Beliefs, Religion and Faith.

[The_Gabe]

I'd consider dating an atheist. I definitely wouldn't date someone who's pro-choice.

 

You're against abortion?

100% so.

 

I guess that means we can't date then :thumbdown:

[Guest Rob]

I'd consider dating an atheist. I definitely wouldn't date someone who's pro-choice.

 

You're against abortion?

100% so.

 

I guess that means we can't date then :thumbdown:

Yeah, that's why you can't date :lol:

 

You're just not his type

[Nomrombom]

http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html

 

This was posted by someone else a page or two back, but it was not brought up directly. Any anti-abortionists care to respond to it?

[obfuscator]

http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html

 

This was posted by someone else a page or two back, but it was not brought up directly. Any anti-abortionists care to respond to it?

Perhaps posting it on the abortion thread would make more sense and be more likely to elicit a response.

[Guest Rob]

http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html

 

This was posted by someone else a page or two back, but it was not brought up directly. Any anti-abortionists care to respond to it?

 

I have mixed feels on abortion. The only problem I found in that article is their second point when they compared hair to fetus. While a hair has human DNA like a Fetus, it obviously doesn't have the potential to grow into a sentient being.

 

Another interesting point made that I read once is that if a pregnant woman is murdered, it is considered a double murder. So that law seems to agree that a fetus can be considered a person. Not the strongest argument, since it could be because the child was guaranteed to be born (providing it didn't die during birth) meaning that the mother didn't choose to terminate it at all.

 

Just something to consider.

[Nomrombom]

Wow, I dun goofed. Wrong thread. My bad, Obf can you delete that post if you please?

[Ts_Stormrage]

Don't...

 

Whether or not you are for or against abortion (hey, not even an issue here in dutchieland), if it's for religious reasons it has a place on this thread :)

[Blyaunte]

I'm dating a girl who is Christian and strongly believes in God and is very against abortion. On the other hand, I don't believe in God and I'm fine with abortion. I have not told her either of these things in the month that we've been dating. She's never really asked me about my religious beliefs so that hasn't been an issue. She has mentioned multiple times though that she would never get an abortion and I just kind of nodded my head and told her that it makes sense. Never mentioned that I have no issues with abortion though. I've been trying to steer away from the subjects any time that they come up.

 

I'm not sure what I would consider this to be (confesion, secret, or regret...).

Omission is betrayal, isn't it?

I was in a similar situation a few months ago. I was dating a girl that was conservative christian. I'm atheist. It did cause problems after a while because she kept asking me to go to church with her and sooner or later you start running out of excuses why you can't go with her. Better get it out in the open now, before things get serious and unnecessary heartbreak is caused.

I agree that you should make known your religious beliefs right off the bat. Because it could definitely be problematic in the future. If a serious relationship evolves, religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are bound to play a huge role. For me, I don't think I could ever marry an atheist, not because I don't like atheists. Just because so many problems would come up (private or public school, going to mass as a family, teaching kids how to say prayer, differences in how to raise a family, etc). Nor would I want someone to pretend to not care about it, because that puts them in a difficult position where they're weighing you and their own beliefs.

 

I'm quoting this here because it serves as a better platform to discuss the issues of inter-religious marriages.

 

I don't personally see an issue with most of it - religious beliefs are not mandatory to be a good (moral) person, to live a good life, to love and be loved. Why would the idea of dating an atheist put you off? You may even find yourself in a position where you could persuade an atheist to follow Christian teachings - to me, that would feel like an accomplishment. This isn't to say that you should force it into the relationship, but I know that I wouldn't personally put that as an obstacle.

 

Being open to new ideas is still rather important in today's society, why shouldn't we be accepting of people with different religious beliefs? I guess it's a little different in America though, given that a vast majority believe in some kind of deity as opposed to not.

 

I am reminded of the joke by Woody Allen: "My last relationship didn't work out. I'm an agnostic and she's an atheist and we couldn't agree on what religion *not* to bring our children up in ..."

 

:lol:

[h3art]

I can think of plenty of other reasons not to be in a relationship with Woody Allen. :-)

 

But yes, as I mentioned in immediately previous post (on another thread, no less D=) I'd have difficulty dating a heavily religious person, which is unlikely to occur anyway.

[Assume Nothing]

Let's assume God to be real for a moment.

 

Why should we believe in the Christian God, but not the Islamic one? Or any other God for that matter? What makes Christianity the right religion to follow?

[MIB]

Let's assume God to be real for a moment.

 

Why should we believe in the Christian God, but not the Islamic one? Or any other God for that matter? What makes Christianity the right religion to follow?

 

In any case, what makes atheism the right belief? Is it truly logical to be an atheist instead of a theist?

 

As far as I'm concerenced, any religion is better than no religion.

[jasignhagj]

Let's assume God to be real for a moment.

 

Why should we believe in the Christian God, but not the Islamic one? Or any other God for that matter? What makes Christianity the right religion to follow?

 

In any case, what makes atheism the right belief? Is it truly logical to be an atheist instead of a theist?

 

As far as I'm concerenced, any religion is better than no religion.

You registered just for this?

[MIB]

You registered just for this?

 

Thanks, you just made me win a bet.

[jasignhagj]

You registered just for this?

 

Thanks, you just made me win a bet.

I apologize to the other guy then.

[Assume Nothing]

I actually fit in two categories:

 

Agnostic Atheist (I believe it's unknowable, but I choose not to believe anyways)

and Apatheist Agnostic (Since thousands of years of debate has neither proved nor disproved the existence of a deity(s), even if it were to exist, it doesn't seem to concern us (humans). Thus, it should be of little theological interest)

 

@MIB: What are you trying to say? If, like Christians, one believes in a non interventionist God, then what difference does it make to your current life? Religious beliefs tend to only concern the afterlife - which we can't yet prove nor disprove (although, what's there to disprove without initial proof?)

 

Atheism is a concept derived from the fact that most events suggested by Religious doctrines appear to be implausible and sometimes self contradictory (Problem of evil and such). It's not a belief - it's a disbelief. I believe that even if there were a greater being out there, it's not really concerned with us.

[SirParagon]

Most people accept that a god cannot exist within physical reality. The universe we exist in abides by cause and effect. Making up a dimension where crazy things can happen with no logical explanation doesn't solve anything.

 

So we shouldn't make absolute claims because the opposite may be possible in another universe? First recognise that saying 'you cannot make any absolute claim about truth' is an absolute claim about truth - instant hypocrisy, it doesn't work . 'God may exist in another dimension' is a self-contradicting statement because the principle behind it is that no truth can be stated.

 

Next analyse the word 'god', defined as an immaterial intelligent omnipotence. This cannot be applied to a dimension we know nothing about. For example, if I show you a video of incomprehensible static how could you tell me you're seeing the script for Hamlet scrolling across the screen? If it were true then the video would not be incomprehensible. We cannot create X dimension claiming to know nothing about its contents then immediately assume god exists within such a dimension (obvious contradiction). Suggesting that other dimensions with gods may exist evokes the counter argument that these things may not exist. Keep in mind the impossible burden of truth resides exclusively upon the affirmative side.

 

You cannot claim the universe operates on a set of principles then make an exception to explain how it started. Agnosticism is an inherently flawed idea. You don't need to search the entire multiverse to confirm whether a square circle can exist.

 

Why is god a square circle?

 

Immaterial?

 

Consciousness is a function of the brain, a consciousness cannot exist without a physicality just as you cannot breathe without lungs. There's no such thing as ghosts, people.

 

Intelligent and Omnipotent?

 

All evidence suggests that complexity requires evolution. God is supposed to be an infinitely complex being, yet could not have evolved because that implies mortality. If god never evolved then it would have to be the simplest being imaginable, even simpler than we could comprehend. How could it create the universe? Unless zero complexity somehow loops back around into infinite complexity, but that's like saying existence is equal to non-existence.

 

Now we have an unconscious being of zero complexity; it looks like god fits the description of empty space. How fitting, an imaginary friend. God is all around us indeed.

[Zierro]

It's not a belief - it's a disbelief.

 

What's the difference? By dismissing an idea as false or logically unlikely, you're still filling up a spot with a new system of beliefs. I mean, just look at the guy above me.

[SirParagon]

It's not a belief - it's a disbelief.

 

What's the difference? By dismissing an idea as false or logically unlikely, you're still filling up a spot with a new system of beliefs. I mean, just look at the guy above me.

 

To believe a statement to be true without evidence is faith (which is irrational, a true belief requires hard evidence). Out of the infinite numbers you could possibly use in the equation X + X = 4...

 

2 is the only X

 

You can have faith 3 + 3 = 4, that doesn't mean it can ever be true, nor is there a possibility of a mystery number which also fits the equation. It's logically impossible, not logically unlikely.

 

I admit all opinions regarding god are valid, the problem is the ideas which form them. It's easy to believe in an afterlife if you hold onto the idea that people have souls, it's easy to believe god created the universe if you're willing to accept such an entity could exist without cause-effect. People don't seem to realize that every groundless assumption they make spawns a plethora of legitimate 'how? what? why?' questions in response, you can't just brush these aside with blind faith. People say it's closed-minded to refuse the possibility of a higher power, I in turn say it's closed-minded to ignore the innate fallacy of such proposals.

[Zierro]

To believe a statement to be true without evidence is faith (which is irrational, a true belief requires hard evidence). Out of the infinite numbers you could possibly use in the equation X + X = 4...

 

Um... how does that relate to my point about atheism being a logically thought out position (aka "belief")? I wasn't making any assertions about evidence or existence, but rather pointing out that it is a psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true that one affirms by holding the label "a lack of god".

[Assume Nothing]

I'm sure there is a third option - to believe it is unanswerable, and thus may/may not exist, although their actions are influenced regardless of the state of belief.

[SirParagon]

To believe a statement to be true without evidence is faith (which is irrational, a true belief requires hard evidence). Out of the infinite numbers you could possibly use in the equation X + X = 4...

 

Um... how does that relate to my point about atheism being a logically thought out position (aka "belief")? I wasn't making any assertions about evidence or existence, but rather pointing out that it is a psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true that one affirms by holding the label "a lack of god".

 

Sorry if I interpreted the context of your post incorrectly.

 

My argument is that a god cannot logically exist given all known evidence. We have to create exceptions to allow for the possibility of god, this isn't viable. It's infinitely more rational to accept gaps in our current knowledge rather than jump to conclusions about god. With such conclusions comes the reluctance to accept new evidence continually chipping away at pseudo-beliefs. The core argument of those who affirm the existence of god is 'I just know it in my heart to be true', atheism comes from rationalising through that veil of wishful thinking. Are you saying faith in god is the same as denying (

) god?

 

Agnosticism/Religion is like pointing at the sky claiming to see an invisible dragon... if you're fully deluded that the dragon is true then I guess it can be considered the same 'psychological state' as wholeheartedly denying the dragon (according to the definition of belief), but I fail to see why the argument should be taken seriously or why we should even provide the invisible dragon a scrap of legitimacy.

 

I'm sure there is a third option - to believe it is unanswerable, and thus may/may not exist, although their actions are influenced regardless of the state of belief.

 

Like I mentioned before, the third option - insisting that something is unanswerable (suggesting the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth) is a self-contradiction.

 

We must only use the evidence we have available to us in order to form a true belief. Instead of denying existing evidence (like religiosity), the third option insists that there may be mind-blowing truths yet to be discovered. So what's the problem? Science is not a theory, it's a method. Science cannot be used to pave the way back to ghosts and demons, it's a progressive refining of truth. Saying something which contradicts our current level of truth cannot be made legitimate through the possibility of future discoveries.

[Zierro]

Are you saying faith in god is the same as denying (not rejecting) god?

 

In the sense that they are both beliefs, yes.

 

Agnosticism/Religion is like pointing at the sky claiming to see an invisible dragon... if you're fully deluded that the dragon is true then I guess it can be considered the same 'psychological state' as wholeheartedly denying the dragon (according to the definition of belief), but I fail to see why the argument should be taken seriously or why we should even provide the invisible dragon a scrap of legitimacy.

 

Now this is getting confusing. How is agnosticism anything like pointing at the sky and asserting the existence of an invisible dragon? If anything, it is just the belief system with the conclusion that there is no evidence for or against the existence of god(s). Invisible dragons shouldn't be taken seriously, but neither should the assertion that there can be no such thing because there is no empirical evidence for this claim. Through all of the knowledge we've obtained, there is nothing out there dictating that invisible dragons cannot exist. Sure it is extremely unlikely, but where is this logical contradiction attached to the existence of a non-visible reptilian creature with wings? It is quite a large universe out there.

 

Also, you seem to be saying that we have evidence that leads us to "the impossibility of a god". For particular deities, maybe. But "god" is such a malleable term with several thousand interpretations - it would be awfully hard to address and dismiss each one of god's proposed characteristics as logical possibilities in one sweeping generalization. The logical fallacies you've gathered could simply be the result of skewed interpretations of this deity - disproving specific qualities about the entity but not disproving the entity altogether. I see no evidence that it is impossible for the world we see to be constructed by intelligent design, but I also see no evidence of the contrary. This "evidence" you speak of is more analogous to pointing at invisible things in the sky than agnosticism is.

 

All evidence suggests that complexity requires evolution.

 

And since evolution in itself is a complex system, how do you propose that came about? I think you are applying scientific methods to the areas where they don't give very applicable, relevant results (like the non-repeatable event of abiogenesis).

 

Like I mentioned before, the third option - insisting that something is unanswerable (suggesting the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth) is a self-contradiction.

 

You are told that there is a cat in a box. Without being able to touch it or manipulate it, you are asked whether it is alive or dead. Because you circumstantially have no good way of finding an answer, does that suggest it is neither dead nor alive? Insisting something is "unanswerable" is not the same as suggesting there is "no answer out there at all" - we as limited beings with limited perception just cannot reach it.

[obfuscator]

Great post, great analogy as well :thumbup:

[SirParagon]

Are you saying faith in god is the same as denying (not rejecting) god?

 

In the sense that they are both beliefs, yes.

 

Then why is it a necessary comparison? That's common sense. Either way, it still depends on how belief is defined. 'I have faith it will rain tomorrow' is not the same as '(I believe) It will rain tomorrow'

 

Agnosticism/Religion is like pointing at the sky claiming to see an invisible dragon... if you're fully deluded that the dragon is true then I guess it can be considered the same 'psychological state' as wholeheartedly denying the dragon (according to the definition of belief), but I fail to see why the argument should be taken seriously or why we should even provide the invisible dragon a scrap of legitimacy.

 

Now this is getting confusing. How is agnosticism anything like pointing at the sky and asserting the existence of an invisible dragon? If anything, it is just the belief system with the conclusion that there is no evidence for or against the existence of god(s). Invisible dragons shouldn't be taken seriously, but neither should the assertion that there can be no such thing because there is no empirical evidence for this claim. Through all of the knowledge we've obtained, there is nothing out there dictating that invisible dragons cannot exist. Sure it is extremely unlikely, but where is this logical contradiction attached to the existence of a non-visible reptilian creature with wings? It is quite a large universe out there.

 

You missed the point, one cannot claim to see or visually describe what is invisible. Assumptions whether something may exist without evidence does not bring legitimacy to an argument, it's a waste of everyone's time. Granted an invisible dragon is still more plausible than a god or greater power.

 

Also, you seem to be saying that we have evidence that leads us to "the impossibility of a god". For particular deities, maybe. But "god" is such a malleable term with several thousand interpretations - it would be awfully hard to address and dismiss each one of god's proposed characteristics as logical possibilities in one sweeping generalization. The logical fallacies you've gathered could simply be the result of skewed interpretations of this deity - disproving specific qualities about the entity but not disproving the entity altogether. I see no evidence that it is impossible for the world we see to be constructed by intelligent design, but I also see no evidence of the contrary. This "evidence" you speak of is more analogous to pointing at invisible things in the sky than agnosticism is.

 

Every single interpretation of god can be disputed. My prior argument applies to any god, I was not cherry-picking a particular religion, the qualities common to all gods define a god. It is also important to realize that every step humanity takes toward science is a step away from intelligent design. People should not be held back by such an archaic concept.

 

All evidence suggests that complexity requires evolution.

 

And since evolution in itself is a complex system, how do you propose that came about? I think you are applying scientific methods to the areas where they don't give very applicable, relevant results (like the non-repeatable event of abiogenesis).

 

Evolution was not intelligently designed any more than an interesting eroded rock formation. It occurs through the gradual transference of mutation across many generations. This genetic imperfection is contradictory to the notion of intelligent design. Advantageous mutations lead to survival and reproduction, bad mutations lead to premature death (otherwise known as natural selection). Such a process would not occur if all lifeforms were innately perfect. Abiogenesis is definitely baffling, but jumping straight to god in as an explanation has never been the true solution to any mystery - It's just lazy philosophy. 'God did it' is exactly the same as 'it was magic'. Somebody tell me why it's logical to believe in supernatural exceptions to the rule of reality.

 

Like I mentioned before, the third option - insisting that something is unanswerable (suggesting the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth) is a self-contradiction.

 

You are told that there is a cat in a box. Without being able to touch it or manipulate it, you are asked whether it is alive or dead. Because you circumstantially have no good way of finding an answer, does that suggest it is neither dead nor alive? Insisting something is "unanswerable" is not the same as suggesting there is "no answer out there at all" - we as limited beings with limited perception just cannot reach it.

 

Quantum physics eh? Personally I consider Schrödinger to be talking out of his ass, like most quantum physicists. We know for a fact that cats exist, dead or alive - that immediately rules out comparison with a deity. There can only be a single absolute truth concerning the state of this cat, it must be either dead or alive, there is no in-between or lack of state. Opposites are a fairly basic concept.

 

Let's make the example more relevant to this argument. Say you're locked and chained inside a pitch-black room, there may exist a box outside this room, that box could contain anything of any state. Does that mean there is a possibility that the box contains a square circle?

[Zierro]

Then why is it a necessary comparison? That's common sense. Either way, it still depends on how belief is defined. 'I have faith it will rain tomorrow' is not the same as '(I believe) It will rain tomorrow'

 

Because I was explaining to someone else that the position of atheism is more than just a lack of belief.

 

You missed the point, one cannot claim to see or visually describe what is invisible. Assumptions whether something may exist without evidence does not bring legitimacy to an argument, it's a waste of everyone's time. Granted an invisible dragon is still more plausible than a god or greater power.

 

I don't think I missed the point - I simply chose not to respond because the semantic error makes it impossible to address your point if we don't even have a shared understanding of what "agnosticism" denotes. Agnosticism makes no claims aside from the fact that we have no means of discerning the truth. If you want to argue that agnosticism does make claims about invisible objects existing, then you would have to prove that there really is evidence for/against the existence of god out there.

 

Of course there is no legitimacy to an argument with no backing. In fact, that's exactly what I stated: Invisible dragons shouldn't be taken seriously, but neither should the assertion that there can be no such thing because there is no empirical evidence for this claim.

 

Every single interpretation of god can be disputed. My prior argument applies to any god, I was not cherry-picking a particular religion, the qualities common to all gods define a god. It is also important to realize that every step humanity takes toward science is a step away from intelligent design. People should not be held back by such an archaic concept.

 

Next analyse the word 'god', defined as an immaterial intelligent omnipotence.

 

Conceptions of God. Granted, you were addressing the most common illustrations of "god", but as you can see in the link, there is no mutual agreement that every single religious group goes by when it comes to the qualities of "god", aside from them all proposing divinity... to a million different figureheads.

 

There's an easier way of explaining this. If John Brown's Wikipedia entry claims that he is a famous poet who grew up in New York, and you find out it was all a sham and that John is actually a famous painter, does this prove that John Brown doesn't exist, or does it simply suggest someone was wrong about him?

 

Evolution was not intelligently designed any more than an interesting eroded rock formation. It occurs through the gradual transference of mutation across many generations. This genetic imperfection is contradictory to the notion of intelligent design. Advantageous mutations lead to survival and reproduction, bad mutations lead to premature death (otherwise known as natural selection). Such a process would not occur if all lifeforms were innately perfect. Abiogenesis is definitely baffling, but jumping straight to god in as an explanation has never been the true solution to any mystery - It's just lazy philosophy. 'God did it' is exactly the same as 'it was magic'. Somebody tell me why it's logical to believe in supernatural exceptions to the rule of reality.

 

Correct me if I'm mistaken here, but are you saying your definition of complex is something that takes a lot of time to form? Isn't that rather subjective and relative? I think "complex" has an opinionated ring to it, which is why I'm confused about your statement, "Complexity implies evolution." Heck, anything becomes complex once you look into it deep enough.

 

Quantum physics eh? Personally I consider Schrödinger to be talking out of his ass, like most quantum physicists. We know for a fact that cats exist, dead or alive - that immediately rules out comparison with a deity. There can only be a single absolute truth concerning the state of this cat, it must be either dead or alive, there is no in-between or lack of state. Opposites are a fairly basic concept.

 

There can only be a single absolute truth concerning the state of god's existence: fact or fiction. What other possibilities are out there?

 

Let's make the example more relevant to this argument. Say you're locked and chained inside a pitch-black room, there may exist a box outside this room, that box could contain anything of any state. Does that mean there is a possibility that the box contains a square circle?

 

No, because square =/= circle, unless you modified the constituents of these terms (a "circle" is now any shape with four equal sides).

 

---

 

All in all, I do take pleasure in discussing these abstract concepts with someone else who likes to challenge the most generally-accepted epistemological arguments instead of reiterating what they heard someone else say in a Youtube video. Maybe we'll actually get somewhere. :-P