Tradition betrayed

[DavidRoss]

Is it the way I use English language that makes you think I am that arrogant? I am not. I have strong opinions about these things and so I make strong statements. It doesn't mean I know everything. I definitely don't. It's just that thinking about things based on the knowledge I do have (I should know something ) leads to atheism. Nothing that I know indicates the existence of God. So, I can always feed myself with more knowledge but it seems it will only strengthen my atheism.

Once again....

An atheist is one who claims there is no God.  Such a claim implies omniscience--that you know everything about our infinite universe, and that knowledge qualifies to assert the non-existence of God.  This is not merely arrogant, but completely irrational.  No one, therefore, regardless of the deficiencies of their ability to reason, is truly an atheist...and those who regard themselves as such are really agnostics who are not inclined to seek knowledge of God.

As for your claim that "nothing [you] know indicates the existence of God," it is arrogant in the extreme to presume this is a statement about God's existence rather than about the limits of your own knowledge.  And the defiant attitude you exhibit in expressing your belief indicates unwillingness to honestly seek evidence of God's existence...which is abundant, if you but had eyes to see and ears to hear.

[71 dB]

Once again....

An atheist is one who claims there is no God.  Such a claim implies omniscience--that you know everything about our infinite universe, and that knowledge qualifies to assert the non-existence of God.  This is not merely arrogant, but completely irrational.  No one, therefore, regardless of the deficiencies of their ability to reason, is truly an atheist...and those who regard themselves as such are really agnostics who are not inclined to seek knowledge of God.

As for your claim that "nothing [you] know indicates the existence of God," it is arrogant in the extreme to presume this is a statement about God's existence rather than about the limits of your own knowledge.  And the defiant attitude you exhibit in expressing your belief indicates unwillingness to honestly seek evidence of God's existence...which is abundant, if you but had eyes to see and ears to hear.

Well, how about claims about the existence of God? Isn't that just as arrogant/irrational?

To decide whether I believe bible or not , I have to have an opinion about the existence of God, no matter how limited my knowledge is. Well, I DO have my opinion as you know and I have decided.

[The new erato]

Once again....

An atheist is one who claims there is no God.  Such a claim implies omniscience--that you know everything about our infinite universe, and that knowledge qualifies to assert the non-existence of God.  This is not merely arrogant, but completely irrational. 

That goes totally both ways. And to claim that there can be no moral norms without God (as I seem to have seen in this thread; this is a very short version.....) only makes sense if there is an God. Regarding God as a human creation (as I do, not the other way round, we made him in OUR image), in my view that just confirms for me that moral norms are mancreated and that morality therefore is totally possible without a God.

Otherwise this thread is full of circular reasoning that leads nowhere. So I won't contribute further.

[Bulldog]

Once again....

An atheist is one who claims there is no God.  Such a claim implies omniscience--that you know everything about our infinite universe, and that knowledge qualifies to assert the non-existence of God.  This is not merely arrogant, but completely irrational.  No one, therefore, regardless of the deficiencies of their ability to reason, is truly an atheist...and those who regard themselves as such are really agnostics who are not inclined to seek knowledge of God.

I can't agree.  For me, an atheist is a person who lacks belief in gods; no claim is made.  Since the existence or lack of existence of God cannot be proven, I don't see anything irrational concerning either atheist or religious beliefs.

[Iconito]

I can't agree.  For me, an atheist is a person who lacks belief in gods; no claim is made.

Don't bother. He just KNOWS what an atheist is (and that there is a God, and that Islam is not a religión –anymore than socialism or comunism are religions- and that everybody ELSE is an arrogant fool.....)

[kishnevi]

Well, how about claims about the existence of God? Isn't that just as arrogant/irrational?

To decide whether I believe bible or not , I have to have an opinion about the existence of God, no matter how limited my knowledge is. Well, I DO have my opinion as you know and I have decided.

The arrogance lies in the claim that it is irrational to believe in God, and that religion is something primitive and backward that mankind will one day outgrow.   If you actually knew something about the subject, you would understand that such a claim is silly and overly simplistic.   It's rational to believe in God; it's also rational not to believe in God.   That's what makes the topic complicated (and sometimes fun).

If you really had some knowledge about the questions involved (which can be referred to as "philosophy of religion") you would know, for example that Dawkins should be ignored out when he speaks or writes outside his actual field of knowledge (genetics/evolutionary biology), because he has no actual understanding or expertise in the subject.  By referring to him so often, you're again exposing your own thinking on the subject as superficial, which intensifies the exhibition of arrogance.

If you want me to respect you,  then you need to respect my belief that God does actually exist.

[mc ukrneal]

It's rational to believe in God; it's also rational not to believe in God.   That's what makes the topic complicated (and sometimes fun).

Curious. What do you mean? How can both be true?

[Florestan]

Curious. What do you mean? How can both be true?

If I understand Jeffrey correctly, he didn't say that both positions were true, he said only that both were rational. It's a kind of Pascal wager: by infering based on available knowledge, some bet on God (theists), some bet on no God (atheists) - but the process of infering as such is a rational one in both cases. There is even a third position, just as rational: to nefuse to bet (agnostics). This a very nice illustration of the limits of reason.

Cf. In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't. - Blaise Pascal

[jowcol]

This a very nice illustration of the limits of reason.

Both you and Jeffrey have made excellent points here.  I'd add more if I though I could improve on them. 

[petrarch]

Curious. What do you mean? How can both be true?

Just like with an hypothesis not yet proven, or a conjecture. Some people may believe it is true; some others that it is false.

[Iconito]

If you want me to respect you,  then you need to respect my belief that God does actually exist.

He must respect your beliefs for you to respect him? He must respect you, as a person, along with all your rights, including your right to hold your beliefs and practice your religion (while it is still legal  ), but your beliefs are perfectly un-respect-able. He despises religion, yours included. You must respect him and his right to hold that position and his right to express it in this forum whether you like it or not (his position, his beliefs, his opinions, you can trash them as much as you like)

Unless of course we are mixing meanings of the word "respect", and look what I found when I went to Wiktionary to check it out:

respect
1. to have respect for. She is an intellectual giant, and I respect her greatly.
2. to have regard for the rights of others. I respect your right to hold this belief although I think it is nonsense.
3. to abide by an agreement. They failed to respect the treaty they had signed, and invaded.
Usage notes:
It is possible that a confusion between the different meanings of respect affects the attitudes of people and organizations. For example, freedom of religion implies that we must respect the right of anyone to believe whatever they wish, to act within the law in accordance with their beliefs, and not to be discriminated against on account of their beliefs. However, the use of the word respect seems to have shifted our attitudes towards the quite different notion that we must behave respectfully towards their beliefs, and not criticize them. This is a restriction on freedom of speech, and is inherently hypocritical—anyone with any view on religion must necessarily believe that those who believe differently are deluded, although their rights must be respected.
The distinction between the two meanings can be shown by paraphrasing Voltaire: "I totally disrespect what you say, but absolutely respect your right to say it."

1 is optional, 2 is not, so you two go ahead and practice 3

Just like with an hypothesis not yet proven, or a conjecture. Some people may believe it is true; some others that it is false.

But you shouldn't build a Church on a hypothesis or a conjecture, right? Something is wrong with the "It is unknown whether «wild claim here» is true or not, so ANYTHING GOES" line of reasoning.

[DavidRoss]

Well, how about claims about the existence of God? Isn't that just as arrogant/irrational?

To decide whether I believe bible or not , I have to have an opinion about the existence of God, no matter how limited my knowledge is. Well, I DO have my opinion as you know and I have decided.

No. Evidence of God--call it some kind of elemental, creative, organizing force that brought something out of nothing--is everywhere you look. Evidence of the role that awareness of God plays in the lives of people is manifest in the testimony of our far-flung species' most ancient institutions and literature and in the testimony of millions of witnesses in the world today.  That you choose to blind and deafen yourself speaks not to the non-existence of God, but to your own closed-minded delusion of rationality.

[DavidRoss]

I can't agree.  For me, an atheist is a person who lacks belief in gods; no claim is made.  Since the existence or lack of existence of God cannot be proven, I don't see anything irrational concerning either atheist or religious beliefs.

Then you, along with many others, conflate atheism with agnosticism: not knowing.  Saying, "I don't know whether God exists and I'm not inclined to believe in the absence of whatever evidence I think I might need to support such belief--nor am I inclined to seek such evidence earnestly."

That's quite different from saying,"There is no God and I know it because if there were a God then God would prove himself to me according to my specifications...and furthermore, since there is no God then anyone who claims or chooses to believe otherwise is an idiot whom I'm entitled to sneer at, even or especially the millions of people around the world leading admirable, productive, sane, giving lives who testify that it is awareness of their relationship with God that informs, motivates, and guides their lives.  Instead of listening to folks like Albert Schweitzer or Mother Theresa or Martin Luther King, Jr., whose conceptions of God and of working according to God's will in service to others empowered them to act as beneficiaries to humankind, bringing healing, justice, forgiveness, and faith to a world of benighted souls trapped in needless suffering, I shall listen to whichever self-absorbed, self-important, narcissistic echoes my prejudices."

[mc ukrneal]

No. Evidence of God--call it some kind of elemental, creative, organizing force that brought something out of nothing--is everywhere you look. Evidence of the role that awareness of God plays in the lives of people is manifest in the testimony of our far-flung species' most ancient institutions and literature and in the testimony of millions of witnesses in the world today.  That you choose to blind and deafen yourself speaks not to the non-existence of God, but to your own closed-minded delusion of rationality.

Sorry if I am budding in - I am not really interested in the ongoing argument as it has been playing out in most of the thread. But I am interested in what evidence you are referring to. Is there more you can add?

[Bulldog]

No. Evidence of God--call it some kind of elemental, creative, organizing force that brought something out of nothing--is everywhere you look.

That's a very subjective view.

[71 dB]

The arrogance lies in the claim that it is irrational to believe in God

Given the knowledge we have today about the universe it actually is irrational to believe in God. That is my point. It is rational to believe in most plausible things and science has surpassed religion in plausibility generations ago.

It's not arrogant to say 2+2=4 is much more plausible than 2+2=5.

and that religion is something primitive and backward that mankind will one day outgrow.

Religion is based on about 2000 years old knowledge. Some of it's ideas are "timeless" and still valid but old knowledge tends to be completely outdated, obsolete. Millions of people have outgrown religion.

If you actually knew something about the subject

And what is this knowledge I don't possess? Would I write this much about this issue if I didn't know something?

you would understand that such a claim is silly and overly simplistic.

I may have simplified things a bit but who doesn't? My main points are still valid.

It's rational to believe in God;

On what grounds? Do you really think God would have created an universe like this? What kind of "great plan" makes this all reasonable? The world is full of things that don't make sense if we presume God's existence.

it's also rational not to believe in God.   That's what makes the topic complicated (and sometimes fun).

More like depressing. Trying to free people from God delusion is time wasted.

If you really had some knowledge about the questions involved (which can be referred to as "philosophy of religion") you would know, for example that Dawkins should be ignored out when he speaks or writes outside his actual field of knowledge (genetics/evolutionary biology), because he has no actual understanding or expertise in the subject.  By referring to him so often, you're again exposing your own thinking on the subject as superficial, which intensifies the exhibition of arrogance.

Do you think Dawkins would make the effort of writing books about issues he doesn't know anything about? He is not an expert of Bible but his ideas are not based on that kind of knowledge. He is an renowned biologist and he has spend time exploring the problems of religion for society and thinking the irrationality of religious faith. If we could write only inside our actual fields we couldn't write much about anything because most subjects are widespread on multiple fields. For example, who are theologians to debunk evolution theory? They are not biologists!

In my opinion Dawkins doesn't go outside the area of his knowledge in his book "The God Delusion". People who disagree with him are just trying to downplay him.

[Florestan]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - Martin Reese

[kishnevi]

Given the knowledge we have today about the universe it actually is irrational to believe in God. That is my point. It is rational to believe in most plausible things and science has surpassed religion in plausibility generations ago.

It's not arrogant to say 2+2=4 is much more plausible than 2+2=5.

You're displaying your superficiality rather splendidly there.  God is transcendent, which means God is beyond the capacities of the human mind to understand.  God is experienceable, but not comprehensible.  Which means all your talk about rational belief/unbelief is...irrational.    2+2=4 and not 5 because of how we define 2, 4, 5, and the concepts of addition and numerical equality.  You can't define God, so your example falls flat on its face.

Religion is based on about 2000 years old knowledge. Some of it's ideas are "timeless" and still valid but old knowledge tends to be completely outdated, obsolete. Millions of people have outgrown religion.

And billions more realize that religion can never be outgrown.

And what is this knowledge I don't possess? Would I write this much about this issue if I didn't know something?

What exists outside the universe?  Why did the universe come into being in the first place?--those are some fairly obvious questions which can not be answered by science, and never will be, because science can't answer them, and is usually intelligent enough to acknowledge that.

But to truly and conclusively rule out the existence of God, you would need to know the answers to those questions.

More concretely, you display an almost total ignorance of the topic that is usually called 'philosophy of religion'.  There are sophisticated arguments for the acceptance of God's existence, and sophisticated arguments for not accepting God's existence.  You show no evidence of knowing what they are (like Dawkins).   That's why I called your knowledge superficial.  And plenty of people write plenty of things on subjects of which they only have a superficial knowledge (again, like Dawkins).

Do you really think God would have created an universe like this? What kind of "great plan" makes this all reasonable? The world is full of things that don't make sense if we presume God's existence.

The world is even more full of things that don't make sense if you presume God's non existence.  And refer to my first paragraph above:  you can't judge God by the standards of human rationality.   He apparently did create a universe like this, since this is the universe that exists.  And what His "great plan" is,  He knows, but that does not mean that we are supposed to know.

Do you think Dawkins would make the effort of writing books about issues he doesn't know anything about? He is not an expert of Bible but his ideas are not based on that kind of knowledge. He is an renowned biologist and he has spend time exploring the problems of religion for society and thinking the irrationality of religious faith. If we could write only inside our actual fields we couldn't write much about anything because most subjects are widespread on multiple fields. For example, who are theologians to debunk evolution theory? They are not biologists!

Most theologians are smart enough to believe in evolution, if you haven't noticed.  Dawkins, on the other hand, while he's written a great deal, obviously has never really investigated the matter.  Otherwise he would not write books propounding arguments which were considered and refuted, or at least answered, by medieval writers.  It's rather like someone describing physics based on the classical physics of Newton, and totally ignoring everything that happened in science since then.

There are good arguments for atheism, but you won't find them in Dawkins.
[/quote]

[Florestan]

It's not arrogant to say 2+2=4 is much more plausible than 2+2=5.

2+2=4 holds water only in the decimal numerical basis. What is 2+2 in the binary numerical basis I'll leave it to you as an exercise.

Religion is based on about 2000 years old knowledge. Some of it's ideas are "timeless" and still valid but old knowledge tends to be completely outdated, obsolete. Millions of people have outgrown religion.

Millions of people have outgrown science too. 100 years ago, racial differences were an established scientific fact and eugenics was a scientifically based policy. Just ask G. B. Shaw, H. G. Wells and O. W. Holmes.

And what is this knowledge I don't possess?

Thomas Kuhn and Rudolf Bultmann have been suggested to you as very good examples of knowledge you do not possess.

Would I write this much about this issue if I didn't know something?

This much and more... Actually you constantly write about philosophy of science and philosophy of religion - two topics you don't know anything about.

Do you think Dawkins would make the effort of writing books about issues he doesn't know anything about?

I don't think - I know.

[Bulldog]

More like depressing. Trying to free people from God delusion is time wasted.

So why do you insist on wasting your time?