One question to atheists II (does that mean it's two questions now??)

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Moiraine: So far nobody believing in God has yet answered my simple question : How would you react if a fact proved to you without doubt that there cannot be a God ? Would you be willing to accept that fact ? I would very much like to know what your answers would be. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Moiraine, the problem I have with atheism is that a human cannot prove anything does not exist. We experience 70 odd years if we're lucky, in a small piece of time and space, and yet we are suddenly able to suggest things don't exist anywhere at all throughout the entire universe with all it's potential parallel diminsions, alternate realities and spiritual possibilities?

Secondly, an atheist places their reality upon theists, by presuming their reality to apply to everyone - thus discrediting and devalidating the experience of someone who says they know God.

Agnosticism does no such thing. Theism does no such thing.

An agnostic view acknowledges there is potential for reality outside their own experience.

I have never tried to say "You know God exists, you're just lying or insane" whereas an atheist by default says that to me. I agree with an atheist when they say they do not know God. You most assuredly do not. I agree with an atheist when they say they have not experienced God. You most probably have not.

If I did that would be devalidating your experience.

However, I know God. Denying his reality is impossible for me now. It would be like denying I am alive, or that I possess love.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Eisenschwarz: "pancritical rationality, Which is a way of thinking that is free of external domination (for example that of a deity & associated Dogma), always regards all assumptions and all results as in principle open to criticism and does not cling stubbornly and dogmatically to any thesis."

Unfortunately pure pancriticism, like true objectivity, are things impossible for humans to possess. The planet, gravity, the sun, food and water, other humans and past experience are all external dominations. You cannot be totally free of bias.

The same piece of music will sound different to you depending on the time of day that you hear it for example. Relative to your heartrate at the time, the song will sound faster or slower.

All our observation is relative.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Must you continue to haggle over the small stuff, Yorick? I mean, really. You go get your dictionary, Dramnek will go get his, and you can each sit and read quietly. [img]graemlins/readingbook.gif[/img] Look, I happen to think theology can be a science. I think a discussion of how books get cannonized or de-cannonized was a good theological result of the archaeological discovery at Nag Hamadi. But, gosh, is all this really relevant at all? To anything really?

Timber, I used the definition he posted as a pro for my argument. He has not used the one I posted.

[ 01-27-2003, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: But, gosh, is all this really relevant at all? To anything really?

To love God is my Raison D'etre.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Yorick: The different schools of psychology do not try and tell each other they are not true psychology simply because they have different outcomes. Why should Dramnek discredit my approach simply because he disagrees with my conclusions?

WHY??? Because that is what Eisenswharz/Dramnek DOES!!!! [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/laugh2.gif[/img]

It doesn't mean he's right, but the more you argue with him, the more validity you lend to his argument (at the expense of your own).

[Melusine]

Originally posted by Yorick: I have never tried to say "You know God exists, you're just lying or insane" whereas an atheist by default says that to me.

But we do have to keep in mind that there *are* Christians (or Muslims, or whatever) who do. They state God exists and people who say he doesn't are either lying or sadly deluded. They fall into the same category as atheists in this respect.
I agree that atheists ignore a possibilty which is there, and that they shouldn't do so, but the attitude you describe exists among the religious as well.

[LordKathen]

I will say one thing. Theism is the belief in the existance of a god or gods.
Polytheism, the belief in a god. Theology, "the study of god and of religous doctrine andmatters of divinity." How is this science?
Science, takin from websters "Knowledge ascertained by obsevation and experiment, critically tested, systematized, and brought under general principles, a branch of such knowledge; skill or technique. Of or dealing with science; based on, or using the principles and methods of science; systematic and exact. I dont see ANY resemblance here between theism and science. I dont see how you can have science theoligy, thats redundent. Maybe philosophy is a better word. Each to there own philosophy...

[Mouse]

Just a brief reminder, if you need it, that the quickest way to get this thread closed and the moratorium on religious debate reimposed will be to have this discussion degenerate into personal insults no matter how well disguised

This is a fascinating subject with a variety of passionately held viewpoints. I would ask all the participants to remember that in this sort of thread there does not have to be winners and losers. If anything said here serves to advance anyone's search for faith or causes them to question their attitudes then it has served it's purpose.

A final point to ponder. This sort of topic will inevitably attract some of our more *cough*vigorous*cough* debaters. That's all well and good, but sometimes the more experienced members who like to participate in these discussions will reply in a manner that to some can seem overbearing, arrogant or condescending. It's a matter of style and emphasis. I'm not asking anyone to dumb down their responses, merely to do a quick review before posting to avoid this inference.

Carry on [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric: Moraine - You ask what a believer would do if they were presented with irrefutable proof that God did NOT exist. That is an interesting question - and one that I can only answer for myself. Even though I don't follow Pascal's Theory as a reason for believing (ie, that I have nothing to lose and a great potential to gain), I would have to say that my reaction would be that of one who had. I've lived my life as I saw fit. I've treated my fellow man with kindness and respect just as I would want to be treated and I've been respectful of those whose beliefs contradicted my own. I have been as good a person as I know how (for the most part anyway, but nobody is perfect )So if I were to die and discover that God did not exist, the life I've lived would be reward enough for me. Even if presented with irrefutable proof that God does not exist, I would not change my lifestyle. I am who I am and the absence of God would not change that. I admit that your question made me defensive at first. After all, I honostly and sincerely believe it would be absolutely impossible for anybody to present me with irrefutable proof that God does not exist. Also, I don't claim to be a scientist, so I have no obligation to "keep an open mind" about the subject. But, if I wish for atheists, agnostics, pagans, heathens and others to look deep within themselves and examine thier belief systems and consider "What if you're wrong" - then it is only fair that I subject myself to the same hypothesis and examination. I would be critical of any "irrefutable proof" and I would do my best to refute it...but if it were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that I had been wrong all these years...I would still continue to live my life the way I do now. I cannot change the person I have become.

Thanks you very much Cerek for taking my question fairly and replying honestly and spiritually !

[Moiraine]

Originally posted by Yorick: Moiraine, the problem I have with atheism is that a human cannot prove anything does not exist. We experience 70 odd years if we're lucky, in a small piece of time and space, and yet we are suddenly able to suggest things don't exist anywhere at all throughout the entire universe with all it's potential parallel diminsions, alternate realities and spiritual possibilities?

But Yorick, humanity has invented writing, that is how we are able to profit from centuries of fellow humans experience ! [img]smile.gif[/img]

And if we can prove that the probability that a thing exists is infinitesimal, that's near enough proof that that thing does not - very very probably - exist ...

Secondly, an atheist places their reality upon theists, by presuming their reality to apply to everyone - thus discrediting and devalidating the experience of someone who says they know God. Agnosticism does no such thing. Theism does no such thing. An agnostic view acknowledges there is potential for reality outside their own experience. I have never tried to say "You know God exists, you're just lying or insane" whereas an atheist by default says that to me. I agree with an atheist when they say they do not know God. You most assuredly do not. I agree with an atheist when they say they have not experienced God. You most probably have not. If I did that would be devalidating your experience.

Where where did I state that I was an atheist ? I have stated twice in this very thread that I am an agnostic ! [img]smile.gif[/img]

And what has my question anything to do with atheism at all ? You people were discussing theology and science. IMO, questioning is maybe the most important basis of any scientific attitude, so I asked a rhetorical queston in that spirit. Seeing that that question was dodged, I thought it was interesting to ask it again. Rhetorically. Honestly. Without any hidden meaning. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Oh, I realized that it would make you who believe in God defensive. I considered not asking it again, for fear that it would lead to aggressivity and unhappiness. But I decided to post it anyway, because there is no harm in a honest question.

And about atheists - sorry to disagree, but you both make assumptions, you that God does exist, atheists that He does not. Nothing wrong with that [img]smile.gif[/img] but if you feel that by making that assumption they "discredit and devalidate your experience by default" ... don't you believe that they feel the same from you ?

However, I know God. Denying his reality is impossible for me now. It would be like denying I am alive, or that I possess love.

Yes I understand and respect that. It is as valid an answer as Cerek's - finally. No need to go all aggressive on me. The question was not intended to make you feel bad - only to question. [img]smile.gif[/img]

*cough* Yorick *cough* don't get all worked up now *cough* uh sorry Mouse ... [img]smile.gif[/img]