Does it not require just as much faith to say there is no God as it does to say there is?Let me do that infuriating thing, and answer your question with another question. Does it require just as much faith to claim that a man cannot fly as it does to claim that he can? Sure, we've all heard stories about men being able to fly. Books have been written about men who fly. Movies have been made. Heck, there's a brand new one just about to come out.
And yet, I have never actually met a man who could really fly. None of my friends and family have ever met a man who could really fly. We all saw Doug Henning claiming that his group of "Yogic Flyers" could do it, but when we saw the video, it was embarrassingly evident that they were just bouncing up and down. We felt bad for Doug that he had been taken in by those silly people.
Occasionally, we might run into someone who does claim that people really can fly, and that he's seen them do it. When asked to show us, he has some excuse that they're out of the country right now. Or they cannot display their abilities for fear of persecution from the CIA. Or they're shy.
Having never seen evidence that a man can fly, our life experience leads us to disbelieve any casual claims of technologically unassisted human flight. Asking us to believe that a man can fly does ask us to make a leap of faith. Believing that a man cannot fly becomes a simple default position.
So, for an atheist, the idea that there is no God is a default position based on the fact that:
1) He has seen no evidence to support the existence of said God.
2) Descriptions he reads of said God are extremely fantastic in nature.
3) He finds the traditional documentation claiming said God's existence to be rife with internal inconsistancies to the point of being ridiculous (even the people who claim he exists can't keep their story straight).
Does it require faith for me to disbelieve in God? No. It is the only logical conclusion I can come to based on my understanding of the world around me. You want me to believe this guy flies? You're gonna hafta show me. Because if you can't, I'm going to assume he doesn't.
Bonus marks if you can identify the quote in the title.
tags:Skepticism, Religion,
42 comments:
"I have searched for truth in every pause,
stoplight to stoplight. "
Oddly enough, yes. But, then again, no.
(the previous commenter was referring to a poem by Brian Charles. http://www.gumballpoetry.com/poetry0004/charles2.html )
-Paul
Well, this will teach me to read all of Paul's new entries before submitting more comments in the older post. :o
1) There is no evidence to support the existence of said God.
Do you believe in atoms and subatomic particles? Why? Because someone else has seen them and told you so? Or have you had the pleasure to visit a partical accelerator?
be well,
Dawn
ps... what about Gravity? You can't see it, just its effects and actually there are many different arguements about its properties and existence within the scientific community. Isn't that the same? To me it is ... I see God's effects... the light. Not religion, Paul, but the spirit of oneness, that 'something' undefineable that creates that spark of life when the same chemicals mix together and produce nothing...
Ah, but you see, I COULD visit a particle accellerator if I wanted to. I could get a physicist to take me to the lab and SHOW ME. The evidence exists. It is hard, physical, fact. What you are talking about, Dawn, is a "feeling." You have a feeling that God exists. You do not see any evidence.
Or as is often said on the skeptical forums: I don't think that word means what you think it means.
-Paul
Okay... you could see the particles but you can't see gravity.
You skipped that.
I don't believe it is a 'feeling' I believe that I see the 'effects' of that Supreme One all the time. You would chose to call it coincidence or accident, I don't chose to see it that way.
be well,
Dawn
http://www.idrewthis.org/2005/gravity.html
Good argument Paul but Dawn also presents a good argument in defense. Therefore, I'm still agnostic. In addition, the Hebrew and Christian Greek scriptures provide us with much historical fact. Hezekiah's aquduct was found by scientists using the writs.
http://www.templemount.org/warren1.html
Of course, it's true many other findings were fraudulent but that doesn't discount the many 'facts' found to be true in the scriptures.
Dianna
Um...no she doesn't. She believes she sees the effect of God all around. Though she denies it, what she is describing is a 'feeling.' There's no evidence involved. Now gravity, on the other hand. I have plenty of evidence about that. Every morning when I fall out of bed, I hit the floor. Not one morning, in my entire life, has the floor failed to smack me in the face upon my untimely roll off the edge of the mattress. Pretty sure gravity exists here.
Oh, and the alleged historical accuracy of the bible doesn't mean a thing in a discussion of the existence of God. That's like arguing that Santa Claus is real because there really is a place called The North Pole.
-Paul
Hi Paul,
Dawn stated you could see the "particles" but not the gravity and she is correct. 'Twas my understanding that Dawn meant she could see the visible effects; those being nature, such as light, etc. Whenever I see a beautiful sunset for example, I get a "feeling" so to speak; almost spiritual. She also states she is not talking about religion as we were raised to understand it but of a sense of spirituality. Religion, as we was raised to understand it, has turned many into agnostics and atheists. Yet whenever I see a beautiful feature of nature, I too, the agnostic, have the same spiritual feelings.
The "Santa Analogy" is common with atheists but with all due respect, I don't buy it. The historicity of the scriptures is valuable to 'me' as a tool although some of it has been mistranslated and spurious words and entries were supplied by the church to keep its tenants plausible.
With all due respect, I find that many atheists can be as blind with their arguments as Christians are with their blind faith. Meanwhile, I sit in the middle watching and listening and searching for a truth I may never find.
Dianna
Paul,
Dianna is correct. I never said I had the feeling God was all around me....where did you get that from my statement? You are really putting words in my mouth. I, hail to be agnostic as well, I do not believe in structured formal religion.
And, yes, every day you wake up and fall out of the bed because of something, and effect that has been dubbed gravity. What 'it' is - is still a mystery of relevancy of objects moving through the space time continuum.
Dianna put it forth more clearly than I to you, because I am in a bit of weakened state (flaring from RA) and altered (pain killer fog).
Thank you Dianna, you hit the nail on the head.
I meant, religion as we "were" raised to understand it. Sorry, now I sound like Bush. Wow, I've never left this many comments before:(
Btw, the more I think about the cartoon, the more insulted I am. I am no fundamentalist Christian... that hurts Paul.
be well,
Dawn
Speaking strictly to your last sentence:
Iron Giant
One of the best movies EVER!
Simon
http://simianfarmer.com
Never mind... the cartoon wasn't from you...
the quote is from Iron Giant, I think.
be well,
Dawn
(still a bit slow on the uptake)
Oh yeah... another thing... I don't know why myself or anyone gets drawn into this discussion with you because it isn't like we are going to say something and you will like 'Wow' and you will suddenly believe and have faith. I don't know this for sure but my guess is that your wife isn't an atheist, and if she hasn't somehow brought you around to considering it...no one will.
right?
and that's okay, to quote Seinfeld it's not like there's anything wrong with that.
be well,
Dawn
Dawn,
I didn't say that you said you saw God all around you. I said that you believe you see "the effect of God all around."
What you actually said was, "I believe that I see the 'effects' of that Supreme One all the time." I think that's close enough to qualify as not putting words into your mouth. My point is that you see things in the world, or have a sense of things, that you attribute to a Supreme Being. That attribution comes from within yourself, and in no way constitutes "evidence" of God's existence. As well, those 'effects' you claim to see are immaterial, and inconsistent. They are not always exactly the same, nor can they be measured in any way. Unlike, say, gravity, which can be measured, and is exceptionally consistent.
Dianna,
You missed my point about the historicity of the bible. I do not dispute that much of the bible recounts accurate historical data. That historical accuracy still does not lend any credence to its claims about God. Just because the stories have been set in a real millieu doesn't make them any more true.
Also, I submit that neither of you are agnostics, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. I will repeat: I don't think that word means what you think it means.
And Simon, I knew you would get that quote.
-Paul
My own biggest beef, and it was Dawn's previous comment that brought this to the fore for me, is the irresistable desire, in some, to convert. Or to attempt to convert. Be they Christian, Jew, atheist, Mormon, Jedi or Flying Spaghetti Monster supporters.
It's frikkin' annoying. I had a couple Mormons knock on my door twice in the space of the last two weeks, which is a prime example and not meant to single out the LDS.
I believe in a god that is directly intangible, immutable, omnipresent and omniscient. The Universe, if you will, with some staggering sentience to back it up. Which is about as specifically as I care to define it. And I'm not going to bloody well try to foist it on anyone.
I have a great deal of respect for Paul's stance as an atheist largely because he backs up his own assertions (sorry about the third person thing here, Paul) with lucid rationality. And then markedly doesn't call down anyone directly for holding different beliefs. He may think I'm an irrational noob for clinging to such unsubstantiated ideologies, but has the respect not to say it out loud.
This is one area where the more orthodox religious supporters seriously fall down and shoot themselves in the foot by not only espousing their own claims but also calling down those who don't hold truck with them. Like was mentioned earlier, it's the 5% that gives the 95% the stigma.
Similarly, it's the "angry atheists" who irritate me by sullying their relevant arguments against a god with the concomitant degredation of the individuals who believe in a god.
Let's all have fun disagreeing with each other, to be sure, but the strength of anyone's position is seriously compromised when they elect to get pushy or rude.
Simon
http://simianfarmer.com
Dawn said:
"Never mind... the cartoon wasn't from you..."
Guilty party right here Dawn. Sorry. It's a cartoon I just happened across recently and your comment about gravity reminded me of it more than anything. While for reasons Paul has stated I don't think your gravity argument really works, in hindsight this was a poor and unfair way of saying it, and I didn't mean to imply you were a fundementalist. Apologies.
And Simon, thanks for "concomitant." Here I'd thought you'd actually made a typo, but, having looked it up, see I should never have doubted you, and now I have a new word.
(Dare I say that I should have more faith in you? :)
Ok, I've read the entry & comments. And I'm still lost. I think I'll just bow out of this discussion. Sooo I'm not gonna touch this subject.
Brenda
Wow--I had no idea the question I posed would create such a stir.
Paul--First, let me say, you would be a much better juror than I would be (I've always thought 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' was a really horrible condition of conviction).
You have a very logical approach. It's true, I could never prove any man could fly. That said, 1000 years ago no one could prove the world wasn't flat, and the universe didn't revolve around it. My point was simply that just because you have yet to possess the knowledge to *prove* something doesn't mean it does not exist. It just means you cannot prove it yet.
I have know idea whether or not we will ever be able to 'prove beyond a shadow of a doubt' as to whether God exists or not. But that does not mean it is outside the realm of possibility.
The bible is a really terrific fairy tale. Organized religion has duped a lot of people. I don't chalk everything I cannot explain to an unseen overseer father-figure in the sky. That said, I do have faith in a higher power.
For those who are struggling with the definition of agnosticism, they are people who believe God cannot be proven to exist. Think of it as either people who believe in God, but have no faith, or people who do not believe in God, but think they might be wrong.
Anyway, Paul, I definitely respect your point of view. And thank you for answering my question (although I intended it to be hypothetical and thought-provoking). It was a most interesting thread.
Speaking of men who fly, I can prove it. Visit my post from yesterday at http://daydreamed.blogspot.com/. A picture is worth a thousand words, but the title is Super Powers. Enjoy!
Whenever I see that whole "flat-earth" nonsense in an argument, it just rankles the living hell out of me. No one really thought the world was flat until Washington Irving wrote his biography of Columbus in the 19th Century. And, he came up with that idea simply to sell books.
You're better off using the Church's stance on Copernican Heliocentrism versus Ptolemaic Geocentrism and their excommunication of Galileo.
-Dan
http://journals.aol.com/dpoem/TheWisdomofaDistractedMind/
Dan,
The bad news is, I think you missed the point. My point was there are plenty of things that weren't provable that now are, and there are some things today that are not provable that will be in the future.
The good news is, I find your counterpoint intriguing. Like most of us, I was abused by public schooling and taught (repeatedly) that people used to think the earth is flat. Since I'm somewhat lazy, could you point me to some evidence that backs up that claim? Not that I don't believe you--that sounds perfectly plausable. I just like to read things for myself, and maybe discover some other tidbits I may not have known.
I agree with yrkcllgegy,
just because something hasn't been proven yet, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
I was always taught that agnostic meant a belief in God but not religion. I stand corrected. Thank you. I believe that Dianna thought so too.
Simian, I think you said that what is great about Paul is that he doesn't call us stupid or try to convert us to his ideas, yes that is true. I didn't mean to imply in my frusted note that I wanted to convert him. I was just frustrated. lol I meant what I said, that Pauls belief is what it is and there is nothing wrong with that.
Paul, you paraphrased what I said but with a different meaning. The Supreme Being to me exist in the background. I believe he provided that elusive spark, that brought some ooze to life and therefore, started the whole of evolution on its path. That is what I see all around me Paul. Life.
okay... need to take more pain killers today is another bad day for me... that is about all the lucidity anyone will get out of me...
this is fun...sorry I got cranky last night... pain does that sometimes.
be well,
Dawn
Oh and aleclynch its okay about the cartoon, I get it.. thanks.
be well,
Dawn
Dawn, I said that I have a great deal of respect for Paul, not that I think he IS great.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. He's an okay kind of guy most of the time but that sort of comment would go straight to his head.
Simon
http://simianfarmer.com
HA, HA, HA, HA! I have the undying love and admiration of all my readers! It's good to be a megalomaniac.
-Paul
Sorry this doesn't exactly fit with this topic, but here's some flat earth links.
http://www.ethicalatheist.com/docs/flat_earth_myth_ch4.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/history/1997Russell.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth
Now, though SOME people did believe in the notion of a flat-earth long before Irving, the nonsense didn't enter the mainstream until he wrote a somewhat fictional biography of Columbus. We've been dealing with it ever-since.
My point is that it is insanely annoying to see people use this false notion of a flat-earth in an argument. It makes me want to stick a plastic spoon into Paul's head (nothing personal Paul. I just have a low tolerance for that sort of pain. I'm weak).
-Dan
Sorry Simian... it's too late... it's already gone to his head! Whoops!
lol that's what happens when you paraphrase.. sorry!
be well,
Dawn
Thanks for the links--I started with wiki and found that one (although their credibility has been in question lately). The other two should be very useful.
You should practice a little tolerance, since I think you'd be in the minority of people who realize this information. As I said, the abuses of public education today are unmentionable. And as I said, it's still useful for the purposes of the metaphor I was getting at. 'Unprovable' is different from 'does not exist,' or 'not provable at this time.'
I'll do my best to help dispel the notion of a flat earth, just as soon as I'm done reading these articles. Have you got a blog yourself, Dan? I do enjoy reading the blogs of pretty smart guys. You seem to fall in the group.
Agnostic definition as was defined by T.H. Huxley, the man who coined the term that means one should not profess to a belief in something that cannot be proven.
Thomas Henry Huxley (1825 – 1895) came up with the word ‘agnostic’ while searching for a term to describe his own beliefs. He did not consider himself “an atheist, a theist, a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; [nor] a Christian…” and while he had much in common with freethinkers, he wanted a term to describe himself more accurately.
"His difference with the people who gave themselves the above labels was that he did not feel certain of his knowledge- or ‘gnosis’- that he “had successfully solved the problem of existence.”
http://azaz.essortment.com/agnosticdefinit_rmak.htm
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Fundraising
Dianna << Agnostic
Dianna ROCKS!
Exactly...
Be well,
Dawn <<<< agnostic
"Have you got a blog yourself, Dan? I do enjoy reading the blogs of pretty smart guys. You seem to fall in the group" --Comment from yrkcllgegy - 04/05/06 3:58 PM
Smart?!? I mean, I do have a blog, but it's more about making people laugh themselves silly. But, you're obviously welcome to stop by.
http://journals.aol.com/dpoem/TheWisdomofaDistractedMind/
--Dan
Agnostic-"the term that means one should not profess to a belief in something that cannot be proven."
I fail to see how that describes either Dianna or Dawn. It probably describes me more closely than the term atheist does.
-Paul
And it goes on to say:
"His difference with the people who gave themselves the above labels was that he did not feel certain of his knowledge-or ‘gnosis’- that he “had successfully solved the problem of existence.”
So he was humble, Paul. He stated he was "uncertain." In addition, please be advised that I have not professed to any belief system; I profess to "uncertainty." I am unable to prove or disprove the existence of a deity. There are good arguments on both sides of the fence and I listen; I take in what makes "common" sense and dispose of the nonsense.
Dianna < < < Agnostic
Paul < < < Atheist who is enjoying the entertainment.
I love these debates. As a Catholic, I have strong faith in that which I cannot see - why? For the same reason that others have strong faith in the scientific and physics based theories which define the world of an agnostic or athiest.
Sceince, even in it's most sure theorems (Einstein's relativity, for instance) are still just theories. The have become accepted for the moment by the general populous because nothing has yet disproven it, though that posibility exists.
I have seen things that cannot be explained my science and theory. Priests speaking and listening in completely foreign tongues, well documented cases of bi-location and a host of other revelations and events that lead me to believe in my God. The mystery of religion is shrouded in the complex nature of prayers, belief, tradition, and humanities inability to be perfect.
Science, with its scientific method makes effort to sweep all that out of the way, and yet, in the end....we still have humanities inability to be perfect creating just enough of a flaw that something resulting from an experiment can be come a theory - but not hard, cold, fact, even if we live our lives as if they were.
I see us as two sets of the same people. Some of us choose the complex nature of religion to explain that which they find needs explanation. Others choose science to find their answers.
The probing question is: at the end game, when the two finally reach this area where there is still the shadow of a doubt because of human fallibility, there is another option in God for the religious. For the scientific, it's back to the paper and pens.
Warm regards,
Charley
http://journals.aol.com/cdittric77/courage
Consequently, there is a scientific explanation for glosslalia, the speaking of tongues. Rather than "babble" on about it, I shall leave links so the linguistic eperts may expound.
I would, however, like to point out that A person speaking in tongues is typically in a state of religious ecstasy and is often unable to understand the words that she/he is saying. Paul (the apostle - not PLittle) recommended that the speaking in tongues 'be limited to two or three at the most, and in turns."However, if no one could translate, then the person speaking in a tongue was to remain silent in the congregation, speaking to himself and to god. ' (1Cor 14:22-23) If no translating took place, his speaking in a tongue would not result in upbuilding others, for no one would listen to his speech because it would be meaningless and those unable to understand it. 1 Cor 14:2,4
I would also like to mention that Jesus Christ never spoke in tongues. He use *parables* or *illustrations* so his audience could understand him *clearly.* He wanted to COMMUNICATE with his audience. Babblers don't do that, for crying out loud. (No pun intended) I've yet to learn *anything* intelligent from someone who was jabbering in gibberish. Let's see what the experts say about
http://www.nccg.org/033Art-Gloss.html
http://www.apologetique.org/en/rticles/neomontanism/BDG_glossolalia_en.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/tongues1.htm
Dianna << agnostic
There are very few things in the bible that are clear, including some of Jesus's parables. Example:
'In the Book of Matthew, Jesus says: "If thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell."'
Because humans in general like to interpret things as they see fit, you get instances like this:
http://www.atheists.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=191
Yes, the person in the link is clearly crazy. But the point is, this is a extreme example of how the bible has been misinterpreted throughout time (and why I can put little stock in it or the church).
God speaks to me through my conscience. I know right from wrong, and guilt is sometimes a wonderful thing--it lets us know when we've f'd up.
Dan--blogs causing me to laugh myself silly are also regularly visited.
Ok, so it's not a parable, per se. But you get the idea...
Dianna, I apologise to you, and accept your definition of your beliefs or feelings. Dawn, on the other hand is definitelya believer, not an agnostic. Not that there's anything wrong with that!
P.S. I accept your description of me, too.
Charley, have you personally seen a priest speak in an identifiable language that you had prior knowledge he did not know how to speak? Have you personally witnessed an example of bilocation, or other revelatory events? Or are you just relaying tales you have been told? It makes a huge difference.
Your description of science is 100% accurate. Science creates theories that explain our world. If something is found that doesn't fit that theory, the theory is re-examined, and changed if possible, or discarded. However, you have attributed a bias against religion to science that doesn't exist. Science is neutral. If the religious perceive a threat from science, it tells me they perceive a weakness in their own philosophy. If their philosophy was sound, science would not be a threat.
-Paul
Paul,
to answer the question you posted on my blog as to how I found you, I wish I could remember. Certainly, you must be linked to one of the people that I read regularly. If I figure out who that person is, I will let you know.
Also, check out http://www.sedition.com/ddx/. It is the 'devil's dictionary' where they basically rewrite definitions and make them funnier. I found their definition of "Faith" to be both intriguing, hilarious, and appropriate for our now dead (dying) discussion.
faith
1. fidelity and allegiance to an idea, a place, or a person.
2. abdication of all thought to an idea, a place, or a person.
see also belief.
Paul...
about that science as a threat thing... I embrace science...and completely do not see it as a threat .
Fyi, I always thought that the 'agnostic' believed but understood he has no way to prove it, and rejects structured religion... I guess you are right, Dianna is not sure if she believes. I do.
oh well, so we all know where we are and still it changes nothing! lol
be well,
Dawn
Post a Comment