Subject:
|
Re: Atheism (was: Santorum Fails In His Effort To Pervert The Constitution)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 18 Aug 2004 20:35:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2328 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mark Bellis wrote:
>
> > > I have no faith in any supernatural phenomena or entities. How does this
> > > require more faith than that required to believe in a non-provable supernatural
> > > being?
> >
> > But absence of faith in something is not faith in nothing. Faith in nothing
> > takes a lot of faith! I suggest that all the unexplainable things lead
> > people towards believing in something rather than nothing, assuming they
> > don't remain agnostic.
>
> Absence of faith in something leads to faith in nothing.
>
> If you didn't understand rudimentary celestial mechanics, you would continue on
> with no faith that _tomorrow_ that sun was just not going to rise. Every time
> someone told you that tomorrow was going to be the day that the sun didn't rise
> and then the sun rose, you would gain faith that *no* day would be the day that
> sun wouldn't rise.
In the face of inconsistent sunrise results, you might decide that the celestial
mechanics were invalid and that you cannot prove whether the sun will rise
tomorrow, thus being agnostic.
If the results were consistently wrong, you would just cease to believe the
source that told you to expect the wrong thing.
If you knew that the sun consistently rose, you would need a lot of faith to
believe that it would not rise tomorrow. It can be like this when new
scientific theories are put forward. Many experts may not be prepared to
believe that the four forces (Gravity, Strong, Weak and Electromagnetic) could
be united into one theorem, but some people have enough faith to believe that if
they spend enough time working at it, they can get a result. I had to believe
that I could get a result before I embarked on building an 8mm:1ft scale railway
out of Lego, especially since it is unique and flies in the face of popular
opinion (the 6-wide majority).
> It's just that way with your notion of God. After being surrounded by people
> assuring me that this God exists for so long (34 years, in my case) and seeing
> not one tiny little shred of evidence (I mean, not even a hint) day after day,
> year after year, I'm pretty confident that you're made a common mistake.
>
> And this doesn't take any faith at all. I'm just accepting the most plausible
> explanation that fits the evidence. If that changes, though I admit to being
> not particularly open to the possibility, then I'll reassess my beliefs. I do
> find it curious though, that this 'atheism takes a lot of faith' idea is so
> commonly held by your side of things.
>
> And finally, what things do you mean when you refer to "all the unexplainable
> things?" I'm not actually aware of any.
>
> Chris
Can you explain how to make a tree from a jar of chemicals? This is possible.
Can you do it? This hasn't been done, so there remains a gap in the practical
explanation. A Christian would say "God made a tree". This applies similarly
to the rest of the universe - who could design such a delicately balanced yet
wonderful ecosystem, designed to support the human race? I think it takes more
faith to believe that it's a cosmic accident than that God designed it. I mean,
what's the point of it all?
Another question arises, that of your level of acceptance of the Bible as
evidence. The Bible contains quotes from Jesus, whom we know existed as a man
because of historical evidence from independent witnesses, such as the jewish
historian Josephus.
Jesus was scourged and crucified. Would anyone go through that if he were
either a liar or a lunatic? Surely he would have admitted to either! Therefore
I contend that it is worth taking notice of what Jesus said, since he is at
least as reliable as any of the prophets of the old testament.
Jesus believed and taught the parts of the Bible that preceded him. The gospels
(Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were written by people who were alive when Jesus
was on earth. The later parts of the Bible are the story of the early church,
written by contemporaries of Jesus. I contend that the Bible is consitent in
that it all stands or falls on Jesus.
The Bible tells us about God. Jesus claims to be God. Surely he is consistent,
since he died a protracted and painful death for that claim. Therefore his
claim to be God must be examined.
He taught about relationship with God. Is it not worth trying it out with an
open mind? Say to God something like "God if you're there, make yourself real
to me". Then give him time. He knows you're not ready to accept everything at
once. He respects your comfort zone, extending it a bit at a time.
I'm not saying the above is conclusive proof, but it surely narrows the gaps.
Perhaps one will be small enough to be bridged.
Mark
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
200 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
