Who goes to heaven?

Remove all ads!

@the other RQ

I think that to say an agnostic would disagree with those who have decided whether or not God exists is a logical progression from saying you cannot know if he does - it's implied. Can't know; can't decide with any justification.

And 'not logically tenable in extremis' (in extremis Latin, not a typo) means that neither position, atheism NOR theism is able to be defended without having to resort to either fideism or ruthless skepticism. Both philosophies have some degree of unreasonableness. (And agnosticism least of all, because it asserts nothing.)

The belief that "it is impossible to prove the existence of God" seems simply to be true, and is in fact acknowledged by theists, hence 'faith'. So I apologise if I have not fit in with your particular set of semantics, but Wittgenstein's written books on why we shouldn't be able to understand each other at all (Different beliefs means a crossover of language games.)

About protest atheism: this is actually one of the most common reasons for rejecting God, if not the most. Humans are emotional creatures - you can't approach any subject of faith with cold logic alone. Santa Claus gave you a crappy present? Trivial. I think Dostoevsky uses the example of 10 year-old children being ripped apart by wild dogs. It's not that suffering exists, but excessive, dysteleological suffering. The Santa analogy calls to mind a petulant child who simply wants more, and rejects him out of spite or disappointment. There is such a perverse amount of suffering in the world, however, that to witness any amount of it directly can turn any thought of a loving God into a mocking dream.

You're misinterpreting what I said as an attack on atheism - I was saying that neither belief can hold under critical logical examination without appearing unreasonable. I wasn't referring to atheism specifically, I included theism in that remark. And I never mentioned senselessness - where did that come from?
And I meant what I said, there wasn't a hidden insult. Believing anything short of "I exist" with certainty is ultimately illogical when looked at skeptically.

I'm not sure what I got wrong here... my theist definition was a little simplified, sure, and I shouldn't have implied that agnosticism was sitting on the fence, but if you could elaborate on what the urban legends are exactly..?

One last note on religious language in general - definitions in philosophy vary from one context to the next. As you said, the expressions are coined by philosophers and the meanings evolve (or devolve, particularly when they are simplified for an RS GCSE or A-level curriculum.) So to say that I've simply got my definitions wrong means we're just playing different language games. Until your first reply, I *knew* that what I said was right - and I still stand by it, but acknowledge different uses of those same words. I haven't read anything to contradict my understanding of agnosticism, while I've read nothing to support yours.

In fact I've read several things opposing it:

Here.

Given your repeated use of "agnosticism/gnosticism" I think you're sometimes referring to the latter definition, i.e. the anti-Gnostic view. Since it's a Wiki article though, you're welcome to go and correct their definition too.

They do mention agnostic atheism, however, which I referred to earlier as no-meaning atheism. And they explicitly say that "Agnosticism has suffered more than most expressions of philosophical position from terminological vagaries."

Agnostics can be and often are not atheist nor theist, and there exists one particular philosophy combining atheism and agnosticism.

Because you're in a topic about heaven, full of theists, and you'll be looking for a reason to justify your atheism by finding the slightest derogatory remark against it.

 

I didn't read all the above posts, but it doesn't matter that much, since I was asked for my own opinion.

I believe that everybody who repends and truely believes that Jesus died for him/her, will go to heaven, na matter what you did.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

On a sidenote, we must not want to go to the 'heaven' we think we know, but we must long to be with God, which happens to be heaven.

Many people who are asked "Why are you christian?" answer with "Because I want to go to heaven". Sounds rather selfish, doesn't it? Our answer, imo, should be something like "Because I want to be with God."

 

I hear there is no beer in Heaven, so i don't even want to go there. What kind of paradise can it be if they don't even serve a cold brewski ?

 

@ Bion

Didn't catch that reference, apparantly.

 

@ Pac Man. The eleventh commentment: Thou shalt enjoy.
Doesn't that sound like kegs of grog? Or any liquor you'd prefer?

 

Something I cannot understand at all here and I would really like some confirmation.

Let's for arguments sake say that there is indeed a heaven. And let's say that heaven is the grand place described by many etc etc.

That would mean that every single person who did the most awful things you can ever imagine, but for some reason felt the need to confess go to heaven. And that would mean that someone who believes not in god or jesus or heaven but (not necessarily me now) who did a lot of good in this world would not go to that place. In fact those people according to the ones who believe will go to hell. It's a funny thing that an entity of 'good' would have such need of power or 'believe' as most call it. That's exactly why I 'believe' there is no such thing existing out there but the imagination of power hungry human beings who lived so many years ago and perhaps (read: very much perhaps) the reason why there are still so many power hungry human beings.

This is by no means a flaming post and no offense to anyone.

 

But if we don't know anything about him, how can we want to be with him?

 

@Aldeth

Re-read THAT sentence. HE identifies "athesits" and "agnostics" specifically. NOT theists or anyone else. THEN he goes on to say that OF THE TWO, agnostics are by far the more sensible, etc.

How could you even get that when thesits are not even part of one of the two identified groups?

You have to take into account the WHOLE context including his misindentifications(which indicate a common theistic misunderstanding that is most often coupled with the idea that atheism is logically untennable adn that agnositicism(by that misdefinition) is "more rational" because they view atheism as the converse of fundementalist religion(it's not) and agnosticism as a "midway point" between these certainties.

He identified(what he thought were) agnostics as being more sensible than atheists by virtue of teh fact that they(again, in his misunderstanding of agnosticism) were semi-accepting of the possibility of God, whereas atheists were sort of closed-mineded fundies of non-theism. I know you will point out that those exact words do not appear in "the sentence" and all but it is one of those things like when someone says "Of course the educated realize that liberalism is unwarkable/misguided...". They don't use the word "stupid" but they are saying that only the uneducated/stupid subscribe to liberalism.

@Rhetorical ?

To Huxlian agnostics, things which "cannot be known of" including fairies, transcendent gods, invisible pink unicorns, round squares etc. CANNOT be said to exist rationally. At most, one can say "I have no rational reason for such an inference but I believe anyway(theistic agnostic) but most are atheists in that they LACK such a conviction/belief.

The knowledge(whether one can have it or not) does not imply decision or indecision eithyer way. Of course it is impossible to be a gnostic atheist or a strong atheist and weak agnostic but agnostiicsm itself only poertains to KNOWLEDGE, not belief/conviction at all.

I know that. I never said it was a typo. I was asking you what you meant by this indentifier. I often hear theists go on about "fundie atheists" or "extremist atheism" but we atehsits never seem to run into these types in order to ask them what their deal is. This seems a strawman created by theists.

Okay, what is "ruthless skepticism"? That sounds pretty damned hyperbolic(conjures images of some conquering Hun ordering "all of the children be slain!" or some such). See this is completely bonkers because neither theism NOR atheism itself indicates extremism. "Extremist" would be an added qualifier to either. Would you call someone who simply believes that a higher power exists but does not have a religion or ever even tell anyone else of thios belief and extremist if he defended said belief from some attack?
To say this about atheism is doubly illogical as atheism is a negative response adn not a positive coviction at all! If atheism as a simple lack of god-bgelief cannot be defended except through "ruthless skepticism"(whatever that is) then look at all of the equally extremist worldviews below:

"I do not believe my mother is an amorphous blob of protasm."

"I do not believe Bill Clinton is the messiah."

"I do not believe pigs can fly by wiggling their ears."

etc.

None of those can be defended except by "ruthless skepticism"!

We are ALL born atheist guy. Aboriginal peoples who have never heard a god-concpept are also atheists. People who have listened and find the case for God uncompelling are also atheist.

Atheism asserts nothing(except the relatively rare positive/strong atheists who, like me, assert that transcendent gods cannot exist). Agnosticism asserts nothing(except positive/strong agnosticism which DOES assert that no knowledge of God can be had). Having said that, even strong atheism is completely reasonable because the assertion is made by virtue of the logical law of non-contradiction. We say that "God" cannot exist for the same reason we say round squares cannot exist.

Seems true to YOU but not to rationalists. It can NEVER be said that something which has an independent existence(non-imaginary) is impossible to prove. That statement is paradoxial to the extreme! It is akin to saying that "Beautiful flubnaxian spooglers cannot be percieved!"(you could not say that "beaturiful flubnaxian sppoglers" existed if they could not be percieved!). If an entity exists, in reality, then it effects reality in some measureable way. Otherise it only exists in our imaginations. Thus far we find no exceptiuon to this rule.

Sorry but I have to call Bullsh*t on that one. Also, the above is a bald assertion(go to www.datanation.com/fallacies to learn about the logical fallacies).

Humans are also RATIONAL creatures. Rationality is the SOLE means we have of learning about our reality and how it works. Atheism is a RATIONAL conclusion/response to a question("do you believe in God?") or assertion ("God exists!"). The fact that we are also creatures of emotion does not imply that every thought we think or idea we reject is done so because of uncontrolled emotions tossing us about.

He didn't give me ANY present because he does not exist. I did not conclude that he does not exist because of the presents I got from my parents being crappy. Do you see? Your assertion that atheists conclude that God does not exist because of crappy things that humans do or allow to be done makes no more sense than saying the only reason I reject Santa is because of the presents I got. Triviality has nothing to do with it.

Still doesn't refute the point. I was atheist before I ever even heard of anyone suffering any such pain or misery. THis is a strawman created for the sole pupose of painiting atheism as something easier to beat up on. Theists cannot attack what atheism IS(quite unassailable on grounds of rationality and logic I assure you) so they attack a cartoon creation of emotional atheists who are so distraught over what humans do to each other that we start rejecting the sensible and believing crazy things(that God does not exist).

Nonsense all around.

EXACTLY! We accept that adults generally reject SAnta because of the lack of reason to accept such a thing as likely or even possible. We do not speculate that they must be emotionally crippled by exposure to suffering or somesuch!

*Chuckle*

See I thought I saw this one coming but I didn't say anything because I knew that at least one or two here thought me jumping the gun already as it were. You are simply trying a back door conversion attempt that we encounter every week over at Belief.Net.

Theist: "Man I can see why you atheists would be upset! Religious people suck! Always preaching that bigotry and opposijng science and whatnot.

Fortunately God is not like that at all. Let me tell you about him...."

I cannot tell if you guys actually believe that we have been put off an otherwise sensible existential claim by the actions(or inaction) of other humans or the existence of evil/suffering(we are, like any rational human being put off by such but this is completely irrelvant to our atheism) and would change our minds if only we had heard of your "cool God" or what?!?

If no evil or suffering existed in this reality(no child was ever killed by a drunk driver...no one DROVE DRUNK! etc.) it would be evidence of a miricle-working entity...MAYBE. But the existence of unfortunate/unfairness/injustice/evil is no more evidence of no God than the existence of charitable behavior/kindness/fairness/goodness is evidence of God. These things could ONLY be evidence of the CHARACTER of God IF he were known to likely exist. His character and his literal existence are two seperate issue.

Even if Falwell and Robertson were the two nicest humanist people on the planet, I would not believe that God existed. The Christmas presents I got were quite nice but this did noit convince me that Satna existed.

No, I was pointing out how such things are viewed with a double standard(taken as offensive when said to and/or about jews/blacks/christians/etc. but just accepted matter of factly for atheists). I did not think you set out with teh intention to beat up on atheists. I think you were just poorly informed adn operating from a presupposition that was invalid.

Yes...NEITHER agnosticism' nor 'atheism'! THAT was what you said. You mischaracterized agnosticism as "undecided"(the same way that non-scientists characterize "theory" as "unproven idea") and then went on to paint atheism as the obviously less reasonable by virtue of not(in your definition) being open to the possibility of God existing.

I could do several more pages on why this is wrong all around but I am getting tired(just got out of the hospiatal a several days back where I had spinal taps, cathiters and the whole 9 yards inflicted upon me ).

See above. You did not include theists in there either(otherwise you might as well have just charged everyone with being less sensible than your idea of agnsotics!).

This is not quite correct. There are different brands of skepticism, true and some hold that we can not be certain of anything beyond our own existence(but they do not generally go on to say that being certain of things beyond our own existence is itself illogical because this would itself be an assertion of certainty!). Carl Sagan was one of the most famous advocates of skepticism and he put it best in his introduction to Broca's Brain where he went on about the fact that we do not live in an "anything is possible" reality and his "Dragon in my Garage" essay was a brilliant defense of skeptical atheism.

Here is what you wrote:

AN agnostic is NOT "someone who doubts". An agnsotic is someone who lacks KNOWLEDGE of God's existence(whether they are theistic or atheistic or neither).

AGAIN, agnosticism is NOT some "middle position" between theism and atheism.

THis is wrong. Atheists(at least skeptical atheists) have considered the possibility and found that either God was NOT logically possible(the same way we find that round squares are not logically possible) OR is so highly unlikely that it's possibility is as unworthy of consideration as the possibility that I am a figment of someone else's imagination.

What I mean when I say this is that, essentially speaking, your definitions are useless and can only serve a presuppositional attack on one side or the other. It is like this: I can define "Christian" as "A bigoted hate-monger out to rob non-christians of their freedoms" and I would not be "wrong". THere certainlky are a great many Christians who fgit that definition. But this definition would be WRONG because it only served to attack this presupposition adn not to understand what christianity essentailly was(re: One who believes in Christ...PERIOD!). THe thing that would differentiate, say, an atheist who was out to spread bigotry and a christian who did likewise, all other things being equal, would be the latter's belief in Christ. Therefore the essential definition of "Christian" is "Believer in Christ"(not "Hatemongering religionist" or any such).

Likewise, the definition of agnostic is "One who lacks knowledge of God's existence." and the definition of atheist is "One who lacks belief in God's existence."

Then your difficulty lies eitehr with reading itself or reading comprehension.

*Chuckle* How often we try to watrn people about relying on Wikipedia for definitions. For what Wikipedia is worth you might as well be using a 12th copy of the Quran for your definitions of "atheism" and "christian". I have found more mistakes at that site than I could ever fix for them.

Anyways, I am a Huxlian agnostic and it is Huxley's own definitions that the modern and essential definitions arise from. As even YOUR source above states, the word literally means "without knowledge(of God)". Nothing more. No "undecided about God existing" or any other such(we already have a word that means "undecided". It is "undecided"). WHen you invoke these overlapping redefinitions, it only serves to confuse. Now when a Huxlian agnostic like myself says that I am an agnostic(or more completely an agnsotic-atheist), some peoplke have no idea what I am talking about since they are operating from a definition that adds a bunch of non-essential extraneous stuff into the mix. Same with atheism.

No. I am not at ALL! You have to start visiting a few philosophy boards and asking around I guess and this stuff will become apprent to you. Even at THESE Boards others have commonly echoed the same definitions of agnosticsm & atheism as I have. THe internet is a great thing .

I see you are already famailir with teh wiki reutation then. Consider it done.

Agnostic atheism is simjply agnosticms + atheism. It is not "no meaning atheism"(whatever that is!?).

With THAT I will agree!

Again, I fully agree(with the first part). My point is that agnosticism ITSELF is not any such thing. Atheists can also be murderers and rapist but murder and rape are NOT a part of atheism adn trying to force such things into a definition of atheism serves no worthy purpose.

Hmmm...the 'molotov coctail defnese'. Rather than address the point/statement/srgument you go "Look over there!!!That guy is thinking about blowing something up!". Let's leave the specualtion about my character and ad hominems at the door shall we?

 

Well, one is sure. There are no atheists in heaven.

And before you flame me:

1. If God exists and is in heaven and you are in heaven, you can't be an atheist anymore because you know God exists.

2. If you don't believe in heaven, why do you feel offended in the first place?

Oh, but seriously. Once there, you don't need to believe, you just see. I believe everyone gets his share of grace, a chance to believe and a sufficient one, not a random thing depending on luck, and a chance to prove himself through works. Humans are mean. God isn't.

 

@Chev':

Because there is no such place to begin with. There are also no atheists in "Metropolis" or "Middle Earth".

I don't flame ANYONE unless I am in a particularly bad mood and responding to someone who is flaming ME.

Yeah...?

Here, let me try:

"One thing is certain. There are no Earthling non-believers in alien life forms on the planet "Moxgrabble 8-6" since, if Moxgrabble 8-6 exists, it is a planet FULL of alien life forms!"

Hey! Your right! it is easy AND fun to state the obvious!

I don't.

Next?

Gotta call you on all the bald assertions(and object on grounds of relevance).

 

Okay - *digs heels in.*

A direct quote from my 3rd post:

That's theism, rather than agnosticism, as you seem to have read.

Actually, of the three. I thought this was fairly clear - agnsoticism is the most defensible position, and is the philosophy of the majority of students of philosophy/theology at university. (I've known plenty of people who go into degrees with the intent to learn enough to prove to everyone else that all theists are misguided - they tend to lose their convictions by the end of the course.)

AND theists. It wasn't an attack on atheism or theism.

What in extremis referred to was that if you examine in depth ("to the last") the logicality of theism/atheism both positions have to make assumptions. There's nothing to do with extremism - I don't think I've used that term once.

I never said it did; you came up with the phrase "extremist atheist."

Ruthless skepticism is the act of doubting everything for lack of proof, as Descartes used to try to build up an a priori proof for the existence of God from first principles. It basically removes the 'reasonable' from 'demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.'


Weak atheism, I'll grant, is logically defensible, but I was referring to strong/positive atheism which denies the possibility of God altogether. I would have thought, particularly since you seem to be reading extremist from somewhere, you'd have interpreted the unwritten 'strong'.

That's only if you accept that logic is a universal law - including things outside the universe - or that there's something contradictory in God's definition. God embodies logic, and "he cannot square the circle" (Aquinas) - there's nothing inherently illogical in his existence. There are certainly some unexplained problems, (Why suffering, why intervene with Jesus, etc.) but nothing paradoxical.

That depends entirely on how you define proof. The effects of the object in question can be measured, but the existence of the object affecting reality cannot be directly shown. There are always alternative explanations for events, the very reason the argument from religious experiences doesn't work, and so no amount of simple empirical evidence can be considered a logical proof.

The very point of faith is that there cannot be sufficient evidence to prove God's existence. It's a Christian theory that 'to prove God's existence would be to disprove him'.

No - there is intuition and instinct. A revelation that has nothing to do with reason, which is usually rejected by materialists except insofar as we have information encoded in our genes, but is all the same commonly believed to exist.

Strange then that Dostoevsky came up with it (or a version of it), and several other remarkably intelligent philosophy teachers I know all follow it. You make it sound like theists created it in a conspiracy to make atheists look whimsical and over-dramatic. The problem of suffering is actually responsible for the conversions of most theists to atheists, and for keeping atheists so.

Since you brought up the logical fallacies page, I'd like to call False Analogy on the Santa idea. Those who stop believing or never start to believe in God because of excessive suffering don't reject God out of spite, they're completely dispelled of any idea of a loving God. It's probably the case that they want to continue believing, but find it impossible. It is a very good reason to give up your faith - it cannot be logically worked around without very many assumptions.

It's not that Santa and God are not sufficiently similar, one being after all a simplification of the other, but that suffering is not brought into the Santa idea. Santa sends you a swarm of killer bees in a box - that would work.

I was voicing my own thoughts - it's the same arguement that I'm constantly having in my head, and the reason I was an atheist a few years ago. I have no interest whatsoever in converting you, and don't think any argument I can make would work - I would expect the same to be true of you. Don't assume that I'd try to.

I did not, and still don't think that I have done. (Except that "just an atheist/agnostic" which I corrected.)

No it wasn't... see above.

Well of course I'm going to think that it's less reasonable - I'm a theist! In any case, I didn't leave out the fact that theism makes assumptions too.

That's what I did do From a neutral standpoint, they do seem to be the most reasonable. IMO, it's all a matter of opinion in the end - reason is limited.

But thanks to the misleading Wikipedia, I've dug myself into a deeper hole than I wanted to be. I've amended my understanding of agnosticism. However, I'd argue that the definition of agnostic, thanks to such articles and simplified RS education courses, is in the middle of changing to incorporate that meaning, for better or for worse.

And get well soon

EDIT: Sorry dmc - I started replying back when I was half-way through reading RuneQuester's reply else I'd lose my train of thought, and only found the ceasefire notice after I'd posted.

 

The good girls. But bad girls go everywhere.

 

I'm sorry to say you're right. Others might not agree with me, but I think you are.
The problem with people is that they want to do it all alone. We think we can earn a place in heaven. "Hey God, look at me being so good!" But that is not the way it works. God is strict with the application of his laws. You either do everything perfect, which is impossible, or you believe Jesus died for your sins.
This is my opinion, there are quite a lot of others who might think different, please remember that.

Do not think that you can rape and murder any young kid, bomb a hospital, kill thousands of innocent people and enter heaven by simply saying: "Oops, my mistake. Sorry."
Believing in Jesus doesn't mean you can do whatever you want.

Open your eyes, lad. Every single flower is his creation. So is lightening and a cool summerbreeze. Light and life. Beer and meat. Whine and olives. Anything. Love is, too, Jesus showed the world who God truely is.

Apeman: Who are these powerhungry people?

 

Yes, every priest had the power to absolve Hitler, if he had asked for one on his deathbed and really regretted for his sins. Already in the OT, God said no matter how your sins are red like scarlet, if you turn to Him you will be made white like snow. Here's the catch: "I'll sin as much I want and go to confession" doesn't work. This is called presumption and is extremely hard to regret for.

 

Okay, my mistake then and I apologise. Not sure how I managed to read what i did but anyway...

See, agnosticism is not some "other" position exclusive of atheistm and theism. You make it sound like they are competing worldviews or soemnthing with one being more rational than the others. This is not accurate. They are not even in the same category.
Also, I don't see anything of value in anecodtes and generalizations about philosophy students(even if true which I have no reason to think).

This is wrong. Atheism makes no assumptions. it LACKS the positive assertion/conviction/assumption made by theism. To argue otherwise is to say that "I don't believe my mother is the ghost of Irving Berlin" is making "an assumption".

I did not mean "extremism" in the way you are reading it. The term was used for lack of a better word to mean the same thing as in extremis as you used it.

Granted but that is why I was asking you for clarification(which you dfid not provide, leaving me to wonder what you meant and try to infer your meaning). I simply do not see how atheism can be "in extremis" itself. I would go so far as to say that even STRONG atheism is not "in extremis".

What you seem to be refering to is radical skepticism which no skeptic and no skeptical atheist I have ever heard of subscribes to. That is what will bring charges of "strawman" to your door.

"Reasonable doubt" is a courtroom dsitinction/qualifier and does not pertain to extraordinary claims and skepticism. IF we were using THAT standard of proof then proving the Christian God does not exist becomes very easy to do because we simply call the four Gospel authors to the stand and question them under oath to show they are unreliable witnesses and that reasonable doubt exists for the existence of YahWeh/Christ/Jehova. The case for God gets dismissed!

I was a weak atheist for most of my life because I believed this as well adn did not think to question it. I am now a strong atheist(as of just a few months ago) for the same reason I am a strong "noncirclesquarist".

More below.

I believe I went to some lengths to say "If you meant strong atheists..." and the like several times in my responses didn't I ?

For all intents and purposes, logic IS completely universal because even if it were not, we could not know this since we are logical/rational/abstract thinking/brained creatures. WE cannot think with a nonhuman mind because we do not have that frame of reference.
If naked Angelina Kolie is making love to me in my living room but is also intangible so that I must use my hands to get off, then she is an imaginary thing either way and I am masturbating.

Depends on which God you are talking about. THe only one relevant to strong atheism is the transcendent God. The God who cannot be measured or detected because he is "beyond" our ability to do so. A God who cannot be perceived/meaqsured/known cannot be said to exist anymore than any other thing which only exists in our thoughts.(I am oversimplifying here but can elaborate if you do not see where I am coming from).

There is almost nothing BUT paradox with God. ANd every paradox brought up is given an attempt at rationalization which invokes new paradoxes! I have been trouncing the free will defense/beyond time/non-phsyical existence/ etc. for years now and all I have to show for it are many more paradoxes! Theists tend to get tired of the debate apparently once you start pointing these out right and left.
But if you know of a non-paradoxial, sensible God-claim then I am all ears.

I don't recall even mentioning "proof"!?(Not saying I did not but it is not there in what you quoted from me).

For example...?

All we are asking for is a rational argument. I have long since given up on any sort of "proof". Just give me a convicning reason to think that "God" exists and I will renoiunce my atheism right here. As a skeptic, I am open-minded enough to do just that and it would not trouble me in the least.

I am a strong atheist because, as with things which get closer as they move farther away or things which grow larger while shrinking or round squares, I cannot see how the transcendent God could be possible(unless everything I know and experience is delusion, in which case this whole discussion is moot).

I wouldn't know since I have no "faith" adn do not ever touch the stuff. I fail to see how faith can be a good or useful thing though if it's whole "point" is to believe in unwarranted claims!? Why not use faith when someone knocks on your door adn says they need 500$ to feed a hungry family? You lack evidence to proove that this man is on the up and up but use "faith" and maybe you will save some family from going hungry this month!

The big difference between faith and reason is that faith has no mechanism. We can explain mechanicstically how we arrive at conclusions through reason but faith is something like "Wish badly enough" or "Believe in the unbelievable".

Another paradoxial tenet.

That is not a means of "knowing" about our reality though and intuition and instinct are not verifiable phenomenae or mechanistic processes by which we learn/understand/process data/etc. They are merely descriptive words for feelings we have. Intuition is probably more often than not completely wrong. Pattern recognition leads us to recall that we had a feeling not to trust someone who turned out to be untrustworthy but we do not bother remembering all the times that intuition told us that a 'saint' was a 'thief'.

Again, arguments from authority/ad populi/ad numeri...invalid. I have no idea what the context of whatever Dostoevsky said was(I have read The Brothers Karamozov though) but I DO know that this is a common theistic strawman you have presented regardless of whether it's orgins can be traced to something an atheist said or not.

Not what I said. They build up and trhust out this strawman because it is easier to tear down atheism if it is born of some irrational, emotional reaction to a phenomenom that bears little relevance to God's existence or non-existence itself. There simply is NO rational critique that can be leveled at athesim proper except to substantiate a claim of God's existence.

Groundless assertion again... .

And you would be wrong. A false analogy occurs when one tries to attack the viability/legitimacy of one idea by applying a critique to a completely different idea that only bears an irrelevant and superficial resemblance to the first.

Not the case with Santa and God. Both of these are extraordinary claims that do not match observed reality which can only be adhered to by rationalization and "faith". I reject God for the EXACT SAME REASONS I reject Santa claus(so the analogy cannot be "false")!

See what you did there? Where did the "loving" come from? We will discuss whether God is "loving" or a jackass after we establish his existence. I am not going to kiss OR kick Hank's ass regardless of whether you tell me Hank is loving or spiteful but if, in the course of trying to convicne me that Hank exists, you tell me that an all loving Hank once killed a dozen schoolchildren for not kissing his ass, I will point out the contraidctions and inconsistencies and character flaws all day long. That does not mean that I have rejected the possibility that someone named Hank exists. It means that, while I still have been given no reason to think he exists, I also find problems with your accounts of his alleged behavior.

What's more, if this is the only presentation of a case for Hank's existence I have been given adn you have not yet given me an alternative then I am not to be blamed for rejecting only the ones I am famailiar with.

Now, where my strong atheism comes in is this: If you tell me that "Hank is a man without gender who cannot be identified or named" then I say such things are impossible.

Sure it is! It is just that the "suffering" is probably on a different scale(the neighbor kids who got no present whose parents are on welfare but are told that Santa did not visit because they have no chimney).

How many theistic claims say that god sends children swarms of killer bees?!? Usually they go to great lengths to explain that God is not responsible for ANY such catastrophe and that it is humans/free will/the devil that is to blame.

WHen chidren recieve no presents it is not because Santa is cruel to certain children(who cannot be expected to behave otehr than as children do), it is because they did SOMETHING(irrevocable) to get put on the "naughty list".

Here is what you wrote:

You were ignoring the fact that this has nothing to do with atheism, as if to say "Man with all this crap going on, i don't blame you guys for rejecting God!" as if we were simply bitter and emotional about the suffering int he world. We do not reject your god because of whatever suffering exists. We reject him for the inconsistencies, paradoxes and general silliness of the claim. It simply does not jive(like Santa claus). When we hear it, our minds react with "That doesn't sound right!?!" adn critical though shows us WHY it does not sound right!

Fine but if you said "I think atheism is unreasonable for no other reason than I am on the oppositie side of the fence." you would not get the reply I gave. I would merely point out that your reasoning(or lack thereof) was flawed. WHen you make a blad assertion that atheism is simply less reasonable, you impy that by some objective critical analysis you have found flaws in the reasoning of atheists.

Theism makes assumptions PERIOD. Not "too". Atheism makes no assumptions(beyond the "necessary assumptions" or "base assumptions"/founding principles we ALL MUST have in norder to even exist. E.g. mine are materialism and the certainty of my own existence and logic).


BTW, thanks for the "get well". I am mjuch better now though nearly two days in a coma was disconcerting and spinal taps suck.

 

Given that we both seem to be ignoring dmc, would it be best to move this into a separate thread (The Great RQ Debate?) or stop altogether, since we don't seem to be anywhere near a conclusion?

I'm up for carrying on, it's a good argument - I'm just wondering if you also think it's lost its direction slightly.

[ May 08, 2005, 12:19: Message edited by: Rhetorical Question? ]

 

I replaced 'whoever believes in him' with 'every white adult european male'. I am not pissed.
I doubt a latin-american teenage girl would have any problems with it either.