Atheism and Faith

[Saitia]

Hello C1ay,

Originally Posted by C1ay

Not a book that I personally accept as proof of anything, except for the existance (sic) of the science fiction writer that created it.

I see. I'm curious. Obviously you couldn't read the book this afternoon. Since you were able to conclude the "writer" that produced it wrote "science fiction," does that mean you reached your conclusions based on the thorough and rigorous scientific techniques you personally use to discover truth, or did you rely on another human being you've invested faith in as a "higher authority," and have assumed their experience is true?

—Saitia

[C1ay]

I do not accept any claim of supernatural origins of such a book with absolutely no scientific proof of any supernatural existance. Without rigorous scientific proof of the supernatural I regard such claims as science fiction.

[Abstruce]

Originally Posted by C1ay

I do not accept any claim of supernatural origins of such a book with absolutely no scientific proof of any supernatural existance. Without rigorous scientific proof of the supernatural I regard such claims as science fiction.

C1ay

You might as well say the answer to everything is 42.

Write it in a book and someone, somewhere, will believe it.

JQ

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Abstruce

C1ay

You might as well say the answer to everything is 42.

Write it in a book and someone, somewhere, will believe it.

JQ

Yeah, why? Because I don't accept purported supernatural claims as fact without proof? That's the bottom line about religion isn't it, accepting the claim of a supernatural entity without proof? That someone wants to offer the Urantia book or the bible as evidence to support such claims is really providing no evidence at all. Evidence can be tested, these items cannot.

[Saitia]

Hello C1ay,

Originally Posted by C1ay

I do not accept any claim of supernatural origins of such a book with absolutely no scientific proof of any supernatural existance. (sic) Without rigorous scientific proof of the supernatural I regard such claims as science fiction.

Then you must know how it feels to be a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.
Reason is the proof of science, faith the proof of religion, and logic is the proof of philosophy.
That isn't going to change any time soon. There is real "proof" of spiritual reality in the presence of the Spirit within us, but the validity of its presence simply isn't demonstrable to the external world; only to the ones who experience it. And just like any other human experience, it can be a mixture of truth and error, or right and wrong.

Reason is the act of recognizing the conclusions of consciousness regarding the experience in and with the physical world; faith is the act of recognizing the validity of spiritual consciousness— something which is incapable of "scientific proof."
Logic can produce a unity of faith and reason, because it is founded on our innate ability to recognize things, meanings, and values. Science can use reason until it arrives at a hypothesis of a First Cause, but that's really as far as it can go. But religion can use faith until it is sure of a God of salvation.

The discriminating study of science logically suggests the reality and existence of an Absolute. Religion, on the other hand, believes in the existence of an Absolute which provides survival. What metaphysics fails to do, and even philosophy partially fails in doing, revelation does; that is, affirms that the hypothetical First Cause of science and religion's God of salvation are one and the same.

—Saitia

[InfiniteNow]

Saitia,

I can appreciate your passion, but honestly what you describe above is known as a self-reinforcing delusion. This is not intended as an attack on you or your character, but it is worth noting that claiming it to be true without support is not only silly, but mistaken.

Belief and faith are fine if you have them. But you will be cutting off your own feet from under you the moment you try to tell someone else that this is something you "know" with absolutely any degree of certainty.


Cheers.

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Saitia

Reason is the proof of science, faith the proof of religion, and logic is the proof of philosophy.

I dig this. Quite poetic.

Originally Posted by Saitia

There is real "proof" of spiritual reality in the presence of the Spirit within us...

Sweet. Bring it on.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Saitia

Reason is the proof of science, faith the proof of religion, and logic is the proof of philosophy.

IMO, science is the study and knowledge of observable reality, logic is one of the tools of philosophy and religion is a crutch invoked to explain the cause of observable phenomenon that we don't have answers for yet. Observable reality does not depend on the existance of religion nor does truth. Believe whatever you want but do not expect me to accept unprovable evidence as proof itself of anything. If you want to use supernatural evidence you must first prove that it exists. It is unreasonable to expect anyone to accept claims that the supernatural exists without proof that it does.

[arkain101]

This will go not understood..

I think survival instinct and survival phenominom goes hand in hand with god and supernatural.

[Nammy]

Read the entire thread-it is the same saga..throwing stones at the opposites...ever heard of ignostics? Here is a quote from another site :
Quote:
Before we ask ourselves if God exists we need to determine if the question is relevant, or even sensible. Ignosticism holds that the question is not important and in fact doesn't even make sense.

Ignostics believe that because God's existence has no verifiable consequences that the question is meaningless. Asking if God exists is likened to the question "What color are Sundays?". Atheists and Theists are both guilty of making the mistake of trying pose a serious answer to a ridiculous question.

Even if one decides that ignosticism isn't for them and decides that the question of God is worth trying to answer another problem must be decided before one can proceed. What the heck are you talking about when you say God?. Many of the common definitions of God lack cognitive meaning. Also almost every answer given in an attempt to define God does not actually describe God or his nature, but rather lists a relational attribute. Depending on who you ask relying soley on relational attributes may or may not be considered a valid method of providing a definition.
Unquote.

Theological noncognitivism views religous language as ambiguious and free of inherint meaning. Thus while the question of God's existence may be considered legitimate, in order for an answer to be given God must first be defined in a satisfactory manner. Noncognitivists do not find meaning in any of the given definitions of God, and thus can not answer the question of his (or her, or its) existence.