Opinion on this Creed

[Whateverist]

 

 
    Well we'll do our best to help you with that boredom.  But remember we have very little faith and zero belief so it may be hard to find common ground.  Also, you'd be surprised at the low regard in which philosophy is held around here by many.  But you should definitely match light sabers with Nestor.  He is a young firebrand chugging down philosophers like there is no tomorrow.  If you two connect, would someone please PM me to make sure I don't miss the fireworks?

 
Thanks!  You are really going to try to tell me that atheists do not possess faith?  That may be a topic for a different time.  

Another time will do fine but I'm happy to end your suspense by telling you I indeed do have faith, loads of it.  I have faith there are truths to be had and that they will open themselves to me so long as I remain open to them.  I have no belief in God but I have faith in whatever turns out to be true.  I stand ready to believe whatsoever that turns out to be.

[Whateverist]

Hiccup post

[Jenny A]

[The Grand Nudger]

Well look who's back...and you open it up by bitching about the burden of proof?  How very typical.  I take it that you still haven't found a way to -meet- that burden....given your reintroduction?

[Cato]

The first point seems to be false; millions of people have perceived the presence of god all over the world.

This isn't accurate. Millions of people claim to have experienced god; however, without demonstration the claim remains dubious. As I stated, god is invoked as a cause for any number of things; however, god is always mysteriously absent to other observers. Without corroboration, the claim cannot be verified. I have experienced any number of intense emotions that elicit real physical responses: nausea (burning bosom to Mormons), flushed skin, muscle tension, crying, headaches, etc. States of mind and attending physical responses are not the presence of god.

The second claim seems to be bizarre, are you saying that you do not believe in the existence of light because blind people cannot see it?

Don't be obtuse. The point is that personal testimony based on an experience that can only be known to a particular person is insufficient information for the basis of a truth claim to be generally accepted. People like Paul may convince others to believe his tale; however, no matter the number of believers, his experience should not be accepted as truth because nobody else can experience it. Citing an example of a particular person that is deprived of a particular sense misses the point. Besides, a blind person can perceive the warmth of light so it isn't impossible for a blind person to experience light.

[Whateverist]

Well look who's back...and you open it up by bitching about the burden of proof?  How very typical.  I take it that you still haven't found a way to -meet- that burden....given your reintroduction?

Yeah, we'd want to keep the bar low too if we were trying sell the bill of goods he's stuck with.

[Kingpin]

Cato,

The interesting thing about Paul was that he was a known Christian persecutor (when he was Saul) and the churches who he wrote to and the people he preached knew this of him and could quite obviously see a very drastic change in his viewpoint. It was easier for them to believe what he was saying because there was a drastic change in his character.
Think of it in terms of an alcoholic. Someone you know, all of their life was an alcoholic. Suddenly one day they come to you and their life is in order and he is now the staunchest critic of alcohol and drunkenness. Diametrically opposed to what you know of him. You see a drastic change. So you ask what has changed. Are you not more likely to listen to what he has to say because you can see for yourself a drastic change? You are interested to know what has had this dramatic effect that worked for him.

[Lemonvariable72]

Cato,

The interesting thing about Paul was that he was a known Christian persecutor (when he was Saul) and the churches who he wrote to and the people he preached knew this of him and could quite obviously see a very drastic change in his viewpoint. It was easier for them to believe what he was saying because there was a drastic change in his character.
Think of it in terms of an alcoholic. Someone you know, all of their life was an alcoholic. Suddenly one day they come to you and their life is in order and he is now the staunchest critic of alcohol and drunkenness. Diametrically opposed to what you know of him. You see a drastic change. So you ask what has changed. Are you not more likely to listen to what he has to say because you can see for yourself a drastic change? You are interested to know what has had this dramatic effect that worked for him.

Do you have any evidence of Saul the prosecutor outside the bible?

[The Grand Nudger]

Cato,

The interesting thing about Paul was that he was a known Christian persecutor (when he was Saul) and the churches who he wrote to and the people he preached knew this of him and could quite obviously see a very drastic change in his viewpoint. It was easier for them to believe what he was saying because there was a drastic change in his character.
Think of it in terms of an alcoholic. Someone you know, all of their life was an alcoholic. Suddenly one day they come to you and their life is in order and he is now the staunchest critic of alcohol and drunkenness. Diametrically opposed to what you know of him. You see a drastic change. So you ask what has changed. Are you not more likely to listen to what he has to say because you can see for yourself a drastic change?  You are interested to know what has had this dramatic effect that worked for him.

-and if that person then replies "because fairies" I would wonder if they actually -have- made a switch from alcoholism and drunkeness, or whether it would even matter if they did, in their case. They're clearly nuts either way, and becoming a teatotaller doesn't seem to have helped with that. What's "worked for him" in your scenario..exactly? Seems like whatever it was -didn't- work for him. Before he was a drunk...now he needs a straightjacket.

I'd rather be a drunk than a loon. So, no, I'm not likely to listen, lend any credence, or even give a shit. This is an example of the general futility of apologetics, you're welcome.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Nonsense. My atheism is the absence of faith in any deities, your flailing notwithstanding.

Say, while you're patting yourself on the back for using a dictionary of philosophy (and I may as well have written a "dictionary of bullshit"), why don't you look up "knowledge" and "belief", because they're germane to this discussion.

Nice!  Atheism went from a “lack of belief in a god” to a “lack of faith in a god” in the course of one thread!  Well which is it? [/quote]

I suppose you'll need to look up "evacuated-middle fallacy" while you're there, that should be under the "logic" heading. The reason being is that atheism can be either of those things, and rather than hammer a complex human being into one of your overly simplistic pigeonholes, you'd do better to listen to them as they describe their attitude towards your pet deity.

And -- I chose the phrase "lack of faith" very carefully. There are differing connotative shades that separate "belief" and "faith" in their meanings and usage. I think we've found a little more homework you'll need to do before you can make useful contributions to this discussion.

You do realize that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is edited by an atheist right?  Do not kill the messenger.    

That makes this overly simplistic definition even more suspect, insofar as that atheist my well be importing his own personal view of atheism into the dictionary's very limited definition. Maybe a penguin edited it?