Religion, Culture, War

a reply to: Teikiatsu

No. There is no faith required.

What are you putting faith in to not believe something??? Nothing.

In fact that would seem to also cheapen the whole idea of what having Faith means.

Not having belief in something requires zero effort. Faith requires lots of effort and conviction toward something you can't prove but believe is real regardless. That takes effort to hold that. It's easy to not believe in something that can't be shown to exist.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

No. I don't need science to convince me of something not existing since there isn't anything proving it is existing.

You're looking at it from the side that already presumes the possible existence of some thing but can't prove it.

If you don't assume it exists in the first place anyway, then there is no need for science or anything else to try and convince me.

If you don't first present me with an argument for something then there would be nothing for me to try and disprove. The subject wouldn't even come up. Only because you've made the argument that there is a God allows me to then try and refute it. Before you made that claim there was no subject.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

You can *SAY* you believe in God. That's great. It does not mean there is God, it only means you believe He exists. But you can't prove it.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

[Not really. "Not believing" can simply mean there hasn't been enough evidence to decide yes or no on a subject.

Then you can't confirm (not believe) something does not exist.

"Non believers" use that as a excuse to affirm it without affirming it.

Instead of saying "it doesn't exist" they hide behind the same refuge as believers, no evidence either way is not a belief, its ignorance.

a reply to: intrptr

It's just a matter of intellectual honesty. Sure we are reasonably sure god doesn't exist, but there is still that kernel of possibility that we cannot refute unless we knew everything there is to know about the universe. Which we don't.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: intrptr

It's just a matter of intellectual honesty. Sure we are reasonably sure god doesn't exist, but there is still that kernel of possibility that we cannot refute unless we knew everything there is to know about the universe. Which we don't.

Thats a 'safe' position...

quote from ghostbusters

Lots of people claim to believe in God to be acceptable. Its what everyone else around them does. They go to 'church', they 'pray', they get 'fulfilled' with dogma. But have to keep coming back every week to confirm those empty beliefs.

They don't know their own soul from a hole in the ground.

originally posted by: intrptr
Thats a 'safe' position...

What's wrong with that?

quote from ghostbusters

Lots of people claim to believe in God to be acceptable. Its what everyone else around them does. They go to 'church', they 'pray', they get 'fulfilled' with dogma. But have to keep coming back every week to confirm those empty beliefs.

They don't know their own soul from a hole in the ground.

Yeah. This used to be me too when I was a Catholic then later just a Christian. It's easier to just let go, but there are many things I can't explain in the universe. So I don't want to shut my mind to all possibilities. Though I'm absolutely sure the Christian god as described by Christians doesn't exist. If a god exists, it wouldn't care about humans any more than it cares about any other life in the universe. ANY other life in the universe. Not just intelligent life.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Nope, absolutely zero faith required for my lack of belief in any gods. People claim there are gods, there is no way to verify such claims so I am not drawn towards believing the claims.

Now, if I asserted that I believe there are no gods it would then be a faith based position. I do not assert that.

I am unconvinced by unverifiable claims of gods, and this lack of belief places me in the category of atheist.
No faith required, and of course my position is open to change if any evidence were to emerge which supports claims of gods.

originally posted by: swedy13


I think atheism is similar to religion in the way it affects moral judgements and behavior. I also think that it breaks into strict adherents (those who research their own ethical guidelines) and those who claim it but don't really practice it, the same as any other religion or philosophy.

How does atheism affect moral judgements, and what is the logical basis for that effect?

1. Atheism tends to be pro science and find a natural counterpart in dogmatic Christianity. They've been fighting one another for centuries now.

--- but most scientists of note over the centuries have been Christian.

Again, I'm only talking about the impact a worldview has on a society's culture, not the specific beliefs within that worldview. And I think Europe has made it pretty clear that societies that mean toward atheism are excellent and passing out Christianity but quite susceptible to Islam.

I'm not sure what this means.
Also I am unsure how your analysis its with Eastern religions, and how you differentiate between atheism and agnsticism.
It seems to me that atheism is another fundamentalist
'ism" and is still a result of being trapped by dualism.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Nope, absolutely zero faith required for my lack of belief in any gods. People claim there are gods, there is no way to verify such claims so I am not drawn towards believing the claims.

Now, if I asserted that I believe there are no gods it would then be a faith based position. I do not assert that.

I am unconvinced by unverifiable claims of gods, and this lack of belief places me in the category of atheist.
No faith required, and of course my position is open to change if any evidence were to emerge which supports claims of gods.

No- your position is agnostisism- unless you are asserting there are no gods you are not an atheist.
Atheism requires you to be fully convinced there are no Gods and fully aware of all the subtlties of meaning contained in the word God. It means different things to different people.

originally posted by: grainofsand
Not with me.
I put all gods in the same boat as elves n dragon cookies.
Unverifiable.

So you are saying you are agnostic onall these subjects
Unverifiable is different from "Provably false" - which is what atheists believe about the possibility of any god.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Glad to see we absolutely agree on something.

a reply to: Barliman

No, an atheist is one who does not hold a belief that gods exist.
You can of course qualify my position as agnostic atheist, as you also have agnostic theists, but my position is atheist at its most basic.

Lol at the religious trying desperately again to attach faith to a lack of belief in unverifiable things.
what's your label for people who do not believe that dragons exist?

a reply to: Barliman

Where did you get that information from?
Do you speak for all the people who don't believe in gods?
I'd love to see a link or I'll assume that was just your imaginations asserted as fact.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: intrptr
Thats a 'safe' position...

What's wrong with that?

quote from ghostbusters

Lots of people claim to believe in God to be acceptable. Its what everyone else around them does. They go to 'church', they 'pray', they get 'fulfilled' with dogma. But have to keep coming back every week to confirm those empty beliefs.

They don't know their own soul from a hole in the ground.

Yeah. This used to be me too when I was a Catholic then later just a Christian. It's easier to just let go, but there are many things I can't explain in the universe. So I don't want to shut my mind to all possibilities. Though I'm absolutely sure the Christian god as described by Christians doesn't exist. If a god exists, it wouldn't care about humans any more than it cares about any other life in the universe. ANY other life in the universe. Not just intelligent life.

Now I am a Buddhist, and not a Christian, and in my world the belief in a God or not is totally optional, but why would a God not care about Humans?

I think about it this way: the evolution of life on this planet has involved a progressive increase of the ability to manifest sensitivity to the feelings of those around us. Almost all the brain changes that took us from pre-human to human involve social skills, communication, sensitivity etc necessary to allow us to operate in co-operative groups. It is arguable though that that sensitivity exists in just as great a depth in many other species, including our pets. However it is the nature of self aware consciousnss that it dislikes suffering, and it does not matter much if that suffering is in myself, or in those around me
(from the perspective of myself that is).

Ken Wilbur comments from his perspective as a Western philosopher who has studied eastern religion in depth that all consciousness is the same. I have a sense of "I am", You have a sense of "I am", my cats certainly have a sense of "I am"--- particularly "I am waiting to be fed"

So that core sense of I am, is something that really cannot tolerate suffering - anywhere at all. The only way we as humans can tolerate suffering in others is if we pretend it does not matter, or if we pretend that our suffering does not matter. In the end I think that that is what being "awakened" is all about (and I have a long way to go).

The other small problem we have to deal with in dealing with a non theistic universe is the small problem known in quantum physics as "Frozen Time".

It is being argued that the progression of events in our universe may depend on a conscious observer. and without such an observer, time would literally freeze. Given our understanding of the evolution of our universe, it seems there was a long period where it was too hot and immature to support life-- and that may require the presence of some sort of "god" as a conscious observer.

It is arguable that "god" is nothing more than the sum total of all the consciousnesses in the universe, united, to some extent in a field of consciousness, and that as the ability to unite consciousnesses in various psi type skills (which are now very well documented in various well replicated scientific studies) increases the unity of that consciousness becomes more apparent. This model actually fits in very well with the Hindu model in which the universe is created and destroyed in recurrent cycles of the disintegration and re- integration of Brahma

a reply to: Barliman

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying that a hypothetical god wouldn't love humans. I'm just saying that the god would love humans just as much as it loved any other life form in the universe. If the god loves life, then by default it would also love humans. If the god was anti-life then it would by by default looking at their destruction.

Basically, I'm just saying that humans aren't a super special species of life just because we can think rationally. Just because we've so far won the evolutionary lottery, doesn't mean we are super special in the grand scheme of things.

The universe is SO huge and just on this tiny blue dot in the cosmos, life is already super diverse. We haven't even classified all the unique species on the planet yet. If life has managed to spring up elsewhere, and that probability is practically inevitable given the size of the universe, then that diversity is even greater than we've currently imagined and seen.

So yes a god can love humans, but said god would likely also love all other life equally along with humans.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Teikiatsu

No. There is no faith required.

What are you putting faith in to not believe something??? Nothing.

In fact that would seem to also cheapen the whole idea of what having Faith means.

Not having belief in something requires zero effort. Faith requires lots of effort and conviction toward something you can't prove but believe is real regardless. That takes effort to hold that. It's easy to not believe in something that can't be shown to exist.

You are putting faith into man's science and reason.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Teikiatsu

No. I don't need science to convince me of something not existing since there isn't anything proving it is existing.

You're looking at it from the side that already presumes the possible existence of some thing but can't prove it.

If you don't assume it exists in the first place anyway, then there is no need for science or anything else to try and convince me.

If you don't first present me with an argument for something then there would be nothing for me to try and disprove. The subject wouldn't even come up. Only because you've made the argument that there is a God allows me to then try and refute it. Before you made that claim there was no subject.

Lots of hypotheticals there. The idea does exist, and you do not believe it. But you have no facts to not believe it. So you have faith.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

You can *SAY* you believe in God. That's great. It does not mean there is God, it only means you believe He exists. But you can't prove it.

I never said I could prove God exists. I have always said I have faith He exists.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

I could claim a colony of meerkat live on the moon eating cheese, what faith does it require for you to not believe my claim?
That's right, none, the lack of verifiable evidence is enough.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I could claim a colony of meerkat live on the moon eating cheese, what faith does it require for you to not believe my claim?
That's right, none, the lack of verifiable evidence is enough.

Sure you could make the claim, but you don't believe it. You don't have faith.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

My faith in the statement is irrelevant.
The question is do YOU require faith to be unconvinced by my assertion regarding meerkat on the moon? You do not.

Other people claim there are gods. Whether they have faith in the claim is irrelevant. The question is do I require faith to be unconvinced by their claims. I do not.
Mere lack of evidence is enough.

I require faith to believe there are no gods, but no faith is required to be unconvinced by claims.

The desperation of theists trying to attach faith to lack of belief is amusing.