[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

We cannot deny the fact that, improbably as it seems, the scenario that an all-powerful being could create a universe that was designed specifically to appear as though It didn't exist is, if not plausible, then at least possible. We also cannot deny that if there was a God that simply created the universe (initiated the Big Bang) and then allowed things to progress naturally (essentially the Deist position), that the current state of things would be indistinguishable from what we have now. Even if every single religion on Earth has it wrong (which seems extremely likely to me), that still does not discount the possibility that there is a God that simply doesn't want to be known.

But exactly that's the point the abrahamitic religions have brought forward, namely that there is only one God who created everything and who is testing us in this life and will grant eternal blissful life after judgment day for those that believed in God and stood faithful to their belief in God all their life, praying to God, doing good, repenting sins and changing for the better and avoiding the great sins of murder, stealing, making false witness, adultery... and idolatry, and will grant eternal punishment in hell for those that rejected God, did evil, did not repent and committed the great sins..

The test of our soul and free will would be useless, if there was ever found a 100% proof for God's existence. That's why God created everything in such a way as to leave the possibility open for the coincidence-interpretation and that's why God chose not to step out of His transcendency until judgment day.

Equally it is with the religions and the revelations that they are based upon, there is no 100% proof that the prophets were really messengers of God, there is always the possibile interpretation left open that the supposed prophets were fabricating or fabricated by humans, and their messages reflect the time and circumstances that the prophets appeared on.

If it weren't that way, there would be no need for belief and full knowledge would set in, and thus stopping the test, I know I'm repeating myself.

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

What some people are calling faith is really a fervent WISH. This is what you are referring to. There are many who profess to have faith in something or another who really are just hoping and wishing and then going through the motions. This is what I call belief. Even the root of the word at one time meant "to wish".

True faith is letting go. You don't CLING to life like a falling boulder because you not only know but you FEEL with every fiber of your being that you will be OK in the end. (or whatever the case may be)

Exactly, there is indeed a difference between believing and having faith. Believing is changeable with our free will, we can choose to believe that or something other, we have the will to change our beliefs, but we have no control over our faith. Faith is a spiritual link between God and the humans that God choses to link to spiritually, a thing we have to qualify for by our decision to believe in God and to do good, to change ourselves for the better, by praying, doing charity... until our soul is ready for the spiritual linkage to God.

But even if one has managed to come to that point and to get granted faith, one can severe the linkage again through our free will to disbelieve in God and to do evil things...

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This is what's wrong with faith: faith in unproven things makes you resistant to rational discussion.

Like believing God doesn't exist?

For instance, if you believe that transfusions are immoral because of faith, no amount of reasonable discourse is going to sway you.

Meh, I know people that are like this without faith. This is the human condition.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Why do you laugh at the first quoted post if you end up agreeing with it.

Mistake. I didn't realize you weren't claiming to be an Atheist.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Mistake. I didn't realize you weren't claiming to be an Atheist.

Understandable. Though I posted what thought in the first page. I also did in a thread about a year ago, with Abe.

 

For the record, Abe (or whatever you want to call him) was a very interesting person to have here.

[Kevin]

Again, my mistake. I apologize. And yes, abe is a ok guy,

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This is what's wrong with faith: faith in unproven things makes you resistant to rational discussion. For instance, if you believe that transfusions are immoral because of faith, no amount of reasonable discourse is going to sway you.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

So what? What do you want to sway someone for?

Are you serious?

[Kevin]

lpk you believe that God doesn't exist right? What FACTS do you use to back up this belief?

Wait, no facts exist either way you say?

So what is your belief that no God exist based on?

Faith.

Unless you are going to claim you have no belief pro or against because there is no proof either way, (AKA Agnostic) you have faith.

No amount of word or sentence spin or denial will change that.

[Dakar²]

I'd think it's more rooted in disbelief.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

You are agnostic then. No faith is required. I've said this a few times.

Agnostics don't believe god exists or doesn't exist. They claim there is no proof either way.

Atheists claim they believe God doesn't exist.

Theists claim they believe God does exist.

The last two require faith because there is no proof either way.

Remember, lack of proof of something existing isn't proof that it didn't or doesn't exist.

With all due respect, please stop perpetuating this false trichotomy. Agnosticism, properly, is the position that the truth of the existence of god is unknown or unknowable. It is not logically incompatible with either atheism or theism, which deal with belief or lack thereof.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

lpk you believe that God doesn't exist right? What FACTS do you use to back up this belief?

Wait, no facts exist either way you say?

So what is your belief that no God exist based on?

Faith.

Unless you are going to claim you have no belief pro or against because there is no proof either way, (AKA Agnostic) you have faith.

No amount of word or sentence spin or denial will change that.

why should we prove anything? if you have faith in god...it's your burden to prove it...

you know some call the dark ages the age of faith

[- - e r i k - -]

This thread has taken my beliefs that Kevin has no sense of logic and proven it. Thank you God.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I'd think it's more rooted in disbelief.

Word spin. Rooted in disbelief and rooted in believing he isn't there are two of the same things.

Originally Posted by Saetre 

With all due respect, please stop perpetuating this false trichotomy.

I am doing no such thing

Agnosticism, properly, is the position that the truth of the existence of god is unknown or unknowable.

Right, therefore those that are Agnostic usually have no faith. We aren't in disagreement here.

It is not logically incompatible with either atheism or theism, which deal with belief or lack thereof.

Both of those deal with belief. You either believe God exists or you believe he doesn't.

Originally Posted by ironknee 

why should we prove anything? if you have faith in god...it's your burden to prove it...

I never said YOU had to prove it. You or me proving it has nothing to do with my point.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

This thread has taken my beliefs that Kevin has no sense of logic and proven it. Thank you God.

That would have to do more with you, than I.

So far no one has been able to debunk what I have had to say. Just word spin it. Though it means the same thing.

But go on erik, lets see you try instead of posting lame ad-hominems.

No it seems I've hit it pretty close to the mark.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Word spin. Rooted in disbelief and rooted in believing he isn't there are two of the same things.

So if I disbelieve in the Lochness Monster, I have faith?

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Right, therefore those that are Agnostic usually have no faith. We aren't in disagreement here.

Think about the definition. Anyone who doesn't claim to know god or have proven his existence is an agnostic. That means that a large chunk of the world's theists are agnostics too. And most people you call atheists are certainly agnostic too, Richard Dawkins included. This is why I called you on the false trichotomy.

A theist is anyone who believes in at least one god. Everyone else is an atheist.

[Saetre]

Have we narrowed down what kind of faith we are talking about here? I have no problem with "the sun will rise tomorrow"-type faith but I do disapprove the sort of faith that motivates suicide bombers.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

Everyone else is an atheist.

Uh, what? Agnostics don't exist?

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Uh, what? Agnostics don't exist?

Agnostics are either atheists or theists.

[Dakar²]

An agnostic can't be a theist. It's an inherent contradiction. Same with atheist.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

An agnostic can't be a theist. It's an inherent contradiction. Same with atheist.

"Atheism" and "Theism" deal with beliefs. Agnosticism deals with knowledge. There is no contradiction.

[Peder Rice]

You you base a belief on the LACK of proof of something you are STILL basing that belief on FAITH.

I'm an atheist and state that I have proof against the Christian god. That is likely better suited for a separate thread, but let's for now just make the assumption that yes, I am making a decision upon evidence which according to me reaches the threshold of proof.

Can I be excused from requiring faith now?

[Dakar²]

An agnostic doesn't have faith or disbelieve the existence of god. That's in opposition to both theists and atheists.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

An agnostic can't be a theist. It's an inherent contradiction. Same with atheist.

A theist can't believe God is unknowable?

[Dakar²]

Doesn't a theist believe in the concept of a god? Maybe I'm missing something here.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

An agnostic doesn't have faith or disbelieve the existence of god. That's in opposition to both theists and atheists.

An agnostic can believe whatever he pleases except that the existence status of god is knowable. This really comes down to semantics. I'm using the historical, original, philosophical sense of the word and you are using the corrupted definition which has come to be used for fence sitter atheists. I wouldn't mind so much, except that this newer definition has a meaning that is quite different from the old and seems to have come into existence due to confusion about the difference between knowledge and belief.

[Dakar²]

I thought the entire point was an agnostic didn't believe either. The jury was out, never to come in.

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I thought the entire point was an agnostic didn't believe either. The jury was out, never to come in.

That's increasingly how the word is used popularly and in the media. It's inaccurate though. To be fair, Thomas Huxley, the coiner of the word, did sometimes seem to claim that being a fence-sitter was a logical imperative of accepting that the existence of god is unknowable. If this is indeed what he meant, he was clearly wrong, though.

[Dakar²]

Ok then, what do you consider to be the proper term for someone I described?

[Saetre]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Ok then, what do you consider to be the proper term for someone I described?

A lot of people call them weak atheists. I usually just call them atheists.

[Dakar²]

Well, I'm going to have to disagree, particularly when you're at issue with the guy who coined the term.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

This is what's wrong with faith: faith in unproven things makes you resistant to rational discussion. For instance, if you believe that transfusions are immoral because of faith, no amount of reasonable discourse is going to sway you.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

So what? What do you want to sway someone for?

Originally Posted by Kevin 

lpk you believe that God doesn't exist right? What FACTS do you use to back up this belief?

The onus of proof lies with the believer.

Wait, no facts exist either way you say?

I don't say that. Actually, I'd say the facts are against God. Omnipotence and omniscience are scientifically impossible.

So what is your belief that no God exist based on? Faith.

No, the absence of evidence for the existence of God, and the impossibility of anything existing that is omniscient or omnipotent.

Unless you are going to claim you have no belief pro or against because there is no proof either way, (AKA Agnostic) you have faith.

No amount of word or sentence spin or denial will change that.

In case anyone isn't clear of Kevin's motives, I'll spell it out: he's trying to place religion and atheism on an equal footing. i.e., just as left-handedness and right-handedness are types of handedness, so religion and atheism are types of faith.

Why the desire for this "equal footing?" Because it really stings when believers are accused of "absence of evidence," so they are trying to smear that label around onto atheists with a bait-and-switch.

He's dead wrong, of course. Religion is faith, while both atheism and agnosticism are the absence of faith.

As a few other smart people has posted, denying the existence of God isn't a faith anymore than denying the existence of the Easter Bunny is a faith.

Kevin, go fish your sophistry somewhere else. No one here is biting.

[Saetre]

Look up the definition in a dictionary if you don't believe me. Huxley was clear about the definition, and it is the one I use. While Huxley seemed to like the idea of withholding belief either way, this clearly isn't a consequence of his definition of agnosticism.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

Look up the definition in a dictionary if you don't believe me. Huxley was clear about the definition, and it is the one I use. While Huxley seemed to like the idea of withholding belief either way, this clearly isn't a consequence of his definition of agnosticism.

I did. It says someone who claims neither faith nor disbelief in god. Sounds incompatible to theists and atheists to me.

[Saetre]

Which dictionary did you use? Was that the only definition? If so you should throw that dictionary out.

[Dakar²]

I knew this would come to an argument of what freakin' dictionary was being used.

Guess what, I won't like your choice you won't like mine, because they won't back our preconceptions.

And for the record, I used the built in Widget dictionary.

[Saetre]

Well I had the same preconception as you until I was shown to be incorrect. Oh well.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Saetre 

Well I had the same preconception as you until I was shown to be incorrect. Oh well.

Sure, sure. Weak atheist makes loads more sense.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

In case anyone isn't clear of Kevin's motives, I'll spell it out: he's trying to place religion and atheism on an equal footing. i.e., just as left-handedness and right-handedness are types of handedness, so religion and atheism are types of faith.

Why the desire for this "equal footing?" Because it really stings when believers are accused of "absence of evidence," so they are trying to smear that label around onto atheists with a bait-and-switch.

He's dead wrong, of course. Religion is faith, while both atheism and agnosticism are the absence of faith.

As a few other smart people has posted, denying the existence of God isn't a faith anymore than denying the existence of the Easter Bunny is a faith.

Kevin, go fish your sophistry somewhere else. No one here is biting.

well put

pfff faith

[Saetre]

I don't care for the term either.

[Dakar²]

I was waiting to find out there was some alternate term I had never heard of. But since there isn't, I'm sticking with agnosticism. You're the only person I've ever heard object to its current interpretation.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Sure, sure. Weak atheist makes loads more sense.

I like my atheist strong with a litte milk. Half and half is fine if there is not milk available.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

I like my atheist strong with a litte milk. Half and half is fine if there is not milk available.

A real person takes his atheism strong and black, like his men.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

A real person takes his atheism strong and black, like his men.

Well, there went breakfast.

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

Well, there went breakfast.

That's why we get 3 meals a day.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

That's why we get 3 meals a day.

Can I subsitute the last two for beer? I heard that it's a meal in a bottle.

[Dakar²]

Steak in a can, baby.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

So far no one has been able to debunk what I have had to say. Just word spin it. Though it means the same thing.

Word spin it? Honestly Kevin, you are so caught up in your buzzword of the day that you can't see that you are the one doing the spinning here? I am honestly trying to keep away from the ad hominems here, but there is really only one word for what you are: deluded.

What part of "you can not prove a negative" do you have a problem with? The part where it negates your whole "disbelief is also a belief" argument?

[ironknee]

it appeares to me that the 2 parts of kevin's mind (religious/logical) are in conflict so if bringing down logical thinking to faith --and thereby we are all faith believers-- may help calm the conflict

kevin snap out of it...you're better than this.\

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

So if I disbelieve in the Lochness Monster, I have faith?

No, the lochness has been disproven. No faith required.

Originally Posted by Saetre 

Think about the definition. Anyone who doesn't claim to know god or have proven his existence is an agnostic. That means that a large chunk of the world's theists are agnostics too. And most people you call atheists are certainly agnostic too, Richard Dawkins included.

If that is what you think you didn't read what I said carefully enough. People who claim they believe God does not exist can in no way be Agnostic.

This is why I called you on the false trichotomy.

You attempted to anyhow.

A theist is anyone who believes in at least one god. Everyone else is an atheist.

Sorry, most everyone disagrees with you. That is why the word Agnostic exists.

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

I thought the entire point was an agnostic didn't believe either. The jury was out, never to come in.

Indeed. "There is no proof either way, so I have no belief either way"

No, the absence of evidence for the existence of God, and the impossibility of anything existing that is omniscient or omnipotent.

Again, this isn't proof. This is you taking what you believe to be truths, and BELIEVING it's factual. Which requires faith. You are word spinning in attempt to deny faith.

Originally Posted by ironknee 

it appeares to me that the 2 parts of kevin's mind (religious/logical) are in conflict so if bringing down logical thinking to faith --and thereby we are all faith believers-- may help calm the conflict

kevin snap out of it...you're better than this.\

Nothing but condescending ad-hominems from ironknee. I would say you were better than this, but you make a habit of doing so. You added nothing to this discussion with your post.

ALl the word spin wont change the fact that without FACT either way faith comes into practice.

Some of you are just in willing denial.

So far all I have gotten is "spins" "denial" and "ad-hominem" attacks.

I'd love to have some actual relevant honest rebuttal here people.

[smacintush]

It pains me to agree with Kevin on this but I think he's right about Atheism requiring faith. Perhaps it IS a matter of semantics but if it is then he is the one using the term right.

An Atheist is one who asserts that there is no "God". This indeed is a belief system that requires faith as the word is normally used.

There is an old saying about Atheists: "There is no God and I am his prophet."

I don't know why you guys are having a tough time with it. It's not like admitting you have faith in something is gonna kill ya. Are you afraid your friends won't like you anymore?