Atheists or Creationists - who's got more faith?

[carpedm9587]

Dictionaries are most often at the "popular" level - the level used in common, everyday life. Try an encyclopedia of philosophy or, better yet, do an in-depth study on the subject (online will be fine).

No, Jorge - but thanks for the recommendation. I speak to people using conventional meanings of English words. If I ever decide I want to seriously dive back into philosophy, I'll use language suitable to that space.

No, I am not "redefining the word". What I gave you (and there's much more) is what scholars at the highest levels in multiple disciplines accept as THE definition - what religion actually IS. Simply accept what I gave you ... Confirmation is just a few mouse-clicks away.

I'll be happy to look at anything you point me to. I'm not going to begin chasing around looking for the things that support your claims. You can provide them if you wish, but I have enough to do keeping up with what interests me. I don't need to take on the added responsibility of researching everyone else's claims.

It's deeper than that - what I gave you was just to show you that the definition you're using is superficial and, bluntly, naive. Here is an excellent source (one of the best) for you to get caught up on the subject: Liberty University Law Review, Volume 3, Number 2, Spring 2009 by John H. Calvert (115 pages with 466 references, most of them studies and court-case decisions on the topic). Note that this is only up to 2009 --- more has been added in the 9 years since then.

I think I'll probably not add this one to my reading list. It's long enough as is and I don't have a particular interest in this subject.

How VERY wrong you are. Atheism most definitely answers - certainly CLAIMS to answer - the questions that I listed for you.

To wit: You claim to be an Atheist. Go ahead, take a swipe at every question in my list and confirm to yourself that you do indeed "have an answer" to those questions - an answer that your Materialistic/Atheistic worldview provides.

You unwittingly (a Freudian Slip) give one of those answers right there in your post when you say, "Some of those questions are simply meaningless in an atheist worldview." To regard a question as "meaningless" IS an answer (a statement of position) to the question!

Furthermore, regarding your assertion that the questions are "meaningless" --- I must ask, how old are you? Anyone past the age of 20 (perhaps earlier) asks in his/her heart "what's this all about?" ... "is there anything after?" ... and so on.

Only an intellectually dead person would never ask those question nor assign any meaning or value to them. I mean, natural life DOES end - right? - and to simply assume (you certainly cannot prove it) without a second thought that at death "that's it, there's nothing more" is the highest expression of ignorance, hubris and foolishness all rolled-up into one any person can have. Ask Richard Dawkins or Daniel Dennett to prove their Atheistic belief that there is no life after death - that this belief is in fact "reality". Expect silence. They cannot prove it but they certainly do BELIEVE it. Belief - faith - religion. Now you're catching on!

Jorge

I do not deny that every worldview requires a degree of faith/belief to accept the principles that are accepted. The fact that every nugget of human knowledge requires some degree of faith to accept does not make all of human knowledge a "religion" or every worldview a "religion." That only happens if you redefine "religion" to mean, "any worldview that incorporates the concept of faith." If you redefine "religion" to mean that, then every human discipline is a religion. Biology is a religion. Astronomy is a religion. Zoology is a religion. Philosophy is a religion.

At that point, you have stripped the word "religion" of any meaning whatsoever. So I will continue to use the word "religion" in the more conventional sense: belief systems organized around the notions concerning the supernatural (e.g. god) and worship thereof.

You, of course, are free to use it whatever way you wish.

[rogue06]

Dictionaries are most often at the "popular" level - the level used in common, everyday life. Try an encyclopedia of philosophy or, better yet, do an in-depth study on the subject (online will be fine).

Jorge, you have a long history of making up definitions for words and terms and then demanding that everyone accept it. Among the things in the past that you made up your own definitions for include, but are not limited to, "macroevolution," "distort,"^[1] "Methodological Materialism," and, pertinent here, "religion." When challenged on the last one prior to the Big Crash, you retorted "they are all a religion as how I define the term 'religion'." Unfortunately your concocted definition in effect cheapens the word religion by including virtually an and every thing.








1. For you it is by definition something that a fellow YEC can not possibly do and can only be done by someone who isn't a YEC

[carpedm9587]

Jorge, you have a long history of making up definitions for words and terms and then demanding that everyone accept it. Among the things in the past that you made up your own definitions for include, but are not limited to, "macroevolution," "distort,"^[1] "Methodological Materialism," and, pertinent here, "religion." When challenged on the last one prior to the Big Crash, you retorted "they are all a religion as how I define the term 'religion'." Unfortunately your concocted definition in effect cheapens the word religion by including virtually an and every thing.








1. For you it is by definition something that a fellow YEC can not possibly do and can only be done by someone who isn't a YEC

I think you and I just agreed on something!



Seriously, I do agree that we all live by faith (to one degree or another). It's unavoidable. It's the human condition. I just don't think faith = religion.

[rogue06]

I think you and I just agreed on something!



Seriously, I do agree that we all live by faith (to one degree or another). It's unavoidable. It's the human condition. I just don't think faith = religion.

And we all have worldviews that influence us on how we see things. One of the things I like about science is that folks with completely different and often opposing outlooks can examine each others works seeking to pick it apart -- and if it withstands that then the original work is strengthened. If not... Well as they say, back to the drawing board.

[carpedm9587]

And we all have worldviews that influence us on how we see things. One of the things I like about science is that folks with completely different and often opposing outlooks can examine each others works seeking to pick it apart -- and if it withstands that then the original work is strengthened. If not... Well as they say, back to the drawing board.

Can we agree to stop agreeing now? People are going to suspect a bromance...

[JimL]

Can we agree to stop agreeing now? People are going to suspect a bromance...

Careful, CP can be very vengeful!

[Jorge]

No, Jorge - but thanks for the recommendation. I speak to people using conventional meanings of English words. If I ever decide I want to seriously dive back into philosophy, I'll use language suitable to that space.



I'll be happy to look at anything you point me to. I'm not going to begin chasing around looking for the things that support your claims. You can provide them if you wish, but I have enough to do keeping up with what interests me. I don't need to take on the added responsibility of researching everyone else's claims.



I think I'll probably not add this one to my reading list. It's long enough as is and I don't have a particular interest in this subject.



I do not deny that every worldview requires a degree of faith/belief to accept the principles that are accepted. The fact that every nugget of human knowledge requires some degree of faith to accept does not make all of human knowledge a "religion" or every worldview a "religion." That only happens if you redefine "religion" to mean, "any worldview that incorporates the concept of faith." If you redefine "religion" to mean that, then every human discipline is a religion. Biology is a religion. Astronomy is a religion. Zoology is a religion. Philosophy is a religion.

At that point, you have stripped the word "religion" of any meaning whatsoever. So I will continue to use the word "religion" in the more conventional sense: belief systems organized around the notions concerning the supernatural (e.g. god) and worship thereof.

You, of course, are free to use it whatever way you wish.

Your first sentence sums it all up - prediction fulfilled!

You have repeatedly rejected any and all offers to help educate you or to seek references that will educate you.
"I have no inclination" ... "I have no interest" ... "I'm too busy" ... yadda-yadda-yadda ...
Certain folk are not only ignorant, they willingly wish and choose to remain that way. Oh well ...

That comes as no surprise to me. I have interacted with Materialists/Atheists/Humanists for decades and one of the ever-present attributes of such people is their unwillingness to look into anything that threatens their beliefs. For comparison, a section of my personal library contains books and papers by people including Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Russell, Pennock, Stenger, Mills, Miller and others.

See, I am not threatened in the least by their beliefs. I wish to be informed of those beliefs so that when I come across their statements I am able to understand what they are saying and refute them accordingly.

In a way I can't blame people like yourself - it's the "safe" move, a version of "what you don't know can't hurt you". But the fact is that the Atheist position is wholly bankrupt and you don't want to hear it - that's all.

Lastly, the Straw Man that you set up did not go unnoticed. I'm referring to this little 'gem' : "The fact that every nugget of human knowledge requires some degree of faith to accept does not make all of human knowledge a "religion" or every worldview a "religion."" WOW, a sure sign of intellectual desperation.

Jorge.

[JimL]

Your first sentence sums it all up - prediction fulfilled!

You have repeatedly rejected any and all offers to help educate you or to seek references that will educate you.
"I have no inclination" ... "I have no interest" ... "I'm too busy" ... yadda-yadda-yadda ...
Certain folk are not only ignorant, they willingly wish and choose to remain that way. Oh well ...

That comes as no surprise to me. I have interacted with Materialists/Atheists/Humanists for decades and one of the ever-present attributes of such people is their unwillingness to look into anything that threatens their beliefs. For comparison, a section of my personal library contains books and papers by people including Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Russell, Pennock, Stenger, Mills, Miller and others.

See, I am not threatened in the least by their beliefs. I wish to be informed of those beliefs so that when I come across their statements I am able to understand what they are saying and refute them accordingly.

In a way I can't blame people like yourself - it's the "safe" move, a version of "what you don't know can't hurt you". But the fact is that the Atheist position is wholly bankrupt and you don't want to hear it - that's all.

Lastly, the Straw Man that you set up did not go unnoticed. I'm referring to this little 'gem' : "The fact that every nugget of human knowledge requires some degree of faith to accept does not make all of human knowledge a "religion" or every worldview a "religion."" WOW, a sure sign of intellectual desperation.

Jorge.

So, the reason that you read Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens and the like is so that you can refute them, and it's your opponents whose minds are fixed and who willingly wish and choose to remain ignorant. Look in the mirror Jorge, you just defined yourself.

[TheLurch]

A serious, more adult study of the subject shows that "religion" is far beyond the naive "... belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power." The essential and ever-present elements in all religions (ALL, bar none) is that they give answers to the most important questions in human life regardless of time (when), geography (where) or culture. These are questions that have been asked since humans walked on Earth. Those questions include: How did we get here? Is there a purpose for my life and for all other lives? Why is there something instead of nothing? How did what exists come to exist? Is there some other reality (an afterlife) after natural death? Is there an objective, unwavering standard for moral behavior? Others ...

I think what's missing from this definition is that these things need to form a coherent system of belief. So, an atheist could take his thoughts on morality from humanism, his ideas on an afterlife as a personal opinion, his conclusions about how we got here from science, etc. A religious person typically gets most or all of their thoughts on these matters from a well defined set of texts and commentary on those texts. I think when we refer to a religion, we are typically referring to a that coherent body of beliefs.

It's a little fuzzy, of course, as many religious people take their answers on some questions about our physical existence from science, but there's typically also commentary explaining why various bits of science are compatible with different religions. And there are plenty of people who seem perfectly comfortable going through life with an incoherent body of beliefs. Are the latter group following a religion? Following one poorly?

[rogue06]

Careful, CP can be very vengeful!

I'm not although he is my older, little twin brother from another mother.

[carpedm9587]

Your first sentence sums it all up - prediction fulfilled!

You have repeatedly rejected any and all offers to help educate you or to seek references that will educate you.
"I have no inclination" ... "I have no interest" ... "I'm too busy" ... yadda-yadda-yadda ...
Certain folk are not only ignorant, they willingly wish and choose to remain that way. Oh well ...

We are all willingly ignorant, even purposefully ignorant, of somethings, and knowledgeable of others. We differ in where we choose to put our energy towards knowledge. The things you have chosen don't interest me all that much. I'm satisfied with what I do know, and not looking to spend much more time on it... yadda yadda yadda

That comes as no surprise to me. I have interacted with Materialists/Atheists/Humanists for decades and one of the ever-present attributes of such people is their unwillingness to look into anything that threatens their beliefs. For comparison, a section of my personal library contains books and papers by people including Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Russell, Pennock, Stenger, Mills, Miller and others.

See, I am not threatened in the least by their beliefs. I wish to be informed of those beliefs so that when I come across their statements I am able to understand what they are saying and refute them accordingly.

You think I find the beliefs of others threatening? That's interesting. Wrong, but interesting.

In a way I can't blame people like yourself - it's the "safe" move, a version of "what you don't know can't hurt you". But the fact is that the Atheist position is wholly bankrupt and you don't want to hear it - that's all.

Yet another person who seems to believe he knows the heart and mind of the person he's talking to better than they know their own. Trust me, Jorge, I've heard how bankrupt my system of beliefs is more than a few times. I suspect I'll hear it a great deal more before I meet my end.

Lastly, the Straw Man that you set up did not go unnoticed. I'm referring to this little 'gem' : "The fact that every nugget of human knowledge requires some degree of faith to accept does not make all of human knowledge a "religion" or every worldview a "religion."" WOW, a sure sign of intellectual desperation.

Jorge.

How is that a straw man? You appear to be confusing "faith" with "religion." or asserting that anything that involves the former is automatically the latter. Did I misunderstand you?

[rogue06]

I'm not although he is my older, little twin brother from another mother.

I should also add that I've read thousands of CP's posts and "vengeful" is not a word that would ever cross my mind to describe them.

[Jorge]

So, the reason that you read Dennett, Dawkins, Hitchens and the like is so that you can refute them, and it's your opponents whose minds are fixed and who willingly wish and choose to remain ignorant. Look in the mirror Jorge, you just defined yourself.

No, you have engaged the dishonest practice of taking things out of context by selecting only a portion of what I wrote.

To wit, I wrote: "I wish to be informed of those beliefs so that when I come across their statements I am able to understand what they are saying and refute them accordingly."

You DISHONESTLY took the words "so that you can refute them" out of the full context and even bolded the words to boot.

My emphasis and goal is to be informed. Refuting comes easily after being informed.

BOOM, you're done!

If your action were punishable with imprisonment, you'd be behind bars right now. Hehe

Jorge

[Jorge]

I think what's missing from this definition is that these things need to form a coherent system of belief. So, an atheist could take his thoughts on morality from humanism, his ideas on an afterlife as a personal opinion, his conclusions about how we got here from science, etc. A religious person typically gets most or all of their thoughts on these matters from a well defined set of texts and commentary on those texts. I think when we refer to a religion, we are typically referring to a that coherent body of beliefs.

It's a little fuzzy, of course, as many religious people take their answers on some questions about our physical existence from science, but there's typically also commentary explaining why various bits of science are compatible with different religions. And there are plenty of people who seem perfectly comfortable going through life with an incoherent body of beliefs. Are the latter group following a religion? Following one poorly?

Really? "from science"?

And what "science" are you referring to, pray tell?

Is it the "science" that PRESUPPOSES Materialism - that mass, energy and physical laws explain everything, from how life arrived to consciousness and all else? The "science" that is Monistic - "a single (material) reality is all that exists"?

Well, here's a clue -- that "science" is a predictable offshoot of Materialism which is a religious position, as I have been stating. In fact, it is so much so that the term Scientism was created some time ago.

You need to get up to speed, Lurcho.

Jorge

[Jorge]

We are all willingly ignorant, even purposefully ignorant, of somethings, and knowledgeable of others. We differ in where we choose to put our energy towards knowledge. The things you have chosen don't interest me all that much. I'm satisfied with what I do know, and not looking to spend much more time on it... yadda yadda yadda



You think I find the beliefs of others threatening? That's interesting. Wrong, but interesting.



Yet another person who seems to believe he knows the heart and mind of the person he's talking to better than they know their own. Trust me, Jorge, I've heard how bankrupt my system of beliefs is more than a few times. I suspect I'll hear it a great deal more before I meet my end.



How is that a straw man? You appear to be confusing "faith" with "religion." or asserting that anything that involves the former is automatically the latter. Did I misunderstand you?

I truly appreciate you keeping it civil but I'll stop here. After (figuratively) 'bashing my head against numerous walls' I finally learned and accepted some time ago that the desire to reject truth and remain ignorant is unconquerable.

Jorge