Why aren't you an Atheist? (page 33)

sabastious

Please show your math.

Humans are 200,000 years old, the universe is 13.7 billion years old. That means that humans make up 200,000 years of the total timeline of 13.7 billion years. 200k / 13.7b = 0.0001459854

-Sab

tec

You're right, Tams: I messed that up, as hope is an emotion and not a belief; of course beliefs can be based on emotions AND/OR factual knowledge. Thanks, and I agree. They CAN be based on either or both. Faith included. And that raises a point: it's important to remember that BOTH emotions and knowledge influence our beliefs, eg a desire to read a written statement MAY allow the reader to interpret it with biases. Happens ALL the time, and hence why it's important to remember that we ALL carry a set of biases and it's important to keep that we're all susceptible to them. The goal in a science experiment is to design it so as to minimize such biases, since the results MUST be reproducible: if there's bias, another person repeating the experiment will discover them. Agreed again, but since we all carry them, its kind of hard to point out another person's bias without also looking at our own. I agree that the results are unbiased (providing an experiement was not set up to produce a certain result); but the conclusions that people draw off scientific results are just as prone to bias as anything else. So in summary: faith is based on beliefs, which in turn are based on knowledge and emotions. Some faith is built primarily on emotion (hope, as in Hebrews 11) whereas other types of faith are based on knowledge and evidence. Other than that we disagree on what the verse in Hebrews is saying, I agree with you. The only reason (that I can see) that we are arguing, is because you have made the claim that faith in God is based on hope. Not on any knowledge or evidence. But this is not true; and I can say this, because this is not true for me, nor for any of those written about in the gospels and scriptures. By contrast, "belief" is for stuff which we can’t demonstrate. I believe that we will some day cure cancer, even though I can’t do an experiment to show it. I could wait a hundred years, but if it hadn’t been found, it might just need another hundred years. I slightly disagreed with what the article said, in that beliefs are ALSO for that which CAN be demonstrated, eg I believe in gravity, which CAN be proven. Minor point, but wanted to clarify. Thanks for the clarification. Peace, tammy

You're right, Tams: I messed that up, as hope is an emotion and not a belief; of course beliefs can be based on emotions AND/OR factual knowledge.

Thanks, and I agree. They CAN be based on either or both. Faith included.

And that raises a point: it's important to remember that BOTH emotions and knowledge influence our beliefs, eg a desire to read a written statement MAY allow the reader to interpret it with biases. Happens ALL the time, and hence why it's important to remember that we ALL carry a set of biases and it's important to keep that we're all susceptible to them. The goal in a science experiment is to design it so as to minimize such biases, since the results MUST be reproducible: if there's bias, another person repeating the experiment will discover them.

Agreed again, but since we all carry them, its kind of hard to point out another person's bias without also looking at our own.

I agree that the results are unbiased (providing an experiement was not set up to produce a certain result); but the conclusions that people draw off scientific results are just as prone to bias as anything else.

So in summary: faith is based on beliefs, which in turn are based on knowledge and emotions. Some faith is built primarily on emotion (hope, as in Hebrews 11) whereas other types of faith are based on knowledge and evidence.

Other than that we disagree on what the verse in Hebrews is saying, I agree with you.

The only reason (that I can see) that we are arguing, is because you have made the claim that faith in God is based on hope. Not on any knowledge or evidence. But this is not true; and I can say this, because this is not true for me, nor for any of those written about in the gospels and scriptures.

By contrast, "belief" is for stuff which we can’t demonstrate. I believe that we will some day cure cancer, even though I can’t do an experiment to show it. I could wait a hundred years, but if it hadn’t been found, it might just need another hundred years.

I slightly disagreed with what the article said, in that beliefs are ALSO for that which CAN be demonstrated, eg I believe in gravity, which CAN be proven. Minor point, but wanted to clarify.

Thanks for the clarification.

Peace,

tammy

EntirelyPossible

Humans are 200,000 years old, the universe is 13.7 billion years old. That means that humans make up 200,000 years of the total timeline of 13.7 billion years. 200k / 13.7b = 0.0001459854

That in no way shows that mathematically morality didn't orginate on earth. Try again.

EntirelyPossible

Gravity is a thing, just a particular thing that we have not fully explained yet.

In what meaningful way is that any different from ideas about God?

King Solomon

Here's something to consider, for those who left JWs behind:

Do you STILL believe the JW message that we're in the "Last Days", and that Armageddon will soon occur?

Do you KNOW that it won't, or do you FEEL that there's just not enough information to decide?

Flip-side: do JWs KNOW that it WILL occur, or do some of them feel there's not just enough information to decide?

So, should you BELIEVE that "Armageddon will occur" is the default assumption that we all should accept (and rejected, only if it's disproven)? Or, should we NOT BELIEVE in Armageddon as the default belief, and place the burden of proving that it will on the JWs?

What about the Flood? Do you KNOW that it didn't occur, or do you feel there's not just enough evidence to decide, so you remain neutral?

JWs believe the Flood occurred: they believe that as the default position, and hence would need to be presented evidence that it DIDN'T occur to disbelieve. Is THAT logical?

And Adam and Eve? Do you KNOW that they didn't exist? Do they know that they DID exist? Which is the proper default?

See, you can (and SHOULD) do that for MANY OTHER beliefs, apply the same logical approach. If you want me to believe in something, ANYTHING, then the burden is on YOU to demonstrate that it exists.

After you consider some of the arguments in favor of the existence of God (including the "God is merely hiding" argument), the ONLY REAL reason to believe in YHWH ARE the tales found in the Bible, which ARE used as examples to support having FAITH in YHWH in Hebrews. And again, the only reason to have unquestioningly accepted the existence in God in the first place is because most had no choice. That's why the saying, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" exists, and God cannot meet the burden of even offering a HINT as to his own existence.

Fairies are fun for fairy tales, but not to be taken as literal beings.

sabastious

No, we don't. We see the reverse is true. Morality usually only shows up AFTER the position is solidified through death, violence, war and slavery. Also true in the non-human animal kingdom. Ideas or morality are also used to invoke and create destruction. Your argument is flatter than a pancake.

We exist the way we do today because people died for what they felt was right. Therefore WE are products of morality making it a WORKING MODEL.

-Sab

EntirelyPossible

We exist the way we do today because people died for what they felt was right. Therefore WE are products of morality making it a WORKING MODEL.

Ah, so morality is simply what one feels is right? So slavery (something you endorsed) was moral? It brought order? Is gravity moral when it bring order to a solar system? I went shooting today because I felt it was right. Did that bring order to the targets I exploded?

Your definition is so vague as to be meaningless.

sabastious

Ah, so morality is simply what one feels is right? So slavery (something you endorsed) was moral? It brought order? Is gravity moral when it bring order to a solar system? I went shooting today because I felt it was right. Did that bring order to the targets I exploded?

Since we cannot explain gravity there's no way of knowing whether it's moral or not using logic. However it's easily explained in a religious framework and that's that gravity is moral because God is righteous. Since gravity is required for morality then you could say that gravity is a means to morality and therefore moral itself.

-Sab

cofty

Nothing in your answer seems to address my question.

Morality is a "bottom-up" process not a "top-down" one.

God is not required.

King Solomon

Gravity is a thing, just a particular thing that we have not fully explained yet.

Uh, gravity is not a THING, but an invisible force.

In fact, gravity is the closest that science comes to something else that is a product of the human imagination: spirits and souls.

There's a compelling REASON to believe in gravity; there's none to believe in spirits and souls (besides thousands of years of humans who did and still do, AKA appeal to tradition).

Why aren't you an Atheist?

Share this