by ZeusRocks 116 Replies latest jw friends
Can we all at least agree on one thing:
The existence of a deity/higher power/intelligence is, by definition, a matter of faith, and as such can neither be proven nor disproven.
So those on both sides of the issue must concede that, OK, we really CAN'T know for sure.
Seriously, until someone manages to build the world's first fully functional Deity Detection Device we're pretty much shooting in the dark.
Word Origin & History
atheist
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea –noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
| — n | |
| 1. | a person who does not believe in God or gods |
| — adj | |
| 2. | of or relating to atheists or atheism |
The existence of a deity/higher power/intelligence is, by definition, a matter of faith, and as such can neither be proven nor disproven.
Of course and agreed, the issue though may be a person's definition of "faith".
This sounds an awful lot like someone who says "I do not believe President Obama's performance has been outstanding" getting into a war of words with someone who says "I believe President Obama's performance has not been outstanding".
Like I said: "faith" = stance regarding an issue that can neither be proven nor disproven.
I believe that sentient beings (i.e. ETs) exist elsewhere in the universe. I believe there is very strong circumstantial evidence to support this view.
But I can't prove it.
It's a matter of faith.
Remember the ending of Contact (one of the few Hollywood films that dealt intelligently with issues such as faith, science, ETs, and God)?
Like I said: "faith" = stance regarding an issue that can neither be proven nor disproven.
Faith of the kind of Thomas? or faith of the kind of Paul? or Faith of the kind or those that believed with no real reason to believe?
DD:
Atheist, christian, buddhist, quaker, agnostic, etc. are labels that people take upon them. I think it is more prudent to give the labels the meaning the people who carry them want them to have, rather than the derogatory or logically unsound definition you want them to carry.
For example, i could say that being a christian is about believing in zombies because i believe Jesus and Lazerus was zombies, but it would not really seem very fair since very few christians mean that when they say "i am a christian".
In a similar vein, i have never seen an atheist say he is an atheist because he has some special argument that rule out a deity. Personally i would be very certain such an argument was false, and i would love to pick it apart. The sence most atheists are atheists are like Dawkins, who simply believe a given God should be evaluated like any scientific idea.
PSac,
Maybe I'm just dense but I'm not sure I get what you're driving at. "Faith" is still "faith" regardless of motivation, personal bias, politics, whatever. "No real reason"? Well, everybody who has "faith" regarding anything unquantifiable has SOME kind of reason. Some of us had "faith" in the WT primarily due to outside pressure. It's a shitty reason, to be sure, but it's still a reason.
There is blind faith ( as some would call it) and faith based on what we have experienced, basically a faith that has been developed via "facts".
