Is faith allways bad?

timothy leary wrote: ^Now put a foundation under these statements. It would seem the realization there is no "true" self and that all boundaries can be equated to that imaginary state line between Ohio and Indiana.

Except there are no boundaries for the “true” self.   True Being is boundless; it is not bound by space nor time. Its true abode is beyond that of matter, energy and even thought / imagination.  Beyond the material, astral and causal planes of existence.

SteveG wrote: Agnostic means to be without knowledge. Gnostic means knowledge. Agnostic means sans knowledge, if I remember my Greek correctly, so what knowledge does an atheist present that there is no God?

I can make a statement that no one (except me) can prove or disprove, such as "There is a banana on my desk" and you can either believe that or you can doubt it - the choice is yours, but you cannot disbelieve it. This is because the question is not about the existence of the banana on my desk, but whether I have made a truthful statement. It is an equation with two unknowns - 1: the existence of the banana and 2: the truth of the statement, but since there is no proof of the banana we can only question the truthfulness of the statement itself.

a) If you have faith that I have made a truthful statement then you will believe that there is a banana on my desk. You can state "I believe there is a banana on Dean's desk" but you cannot state "I know there is a banana on Dean's desk"

b) If you doubt I have made a truthful statement then you can say there may be a banana on my desk but unless there is proof you aren't going to state "I believe there is a banana on Dean's desk" nor can you say "I don't believe there is a banana on Dean's desk"

There is no "atheist" position on the existence of the banana because even a consummate liar can sometimes tell the truth so no one can say "I don't believe there is a banana on Dean's desk", nor can they say "I believe there is no banana on Dean's desk"

... that is the point most agnostics make when they rally against atheists. But as Todd and I have said, it's not like that.

Now supposing the only source we have of the statement is from the believers in (a) above. Now the statement becomes: "We believe there is a banana on Dean's desk". So now not only can you believe or doubt that there is a banana on Dean's desk, but you also have the option of doubting that the believers (a) are correct and therefore you can make the statement "I don't believe there is a banana on Dean's desk". However, this still does not refute the existence of the banana. So now we have:

c) because you believe that the believers (a) believe there is a banana on my desk you can also say "I believe there is a banana on Dean's desk" 

d) if you doubt the existence of the banana you can say there may be a banana on my desk but unless there is proof you aren't going to state "I believe there is a banana on Dean's desk" nor can you say "I don't believe there is a banana on Dean's desk" ... i.e the "agnostic" position is unchanged but now it is the existence of the banana that is in doubt, not whether I was making a truthful statement (since there is no evidence I ever made the claim in the first place).

e) if you doubt the existence of the banana [from (d)] AND doubt the belief that there is one [from (c)] then you can say "I don't believe there is a banana on Dean's desk". So now we have an "atheist" position without having to prove that there isn't a banana on my desk.

At this stage we now have an "atheist" position but he is not refuting the existence of the banana, but only the believers (c) belief that there is one on my table.

Now repeat using (c) as the source of the statement:

f) because you believe that the believers (c) believed that the believers (a) believed there is a banana you can also say "I believe there is a banana on Dean's desk" 

g) if you believe most of what (c) believes but believe the banana is not on my desk but on my table, you say "I believe there is a banana on Dean's table"

d) the "agnostic" position is unchanged since he still needs proof of the banana to believe anything.

h) the "atheist" position now has an extra level of doubt introduced by believers (f) and believers (g) since their beliefs were not based upon the original source of the statement "There is a banana on my desk", but on believers (c) statement "We believe there is a banana on Dean's desk/table", so you can continue to say "I don't believe there is a banana on Dean's desk or table" without having to refute the existence of the banana.

However, now the "atheist" position has become stronger because the existence of the banana is becoming more tenuous, though still not refutable.

A few generations later we could arrive at another set of positions:

f) believers (f) are unchanged.

g) believers (g) are unchanged.

i) if you believe most of what (f) believes but believe the banana is not on my desk but on Dan's desk, you say "I believe there is a banana on Dan's desk"

j) if you believe most of what (g) believes but believe the banana is not on my table but on Don's table, you say "I believe there is a banana on Don's table"

k) if you believe some of what (g) and (i) believes but believe the banana is not on my desk or table but on Dan's table, you say "I believe there is a banana on Dan's table"

... then at some time in the future those denominations of believers split even further (to the extent that some even doubt the banana and claim it was an pomegranate instead - needless to say no one else believes the pomegranate exists).

d) the "agnostic" position is unchanged since he still needs proof of the banana (or the pomegranate) to believe anything. .

l) the "atheist" position now has an extra level of doubt introduced by believers (i), (j) and (k) since their beliefs were again not based upon the original source of the statement "There is a banana on my desk" either, nor were they based upon the first indirect statement "I believe the banana is on Dean's desk", so you can now say "I don't believe there is a banana on Dean/Dan/Don's desk/table or any combination thereof". (He doesn't need any convincing that the entire pomegranate idea was anything other than a complete fabrication so he ignores it). 

Now the "atheist" is in a position to say, "Do you know what guys? Maybe there never was a banana."