then, a few years ago my mother was killed tragically in a car accident. She was only 50. I was grief stricken beyond belief - couldn't eat, sleep, stop crying or be comforted. The realization and acceptance of the finality of the end of her life I can only describe as despair without hope. I missed for her all the things I knew she loved and wanted out of life but would never have. At the funeral, I was inconsolable, but my sisters and father -although saddened and grieving - were otherwise cheerful and at peace. They truly believed that she was in a better place and that one day they would see her again. Whereas they drew comfort and found solice in the lie, I found myself alone among the believers with this horrible truth. And man, let me tell you, it sucked big time. Like you, I would like to believe, but I cannot. I cannot prostitute my common sense and better judgement for the sake of faith, no matter how badly I might need it.

In spite of all the atrocities committed in the name of religion, at times it serves its purpose well. The roots of religion begin in antiquity, with the belief that there will be justice in the afterlife where there is no justice here on earth. I am envious of those who live such bliss...



Sinergy -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 8:03:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule

No, I do not. My assertion rests solely upon my own second hand impressions of the first half of the twentieth century. I am not a criminologist and I do not know whether any criminologists have made a study of these trends and their causes.
 


This subject has been studied extensively by criminologists, law enforcement, sociologists, psychiatrists, etc.  A good place to start  learning is with Susan Brownmiller's "Men, Women, and Rape" and the acompanying sources in that book.

For the more criminally factual evidence minded, the police records of the State of New York go back decades and decades.

Sinergy



Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 8:40:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

I cannot prostitute my common sense and better judgement for the sake of faith, no matter how badly I might need it.


Common sense is little more than the prejudices (a.k.a. beliefs) accumulated by adulthood.
Every time you make a decision without relying exlusively on proven data, you are making a leap of faith.
Every time you make a value judgment, consult your sense of morals, or a bunch of other things, you rely on faith.

What differentiates this from Spinoza's notions of faith, or those of Einstein? Nothing.

The thing is that there are different beliefs out there, and the bulk of what humans base their lives on comes down to belief. Some such beliefs are organized into systems. All cultures, philosophies, mythologies and religions are collections of beliefs and practices that center on them. This includes secular humanism and no-soul Buddhism. You can't really escape some form of belief and still be human.

Which is not to say that such beliefs need to include a bunch of stuff about afterlives, divine intervention or whatever.

But it seems somewhat inaccurate to imply that Einstein prostituted his bettter judgment for the sake of faith, for instance. And it also seems more than a tad like trauma based reasoning (typical of lapsed Christians, or really any people who have come from some kind of background that they distance themselves from) to assert that it constitutes prostitution or irrationality for people to hold beliefs that are no less supported than the ones you base your day-to-day living on, just because they find some utility in theirs that yours cannot provide you with.

quote:

In spite of all the atrocities committed in the name of religion, at times it serves its purpose well.


Correct. Care to speculate on its purpose?

quote:

The roots of religion begin in antiquity, with the belief that there will be justice in the afterlife where there is no justice here on earth.


Which is non-productive. It consigns people to inaction, to not correcting what is flawed here and now.

quote:

I am envious of those who live such bliss...


There is nothing blissful about a rational approach to religion; if anything, quite the contrary.

What you are envious of, is lack of thinking, close-mindedness and contentment.

Personally, I fail to see anything to envy about that.

Health,
al-Aswad.



CuriousLord -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 8:57:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:

I knew you had spiritual beliefs, but do you also support the notion of a God?


Define "a god."


I'm afraid that it'd be easier to default to you on this one.  For my question, I'm asking if you would have faith in anything that would meet some reasonable definition of "a god".  (I'm sure you know the general characteristics associated with a god/deity, so I'm basically referring to all of them.)

As for the other thing, I call myself an "atheist", half for love of the word itself: "a-" "theist", or to be without theory (particularly as "theory" doesn't exactly meet scientific standard in this context).  Then there's half for the accuracy of it; my belief in religion approaches atheism, proper, faster than Pascal's Wager takes the expected value of belief to infinity (a belief which I hold in reverence for another, though do continually question).



Kirata -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 9:34:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: brainiacsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: babydriver

[...snip...]
I want to believe. I envy those folks who believe effortlessly who are able to comfort themselves with the belief in demons and angels and god and whatnot.

I'm an atheist by default. I arrived here because I've never seen a single shred of evidence of anything supernatural or anything other than this physical world.


Amen, brother! This sums up my perspective on my own atheism as well. Bravo!

Like you, I would like to believe, but I cannot. I cannot prostitute my common sense and better judgement for the sake of faith, no matter how badly I might need it.


I know I'm jumping into the middle of this, but atheism, simply put, posits a world view which does not credit theistic explanations. What you are calling "atheism" sounds more like materialism.
 
K.
 



Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 9:44:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

I'm afraid that it'd be easier to default to you on this one.


Fair enough, although I suspect you may not find the answer particularly satisfying, even if I stay away from the more esoteric bits, like theogenesis.

If you want a more comprehensive treatment of my beliefs, that will have to end up in an interactive CMail exchange.

quote:

For my question, I'm asking if you would have faith in anything that would meet some reasonable definition of "a god".  (I'm sure you know the general characteristics associated with a god/deity, so I'm basically referring to all of them.)


There are some configurations that could reasonably be called gods, in which I could potentially believe. Most of them I don't. Perhaps the best approach to explaining it is that I am open-minded as to who and/or what God is. The most agreeable, and least useful, words of identity that have been attested are "ehyeh asher ehyeh." If you're not familiar with its meaning, the middle word is "that" and the two around it are the imperfect continuous aspect of the copula verb, tense not given. An appeal to synchonicity might suffice to describe some of what I refer to in my own mind, but that would be a bit of a cop-out, except in explaining the reasons for my beliefs.

My notions of God entail a mind of sorts (I've discussed the meaninng of the word "mind" with you in the past, so you probably get that this doesn't necessarily correspond to anything most people can relate to) and an ability to interact with the world to an extent that I am not certain of the scope of. I fully realize that this entails being part of the same causal network as the observable universe. I also do not posit omnipotence, and if there is omniscience (which I'm not at all certain of), then I believe it to be confined to the present and past. I do not ascribe human labels such as "'good" to this entity, although I believe there is potential for (mutually?) gainful interaction.

I am also not certain of its existence, and trust my senses, knowledge and experiences over dogma.

Which does not prevent me from making assumptions, or having theories, where such things do not contradict observations.

quote:

As for the other thing, I call myself an "atheist", half for love of the word itself: "a-" "theist", or to be without theory (particularly as "theory" doesn't exactly meet scientific standard in this context).  Then there's half for the accuracy of it; my belief in religion approaches atheism, proper, faster than Pascal's Wager takes the expected value of belief to infinity (a belief which I hold in reverence for another, though do continually question).


Quite fair enough. I usually refer to that as agnosticism, as most atheists do indeed, in my experience, posit an actual absence, even though you do not. I'm sure you'll agree that such a position constitutes a belief in its own right. Clearer terminology would be pretty cool, though. As I have said in the past, I have no problem with people having an absence of belief, which- after all- makes perfect sense. Those who choose to believe in absence, however, seem to exhibit a thinking that appears paradoxical, and which may well be more harmful than typical blind zealotry. The faith of the sheep is, after all, easily directed by any self-appointed shepherd and is quite obvious. Not so for the belief in absence, which rejects the shepherds' mandate, and tends to be more insidious.

To clarify, I get your position, and don't have a problem with it.

Health,
al-Aswad.



luckydog1 -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 9:45:42 PM)

Curious lord, you are a bit confused about the meaning and origin of the word athiesm.  Thiesm is not related to theory.  They come from different Greek words.  "Theos" ---- God   and "the[image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/omacr.gif[/image]ri[image]http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/amacr.gif[/image]," ---- spectator.  Theism means either belief in any sort of God/deity or belief in a supreme monotheistic God. 



Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 9:46:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

What you are calling "atheism" sounds more like materialism.


Colloquially, the two are virtually synonymous, even though they aren't lexicographically so.

Health,
al-Aswad.



Kirata -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 9:59:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

What you are calling "atheism" sounds more like materialism.


Colloquially, the two are virtually synonymous....


I guess I wouldn't know. Are you serious? My good Lord of all the worlds and little fishes! They're not even close to being synonyms!

K.




Aswad -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 10:45:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

I guess I wouldn't know. Are you serious? My good Lord of all the worlds and little fishes! They're not even close to being synonyms!


"Are" vs. "should be."

Language is defined by use, not by set definitions in a dictionary.

And in colloquial use, I have thus far encountered only a handful of people who did not use the word "atheism" to mean "materialism."

Health,
al-Aswad.




philosophy -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 11:23:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

I'm admittedly not a logician, but the sentence Human rights are a function of being human. honestly does strike me as circular.


the statement is a profoundly vapid one.



......oooh vapid. So, animal behaviour is a function of being an animal......it is not a function of being a plant or a brick or a piece of string. It is an intrinsic quality. It may be stating the bleeding obvious, but some people here don't see the bleeding obvious.
Human rights, in the context of this discussion, is a function of being human rather than being a function of some God or other. You may, rudely, describe me having to point out the obvious as vapid.....but i think you just missed the point.



Alumbrado -> RE: Faith to the faithless, a perspective (2/20/2008 11:47:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

What you are calling "atheism" sounds more like materialism.


Colloquially, the two are virtually synonymous, even though they aren't lexicographically so.

Health,
al-Aswad.



The colloquial usage of 'materialism' as a generic term for'greedy' can easily be applied to members of a religious faith, while the dictionary makes the distinction between spiritual and material that you seem to be referencing.

quote:

noun



1.
preoccupation with or emphasis on material objects, comforts, and considerations, with a disinterest in or rejection of spiritual, intellectual, or cultural values.



2.
the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/materialism



Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875