Is faith allways bad?

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." 

At this juncture we still have someways to go before an "atheist" can say "There is no banana" but to arrive at that position we have to examine whether the initial statement of belief was truthful, allegorical or a fabrication and to do that requires investigation of external factors related to the statements and the motivation for making them. Since categoric proof of the existence of the banana (or the desk, table or either Dean, Dan and Don) can never be produced then we enter into the realm of probabilities that any of them ever existed. If each probability is low then we can say there is reasonable doubt in the existence of the banana, and as each tends to zero we can then state the existence of the banana is beyond reasonable doubt. However, this example is too simplistic to go to that extreme.

Edited by Dean - October 22 2015 at 03:06

^You sound more like a spiritualist in that you find meaning between the words or see them as pointing to something beyond the mere words. Fantastic!

SteveG wrote: so what knowledge does an atheist present that there is no God?

Faith was the topic of one of my IOP sessions at the DAC.  This came to mind - 

I think faith is not bad as long as you keep it to yourself and don't force it on other people. Christian monarchs cooperating with the church spent centuries with forcing their faith on other people, destroying their native cultures and slaughtering those who did not want to be converted. The church is comparably harmless today, but even today if you take a close look at its holy scriptures, you find passages like this one: "Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (1 Samuel 15, 2-3) Unfortunately most christians don't know their god used to order his people to slaughter infants, according to their own holy book.

lazland wrote: HackettFan wrote: Lazland wrote: I understand the concept of not believing very clearly, thank you. It is not a difficult concept to grasp. The point I make, and stand by, is that actively not believing in a deity is, itself, a belief system. It is the belief that nothing exists. That, to me, is as obvious as the nose on my face. I really must object to this, and also say that I'm insulted by this statement, though I realize that it is entirely unintentional (you are a kind fellow all in all). I do not believe in a god (or goddess). This is not a belief system. I ALSO do not believe there isn't a god. It could in fact be that this universe is a science experiment that a teenager in a higher order universe has created and is now leaving it to gather dust in his closet. I neither believe this nor disbelieve it. I regard it as nothing more than a matter to be discovered. My stance on the existence of god/God is merely symptomatic of me being an atheist. I have often been confronted by those who insist that everyone believes in something, but I think I can speculate on something and evaluate the relative likelihood of such speculations without believing in them. The word 'belief' has an unfortunate range of meaning that does not suit these conversations. Sometimes we use it to mean something like 'consider'. 'I believe he's a good man' is used in the same fashion as 'I think he's a good man'. I think/believe Dean was referring to this earlier. Even if I use the word believe in this case, it is not interchangeable with how the word is ever intended by any given religion. I have been very careful not to insult anybody, barring the overall movement of militant atheism, which is a somewhat different proposition, so, you are right. No insult intended at all. What you describe is agnosticism, a stance that you share with Dean. You neither believe, nor disbelieve in a deity. You await more evidence, or a discovery. I insist on absolutely no belief from you whatsoever. I am no militant here. I dislike militantism, actually, in most areas of life, including beliefs. If you read what I have been saying, you will see this. You will see that I am objecting to absolute positions, which absolutely rule out any likelihood of the other position being reasonable or right. Your agnosticism is not the same as the active denial of the existence of God, end of, full stop, to the exclusion of all argument, evidence, reason. Dean himself acknowledged the difference, and there is one.

No I'm an atheist. And I do actively deny the existence of God. I just don't actively believe that there isn't one. These are not the same thing. I think every assertion I make. I don't believe (in the religious sense: see my previous post) any assertion I make.

I was checking on the meaning of the term agnosticism in Wikipedia. It starts out to be as you are understanding it, more a description of what I would refer to as atheism. Wikipedia goes on, however, to say that, "Others have redefined this concept, making it compatible with forming a belief, and only incompatible with absolute certainty." This is the only meaning of agnosticism that I had been aware of, and does not represent my views at all. An agnostic in this sense is willing to form a belief once they were satisfied in whatever fashion about which beliefs to commit to. On the other hand, even with confirmation of a deity I would not adopt a belief system.

Interestingly as it continues Wikipedia further says that, "George H. Smith, while admitting that the narrow definition of atheist was the common usage definition of that word,[18] and admitting that the broad definition of agnostic was the common usage definition of that word,[19] promoted broadening the definition of atheist and narrowing the definition of agnostic. Terms such as agnostic atheism (the view of those who do not believe in the existence of any deity, but do not claim to know if a deity does or does not exist) and agnostic theism (the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence), are then used to distinguish between the two." I've never known prior anything other than the narrow version of agnosticism and the broad definition of atheism.

So, it might be a simple preference for definitions, except that the definition of atheism and agnosticism you, and apparently others, have been using is not terribly cogent. It presumes that the essential characteristic of religion is a deity or deities, but this is simply not so. Taoism is one such case in point. The essential characteristic of religion is (religious) faith. Rejection of religious faith is what atheism should be a rejection of and the only thing it can be. I do agree with you that if an atheist believes there is no god, then he/she is adopting a religious belief, but they are atheists under only the most illogical, or at least most un-useful, definition of the term. It would be a word that could denote no one.

Your stand against militancy is a sign of good will I see in most of your posts. Militant atheists I think are often so because of a perception of being forced on the defense by militant religionists. But I am much less militant than I once was (less than the religionists I live with).

No. 

QUOTE: My arrogance is your ignorance maybe, because I'm not arrogant... simply stating what I know
Throughout the ages, people discussing their faith is due to the will to find out is others are as prisoners of the religious carcan (you can read that as "straightjacket" if you wish)... and denouncing those who don't is revenge (or jealousy) for those that are not in the same "jail" as they are.QUOTE

Sorry, Hugues, I do not really understand where you are coming from on this. I am not, though, ignorant. I consider myself to be an intelligent, thoughtful, and reasonably well read person. My personal investigations into faith are very much of a will to find both the truth, and, indeed, myself. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any religious straight jacket. Indeed, I distrust most organised religion myself. Also, a very important point. I do not denounce you for your atheism, in the precise same way that I do not denounce any believer in another faith. I take great joy in the wonderful diversity of human thoughts and beliefs. I do not believe you are in any form of "jail". I think you are wrong, but there is a huge difference between that and insisting, or knowing, you are

QUOTE: Let me correct this bolded word and change it into "ignorance and doubts"... and no, not believing is not a belief, since our knowledge is based on facts (as Dean pointed out recently). though I understand this concept might be difficult to grasp (as a concept) for religious people, but atheist simply "don't believe". And that's what sets us free - and renders the believers seeting of jealousy and wanting revenge. QUOTE

I am not jealous of you. I most certainly do not seek revenge upon you. Why on earth would I want that? I understand the concept of not believing very clearly, thank you. It is not a difficult concept to grasp. The point I make, and stand by, is that actively not believing in a deity is, itself, a belief system. It is the belief that nothing exists. That, to me, is as obvious as the nose on my face.

QUOTE: don't get me wrong, I never said that the "atheist states" don't try to control the masses... they're not doing any better in this regards, maybe even worse (North Korea, for ex)QUOTE

I have not accused you of not stating that atheist states do not try to control the masses. Every state tries to do that, whether it be communist, fascist, clerical, capitalist money merchants. Most are thoroughly successful, too.

QUOTE: BTW; Islam nowadays is "enjoying" its middle-age period (today is comparable to the XIII to XVth century for Christians) and simply doing its inquisitions stage. QUOTE

Yep. Absolutely agree.





QUOTE: Furthermore, if I may, if I should be wrong after all (not likely at all to happen, though), and would have to appear for "the final judgment", I'd probably get in quicker to this "paradise" idiocy than 99% of believers, because my personal conduct is much more honest & social than most of the "believers", simply because I'd have followed the social commandments (those 10 commandments invented nothing, since they're the ABC of social human life, in practice since Homo-habilis) bar 2 (refs to gods), without being brainwashed into believing mumbo-jumbo... Rage on, believers Furthermore, if I may, if I should be wrong after all (not likely at all to happen, though), and would have to appear for "the final judgment", I'd probably get in quicker to this "paradise" idiocy than 99% of believers, because my personal conduct is much more honest & social than most of the "believers", simply because I'd have followed the social commandments (those 10 commandments invented nothing, since they're the ABC of social human life, in practice since Homo-habilis) bar 2 (refs to gods), without being brainwashed into believing mumbo-jumbo... Rage on, believers. QUOTE

Only a complete an utter fanatic would even attempt to state that a non-believer somehow had less moral fibre than a believer. I am not a fanatic, and I do not state this. I am sure you are as much a believer in moral guidelines and how to comport yourself as I am. Why would your atheism prevent that? I have never stated such an absurdity.

I am not brain washed. I have made a judgement, and am comfortable in my beliefs, whilst always seeking out the truth. I am always prepared to change my mind, should the evidence be strong enough to do so. I cannot say for certain that God exists. I believe with all my heart that he does. There is a difference. You are not able to say he does not exist, although you purport to. There lies the difference between us.

My mother, who died this year, was a resolute non believer. She regularly stated that The Bible was a work of fiction. She is wrong. Much of it has been supported by independent archeological evidence. She also stated, unequivocally, that when you are dead, you are dead, and that is the end of that. Was she a wicked person? No. I prayed for her upon her passing. It is my hope and expectation that we will meet once again, and I will be able to say that she was wrong. Do I say this out of some petty desire for revenge? No, of course not. I say it because I love her, and miss her, and want her to share in the salvation I believe is there for all of us.

Lastly, I am not raging. In fact, I believe that I am setting out a perfectly rational argument for my beliefs. I also think I am doing so, in spite of every temptation to act to the contrary. When one rages, one loses the argument. Your point about "mumbo jumbo", to me, encapsulates the difference between us. I genuinely believe that this is the epitome of much of the arrogance of atheism. My faith is a deeply personal belief, arrived at by thorough rational thought and investigation.

Edited by lazland - October 19 2015 at 14:05

Guldbamsen wrote: I never got around to Faith. I guess I was too caught up in the albums surrounding it (I love both Seventeen Seconds and Pornography). Is it different from the two or perhaps more likely; a natural bridging?

Dean wrote: Good grief Penfold - only on a Prog forum would two guys be talking about the wrong Faith album.

Oh I miss that show!  Was a staple when I was a kid.