Strong Atheism starts from faith

[theVOID]

Isn't that what faith is? To place trust and confidence in a person based on some form of evidence that the person is competent? But still, we can't know with absolute certainty that they won't mess up. We need only enough evidence to win our trust.

Religious Faith is entirely different to trusting consensus amongst experts.

Scientific consensus is the most commonly held opinion amongst the scientists in the field of study, these are people who know far more about an area than someone outside their professional field could hope to, so listening to their conclusions on the subject gives you, not certainty, but an idea of what the experts consider the most likely explanation given the current body of knowledge. The information that goes into informing these conclusions is always being added to and as such the conclusions themselves are prone to change when the evidence favors an opposing position.

Religious faith persuades you to believe in a proposition without evidence, it requires you surrender to an idea and accept it, or form your own ideas and then have faith in them, despite the fact that you have absolutely no way of knowing if your beliefs are true. It's an irrational position that doesn't really seem to care about the validity of it's claims in the slightest.

[starbucks]

But you're assuming too much that the religious person doesn't already have their own evidences before converting into that faith. I'm wondering if you're born into a Christian culture because I'm not so I may have a different perspective. My people (which I prefer not to mention) is new to Christianity and the reason many have converted is because they've already felt the same way as those teachings before even knowing about the religion. I said under another thread that in my culture, philosophy and moral ethics is separate from the actual practice of the religion. We don't go to a temple where we have a religious figure preach to us about good vs. evil. Those kind of things are passed down through parents and grandparents (the elders of your clan). It has nothing to do with religious rituals or teachings. We only have a Shaman who is sought out when needed. Thus, some families go for years without ever consulting a Shaman. Some may even find the Shaman completely useless and false, thus never consulting a Shaman. But the morals and philosophy about love, kindness, compassion, etc. permeates through the culture from elders. And there is belief in a god as well.

Anyways, what I'm saying is that certainly not all Christians are alike. Some naturally gravitate towards the religion because it confirms what they've believed in their heart all along based on generated evidences that were presented long before they knew about Christianity.

---

I need to add:

There is belief in a god but it doesn't extend to worshipping or praising him or even trying to understand him.

But they gravitate towards Christianity because it offers them a way to be in relationship with God. So I think that's why they like it.

[theVOID]

But you're assuming too much that the religious person doesn't already have their own evidences before converting into that faith.

There is ZERO evidence for the existence of God. There is no valid logical argument either.

I'm wondering if you're born into a Christian culture because I'm not so I may have a different perspective. My people (which I prefer not to mention) is new to Christianity and the reason many have converted is because they've already felt the same way as those teachings before even knowing about the religion. I said under another thread that in my culture, philosophy and moral ethics is separate from the actual practice of the religion. We don't go to a temple where we have a religious figure preach to us about good vs. evil. Those kind of things are passed down through parents and grandparents (the elders of your clan). It has nothing to do with religious rituals or teachings. We only have a Shaman who is sought out when needed. Thus, some families go for years without ever consulting a Shaman. Some may even find the Shaman completely useless and false, thus never consulting a Shaman. But the morals and philosophy about love, kindness, compassion, etc. permeates through the culture from elders. And there is belief in a god as well.

Anyways, what I'm saying is that certainly not all Christians are alike. Some naturally gravitate towards the religion because it confirms what they've believed in their heart all along based on generated evidences that were presented long before they knew about Christianity.['/quote]

1) There is NO evidence

2) Just because someone has certain philosophies and then finds that Christianity also has similar philosophies does not confirm either idea and still makes such belief without evidence irrational.


[quote]
There is belief in a god but it doesn't extend to worshipping or praising him or even trying to understand him.

You want to believe in something just because you like the idea of it then go ahead and do it, doesn't stop it from being an irrational belief.

But they gravitate towards Christianity because it offers them a way to be in relationship with God. So I think that's why they like it.

It promises all sorts of things, doesn't mean shit about whether or not it is true.

[fr0d0]

There is no valid logical argument either.

I find that an incredibly ignorant statement. On a par with 100% certainty that there is/is not a God. You presume superior knowledge when you have no such evidence. You can be irrational, but don't say it like it's fact if you don't wish your foolishness pointing out.

[theVOID]

I didn't say there will never be a logical argument for the existence of God, i said none currently exist.

Disagree? Well then put up or shut up, go get this argument.

[Edwardo Piet]

I guess fr0d0 is saying... how do you absolutely KNOW that there even currently is no logical argument for the existence of God. I believe he took your statement as an absolutist one because you didn't say "I think", "I reckon" or "Almost certainly", or "In all probability", etc..

EvF

[theVOID]

I guess fr0d0 is saying... how do you absolutely KNOW that there even currently is no logical argument for the existence of God. I believe he took your statement as an absolutist one because you didn't say "I think", "I reckon" or "Almost certainly", or "In all probability", etc..

EvF

Are you a conspiracy theorist now Evie? There is no valid logical argument for the existence of God anywhere never has been, and almost certainly never will be. It's not like this argument, if it existed, wouldn't be known about, it would be big fucking news mate. So currently there exists no valid logical argument for the existence of God, got a problem with that statement?

I'll believe it when i see it.

[rjh4 is back]

There is no valid logical argument for the existence of God anywhere never has been, and almost certainly never will be.

Sounds like a truth claim to me.

According to what you have said previously, in your view all truth claims are to be evaluated via the scientific method, which you have admitted does not provide certainty.

So...what is the scientific support for this truth claim of yours? I'm guessing you cannot show any scientific evidence to support such a claim.

Furthermore, to make such a claim with any certainty whatsoever, one would have to have evaluated all such logical arguments that have ever been made up to this point in time. I doubt you or anyone else has done such an evaluation or has the ability to do such a thing.

So it seems to me that making your statement with such certainty as you did is not consistent with your previously stated standards.

In addition, you have said:

"I don't claim to know that God does not exist, my position, and that of most Atheists, is that there is absolutely no logical reason to believe God exists.

It is essentially withholding judgement about God's existence indefinitely."

When I look at this statement in combination with your statements regarding logical or other evidence, it sure seems to me like you have already made a judgement about God's existence. It seems like you just state that you are withholding judgement just so you can sit back and reject any line of reasoning someone can put forth regarding the existence of God without providing any support for your real conclusion that God doesn't exist.

Do you not see the glaring inconsistency in your worldview? You claim not to know that God does not exist, but you have no problem claiming "that there is absolutely no logical reason to believe God exists" or "There is no valid logical argument for the existence of God anywhere never has been, and almost certainly never will be."

Does it require faith to hold to such an inconsistent worldview?

[theVOID]

There is no valid logical argument for the existence of God anywhere never has been, and almost certainly never will be.

Sounds like a truth claim to me.

Well if you know of one go and get it!

According to what you have said previously, in your view all truth claims are to be evaluated via the scientific method, which you have admitted does not provide certainty.

I view claims about Nature through the scientific method, anything that manifests in nature can be measured and studied, including the effects on our reality by supernatural forces, of which there are none currently testable.

If you have a logical argument, it gets examined like a logical argument... I make sure there are no fallacies or unproved assertions in the premise and see if the conclusion logically follows from there.

So...what is the scientific support for this truth claim of yours? I'm guessing you cannot show any scientific evidence to support such a claim.

1) I didn't make a truth claim

2) You don't use the scientific method to assess logical arguments!

Look, Either there is no valid logical argument for God or someone has one, but it's being hidden away and nobody uses it, nobody brings it up in debate, nobody else has ever thought of it and there is no way to compare it to an argument that doesn't exist, so lets drop all the fucking assumptions and stick with the most reasonable premise, that there exists currently no valid logical argument for the existence of God.

Furthermore, to make such a claim with any certainty whatsoever, one would have to have evaluated all such logical arguments that have ever been made up to this point in time. I doubt you or anyone else has done such an evaluation or has the ability to do such a thing.

You sound like a crybaby.

Do you know what this argument is? Or are you just proposing all these assumptive hypotheticals because you have nothing worth offering in way of a logical argument? Id's guess it's the latter.

I don't have absolute certainty that no argument exists, i just don't see the point in beating around the bush because the explanation for why this argument exists and nobody uses is an tangle of unfounded assumptions and hypothetical situations.

So it seems to me that making your statement with such certainty as you did is not consistent with your previously stated standards.

No it's not, you just seemingly have zero idea what my position is.

In addition, you have said:

"I don't claim to know that God does not exist, my position, and that of most Atheists, is that there is absolutely no logical reason to believe God exists.

It is essentially withholding judgement about God's existence indefinitely."

When I look at this statement in combination with your statements regarding logical or other evidence, it sure seems to me like you have already made a judgement about God's existence. It seems like you just state that you are withholding judgement just so you can sit back and reject any line of reasoning someone can put forth regarding the existence of God without providing any support for your real conclusion that God doesn't exist.

It's a fucking simple concept sweetheart:

I have ZERO evidence for the non-existence of God.
I have ZERO evidence for the existence of God.
I have ZERO reason to favor either position.

Get it?

Do you not see the glaring inconsistency in your worldview? You claim not to know that God does not exist, but you have no problem claiming "that there is absolutely no logical reason to believe God exists" or "There is no valid logical argument for the existence of God anywhere never has been, and almost certainly never will be."

Does it require faith to hold to such an inconsistent worldview?

I had no certainty about the existence of this logical argument, it was your mistake assuming that before you started your response. In response to Evie i clarified that and explained how the other explanation is a rather absurd conspiracy of the argument that someone has and nobody knows about, making the position that there is no valid logical argument a more reasonably position to hold. Simple Occams razor.

[TruthWorthy]

I have ZERO evidence for the non-existence of God.
I have ZERO evidence for the existence of God.
I have ZERO reason to favor either position.

So you're really on the fence on this one? I would have thought atheism has some position for the non existence of "God" otherwise you're really being skeptical which isn't proper atheism to me.