skeptic
Posts: 1163
Joined: May 2006
|
| Quote (Louis @ Oct. 19 2007,08:26) | | Quote (skeptic @ Oct. 19 2007,04:39) | Sorry for the absense but both my computer and I were ill and needed time to recover.
Actually, I run into something of a loop. I, speaking for myself, happen to agree with the "contraints" offered by my faith to a large degree and so I don't view them as "constraints." I also don't see my opinion of them changing just because the underlying faith may be misplaced. I have perfectly rational and irrational reasons for believing as I do and it just so happens that these reasons and my faith coincide. Now you can say that they coincide because I believe or because I believe they coincide. That's were the loop comes in but I can't answer that question. That is a question for my subconscious, if it exists, and falls outside the realm of discovery, IMO.
The thing that keeps me from going on a killing spree is the belief that it is wrong with a capital 'W'. That God also says it is wrong lends more credibility to Him as a source of knowledge. If I viewed God in the same way as opinions articulated on this board then I wouldn't follow Him either but I'd still believe in Him. It would be arrogance on my part to say that because I disagree with Him then He just doesn't exist, IMO.
One other thing, as a basis for this hypothetical we would have to actually "know" that God doesn't exist. Hence the disprove comment. Otherwise, we're really just in the same boat we are now with no one really knowing the Truth. Without proof that God doesn't exist, or even that specific deities don't exist, a person of faith would find it very difficult to honestly contemplate what life would be like without God because faith is all they're running on in the first place. Does that make any sense? |
Glad to find your self and computer back in fine health! Gesundheit and all that.
So Skeptic, are you similarly open minded about unicorns, pixies anf fairies at the bottom of my garden? After all, to quote you with one word altered:
| Quote | | One other thing, as a basis for this hypothetical we would have to actually "know" that pixies don't exist. Hence the disprove comment. Otherwise, we're really just in the same boat we are now with no one really knowing the Truth. Without proof that pixies don't exist, or even that specific pixies don't exist, a person of faith would find it very difficult to honestly contemplate what life would be like without pixies because faith is all they're running on in the first place. Does that make any sense? |
To answer the question, erm, no it doesn't make sense. By which I mean it is a logically fallacious combination of special pleading, non sequiturs, argument from ignorance and circular reasoning. Does it make sense in some emotional or perhaps personal sense? Doubtlessly it does. But I'd hope you are smart enough to see through it.
You seem to be implying, Skeptic, that if someone came up with a series of ideas that fitted your preconceptions/prejudices better than your current religion does that you'd switch. Even if this switch isn't a possibility, do you realise the very shaky ground you have placed yourself on. Do you realise that asking for a negative to be proven is not the same, and does not in any way equate, to asking for positive evidence supporting a proposition?
Do you understand, for example that atheism is not the position that there is no god(s) (although there are subsets of atheism that believe this, and I excoriate them for the same reasons I excoriate you) it is the position that there is no evidence for god(s) and thus belief in such a concept is unsupported. Do you understand why your answer fails to address the questions I asked? (Except in the sense that you have once again abundantly demonstrated your inability to think outside of your faith)
Louis |
Again you misunderstand me. Go back to your original question, #2.
A theist learns that there is no God. How does he react?
(am I right so far?)
There are only two reasons I can see this happening, please point out more cases if you see them.
1) the theist decides that there is no more reason to believe then not believe and changes his mind. There's no real rational reason to discuss this scenario as it just relies upon a switching of faith.
2) the theist is presented with evidence that God (or even a specific deity), in fact, does not exist. This case REQUIRES the theist to reassess his faith and all areas of his life affected and influenced by this faith. I answered the question with this scenario in mind.
As far as the "shaky" ground I've placed myself on, you might want to rethink that claim. Try replacing "series of ideas" with "evidence" and you'll see that that is exactly how a rational person should react. Also, in the case of converting a theist, your positive evidence supporting a proposition is proving the negative. At initial conditions, the theist doesn't have to prove to himself that God exists, he already believes it. To alter this belief would require some kind evidence to the contrary. This is the exact opposite of the atheist who requires positive evidence for the existence. You want a theist to honestly answer that question then you must assume that God has been disproven. If you see another scenario, please supply it, I do not.
So before you settle in you mode of inflammatory labels and rude rhetoric you might want to actually read the answer and accept the opinion rather than rejecting it out of hand because you reject the initial premise.
As far as "thinking outside my faith", this seems a meaningless insult. Please explain what you mean by this.
|
