Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-11-2010, 09:33 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(12-11-2010 08:30 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  
(12-11-2010 03:10 PM)Godless Wrote:  "knowing by faith" is just an admission that knowledge by any other means is not possible. In other words it means it's false.
Factually incorrect. It's false according to the scientific method, which is inapplicable.

Why is it inapplicable?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2010, 09:37 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Hm. I thought I had posted a response to this one already.

(12-11-2010 10:48 AM)fr0d0 Wrote:  You're agreeing that 'to know by faith' is completely different to what a non believer would mean by the term 'know'.

What? Where did I agree to that? And what's the difference?

Quote:It's a common misconception that Christians all have fundamentally disparate interpretations of the bible, this simply isn't so.

It simply is. Unless you claim that all Christians are Biblical literalists, that is, in which case I have a bridge in San Fran to sell you.

Quote:Mainstream Christianity has a set core of beliefs that everyone adheres to, based upon a certain version of the Nicene Creed. Some aspects of the faith are hotly debated it's true, none of the core beliefs are though.

Yes, but it's not the core tenets of the belief that are being discussed here.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-11-2010, 11:47 PM (This post was last modified: 12-11-2010 11:55 PM by Godless.)
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(12-11-2010 08:30 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  
(12-11-2010 03:10 PM)Godless Wrote:  "knowing by faith" is just an admission that knowledge by any other means is not possible. In other words it means it's false.
Factually incorrect. It's false according to the scientific method, which is inapplicable.

(12-11-2010 03:10 PM)Godless Wrote:  Secondly besides Christ as lord can you name even one other aspect or ritual of Christianity that is not hotly contested within the religion. There are over 3000 sects of Christianity for a reason. It's the exception rather then the rule for Christians to agree about anything in regards to Yahweh.
I can name a whole creed full: (sorry no hide tag for those easily offended Wink)

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.

He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

Well if you want to hide in a corner put your fingers in your ears and pretend that reason doesn't apply to your "knowledge" then you go right ahead. Just don't expect anyone to take your claims seriously.

If you can't even name one other thing that can be known by faith alone then you may as well have said "I have knowledge that god is real because I have faith god is real". At which point you HAVE tossed reason out the window.

I'm sorry to sound so harsh but I have little patience for people who try to dismiss complex argument with a simple "but that doesn't work for this one instance" without even taking the time and respect to explain why. The explanation you gave was dismissive without any good cause or reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2010, 03:59 AM (This post was last modified: 13-11-2010 04:27 AM by fr0d0.)
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(12-11-2010 09:33 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(12-11-2010 08:30 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Factually incorrect. It's false according to the scientific method, which is inapplicable.
Why is it inapplicable?
If you ask for scientific evidence for God according to the principles of the scientific method, you are committing the fallacy of question-begging, for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method, according to it's own principles.

The demand for evidence must be appropriate for the claim in question; i.e., empirical evidence for empirical claims, non-empirical evidence for non-empirical claims.

(12-11-2010 09:33 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Hm. I thought I had posted a response to this one already.
(12-11-2010 10:48 AM)fr0d0 Wrote:  You're agreeing that 'to know by faith' is completely different to what a non believer would mean by the term 'know'.
What? Where did I agree to that? And what's the difference?
Apologies if I misunderstood. According to some, we take everything in our experience on faith... but I think it's fair to say that most people think of knowledge as being assured of something. They know a chair exists because they have touched and seen a chair.

Christian Faith:
Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, from the Christian view.

Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.


(12-11-2010 09:33 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:It's a common misconception that Christians all have fundamentally disparate interpretations of the bible, this simply isn't so.
It simply is. Unless you claim that all Christians are Biblical literalists, that is, in which case I have a bridge in San Fran to sell you.
Literalists and non literalists agree absolutely on the creed posted above. Those are the core beliefs which unite Christians. Yes I would accept that literalism and non literalism could reasonably be called 'disperate'... but that's irrelevant to the discussion here.. where we're discussing identical fundamental beliefs of the mainstream Christian church... some 30,000 sects.

(12-11-2010 09:33 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
Quote:Mainstream Christianity has a set core of beliefs that everyone adheres to, based upon a certain version of the Nicene Creed. Some aspects of the faith are hotly debated it's true, none of the core beliefs are though.
Yes, but it's not the core tenets of the belief that are being discussed here.
What is it we're discussing then?



Hi Godless

(12-11-2010 11:47 PM)Godless Wrote:  Well if you want to hide in a corner put your fingers in your ears and pretend that reason doesn't apply to your "knowledge" then you go right ahead. Just don't expect anyone to take your claims seriously.
The answer I gave answered your question exactly. It would be foolish to dismiss something simply because it's a standard document. I'm not preaching here - I'm giving you the most concise answer possible.

(12-11-2010 11:47 PM)Godless Wrote:  If you can't even name one other thing that can be known by faith alone then you may as well have said "I have knowledge that god is real because I have faith god is real". At which point you HAVE tossed reason out the window.
This is also fallacial: That faith might be unique to religions in no way invalidates religious faith. To insist otherwise is literally 'tossing out reason'.

(12-11-2010 11:47 PM)Godless Wrote:  I'm sorry to sound so harsh but I have little patience for people who try to dismiss complex argument with a simple "but that doesn't work for this one instance" without even taking the time and respect to explain why. The explanation you gave was dismissive without any good cause or reason.
Well yes it seems you put your fingers in your ears and screamed "la la la" confronted with that document Smile. I don't blame you for having that reaction, but I would request you not pre judge.

[EDIT]I hope this all makes sense - I lost all of it and then tried to recover it as best I could[/EDIT]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2010, 12:23 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Um Fr0d0 what document? The only document I see you linking is to the Salvation Army (whom I used to minister for when I was younger) which I'm not even trying to discuss.

By the way all the elements of that creed besides the crucifixion and acceptance of Jesus as lord are debated within Christian circles and often hotly debated. Even the Virgin birth. There are many sects (largest of which is likely the Mormons) who debate that Mary was impregnated by god directly and not the spirit. By the Way the Virgin birth is only mentioned in 2 of the 4 gospels thus the controversy. You would think that if you were editing the bible something as large as the virgin birth might be a big one to cover....

I'll say it again since you don't seem to be getting my point. I'll elaborate a little more as well.

Your argument is simple. You know god exists because your have "Knowledge by faith" but if god is the only thing knowable by such knowledge then you have just replaced god with another phrase.

Let me explain by giving a common example of a variance of the ontological argument by Dr. William Lane Craig who is honestly one of the smartest and trickiest theists I have come across. He has a great way of restating others arguments to get around the obvious holes.

His argument goes:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The Universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

The first part of the argument makes a case that there are two types of objects. Those that have begun to exist (BE) and those that have not (NBE). For this argument to work there must be at least two items in NBE or it's just a substitution for God.

Now of course this is making the obvious assumption (as I keep pointing out to a LOT of people in debates forums and otherwise) that NBE is an existent set at all. It may very well be that NBE is empty because everything is existent that we can observe or encounter. Nothing really warrants the initial assumption of NBE but for the sake of the argument we will assume NBE exists.

Now there is a difference between NBE containing more the one item and NBE being able to accommodate more then one item. Plainly put if NBE cannot contain more then one item it is simply a syllogism for god. In order for this argument to prove that god is the cause it must first specify that more then one item could be in NBE and then eliminate all items BUT god.

At which point the argument looks like:

1. Everything except God has a cause.

2. The universe is not God.

3. Therefore, the Universe has a cause.

I shouldn't even need to touch how that argument is very circular.

So we get to the point of how do we determine if NBE cannot incorporate anything but god. We of course have no experience with NBE items in our world (how could we?).

So there are two possible items the way I see things within NBE. One is a personal or self aware being or entity. The other is an impersonal or non self aware object.

So unless you have some way of being able to eliminate all other personal objects EXCEPT Yahweh and at the same time eliminate the impersonal and non aware possibility (btw if an object can transcend NBE it does not automatically make it supernatural.) then I'm afraid that this argument cannot be used to confirm Christianity or any other religion.

So how does this relate to "knowledge by faith"?

Well the argument of knowledge by faith looks much like this.

1. In order for something to be known we must have knowledge.

2. I have knowledge by faith that God exists.

3. Therefore God exists.

It looks awfully familiar....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2010, 05:08 PM (This post was last modified: 13-11-2010 07:04 PM by fr0d0.)
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Hi Godless

I didn't say "document" (oops - re-read - yes I did). I was referring to the creed I posted - perhaps I could have put it in quotes and labelled it to make that clear.

I deliberately use the term 'mainstream Christian Church' to exclude anti and non mainstream Christian churches such as Mormonism, Jehovas Witness, Christadelphian, and to much less extent: Islam. All of the mainstream Christian Churches - part of the Universal Christian Church - adhere to that version of the Nicene Creed.

Please see my explanation of faith in my preceding post above. I consider Dr. William Lane Craig's Ontological Argument particularly weak, and would never use it myself. None of what you say there applies to myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2010, 05:31 PM
 
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
To the original argument:

If you assume that atheism means that you active have to believe that there is no God(s), and that theism believes you actively have to believe in God(s), I would think that the thread of this topic is correct: You are neither an atheist nor a theist. What you are is undecided. You are neither (assuming we'd agree on your definition).

But how you manage to get from that position, to the position that you are both an atheist and a theist, is to me weird.

It means that you make an assumption "everyone is either atheists, or theists, or both, never neither".

So basically your assumption is that people either have an active belief in God(s), or an active belief that God(s) does not exist, or somehow both.

In addition, you are comparing an experiment where you can assign a scientifically proven % to either possibility, to the agnostic belief that we cannot know either way (much less assign it a probability ...).

I find it very weird to be honest.
Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2010, 05:37 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
didn't really read what I posted...

I was showing you why your argument was as weak as the ontological argument as how it's really no different at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2010, 07:05 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
Yeah I get that Godless - but your interpretation of faith doesn't seem to match up to how I described it above in my answer to Unbeliever (I meant to put that directly to you too... as it applied more to your question anyway. Hope that makes sense.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2010, 07:33 PM
RE: Why I am neither a Theist nor an Atheist
(13-11-2010 07:05 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Yeah I get that Godless - but your interpretation of faith doesn't seem to match up to how I described it above in my answer to Unbeliever (I meant to put that directly to you too... as it applied more to your question anyway. Hope that makes sense.

What good is a language as a communication tool if everything is open to interpretation? Person 1 says X. Person 2 says X means Y. Person 3 says Y means Z, but not X. I say WTF!
Use words as they are meant to be used and quit changing your meanings of them to suit your agendas, and we all will understand each other a hell of a lot better.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: