Do you believe in God?

[TenEightyOne]

Accurate? The math is fallacious...

Remotely, as in it was the only one that had a shred of working fact. However, as I pointed out to DCP, that was a self-fulfilling prophecy in any case.

 

[Outspacer]

Remotely, as in it was the only one that had a shred of working fact. However, as I pointed out to DCP, that was a self-fulfilling prophecy in any case.

Oh, I know. I just felt like ripping the math apart As already said, the math in these 'accurate' prophecies is always fudged, but that one was particularly dishonest.

 

[DCP]

Seconded




DCP, which of those do you feel are most accurately explained?

The only one that strikes me as remotely accurate is the creation of a state called Israel. That's not really much of a prophesy when the driver was, in part, the Jewish tradition. Outside that... cobbled cobblers.

I love Isaiah 53, and also Daniel 9 http://www.gotquestions.org/seventy-weeks.html

Firstly, welcome back to @Scaff!

Second, @DCP I am sure your intentions are all well and good. But you are failing to see anything from any other point of view barring your own. A point of view which incidentally has been pointed out does not seem to even coincide with the views of many Christians in the parts pertaining to what seems to be a somewhat intolerant attitude towards anyone who does not believe in Jesus Christ, or indeed is not a Christian. Whatever happened to 'Love thy neighbour'? Surely there are better ways of putting your point across from a voice of love and reason. All you are doing here is causing a rift between yourself and the rest of the members here. Yes, some may not treat you with the respect you wish to be treated with. Others may treat you with that respect. By the same token you are doing the same to others here. We've all heard the phrase 'respect need be earned, not demanded'. It applies here. By rephrasing the things you say in a more polite, understanding way you will find that people will respect you and debate you in a similarly polite way. And let's not forget, debate is the best way to gain a full understanding.

So, you believe in a God. Fine. I believe in a God. Fine. Loads of people believe in a supreme deity. Fine. Others do not. Also fine. You constantly talk about Jesus dying for our sins, and about how people are to go to hell for not following Jesus or the punishments waiting for us. We ALL understand what you are saying. What we do not understand is the way you, perhaps unintentionally, pass a judgement upon us for having a different belief to what you have. I've seen you make comments about other religions too (which are incorrect) to try and reinforce your point of the 'true God' or 'true religion'. I don't think that in itself is very Christian like, but then again I could be wrong.

All in all, I think you need to learn to perhaps articulate your points better, with far more explanation as to why you believe them than 'Because the bible says so'. There are explanations of the Bibles too, thousands of them for the hundreds of types of Bibles there are. Perhaps those explanations will help people here understand where you are coming from. In addition to this you have to respect the viewpoints of others. From your side you may feel them plain wrong, but you cannot just say 'You are wrong'. You've got to explain, and politely too. You'll then find that the God thread will become a place of lively and educational discussion rather than a barely concealed slating match.

I know my Lord, and have a personal relationship with Him. You won't understand that, because you may never attempt it. Is there a better or more polite way of saying it?

Which God do you believe in? Do you know your God, or have a relationship with him?
Show me any post where I typed "You're wrong"?
There are other religions for a reason. Their founders find a way to seek gods favour by deeds and works. Others find away to denounce Christ for who He claimed to be. There is a reason for that, but anyone siding with the world, cannot see that.

Yes I do love my neighbour, else I wouldn't be here telling them about the love of Christ, who was slain from the foundation of the world, for the world.

This is why I include what God knows about His creation, so they can be moved by their conscience that never lies:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

Also, you make the same assumption.
You don't go to hell for not following Christ. One goes to hell because they have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God. Christ is the free will option, to escape that place, created for satan, his demons, and sinners.

@Scaff , here's a couple more to enjoy.



http://yeshua.org/bible/the-bibles-most-amazing-prophecies/

Beauty is, only you can choose to reject, or learn. God gave up his Son for the entire world.
Even I, who loves the Lord, will never give up my two sons. A love like Gods, the world may never ever know.

 

[Denur]

I love Isaiah 53, and also Daniel 9 http://www.gotquestions.org/seventy-weeks.htm

The prophetic clock has been paused, as it were.

How convenient.

 

[Rallywagon]

That video was a stunning sequence of BS. Many of these were either self fulfilling, or stretched thin to make them fit the agenda. And lots of claims are made without any proof or citation, just speculation and fallacy.

 

[ECGadget]

I know my Lord, and have a personal relationship with Him. You won't understand that, because you may never attempt it. Is there a better or more polite way of saying it?

Which God do you believe in? Do you know your God, or have a relationship with him?
Show me any post where I typed "You're wrong"?
There are other religions for a reason. Their founders find a way to seek gods favour by deeds and works. Others find away to denounce Christ for who He claimed to be. There is a reason for that, but anyone siding with the world, cannot see that.

Yes I do love my neighbour, else I wouldn't be here telling them about the love of Christ, who was slain from the foundation of the world, for the world.

This is why I include what God knows about His creation, so they can be moved by their conscience that never lies:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

Also, you make the same assumption.
You don't go to hell for not following Christ. One goes to hell because they have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God. Christ is the free will option, to escape that place, created for satan, his demons, and sinners.

Well for starters, you have no idea what my relation with God is. In fact you have no idea what my relationship with Jesus is, and I find you saying that I wouldn't understand that rather impolite and based on nothing but a biased viewpoint with nothing to back up what you just said. Do I know my God? Yes I do. Do I have any relationship with him?
As to you asking me to show you where you said 'you are wrong' in any post, I implore you to read any of your own posts. To say something you do not have to say the exact words, and considering that pretty much everyone else barring you see this, you have to consider that there may be truth in what people are seeing.

But I will say that if you say that people will not go to hell for not following Jesus than I sincerely apologise for my mistake in that.

To be quite honest, and I shall try to be as polite as possible here, I believe most people have pretty much washed their hands off you because no matter what people say you cannot see beyond anything other than what you tell yourself. There are people here who try to give you a fair chance. I never questioned your beliefs in my post and yet you start by directly questioning mine. I questioned the way in which you posted what you wished to say. I never questioned your devotion or relationship with God. You did. I gave you advice in a polite way to help you to get more people to see your viewpoint. You responded by talking about Christ, instead of actually responding to the substance of my post.

On that, I believe if it is best that I bow out of this conversation in order to prevent it going around and around the same way as it has been.

 

[FoRiZon]

So you dismissed @ECGadget post or you just missed the point. I should come in just for one time since i found this constant dead horse beating to be hilarious.

I know my Lord, and have a personal relationship with Him. You won't understand that, because you may never attempt it. Is there a better or more polite way of saying it?

No. You cant force people into your religious beliefs. If they said no to do it then fine, leave them what they are. Their view isnt the same as yours. Accepting this is healthy.

Which God do you believe in? Do you know your God, or have a relationship with him?
Show me any post where I typed "You're wrong"?
There are other religions for a reason. Their founders find a way to seek gods favour by deeds and works. Others find away to denounce Christ for who He claimed to be. There is a reason for that, but anyone siding with the world, cannot see that.

And they not need to if they dont have interest in. Let them be.

Also, you make the same assumption.
You don't go to hell for not following Christ. One goes to hell because they have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God. Christ is the free will option, to escape that place, created for satan, his demons, and sinners.

So you dont go to hell for not following him, but you get sin because youre not following Christ's "free will" option?

There is a huge line between religious and ignorance. You can be religious and be happy to yourself. And i understand that you have a supposedly good intention on that. But no matter what you did, the only way to really change their beliefs (or not) is to do it themselves, which renders years, hundreds of pages, and many thread resurrection from yours seems pointless and clueless at best and ignorant at worst.

Again, accepting this is healthy.

 

[Imari]

I'll take that as a no, you don't understand how horoscopes work.

Let me explain. Horoscopes manage to appear to be accurate by making predictions that are non-specific and easy to interpret in many different ways. People who read them are actively looking for something in their life to match up with their horoscope, and because the predictions are vague often they find something. When they don't find something, confirmation bias kicks in and the assume that either they weren't looking hard enough or it's the exception that proves the rule.

Let's look at the very first "prediction" in that video (because I'm not killing more brain cells by watching further).

"Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased."

The video claims that this is a prediction of mass transport and the internet. Maybe. But what other things could it be?

The Olympic Games have many running to and fro. Wars and natural disasters often result in people moving back and forth over large stretches of land. Trade in general probably fits the bill, as does any society where people do not work from home. Migratory animals go to and fro, and there's lots of them.

As for knowledge being increased, the internet is only one of many things that has done that. Libraries, for starters. Schools. Books. Professional teachers. Professional researchers. Natural philosophy and science. Radio and television. Galileo. Newton. All the millions of different instruments that we use to observe the world in ways that humans can't. And so on.

There's nothing that specifically limits that passage to either mass transport or the internet. It could instead refer to any of the things that I mentioned above (some of which existed at the time the "prophecy" was written), or things that haven't happened or don't exist yet. It's impossible to tell.

To be an actual prophecy, the conditions have to be specific enough that they couldn't reasonably be met by mere chance. Otherwise it's simply a parlour trick to fool people whose perception isn't broad enough to see how easy it is to interpret a broad prophecy as just about anything.

A broad prophecy proves nothing other than that the author knew that people could often be fooled by these sort of tricks. And back when people were less educated, that might have been reasonable. But you and everyone else on here has presumably gone to school (you even travelled to and fro from school, even) and received a basic education (increasing your knowledge), and should not be fooled by these things in the same way that an illiterate peasant 2000 years ago might have been.

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff , here's a couple more to enjoy.

I don't need to reply given that @Imari has covered it perfectly, once again you have not provided what I asked for.

 

[huskeR32]

I know my Lord, and have a personal relationship with Him. You won't understand that, because you may never attempt it.

Utter 🤬. Several atheists in this thread, myself included, have said that we've tried to "find" God at some point in our lives. Not everyone who seeks her finds her. So you need to do better than this.

Share with us the steps you followed, so that we can join the party.

 

[Rallywagon]

I honestly have to believe DCP is one of the best trolls to have ever come out from under the bridge.

I am not sure I can believe that a person who is able to consistently articulate themselves, on the internet, in a legibly clear, and correctly grammatical manner, would be so dense as to repeatedly misinterpret everything everyone has said. Not only misinterpret, but to seemingly reply in passive aggressive ways that seem to taunt just enough to continue the ruse.

A good troll indeed.

 

[Joey D]

Utter 🤬. Several atheists in this thread, myself included, have said that we've tried to "find" God at some point in our lives. Not everyone who seeks her finds her. So you need to do better than this.

Share with us the steps you followed, so that we can join the party.

However, some who do seek a higher power do find one. I was, for all intents and purposes, an Atheist, however after exploring my beliefs I changed my mind and I am happy with the conclusion I came up with. I feel that it satisfies my current understanding of the world and universe, but if new evidence is ever produce, I am happy to revisit my beliefs.

I know there are many Theists that can't understand how an Atheist arrives at their conclusion of there is no higher power to believe in, but on the other-side of the coin I think some Atheist often forget that many people who do believe actually came to that conclusion through whatever means of study they deemed fit. I think the most important thing is to respect each other's differences, even if you don't agree with them or cannot understand them.

 

[Imari]

However, some who do seek a higher power do find one. I was, for all intents and purposes, an Atheist, however after exploring my beliefs I changed my mind and I am happy with the conclusion I came up with. I feel that it satisfies my current understanding of the world and universe, but if new evidence is ever produce, I am happy to revisit my beliefs.

I know there are many Theists that can't understand how an Atheist arrives at their conclusion of there is no higher power to believe in, but on the other-side of the coin I think some Atheist often forget that many people who do believe actually came to that conclusion through whatever means of study they deemed fit. I think the most important thing is to respect each other's differences, even if you don't agree with them or cannot understand them.

You're absolutely right.

However, what you quoted was in response to an accusation that atheists don't try to find God. Which is obviously false, as you yourself are an example of. @huskeR32 did also clarify that "not everyone who seeks her finds her". Some do, some don't.

There's a fairly common thing that turns up among the theists in this thread that "if you seek God you will find Him". Naturally, some atheists have done their best to find God, and being that there's not really any particular method to go about this naturally some of them have failed to do so. Unfortunately, this often gets the response of "well, you must not have been trying hard enough/doing it right". To which the obvious answer is "so how did you do it?" or "how does one do it right?"

What these theists tend to miss is that there isn't a shareable method for finding God in the sense that they found God. I've been in the same room getting the same information and doing the same things as people who have found God, and all I found was bewilderment that my fellows were convinced by thing that only raised more questions for me.

Some people are simply not able to turn off that part of their brain that questions, the one that says "this doesn't fit with my experience and knowledge, I want to know more". It sounds kind of elitist, and I suppose it is in a way, but it's kind of how it is. I've met theists that I get along with very well, and they're generally of the type that knows their religion well and is aware that there are many parts of it for which there are objectively no particular reasons to believe, but they do so because it works for them. Which is really the reason why anybody does anything, because it works.

As you point out though, the problem comes when some people assume that what works for them will work for everyone. And can't take the hint when people who know better explain that this isn't the case.

 

[huskeR32]

However, some who do seek a higher power do find one.

Absolutely. @Imari's post above covers that quite nicely, so I'll just point you there.

I would, though, like to respond to this bit myself:

I know there are many Theists that can't understand how an Atheist arrives at their conclusion of there is no higher power to believe in

I don't know if you've spent much time in this thread or not, but an important thing to understand about atheism is that we haven't "arrive(d) at a conclusion [that] there is no higher power to believe in." We simply aren't convinced that there is. Sounds like a trivial difference, I know.

In reality, I haven't come to any conclusion at all, either for or against the existence of gods. If I had come to the conclusion that they didn't, I'd be a nontheist rather than an atheist. This is something that's been beat to death here, so I'll keep this short, but I encourage you to understand what atheism really means if you're going to participate in a discussion about it. That way, we can stay productive and move the conversation forward, rather than spin our tires rehashing old stuff.

 

[ECGadget]

Thank you @huskeR32 for teaching me something new today. I thought atheism was where you had already come to the conclusion! This clears a lot up! 👍

 

[Outspacer]

I'd describe @huskeR32 as an agnostic, in this case "a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic" (rather than one who asserts we can never know).

An atheist is what you thought, @ECGadget.

Nontheism can mean pretty much anything other than theism!

 

[Joey D]

As you point out though, the problem comes when some people assume that what works for them will work for everyone. And can't take the hint when people who know better explain that this isn't the case.

Thanks for the reply, it provides some good insight.

And the quoted part above is something I think holds true on all sides. I think it's probably best just to keep an open mind and hear out various sides, worse case scenario you learn something more about a side you don't agree with.

I don't know if you've spent much time in this thread or not, but an important thing to understand about atheism is that we haven't "arrive(d) at a conclusion [that] there is no higher power to believe in." We simply aren't convinced that there is. Sounds like a trivial difference, I know.

In reality, I haven't come to any conclusion at all, either for or against the existence of gods. If I had come to the conclusion that they didn't, I'd be a nontheist rather than an atheist. This is something that's been beat to death here, so I'll keep this short, but I encourage you to understand what atheism really means if you're going to participate in a discussion about it. That way, we can stay productive and move the conversation forward, rather than spin our tires rehashing old stuff.

I think the problem here is that Atheist's will classify their beliefs or non-beliefs in various ways. I've had Atheist tell me they know there is no higher power, that there don't believe in a higher power, and that they don't know or care if there is a higher power. Of course there is the dictionary definition of Atheism, but I do think it means different things to different people even if they are using the word incorrectly. I do find it hard to address this subject because invariably someone will bring this up and it sometimes feels like tiptoeing on eggshells when trying to talk about Atheism.

 

[Imari]

I'd describe @huskeR32 as an agnostic, in this case "a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic" (rather than one who asserts we can never know).

An atheist is what you thought, @ECGadget.

Nontheism can mean pretty much anything other than theism!

Not quite. While you might be fine with those definitions in casual conversation, here it is useful to use the more strict definitions to ensure proper understanding.

A non-theist specifically believes that there are no gods. They hold the belief that there are no gods. They are basically the same as a theist, but where a theist would have a god a non-theist has a poof of nothing.

An atheist holds no beliefs regarding gods. If you push them regarding what they think right now then you'll get the answer that they think that there are no gods, having no reason to think otherwise. For the reasons why, google Russell's Teapot.

An agnostic believes that it is impossible to know whether there are gods or not. In this way they're similar to an atheist in that they'll state that at this particular point in time they don't know, but an atheist will accept suitable evidence for the existence of gods whereas an agnostic will not.

You can see that non-theists and agnostics hold specific beliefs, no gods and the impossibility of knowledge of gods respectively. Atheists do not. Agnostic in a general sense can mean what you say when dealing with non-religious topics, but you can see in your dictionary link that there is a specific definition for religious matters and that is the one that is used in this case.

Sorry to be a grammar nazi about this, but it's important to understand what someone means when they define themselves as an atheist.

I think the problem here is that Atheist's will classify their beliefs or non-beliefs in various ways.

See above for why this isn't so.

I've had Atheist tell me they know there is no higher power, that there don't believe in a higher power, and that they don't know or care if there is a higher power.

That would be a militant non-theist, a non-theist, and someone who doesn't give a 🤬.

Of course there is the dictionary definition of Atheism, but I do think it means different things to different people even if they are using the word incorrectly. I do find it hard to address this subject because invariably someone will bring this up and it sometimes feels like tiptoeing on eggshells when trying to talk about Atheism.

Which is why every few dozen pages someone brings this up, and we define the terms clearly so that people can talk about it sensibly. They're just shorthand terms so that we don't have to type out "someone who believes that knowledge of a higher power is impossible" all the time. As long as everyone's on the same page it's not a problem.

Some people find it difficult because these terms have different meanings to what they're used to, but it's just something that you need to adapt to. Like any field of expertise, there are words that have more specific meanings than they might in casual conversation.

 

[Outspacer]

Not quite. While you might be fine with those definitions in casual conversation, here it is useful to use the more strict definitions to ensure proper understanding.

A non-theist specifically believes that there are no gods. They hold the belief that there are no gods. They are basically the same as a theist, but where a theist would have a god a non-theist has a poof of nothing.

An atheist holds no beliefs regarding gods. If you push them regarding what they think right now then you'll get the answer that they think that there are no gods, having no reason to think otherwise. For the reasons why, google Russell's Teapot.

An agnostic believes that it is impossible to know whether there are gods or not. In this way they're similar to an atheist in that they'll state that at this particular point in time they don't know, but an atheist will accept suitable evidence for the existence of gods whereas an agnostic will not.

You can see that non-theists and agnostics hold specific beliefs, no gods and the impossibility of knowledge of gods respectively. Atheists do not. Agnostic in a general sense can mean what you say when dealing with non-religious topics, but you can see in your dictionary link that there is a specific definition for religious matters and that is the one that is used in this case.

Sorry to be a grammar nazi about this, but it's important to understand what someone means when they define themselves as an atheist.

I don't want to get mired down in this, but I don't agree with some of those.

Strict definitions according to what reference? I can't find much support for that definition of nontheist (and when I did it was more as a synonym for my definition of atheist than yours), yet plenty of others.

From the point of view that atheist being 'without god(s)', that's fair. But to say that's all it means is incorrect.

I did google Russell's Teapot. I found this quote:

"I ought to call myself an agnostic; but, for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not think the existence of the Christian God any more probable than the existence of the Gods of Olympus or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely."

So, self-described as an atheist with a positive statement "I think the Christian God just as unlikely". His belief that there's likely no god was sufficient to take into account in practice, if you like.

The definition of agnostic I quoted applies equally in a religious context, and is often used as such.

Why wouldn't an agnostic accept suitable evidence? Are they too pig-headed? Suitable evidence would shorten this thread by years and save millions of lives

What we might agree on is that these aren't enough words, since all of these have a) multiple valid definitions and b) quite wide variance in degree (weak vs strong etc).

 

[Imari]

I don't want to get mired down in this, but I don't agree with some of those.

Strict definitions according to what reference? I can't find much support for that definition of nontheist (and when I did it was more as a synonym for my definition of atheist than yours), yet plenty of others.

You can not agree all you like, but those are the definitions that have been used in this thread for some time. You can read back and see if you want.

Other places will have different definitions, such as strong and weak atheism instead of non-theism and atheism. But it hardly matters as long as everyone's on the same page, as I said. And which is why I typed out definitions like I did so that people who haven't been following the thread for as long can have a clear understanding of how the words are used here.

You can accept that these are how the words are used here and get on with having a discussion using the language as others here do, or you can argue that we've all been using the wrong words for 600 pages.

Why wouldn't an agnostic accept suitable evidence? Are they too pig-headed?

Why doesn't a theist accept that there is no objective evidence for god? Because that's their belief. People believe all sorts of stuff in the face of good reasons otherwise. That's what belief is.

An agnostic as I defined it above believes that god is unknowable, and so anything that appears to be god must not be. If they stop believing that, then they're not an agnostic any more.

What we might agree on is that these aren't enough words, since all of these have a) multiple valid definitions and b) quite wide variance in degree (weak vs strong etc).

Look, all words have multiple definitions. Red can mean a whole bunch of things, but if I'm buying paint then red means this colour, and crimson means that colour, and rose means another colour, even though they might all be casually considered red. And even though different paint companies might assign those labels completely differently. One company's crimson might be another company's rouge might be another company's sunset fire. But in that one paint shop, you use their labels to describe the paints that you want, or everyone gets horribly confused.

I was trying to fill you in on how these particular words are used here so that we can all have a sensible conversation that's congruent with how the language has been used for the last 600 pages. If you want to be the latest person to have a go at changing that, be my guest. Let me know first and I'll add you to the ignore list because I'm not sure I can be bothered.

I'm here because I'm interested in the ideas that the words convey, words are merely a vehicle. Having clearly defined words makes communicating ideas easier, but trying to redefine the words that have been fairly consistently used here for some time is largely pointless. You can either get on board, or not.

 

[Outspacer]

You can not agree all you like, but those are the definitions that have been used in this thread for some time. You can read back and see if you want.

Other places will have different definitions, such as strong and weak atheism instead of non-theism and atheism. But it hardly matters as long as everyone's on the same page, as I said. And which is why I typed out definitions like I did so that people who haven't been following the thread for as long can have a clear understanding of how the words are used here.

You can accept that these are how the words are used here and get on with having a discussion using the language as others here do, or you can argue that we've all been using the wrong words for 600 pages.



Why doesn't a theist accept that there is no objective evidence for god? Because that's their belief. People believe all sorts of stuff in the face of good reasons otherwise. That's what belief is.

An agnostic as I defined it above believes that god is unknowable, and so anything that appears to be god must not be. If they stop believing that, then they're not an agnostic any more.



Look, all words have multiple definitions. Red can mean a whole bunch of things, but if I'm buying paint then red means this colour, and crimson means that colour, and rose means another colour, even though they might all be casually considered red. And even though different paint companies might assign those labels completely differently. One company's crimson might be another company's rouge might be another company's sunset fire. But in that one paint shop, you use their labels to describe the paints that you want, or everyone gets horribly confused.

I was trying to fill you in on how these particular words are used here so that we can all have a sensible conversation that's congruent with how the language has been used for the last 600 pages. If you want to be the latest person to have a go at changing that, be my guest. Let me know first and I'll add you to the ignore list because I'm not sure I can be bothered.

I'm here because I'm interested in the ideas that the words convey, words are merely a vehicle. Having clearly defined words makes communicating ideas easier, but trying to redefine the words that have been fairly consistently used here for some time is largely pointless. You can either get on board, or not.

Well. Yikes! Relax, I've said all I want to on the subject of terms. I might try to find the ancient posts in case there's some other terms I should know to fill in the gaps that remain. I introduced that post with "I don't want to get mired" and I meant it.

Why doesn't a theist accept that there is no objective evidence for god? Because that's their belief. People believe all sorts of stuff in the face of good reasons otherwise. That's what belief is.

Some theists can accept there's no objective evidence, it just doesn't matter. Isn't that what belief is? There's a rational angle to that in the asymmetry between positive and negative proof. Others take various things as proof and believe they know god exists.

An agnostic as I defined it above believes that god is unknowable, and so anything that appears to be god must not be. If they stop believing that, then they're not an agnostic any more.

Therefore if suitable evidence for a god existed, only the pig-headed wouldn't become theists, which is what I meant. Indeed, even the word theist would become redundant. Isn't it useless to say what any particular category will or won't do with new information if the statement relies on not changing category? Safer to stick with present tense.

 

[Imari]

Some theists can accept there's no objective evidence, it just doesn't matter. Isn't that what belief is?

OK, so perhaps I explained that badly. Anyone can "accept" such things in an abstract sense, but a theist does not rationally apply the knowledge that there's no objective evidence. If they did, they wouldn't be a theist, they would be an atheist.

Ditto the agnostic. They could "accept" objective evidence of God, but if they would rationally apply it they wouldn't be agnostics. They would be atheists.

The difference between an agnostic and an atheist hinges on how they would treat information about God were it to be presented to them. An atheist would accept valid evidence and alter their current evaluation of reality accordingly. An agnostic does not believe that valid evidence can exist and therefore will not accept anything.

Therefore if suitable evidence for a god existed, only the pig-headed wouldn't become theists, which is what I meant. Indeed, even the word theist would become redundant.

Correct. No one would be a theist, because no one would believe in God. They'd have God right in front of them. It would be about as sensible as saying that you believe in gravity, or baseball bats.

The terms for belief only make sense as long as those things are unknown. The moment that you can point to something and say "this thing is God", whether you believe or not is irrelevant.

Isn't it useless to say what any particular category will or won't do with new information if the statement relies on not changing category? Safer to stick with present tense.

I thought it was a case of ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. If you're assuming that they will change category, then that's equally useless as it means that the initial category that you placed them in did not correctly describe their beliefs (or lack thereof).

In the case of agnostics, you're already dealing with people who have demonstrated that they're willing to behave non-rationally*. Why should they change now when provided with rational evidence? If they were willing to accept rational evidence when provided, they would have been correctly assigned as atheists.

Perhaps think of it this way: simply take four people of unknown category, put them in a room and show them incontrovertible evidence of God. Their responses will separate the theist and the atheist from the non-theist and the agnostic.



*I'm aware that describing agnostics, non-theists and theists as non-rational is somewhat derogatory. I hope that people will be able to take it as purely descriptive and not intended to slander those groups. It's merely my best attempt to illuminate the difference between the thought processes that lead one to hold a belief, and those which lead one to accept objective realities.

Beliefs are something that just are, they're axiomatic and thus don't involve rational processes.
Knowledge of objective reality is derived in a rational fashion from observation. Interpretations may differ or be wrong entirely depending on how complete the observations are, but the correctly observed phenomena never do.

 

[GBO Possum]

Some theists can accept there's no objective evidence, it just doesn't matter. Isn't that what belief is?

For me, this gets to the core of the matter. I find myself unable to "believe", in the sense of "knowing something even when there's no objective evidence".

In fact, I take it further, and sadly regard this type of belief ability as evidence of a damaged intellect. I find it even sadder that in most cases the damage was inflicted by loving parents on defenseless children.

This propagation of what is essentially a mind virus relies on the exploitation of children.

 

[Outspacer]

OK, so perhaps I explained that badly. Anyone can "accept" such things in an abstract sense, but a theist does not rationally apply the knowledge that there's no objective evidence. If they did, they wouldn't be a theist, they would be an atheist.

I'd say that if there's no objective evidence, the reasonable default would be that beliefs remain unchanged. Of course the fact that there's no objective evidence for God is part of an atheist's reasoning, but it usually needs at least something else with it. I guess what I'm saying is that there's no way to rationally apply the knowledge that there's no objective evidence since it's a 'nothing', devoid of information.

Ditto the agnostic. They could "accept" objective evidence of God, but if they would rationally apply it they wouldn't be agnostics. They would be atheists.

The difference between an agnostic and an atheist hinges on how they would treat information about God were it to be presented to them. An atheist would accept valid evidence and alter their current evaluation of reality accordingly. An agnostic does not believe that valid evidence can exist and therefore will not accept anything.

I thought it was a case of ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. If you're assuming that they will change category, then that's equally useless as it means that the initial category that you placed them in did not correctly describe their beliefs (or lack thereof).

In the case of agnostics, you're already dealing with people who have demonstrated that they're willing to behave non-rationally*. Why should they change now when provided with rational evidence? If they were willing to accept rational evidence when provided, they would have been correctly assigned as atheists.

Perhaps think of it this way: simply take four people of unknown category, put them in a room and show them incontrovertible evidence of God. Their responses will separate the theist and the atheist from the non-theist and the agnostic.

I'm assuming they can change category, which does happen and has to be coped with. Someone could be perfectly described as one category, then *something* happens and their beliefs change, putting them into another category. There's nothing wrong with the categorisation. So I think it's useless to define some category by how they will react to something happening, rather it rests on how they have reacted to things happening (including thought) which led them to their current beliefs.

If I'm understanding your definition correctly, wouldn't the agnostic label only be useful for the very few loons who, were God stood right before them, would still say 'Nope, this is not possible to know'? That's not a category that merits much discussion!

 

[Imari]

I'd say that if there's no objective evidence, the reasonable default would be that beliefs remain unchanged. Of course the fact that there's no objective evidence for God is part of an atheist's reasoning, but it usually needs at least something else with it.

What else does it need?

I guess what I'm saying is that there's no way to rationally apply the knowledge that there's no objective evidence since it's a 'nothing', devoid of information.

That's not correct.

Let's say you're standing by the side of a road watching for cars. After a month you see no cars. That doesn't tell you nothing. That tells you at the very least that on this road, cars are rare. Maybe for whatever reason, cars don't drive down this road. Maybe it's illegal. Maybe the road is blocked. Maybe nobody has any need to use this road. Maybe there are no cars in this country.

It doesn't really matter what the reason is. But until you see at least one car going down that road, it's a reasonable assumption that cars do not use that road.

Why is that a more reasonable assumption than say, the road is being used by invisible cars? Or that all the cars sneak past when you go to the toilet? Or that what looks like leaves blowing down the road are actually cars?

Google Russell's Teapot again, and see if you can understand why one comes to that particular conclusion when faced with a lack of evidence. I know you already read it, but I suspect last time you may have been reading more for definitions of atheism instead of the actual thinking behind it.

I'm assuming they can change category, which does happen and has to be coped with. Someone could be perfectly described as one category, then *something* happens and their beliefs change, putting them into another category. There's nothing wrong with the categorisation. So I think it's useless to define some category by how they will react to something happening, rather it rests on how they have reacted to things happening (including thought) which led them to their current beliefs.

Certainly people can change how they think, and that will change how one categorises them.

The problem that you don't seem to be seeing is that what characterises these categories (apart from atheism) is what they believe in. Belief is not a response to anything. It defines how they react. By definition, a theist believes in their God regardless of any evidence to the contrary, such as the fact that their God is logically inconsistent. That defines how they will react to any future inconsistency with their beliefs also.

If they change their mind, then they're not a theist any more. Honestly, if belief changes according to evidence it's not belief. It's something else.

People can change their minds, but attempting to assign rational reasons to their decision to abandon an irrationally held belief is going to be patchy at best. People do what people do with regard to this stuff, and it doesn't necessarily make sense.

If I'm understanding your definition correctly, wouldn't the agnostic label only be useful for the very few loons who, were God stood right before them, would still say 'Nope, this is not possible to know'? That's not a category that merits much discussion!

You'd think not, but it's surprisingly common. See anti-vaccinators for a modern example. On the face of it, protecting people from disease by infecting them with the disease sounds pretty stupid. Although it's a bit more nuanced than that, and it's proven in the vast majority of cases to be exceptionally effective.

And yet even though something like measles has been basically eradicated from areas with full immunisation, and knowing that pre-immunisation significant numbers of people used to die of measles and almost nobody dies of the vaccine, anti-vaxxers still refuse to accept that vaccines are of benefit. They may accept intellectually that vaccines may do some good things, but given the choice they will not use them even though the math is overwhelmingly against them.

Humans behave in weird ways and they're not always purely rational, or we'd all be atheists.


You may want to consider how you use words like "loons", because this whole thread is more or less predicated on discussing the thoughts of exactly those sorts of people. Scroll through the last few pages and look at what DCP writes, you think that if he were presented with evidence that the Greek gods existed (and therefore his god was not the one true God) he would accept that? I seriously doubt it.

DCP is admittedly a bit of a loony, but there are plenty of people in here who hold similar beliefs and are simply not as militant about being dicks to others about it. They're not loons, they just know what they believe and stick with it. The strength of DCP's belief isn't unique, only the way in which he attempts to bash others over the head with it is.

It makes it hard for me to reply without being inadvertently abusive to others. Because the answer is "yes, that's useful for those loons", but actually there's a lot of people like that and I don't particularly consider them to be mentally unstable.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Some theists can accept there's no objective evidence, it just doesn't matter. Isn't that what belief is?

No, that's what faith is.

You can go around the houses and split the definitions of various words as you believe them to be defined but that will not change their actual definitions.

 

[Outspacer]

What else does it need?

In the context of changing someone's beliefs, something to positively counter the reasoning behind their beliefs. Like countering creationism with theories of evolution backed by fossil evidence. There are then some who say it's false, some who move the goalposts back to the origin of life or the universe, some who say it's irrelevant to the existence of god... and then some who start questioning other reasons for their belief.

That's not correct.

Perhaps I should've said 'proof' instead, as in, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Let's say you're standing by the side of a road watching for cars. After a month you see no cars. That doesn't tell you nothing. That tells you at the very least that on this road, cars are rare. Maybe for whatever reason, cars don't drive down this road. Maybe it's illegal. Maybe the road is blocked. Maybe nobody has any need to use this road. Maybe there are no cars in this country.

It doesn't really matter what the reason is. But until you see at least one car going down that road, it's a reasonable assumption that cars do not use that road.

Yet it's a reasonable deduction that cars do or did exist (assuming you can see that the road is worn). If it's not worn, one might expect a Chinese shopping mall at the end of it.

Why is that a more reasonable assumption than say, the road is being used by invisible cars? Or that all the cars sneak past when you go to the toilet? Or that what looks like leaves blowing down the road are actually cars?

Google Russell's Teapot again, and see if you can understand why one comes to that particular conclusion when faced with a lack of evidence. I know you already read it, but I suspect last time you may have been reading more for definitions of atheism instead of the actual thinking behind it.

It is you that's not actually hearing what I'm saying, seemingly happier to throw snark and condecension. I didn't rise to your previous "ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer", but it's getting old fast.

Certainly people can change how they think, and that will change how one categorises them.

The problem that you don't seem to be seeing is that what characterises these categories (apart from atheism) is what they believe in. Belief is not a response to anything. It defines how they react. By definition, a theist believes in their God regardless of any evidence to the contrary, such as the fact that their God is logically inconsistent. That defines how they will react to any future inconsistency with their beliefs also.

If they change their mind, then they're not a theist any more. Honestly, if belief changes according to evidence it's not belief. It's something else.

People can change their minds, but attempting to assign rational reasons to their decision to abandon an irrationally held belief is going to be patchy at best. People do what people do with regard to this stuff, and it doesn't necessarily make sense.

Look, the only part I disagree with is the categorical 'will', prophecising people's response to unknown new information. I could just about agree with 'likely will'. For some the added weight could be the straw that broke the camel's back, but that doesn't mean they didn't believe before.

Re: "if belief changes according to evidence it's not belief. It's something else.", what is that something else?

You'd think not, but it's surprisingly common. See anti-vaccinators for a modern example. On the face of it, protecting people from disease by infecting them with the disease sounds pretty stupid. Although it's a bit more nuanced than that, and it's proven in the vast majority of cases to be exceptionally effective.

And yet even though something like measles has been basically eradicated from areas with full immunisation, and knowing that pre-immunisation significant numbers of people used to die of measles and almost nobody dies of the vaccine, anti-vaxxers still refuse to accept that vaccines are of benefit. They may accept intellectually that vaccines may do some good things, but given the choice they will not use them even though the math is overwhelmingly against them.

Humans behave in weird ways and they're not always purely rational, or we'd all be atheists.

Not a great example, because any unvaccinated individual in a mostly vaccinated population still benefits. You could say it's a selfish position, and could be reached rationally. It's testament to vaccination's success that the relative risks (for an individual) are so close.

You may want to consider how you use words like "loons", because this whole thread is more or less predicated on discussing the thoughts of exactly those sorts of people. Scroll through the last few pages and look at what DCP writes, you think that if he were presented with evidence that the Greek gods existed (and therefore his god was not the one true God) he would accept that? I seriously doubt it.

DCP is admittedly a bit of a loony, but there are plenty of people in here who hold similar beliefs and are simply not as militant about being dicks to others about it. They're not loons, they just know what they believe and stick with it. The strength of DCP's belief isn't unique, only the way in which he attempts to bash others over the head with it is.

It makes it hard for me to reply without being inadvertently abusive to others. Because the answer is "yes, that's useful for those loons", but actually there's a lot of people like that and I don't particularly consider them to be mentally unstable.

We were talking specifically about the hypothetical case of God in the room presenting incontrovertible proof of his existence. I stand by my use of the word for that case. I would not use it otherwise, because that would be tantamount to saying I knew unequivocally how someone (or some category) would react to that situtation. Since there is currently no absolute proof either way, no category currently deserves to be called loons.

 

[Outspacer]

No, that's what faith is.

You can go around the houses and split the definitions of various words as you believe them to be defined but that will not change their actual definitions.

Does this thread have its own definition of belief and faith as well? If so, you'll need to point me at them. It was easy to find nontheist etc (introduced at post 2087) by searching, but it won't work for those.

I used 'belief' as describing the outcome of a thought process, thinking something is true. That it's not based on proof is why I'd say belief and not knowledge. It's hard to come up with a reasonable example of input to that thought process for a theist that isn't flawed by confirmation bias - in practice it starts with being told that God exists - subsequent to that, all manner of unexplained things can be ascribed to God. Point being, this all goes on in the mind, and even a theist accepting that there's no objective evidence for a god does nothing to change their belief that there is one, since they've spent time building up a body of subjective 'evidence' that overwhelms it. (Finding more rational explainations for all those previously unexplained things might change someone's belief, but that's something else).

So yeah, apologies if I've used 'belief' incorrectly, but I don't think 'faith' fits what I was trying to say.

 

[Imari]

Yet it's a reasonable deduction that cars do or did exist (assuming you can see that the road is worn). If it's not worn, one might expect a Chinese shopping mall at the end of it.

Obviously it's not a perfect metaphor, but nor can you deduce that cars exist from the existence of roads. Think of all the unspoken assumptions that you've made in order to make that deduction.

The Romans had roads, and I'm fairly sure that they didn't have cars.

This is the thing though, without more information than I gave you, you couldn't possibly have reasonably come to that conclusion. You could investigate more and do it, but then anything that you found during that investigation would be additional evidence that would support or refute some hypothesis, like the hypothesis that cars use the road.

But even with your evidence that the road is worn is not necessarily proof of cars, it's proof that something has happened to wear the road in certain patterns which you have observed, which may or may not be consistent with wear from a four wheeled rubber shod vehicle.

It can be very, very difficult for laymen to abandon all assumptions and work purely from what is observed. Adults in particular are used to feeling like they know things, even when they don't. Even good scientists find it difficult at times, it's a very common way for research to get side-tracked and off course. The moment you start thinking that you know something, that's the moment to stop and take a deep breath.

Perhaps I should've said 'proof' instead, as in, absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Where do you fit the word proof in there? I don't understand what you're trying to use it to modify. Can you rewrite the section so that I understand what you actually meant to say?

You're right, absence of proof is not proof of absence, but atheists don't claim that it is. Almost nothing is proof of absence anyway, except in highly limited circumstances that certainly don't apply when talking about celestial beings.

Absence of proof is absence of anything to support anything that isn't the null hypothesis, therefore the null hypothesis becomes the working theory until such time as actual evidence arises.

Re: "if belief changes according to evidence it's not belief. It's something else.", what is that something else?

Assumption? A hypothesis? A theory? Knowledge? There's a bunch of words that are used to describe this general mode of thought.

If you're accepting something as true based on current information, but you're willing to change your view based on new information that is presented to you, that's not belief. That's how science works. The scientific method is many things, but it's not based on belief.

A belief is what someone thinks even without any reason to think that way.
Knowledge is what someone has when they have reasons to think that way, although due to imperfect information or reasoning it may not ultimately be a wholly correct description of the reality that they're attempting to describe.

Not a great example, because any unvaccinated individual in a mostly vaccinated population still benefits. You could say it's a selfish position, and could be reached rationally. It's testament to vaccination's success that the relative risks (for an individual) are so close.

They're not even close. See Famine's post in the vaccine thread.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The information to see this exists and is easily available to anyone, and yet we still have an apparently well spoken and well educated individual like yourself buying into the idea that non-vaccination is kinda OK as long as everyone doesn't do it at once. Try not to take offense because it's a common thing for people to do and you're far from the only one, but instead think about how you managed to do that.

Probably the same way most people do, because that's the information that is widely spread amongst the media and the community. But it's hearsay, it's not actual data.

Lots of people don't make rational decisions about their positions and beliefs based on actual information, they do it based on peer pressure, or what they heard someone say, or what they feel is right, or whatever. You've likely come across various bits of information at different times that might have allowed you to come to the conclusion that is shown in Famine's post, especially had they all been given to you simultaneously and you actually sat down and thought about it. But because you felt that you had the right answer already you never really went looking for the truth, and had it just come up as a one off news item then you might have dismissed it.

The same thing can happen with religion. You can show someone God, but if they've got an echo chamber of media and family and friends reinforcing their beliefs then it's tough to get them to change. Or even to convince them to look and see that there's something there that's worth their time to investigate.

As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Some horses will die of thirst rather than stick their head in a stream they don't want to, even though it's ultimately in their best interest.

 

[Outspacer]

Obviously it's not a perfect metaphor, but nor can you deduce that cars exist from the existence of roads. Think of all the unspoken assumptions that you've made in order to make that deduction.

The Romans had roads, and I'm fairly sure that they didn't have cars.

This is the thing though, without more information than I gave you, you couldn't possibly have reasonably come to that conclusion. You could investigate more and do it, but then anything that you found during that investigation would be additional evidence that would support or refute some hypothesis, like the hypothesis that cars use the road.

But even with your evidence that the road is worn is not necessarily proof of cars, it's proof that something has happened to wear the road in certain patterns which you have observed, which may or may not be consistent with wear from a four wheeled rubber shod vehicle.

Fair enough. There's even no proof that it's a road, apart from you saying it is.

It can be very, very difficult for laymen to abandon all assumptions and work purely from what is observed. Adults in particular are used to feeling like they know things, even when they don't. Even good scientists find it difficult at times, it's a very common way for research to get side-tracked and off course. The moment you start thinking that you know something, that's the moment to stop and take a deep breath.

Are you not a layman? I'm merely an engineer - technical but not a scientist. I am however well aware that vast amounts of what we think we know are just reasonable, mostly-working, hypothesis.

Where do you fit the word proof in there? I don't understand what you're trying to use it to modify. Can you rewrite the section so that I understand what you actually meant to say?

You're right, absence of proof is not proof of absence, but atheists don't claim that it is. Almost nothing is proof of absence anyway, except in highly limited circumstances that certainly don't apply when talking about celestial beings.

Absence of proof is absence of anything to support anything that isn't the null hypothesis, therefore the null hypothesis becomes the working theory until such time as actual evidence arises.

"I guess what I'm saying is that there's no way to rationally apply the knowledge that there's no objective evidence since it's a 'nothing', devoid of proof."

Yeah, that doesn't work. I did a little better in my response to "What else does it need?" as far as following on from the original "a theist does not rationally apply the knowledge that there's no objective evidence. If they did, they wouldn't be a theist, they would be an atheist." goes. (and see below)

Assumption? A hypothesis? A theory? Knowledge? There's a bunch of words that are used to describe this general mode of thought.

If you're accepting something as true based on current information, but you're willing to change your view based on new information that is presented to you, that's not belief. That's how science works. The scientific method is many things, but it's not based on belief.

A belief is what someone thinks even without any reason to think that way.
Knowledge is what someone has when they have reasons to think that way, although due to imperfect information or reasoning it may not ultimately be a wholly correct description of the reality that they're attempting to describe.

No, a belief is what someone thinks to be true without any proof. They may well have a reason for it. The reasoning may be flawed, but that takes nothing away from the end result - someone has a belief. Let's say they're unwilling to change their view based on new information (present tense). That does not mean they won't change their view (in the future) based on new information.

Say there's a bunch of people who say that they believe in God yet accept that there's no objective evidence for God. In your view, are we to call them either liars or atheists? I don't see any problem with calling them what they are - theists. There is no proof that would falsify their belief.

They're not even close. See Famine's post in the vaccine thread.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. The information to see this exists and is easily available to anyone, and yet we still have an apparently well spoken and well educated individual like yourself buying into the idea that non-vaccination is kinda OK as long as everyone doesn't do it at once. Try not to take offense because it's a common thing for people to do and you're far from the only one, but instead think about how you managed to do that.

Probably the same way most people do, because that's the information that is widely spread amongst the media and the community. But it's hearsay, it's not actual data.

Lots of people don't make rational decisions about their positions and beliefs based on actual information, they do it based on peer pressure, or what they heard someone say, or what they feel is right, or whatever. You've likely come across various bits of information at different times that might have allowed you to come to the conclusion that is shown in Famine's post, especially had they all been given to you simultaneously and you actually sat down and thought about it. But because you felt that you had the right answer already you never really went looking for the truth, and had it just come up as a one off news item then you might have dismissed it.

OK, so I was lazy in not looking up the figures, but it doesn't matter - I wasn't saying anything about how I might act, rather about how those anti-vaxxers think. You're right in every word except that I'm not the one you should be ranting at! We know there's no point in thinking about one single individual not being vaccinated, because even if the risks were close, no more than one person could reasonably use that as a rationale. In practice, you'd get groups of connected people choosing not to vax - which isn't going to end well.

Anyway, with them it's more about not believing what they're told, or choosing to believe some invalid source of information, rather than an irrational thought process per se. To bring it more in line with the God in the room scenario, try presenting them with a local measles epidemic and see what happens.