1
   

Do Agnostics and Athiests simply reject faith?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 02:07 pm
Im not a believer, but
val wrote:
The ThinkFactory

Assuming there is a God, He must be perfect.
A perfect being is perfect in all he does.
So, if God created the world, he created a perfect world.
.


well define perfect for me then. I believe the world is perfect. It could not be any other way, and so it 'is'. for example, if there was only one of something, it was unique, nothing else like it anywhere, then it would be perfect wouldnt it? if it could be no other way. Therefore the world is perfect, just because we doint like what happens all the time, doesnt mean its not perfect. Isnt it obvious that a world like our idea of 'heaven' doesnt exist, it would be impossible!!! we are humans, we have desires temptations, and to give in to these can make us happy. what are the practicalities of a world where everyone is nice to each other all the time?? we are still human, therefore it is imossible. The more you think about it the more laugable you will find it. i assure you.

in answer to the question though, it depends on the individual. There are some people who simply dont know if god exists, and others wh deliberately reject faith, like me.

I believe that religion makes a mockery of humanity, tjhink of all the people who have bowed own to nothing, have killed, loved and died fr nothing apart frm to fuffil the void in our lives. It is obvous that through time man has begged for a ruler, a god, something better than he, and so he creates them in all the corners of the earth to give life meaning.

does this make religion wrong? no, i dont thik it does, it is the main part of human nature. But I do believe that thos e who rise above it, aethists, are stronger and able to face the truth more than the weak humans that delude themselves and kidd themseleves there is a point to life.

sorry is thi sounds rude or pesamistic. It just the way Im feeling.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 02:23 pm
Hey Jason

Interesting topic.

Terry, as she so often does, pretty much summed up most of my thoughts on it.

However, I want to contribute is a recitation of my agnosticism...which may provide a basis for further discussion of your issues.

I do not know if a God exists....and I do not know that no gods exist.

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction.

Nothing anyone else has ever said on this subject convinces me that anyone else is in a position appreciably different from mine...except that some people simply want to make a guess.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 02:23 pm
I understand what axl roses is saying about this world being "perfect." It's perfect from the perspective that this is the "only" world we know of, and everything in our galaxy is natural and normal. We humans are the ones that are putting value statements to what is natural. If it's not natural, it wouldn't have happened or happening. Do I have it close, axl rose?
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 04:21 pm
Re: Do Agnostics and Athiests simply reject faith?
val wrote:
The ThinkFactory

Assuming there is a God, He must be perfect.
A perfect being is perfect in all he does.
So, if God created the world, he created a perfect world.
That means, all events of the world are related in order to produce the perfection of the ALL. Even if an isolated event may seem to us wrong or unfair.


ah, Pangloss arises!

What is, is Right'?best of all possible worlds
0 Replies
 
Ray
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 01:55 am
My thought:

If there is an omnipotent god, this is the only way that the universe could be developed. Our reasoning of what is "perfect" is pretty skewed up sometimes. For example, we keep asking: can a perfect God create a rock he couldn't make? The statement implies a bizarre notion of perfection, but on further analysis, a yes answer would be illogical and a no answer would still prove that God is all powerful. Does it matter that he could not make a rock he could not make? No, because there is no such thing.

I don't believe that nature is planned out, or at least completely planned out, and I think we decide our destiny. That's all for my ranting.
0 Replies
 
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 06:46 am
yes, you have it very close
0 Replies
 
val
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 06:29 am
Re: Do Agnostics and Athiests simply reject faith?
Kuvasz

No, Pangloss did not arise.
The logical argument I used was not from "Candide" - it is always better to read an author and not what another author says about him, specially if it is someone with an opposite perspective.
Leibniz said that God created the perfect world - see "Discours de métaphysique", pages 15/16. He criticizes those who think God created the world with the least possible imperfections.

About Leibniz logical reasoning I agree with you.
But I believe that all system must start in undemonstrated premises. I accept Tarsky's theorem.
In fact, and talking about Frege, don't forget Russel's reply.
0 Replies
 
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 07:19 am
i guess i should really read some more philosophy books, then i may know what you are talking about
0 Replies
 
val
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 12:48 pm
axl roses wife

The question is very simple.
If we accept the premises of Leibniz reasoning, we must accept the conclusions. You see, accepting that there is a God (I don't accept) that God must be Perfect. So, a perfect being can only create perfect things.

I used that argument against miracles, for someone that accepts the existence of God.
But there is a curious thing about Leibniz (in fact, I think Kurvasz suggested it): Leibniz didn't want to deny miracles (in his time that would be enough to send a man to jail), but he had that logical conception of the perfect being. So, he went to Aristotle and the Scholastics, using two different kinds of truth: the necessary truth - a triangle has three angles) and the contingent truth (it rains only if there are clouds in the sky).For the first kind of truth he assumed that even God could not change it: even God cannot create a triangle with 5 angles.
But if we are dealing with contingent truth, God can change it: it is only a matter of physical conditions, and the changing doesn't affect the perfection of the world. So, God could make a miracle by making rain without a single cloud in sky. (but God cannot make rain and not to rain at same time and place, because that would be a contradiction).
0 Replies
 
thethinkfactory
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 01:25 pm
I loved all the responses. I have reading them lately and want to respond to them all.

It was great to hear from all of you. The AntiBuddha, Frank, Val and others.

I am in class right now (my students are taking a test on The Ontological arguments for and against God in Phil of Religion).

I will bookmark this and get back to you tonight. But I want to ask Frank Apisa one question right away that has been bugging me about his Agnosticism (which I think is one of more enligtened and convincing - which is why I hammer him so much on it. Wink )

Frank:

You talk about 'unambigious' evidence. My thought has been - does your 'bias' toward agnosticism taint anothers evidence and make it ambigious in your mind? I loved what the antibuddha said on the first page. 'All of us bias our evidence'. - Could it be that you bias the evidence of others?

I know that is a very personal question - I know you can handle it - please see it not as an argument of conversion. I just want your thoughts. (That sounded awful Borg-like... Wink )

Thanks again for all of your thoughtful and time consuming posts. Discussions on this board give me hope for the critical thinking of the world. Very Happy

TTF
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 02:09 pm
Jason wrote:

Quote:
You talk about 'unambigious' evidence. My thought has been - does your 'bias' toward agnosticism taint anothers evidence and make it ambigious in your mind? I loved what the antibuddha said on the first page. 'All of us bias our evidence'. - Could it be that you bias the evidence of others?


I have little doubt that each of us brings a personal bias to all evidence we are called upon to evaluate...so for certain, I acknowledge that I bring a bias with me to this discussion.

That being so however....I defy anyone to present unambiguous evidence that there is a God...or that there are no gods.

There simply is none!

Now keep in mind that I am not asking for PROOF of the existence of a God....or PROOF that no gods exist...but that I am asking for unambiguous evidence that points in the direction of either with enough force to suggest selecting that direction as a guess.

Honestly...I see absolutely no evidence that truly points to the existence of a God...and except for the evidence contained in that (they cannot produce their god for inspection)....I see no evidence that truly suggests there are no gods.

Theism and atheism (insofar as the atheism is hard atheism) are absolutely blind, uninformed guesses.




PS...when I last dealt with the ontological proof of the existence of god...I simply dismissed the concept as not being "proof" in any reasonable sense of that word! Hope your students treat is more academically.
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 03:33 pm
Why is atheism constantly misrepresented as a belief that there are no gods?

It is not.

Atheism is not a belief. It is the rejection of a belief.

I believe that there are no gods. I do not believe that there are gods. Notice the difference?

I do have faith though. Faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, faith that the light will come on when I flick the switch, faith that people will continue to misrepresent athiesm...
0 Replies
 
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 03:33 pm
Thanks val, thats a lot clearer now.

I think though, that could be ineterpreted in different ways depending on the definition of the word perfect.

and also, there must be some miricles which dont fit into that catergory.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 04:56 pm
Adrian wrote:
Why is atheism constantly misrepresented as a belief that there are no gods?

It is not.

Atheism is not a belief. It is the rejection of a belief.

I believe that there are no gods. I do not believe that there are gods. Notice the difference?

I do have faith though. Faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, faith that the light will come on when I flick the switch, faith that people will continue to misrepresent athiesm...


C'mon, Adrian...stop being naive!

MANY atheists do indeed express a belief. They do not assert their atheism as you suggested above "I do not believe that there are gods"...but rather do it in a very pro-active, belief system oriented way:

I believe there are no gods!

I've heard many, many atheists express their assertions that way....and that...most assuredly...IS a belief system.
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 05:05 pm
I know what you mean Frank and it those so called atheists that do the most misrepresenting. They're the ones that annoy me the most.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 05:30 pm
Adrian wrote:
Why is atheism constantly misrepresented as a belief that there are no gods?

It is not.

Atheism is not a belief. It is the rejection of a belief.

I believe that there are no gods. I do not believe that there are gods. Notice the difference?

I do have faith though. Faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, faith that the light will come on when I flick the switch, faith that people will continue to misrepresent athiesm...


You state that you have faith:
The biblical definition of faith is Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen

The dictionary definition isThe ascent of the mind to accept that which is told by others

Your faith that the sun will rise and the light will come on are physical, known things that we can see. The faith that you speak of is not faith, but rather a tangible knowledge.
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 05:36 pm
There are plenty of other definitions for the word Intrepid. Some of those definitions support my usage. Do you have a problem with me using the word?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 05:40 pm
There are also many definitions of god. Everybody is free to define god in any way they please. My Webster's defines faith as "unquestioning belief, specif. in God, a religion, etc. and complete trust or confidence."
0 Replies
 
Waldo2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 06:09 pm
Quote:
That being so however....I defy anyone to present unambiguous evidence that there is a God...or that there are no gods.

There simply is none!

Now keep in mind that I am not asking for PROOF of the existence of a God....or PROOF that no gods exist...but that I am asking for unambiguous evidence that points in the direction of either with enough force to suggest selecting that direction as a guess.

Honestly...I see absolutely no evidence that truly points to the existence of a God...and except for the evidence contained in that (they cannot produce their god for inspection)....I see no evidence that truly suggests there are no gods.

Theism and atheism (insofar as the atheism is hard atheism) are absolutely blind, uninformed guesses.


Maybe that is true if God is left as a pretty well undefined entity. However, the more that the theist describes his/her doctrine, the easier it becomes to refute that doctrine.

For example, you say that no evidence exists to point one toward the guess that there is no God. But, is there evidence to discourage one from believing that an omnipresent, omnipowerful being is both jealous and all-loving, veangeful and merciful and takes the time to get to know SOME humans on a personal basis.

Is it likely that this God held the sun in the sky for longer than the usual day so that a favored army could annihilate a despised army.

I don't mean to pick on the old testament, but it is common to many of the modern religions and--therefore--makes the most sense.

I would say that there is ample evidence to suggest that this doctrine of faith (especially the fundamentalist form) is highly suspect. I don't feel that an uninformed shot-in-the-dark guess is what led me to reject many of these notions.

Now, from a philosophy perspective, your point is well taken. There is no evidence that god does not exist.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Mar, 2005 07:25 pm
Adrian wrote:
There are plenty of other definitions for the word Intrepid. Some of those definitions support my usage. Do you have a problem with me using the word?


I noticed that you did not quote any of these definitions. No matter.

No, I have absolutely no problem with you using any word that you choose to. That is the beauty of living in free countries.

I am happy to see that you have faith in some manner :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
The Void and the Absolute Oneness of the Universe - Discussion by Relinquish
can we reconcile darkness in man with madness(lunacy) ? - Question by studentnorway
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
In the GRAND scheme of things, what matters? - Question by komr98
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
How can something come from nothing? - Question by ripple
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Do Agnostics and Athiests simply reject faith?
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 05/21/2024 at 03:26:32
▲ ▼