Do you choose to believe what you believe?

[pastafarian]

While I understand where your position comes from, DS, I don't think it is splitting hairs to distinguish between the statements "There's no evidence of a God" and "There is no God". The latter is an assertion of fact on the order of "There is no life on Mars".

The God assertion is further complicated by the fact that no universally-accepted definition of God exists, so that the statement: "There is no God", may be true for all but one of a multitude of definitions of the word.

What I'm trying to get at is that the atheists who argue things like:

' Saying "There is no God" is the same as saying "There is no Santa (Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, etc...)." miss the point that, by the criteria that make each of the three things recognizable (their definitions), they have either failed to demonstrate their existence, or their existence violated physical law as we currently understand it, or the criteria result in logical contradicitons.

It may seem like a cheap rhetorical trick, but it is logically consistent to say that there are more than a few formulations of God that don't suffer these flaws, largely, I'll admit, because Her definition cam be altered on the fly to avoid them.

Bottom line, if I postulate the existence of an object that we cannot curerntly detect, but will be able to in the future, your assertion that such an object does not exist represent a statement of belief.

X-rays, electrons, positrons, neutrinos and aircraft were all such objects in the past.

Hence the atheist position is a statement of belief.

 

[pastafarian]

I'm not sue if this qualifies as a legitimate syllogism, but here goes (re my previous post):

We cannot currently detect God in an objective manner.
Many things which we have been unable to detect, were detected later when trechnology permitted.
God could be in the class of things which will be detectable in future.

 

[Vereya]

Hello, everyone! I am new here, on this forum, and I would like to begin by saying the following - it is indeed possible to choose your beliefs. To choose to believe in God, or not, and to choose what God or Gods to worship. But the thing is to put your beliefs to the test, to see how they change your life. After all, a belief or a religion is not something passive. What you believe shapes your life. My opinion is that we've got to believe in things that give us a new and constructive way of thinking and that give our life a turn to the positive. And I do think that our beliefs and principles are to be chosen on a rational basis.

 

[pastafarian]

And I do think that our beliefs and principles are to be chosen on a rational basis.

Hi Vereya, but if we hold only "rational" beliefs, then we're not free to choose "irrational" beliefs, right?

In other words, when the evidence no longers supports our beliefs, then can we choose to keep them or are we FORCED, by logic, to let them go?

Perhaps it is only irrational beliefs that we can actually choose?

 

[Vereya]

Hi Vereya, but if we hold only "rational" beliefs, then we're not free to choose "irrational" beliefs, right?

In other words, when the evidence no longers supports our beliefs, then can we choose to keep them or are we FORCED, by logic, to let them go?

Perhaps it is only irrational beliefs that we can actually choose?

You know, what I personally found out, is that there are no irrational things in this world. The mystical element does exist, but it is based upon its own rules, and so the mystical element can be rationally explained as well, but only when you do know its rules. And they are very hard to find out. And one thing more. I am convinced that every sound belief, be it a religious belief or some other kind of belief, has evidence to prove it, and has somw logic behind it. It especially concerns religious beliefs, because every religion is a complex system, suited for human mentality. And since logic is a part of our mentality, it has got to be inherent in the religion we belong to.

 

[pastafarian]

that there are no irrational things in this world.

Clearly, you haven't met all the posters on Canadian content yet! :wink:

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Hence the atheist position is a statement of belief.

Only in the most trivial sense. You imply that any non-scientific statement is a matter of belief. Defining belief so broadly trivializes it, in my view. It puts superstitions, delusions, fairy tales, and in fact any non-empirical claim, like belief in the external world, the law of causality, and the principles of logic, all in the same category with religious belief. My atheism is not a statement of belief in the same sense that accepting the notions of a virgin birth and the tripartite god of Christianity is.

 

[pastafarian]

As I tried to make clear in my previous post, it does not put "superstitions, delusions, fairy tales, and in fact any non-empirical claim, like belief in the external world, the law of causality, and the principles of logic, all in the same category with religious belief."
Superstitions can be shown to be false empirically. Santa Claus (not St Nicolas) and the Jesus of the Bible lack historical evidence and violate the laws of physics. The Creator of the universe (in the non-trivial sense) does not.

The statement "There is no life on Mars " is not a trivial assertion. I see no difference between that statement and the statement "There is no God" or, perhaps more relevant "Superstrings do not exist."

 

[Naci_Sey]

Re: RE: Do you choose to believe what you believe?

We cannot currently detect God in an objective manner.
Many things which we have been unable to detect, were detected later when trechnology permitted.
God could be in the class of things which will be detectable in future.

Well, unless you're prepared to substitute 'God' with 'tooth fairy', 'the Easter Bunny', 'Santa Claus', etc., the formulation won't work for you.

 

[pastafarian]

As I explained in my earlier post, those three characters have been disproven by the criteria that define them. I'll just deal with Santa. Santa is the guy with the red outfit who brings toys to all the world's children on Christmas. I won't bother with the sleigh, reindeer, chimneys, etc. Not one person I have ever met who has children has ever has presents delivered to their children, without them having done it or from an unknown source. Therefore there is no single entity that brings toys to the world's children, therefore there is no Santa Claus.

Ok Nanci_Sey. I suppose there is an omniscient all-powerful being who brought forth matter and energy from nothing at the instant that we call the "Big Bang".

If the God concept is equivalent to the Santa Claus concept, you should have no trouble proving that such an entity doesn't exist just as I did for Santa Claus. Go!

 

[jimmoyer]

Great.

You had to go there.

You had to bring down Santa Clause.

LEAVE SANTA CLAUS OUT OF IT !!!

And for you kids, don't listen to these guys. They're
getting older, and more cranky.

Santa Claus knows.

 

[Naci_Sey]

Re: RE: Do you choose to believe what you believe?

Ok Naci_Sey. I suppose there is an omniscient all-powerful being who brought forth matter and energy from nothing at the instant that we call the "Big Bang".

If the God concept is equivalent to the Santa Claus concept, you should have no trouble proving that such an entity doesn't exist just as I did for Santa Claus. Go!

Actually, I was referring only to the structure of your three-point argument, not any previously stated or unstated assumptions, 'evidence', whatever.

On proving that the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, little green men, God, and so on do not exist, logic demonstrates that such 'proof' is impossible. One cannot prove the non-existence of something, only its existence.
:mrgreen:

ETA: So Santa is safe. Tell the kiddies!

 

[jimmoyer]

Hence the atheist position is a statement of belief.
----------------Pastafarian-------------------------

Exactly.

That's what I've been telling Dexter Sinister.

 

[Naci_Sey]

Re: RE: Do you choose to believe what you believe?

Hence the atheist position is a statement of belief.
----------------Pastafarian-------------------------

Exactly.

That's what I've been telling Dexter Sinister.

"I don't believe in God" is a statement of fact, not belief.

The assertion that 'God does not exist' should be no more controversial or considered a statement of belief than the assertion that 'The Tooth Fairy, green men from Mars, et al, do not exist'. The onus is on those claiming the existence of X to prove that X exists.

 

[pastafarian]

One cannot prove the non-existence of something, only its existence.

Wherever would you get such an idea? Of course you can. I can prove that the rational number , a/b, which, when squared ,gives rise to a prime number, does not exist. Scientists have (to the extent that anything can be proven in science) proven that phlogiston and scotophobin do not exist.
If someone says to me, "The moon does not exist", then I'd say the onus is on them to prove their assertion.


Thus, atheism is as much a belief as theism.

And I quit this discussion since, as an agnostic, I don't really have a dog in this race.
I've never defended this side in a debate before. It usually ends with "Santa Claus gambit" and the "You can't prove non-existence" assertion.

ps: In my house the Tooth Fairy, Santa and the Easter Bunny are all alive and well :wink:

 

[Naci_Sey]

One cannot prove the non-existence of something, only its existence.

Wherever would you get such an idea? ...I can prove that the rational number, a/b, which, when squared, gives rise to a prime number, does not exist. Scientists have (to the extent that anything can be proven in science) proven that phlogiston and scotophobin do not exist. If someone says to me, "The moon does not exist", then I'd say the onus is on them to prove their assertion.

You've confirmed my point. A number is a concept. It's not something that can be claimed to exist as cats, dogs or humans exist; mammals - and allegedly God - are not mere concepts.

The necessary qualification that science is limited in its ability to prove that phlogiston and scotophobin do not exist confirms the empirical problem. To prove that X does not exist, science must find solid, factual, empirical - rather than just theoretical - proof (evidence) that at least one instance of X does exist. In this manner, the moon has been proven to exist. There is no empirical proof that God exists.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Do you choose to believe what you believe?

Hence the atheist position is a statement of belief.
----------------Pastafarian-------------------------

Exactly.

That's what I've been telling Dexter Sinister.

Might as well give that one up guys. From the sophistry I've seen so far, I strongly doubt you can convince me. There's a difference between believing there's no god and not believing there is a god. You're trying to pin the former on atheism, when the atheist position is the latter one.

 

[Finder]

Re: RE: Do you choose to believe what you believe?

Hence the atheist position is a statement of belief.
----------------Pastafarian-------------------------

Exactly.

That's what I've been telling Dexter Sinister.

Might as well give that one up guys. From the sophistry I've seen so far, I strongly doubt you can convince me. There's a difference between believing there's no god and not believing there is a god. You're trying to pin the former on atheism, when the atheist position is the latter one.

I'd agree with that.


um

That it would be hard to convince you that is, and well that Atheism itself is also a belief, of sorts.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Re: RE: Do you choose to believe what you believe?

...that Atheism itself is also a belief, of sorts.

Aw Finder, not you too? 8O Parse the word. It's the antonym of theism, the absence of theism, *no* belief in theism, not a belief in something other than theism.

 

[Outta here]

haha Dexter, this is getting quite interesting. I'm laughing with you, not at you. honest. lolll. let me get this straight now.

I believe that you believe that not believing is not a belief.

Correct? 8O

soooo....... remind me - what do two negatives make? :lol:

just teasin - you clearly know what you do and don't believe. Tis not anyone's job to convince you that you believe what you consider to be the unbelievable.