Do you believe in God?

[GTP_Richtofen]

You're right not to divide or look down on people because of belief, but I think it's hard to escape that religion can be more complex than a pizza preference.

For example, you have those trying to get intelligent design in school. This should be a crime (teaching of religion as fact in place of real facts, not the belief in religion), but it's protected or justified at times under freedom of religion.

Ya that makes sense. I understand what ur saying. I guess i was speaking on behalf of more of the Relationship amongst us humans. When it comes to political stuff its hard to please everyone.

 

[TenEightyOne]

So, when we are debating something that can neither be proved nor disproved, what is there to debate?

Scientific fact and opinion versus religious fact and opinion. There are nearly 500 pages of moderated contributions here... did you look at any to see what the discussion has contained thus far?

Which is why I don't debate on this question.

Okay, thank you for dropping by. I guess there'll be a resounding silence from you now

As both positions require a personal choice based on an unknown, both require a measure of 'faith' that the choice is correct.
I cannot state that one position is true to the exclusion of the other without exposing myself as closed-minded (with possibly other bad habits).
Not only are the two sides closer than we think, they are two sides of the same coin.

D'oh! It's one thing missing 500 pages of posts but it's another entirely when you miss your own previous sentence.

How are the two sides closer than you think? Please don't speak for me, I wouldn't presume to speak for you.

 

[useauget]

yesterday I saw a man walking beside the highway carrying a large cross across his back with it dragging behind,but on closer inspection there were little wheels on the bottom.make what you will out of that.but on a lighter note I'm really glad to see some very interesting conversation going on in here.

 

[Liquid]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27872551

Let's lighten the mood and turn the page somewhat. In Berlin, the House Of One is touted as the first Church-Synagogue-Mosque. A combined place of worship incorporating the three umbrellas of the Abrahamic religions.

Now, step aside from the hypocrisy and inconsistentcies, but do these religions not claim, at some point, to love thy neighbour? It would be nice to see them all agreeing on something and being able to practice their individual beliefs in peace with mutual respect. Israel and Arabia take note.

 

[Famine]

So, when we are debating something that can neither be proved nor disproved, what is there to debate?

That's known as "non-falsifiability". A prerequisite for all knowledge is falsfiability - the ability to be proven incorrect. If it can't be proven nor disproven, it is not knowledge. If it's not knowledge, it's not information. Our universe is built on information (specifically the rate of information change) and thus if it's not information it doesn't exist in our universe. Things that cannot be falsified do not exist.

This is where - and why - belief and faith comes in. The Abrahamic God, as described, cannot exist because it is non-falsifiable. But you can believe that it does.

 

[TenEightyOne]

@Liquid, that story's really intriguing, it'll be fascinating to see how it turns out.

yesterday I saw a man walking beside the highway carrying a large cross across his back with it dragging behind,but on closer inspection there were little wheels on the bottom.make what you will out of that.

Here's a joke to lighten the mood further;

Hitler reaches the gates of Heaven to be told by Jesus that he can't come in. After all, this is Hitler, how could he be allowed into Heaven?

Leaning forward Hitler whispers "If you let me in, I will give you the Iron Cross".

Jesus thinks, then picks up the phone. "Dad? This is Jesus, Hitler's at the gate."

"Well you can't let him in", says God, "He's Hitler!"

"But Dad, he says if I let him in he'll give me the Iron Cross".

God says "Don't be stupid, son, you couldn't carry the wooden one".


Here all week, AUP depending.

 

[Jet Badger]

The iron cross thing is highly unlikely. After all, rivets didn't exist at the time so that would've made things rather complicated...

 

[Dennisch]

The iron cross thing is highly unlikely. After all, rivets didn't exist at the time so that would've made things rather complicated...

Rivets didn't exist in April 1945? When Adolfy died?

/Universum Parallelus

 

[Jet Badger]

Rivets didn't exist in April 1945? When Adolfy died?

/Universum Paralellus

Well, I tried to make a "crucifiction using rivets and I-beam cross" kind of joke but it didn't turn out well, did it...

 

[Dennisch]

Well, I tried to make a "crucifiction using rivets and I-beam cross" kind of joke but it didn't turn out well, did it...

Maybe Hitler travelled back in time. And your joke is back on track.

 

[Jet Badger]

Maybe Hitler travelled back in time. And your joke is back on track.

My stakes on that that then

 

[TenEightyOne]

Not a single person questions that Jesus is working the gate. Rivets schmivets.

 

[Jet Badger]

Not a single person questions that Jesus is working the gate. Rivets schmivets.

He only got the job because his dad is an important figure. Next thing you know is he's letting Hitler in... You had one job, Jesus.

Story of life, eh.

 

[zzz_pt]

He only got the job because his dad is an important figure. Next thing you know is he's letting Hitler in... You had one job, Jesus.

Story of life, eh.

Would be quite possible, according to christianity. The problem is that christianity isn't possible.

 

[TenEightyOne]

...christianity isn't possible...

Maybe you'd better put the special internet suit on?

 

[sammy neuman]

@Exorcet :I think that 'don't know,don't care' is the default opinion. I knew nothing about flying jackal robot horse mermaids (and did not care) until you mentioned them. Now that I am aware of them and have given the matter some thought, I firmly believe that flying jackal robot horse mermaids do not exist, although the US government may have some in a cave at Area 51. Not believing requires a choice once made aware of another possible choice.

@TenEightyOne : "Scientific fact...": As I am well aware of the absence of religious fact, what I have seen is 481 pages of sitting ducks being shot at. I did notice that you quoted my entire post except for the line "I do have an opinion on...", which introduces the next section. YOU missed the next sentence . The 'we' was meant in the same sense as it was used by Famine in the previous post. I can assure you that thinking for myself (however imperfectly) takes a lot of effort, and I have neither the time nor the desire to think for you also .

@Famine: Excellent post. Internally consistent, although based upon some arbitrary definitions. Unfortunately, unless you can absolutely guarantee that the statement is correct and will never be revised or replaced by later information(which in science is a statement that cannot be made) it is non-falsifiable and doesn't exist. This is indeed where faith and belief come in .

 

[Famine]

@Famine: Excellent post. Internally consistent, although based upon some arbitrary definitions. Unfortunately, unless you can absolutely guarantee that the statement is correct and will never be revised or replaced by later information(which in science is a statement that cannot be made) it is non-falsifiable and doesn't exist.

Whut?

The Abrahamic deity is constructed to be non-falsifiable. Its properties are non-falsifiable. It is non-falsifiable and thus cannot and does not exist in the form described.

Which is a good job, because if it was falsifiable and successfully passed the tests, it would be held to exist, rendering belief moot.

 

[Exorcet]

I think that 'don't know,don't care' is the default opinion.

That is sort of what I said though. To not believe is not the same as to believe something is not.

Atheism is not believing, which is as you put it "not knowing and not caring"

Antitheism is believing that god is not which is deciding to believe "There is not god."

Now that I am aware of them and have given the matter some thought, I firmly believe that flying jackal robot horse mermaids do not exist, although the US government may have some in a cave at Area 51.

That's contradictory if you really look at it. Believing that something doesn't exist means you think they don't exist. If something doesn't exist no one can own it. On the other hand if you merely don't believe in something you can acknowledge that it may or may not exist.

If a stranger comes up to you and says their name is Bob, you can answer three ways:

"I don't believe you because your name is not Bob."

"I don't believe you because I don't know you."

"I believe you because your name is Bob."

The first answer is a bad choice because it assets that it is fact that the person's name is not Bob when there is no evidence for this. The last choice is the same. The second choice shows a lack of belief and is most similar to atheism and the default position.

 

[samurai8juice]

What I think is funny is that big American holidays are based off of religion.

-Christmas is of course based off of Christianity and/or Pagan(if you think Christianity stole Christmas or at least the gift giving part)

-Thanksgiving because the Pilgrims or the Puritans or whatever they're called came over to the 'New World' for religious freedom, then did the thing with the American Indians.

-Valentine's Day based off of St. Valentine.

What I also think is funny is that many Atheists don't recognize this.

 

[Famine]

What I think is funny is that big American holidays are based off of religion.

-Christmas is of course based off of Christianity and/or Pagan(if you think Christianity stole Christmas or at least the gift giving part)

Christmas is predated by several festivals, all characterised by gift giving and feasting, largely centred on the winter solstice. It's an old farming tradition, really.

-Thanksgiving because the Pilgrims or the Puritans or whatever they're called came over to the 'New World' for religious freedom, then did the thing with the American Indians.

We have Thanksgiving over here too. Only we don't make a big deal of it and we don't call it that. We call it "Harvest Festival" and, just like US and Canadian Thanksgiving, has roots in... farming.

-Valentine's Day based off of St. Valentine.

Certainly a celebration, but not a holiday.

What I also think is funny is that many Atheists don't recognize this.

We recognise that religions have holidays and celebrations for all sorts of reasons - whether it's riding on the coat-tails of old farming traditions or just celebrating a guy being executed and beheaded by the giving of cards with fat, winged children on them.

We're happy for the religions to do this - Christmas, Easter, Ramadan, Diwali, Yom Kippur, Cinquo di Mayo... but as an atheist, we get to pick who we want to party with today and what we want to observe. Every day is an atheist holiday.

 

[GTP_Richtofen]

Every day is an atheist holiday.

Until the last day.

EDIT- sorry i should have taken more time with that post. after i posted it and looked at it , than i realized i looked like a "witch" with a capital "B"!! sorry about that. i should have taken the time to have made that a more lighthearted joke. Wasn't thinking. My ignorance, i must apologize

 

[Famine]

That's the biggest holiday of all - a really long lie-in! We don't even have to get involved in that messy wager of Pascal's.

 

[sammy neuman]

Things are moving right along on this post.
@Famine: What it comes down to is that I consider the step from non-falsifiable to does-not-exist to be a logically a step to far.
@Exorcet: Concede on not-believe/believe-not, but we are exposed to so much propaganda that I doubt there can be such a thing as a pure atheist, any more than there can be a pure christian.
Interestingly, my spell-check objects if I don't capitalize christian, but doesn't care if I don't capitalize atheist. Guess that shows you guys who's boss...

 

[Famine]

@Exorcet: Concede on not-believe/believe-not, but we are exposed to so much propaganda that I doubt there can be such a thing as a pure atheist, any more than there can be a pure christian.

What's a "pure atheist"?

"Atheist" simply means "someone who does not believe in god/s". To fit the term in the best possible sense - the purest - one needs only not believe in any gods. It requires no faith at all.

This is worlds apart from someone who believes in no gods. That's a "nontheist" - and nontheism requires exactly the same amount of faith as any other belief.

@Famine: What it comes down to is that I consider the step from non-falsifiable to does-not-exist to be a logically a step to far.

It isn't a step - it's the same thing. Would you like to explain why you think they are different things?

 

[sammy neuman]

A pure atheist would have no knowledge of the concept of god/s, never even been exposed to the notion, nothing to accept, reject, or not give another thought. As everyone on this thread has been contaminated by contact with each other, none of us are 'pure' in that sense.
Concerning non-falsifiable/non-existent; I understand the logic. Can't be proved/disproved, nothing scientifically verifiable...there's nothing there. Except that I would say that there is a very high probability that there is nothing there, not state it categorically. I do try to keep in mind the principle that there may be something I do not know.

To clear up a slight misunderstanding, I meant; I concede on not believe/believe not. Sorry you had to waste words.

 

[Famine]

A pure atheist would have no knowledge of the concept of god/s, never even been exposed to the notion, nothing to accept, reject, or not give another thought. As everyone on this thread has been contaminated by contact with each other, none of us are 'pure' in that sense.

By that definition, no-one can believe - or not believe - anything in a "pure" fashion. My dog can though - I might get "Indy - Pure Atheist" engraved on her dog tag.

You are an atheist if you don't believe in any gods. I don't see any reason to pare it down further.

Concerning non-falsifiable/non-existent; I understand the logic. Can't be proved/disproved, nothing scientifically verifiable...there's nothing there. Except that I would say that there is a very high probability that there is nothing there, not state it categorically. I do try to keep in mind the principle that there may be something I do not know.

Whether there is something you do not know or not, it's not applicable to the nonfalsifiable. It's not that nothing is there, pending new information - it's that nothing can be there because it cannot be falsified.

It's fundamental to how knowledge works. If you can fashion a test to prove it wrong, you conduct the test and either prove it wrong (it is false) or fail to prove it wrong (it is not false). The more tests conducted to prove something wrong that fail, the closer we get to knowledge. If you cannot fashion a test to prove it wrong, it can never be proven wrong and can never become knowledge through failing the tests to prove it wrong.

 

[G.T.Ace]

What I think is funny is that big American holidays are based off of religion.

-Christmas is of course based off of Christianity and/or Pagan(if you think Christianity stole Christmas or at least the gift giving part)

-Thanksgiving because the Pilgrims or the Puritans or whatever they're called came over to the 'New World' for religious freedom, then did the thing with the American Indians.

-Valentine's Day based off of St. Valentine.

What I also think is funny is that many Atheists don't recognize this.

Even the catholic church doesn't know which Valentine was meant, because there were so many St. Valentines in the past. Also, like mentioned, it's not a holiday and a lot of people don't care about it at all.

By the way, I do recognize that and I also criticize all these holidays.
In my opinion, they should be killed and people should get more holidays to freely choose instead.

 

[Famine]

In my opinion, they should be killed and people should get more holidays to freely choose instead.

I suspect you mean that they should be killed as national holidays - for schools and the like.

And I'd agree to an extent, but they actually provide nice spacing for breaks and they're not really termed as festival holidays either - we've got summer holidays (when it's too hot for kids to think) then a 3 month term until winter holidays (around Christmas), then a 3 months term until spring holidays (around Easter) and then another 3 month term and we're back to summer holidays. The holidays themselves making up the 13 week difference you'll notice in the above.

In terms of the workplace... well yes. We have statutory days - at Christmas and Easter - that are based on Christian festivals that it's simply not possible for people to avoid because there's so many other people taking their breaks then that it makes getting into your workplace impossible. But they're not taken off your annual leave entitlement and we get the secular New Year too.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Yes, I meant as national holidays. In Germany, you have at least 24 days off if you work somewhere. In my opinion, all the religious holidays should be axed and instead people should get these added to their freely to choose holidays.
Students should get a compensation too, but not coupled to any religion.

 

[Famine]

Yes, I meant as national holidays. In Germany, you have at least 24 days off if you work somewhere.

It's the same here - but statutory days (Christmas, Easter, New Year, the other Bank Holidays) don't get taken off your entitlement.

It'd be nice if you could take them when you liked and they were lumped in with the rest of your entitlement. This happens in the case of services that don't close (like police, medical and fire) but workers are given compensatory payment for working these statutory days - at a bank holiday rate (usually double or triple, but not always) - alongside a day's holiday entitlement in lieu.