All gods require faith--not one of them ever shows themselve.

[ParkingPlaces]

I've asked theists here many times why a real god would demand faith, in exactly the way a false religion, because it had no actual gods, would also demand faith.

No responses so far.

Gee, I wonder why?

I don't know any person of faith who wouldn't happily answer that for you,

I can't speak for others, but I'd say that when you acknowledge faith in something, you acknowledge that you can't prove it, that you chose to believe and commit to that belief to some extent. which is an honest position for any stance on the 'ultimate question' isn't it?

Let me ask you, do you acknowledge that you can't prove your beliefs? i.e. that what you have is faith? if not THAT is the false religion, i.e. one that does not acknowledge faith but asserts inherent intellectual superiority over others' beliefs, which I think is where the problems begin for any belief/religion?

Lets see. You are misreading the question, apparently. The OP didn't ask, nor did I, why you believe. The question is this: why does your "true" god (most theists say that the other gods are all false; that only their own is a true god) demand faith exactly the way all the fake gods demand faith? I understand why the fake ones do, but why would a real god be dependent on such a silly concept.

If your god is real, he is a copycat, because there were many gods before him in the history books and he choose to do exactly the same thing as the others, even though said others were obviously (to both you and me) false.

If your god is not real, then the faith thingy is understandable. Because that is all a religion with no god can use to explain his apparent lack of noticeable interaction with reality.

And I should note that with other responses in this thread you wrote after this one, you are more or less continuing the conversation you had here, before going to work, in a different thread. As you can imagine, those of us with no brains and the inability to see the obvious get real confused when we have to talk about the same thing in two different places. You would be humoring us by returning to the earlier thread and continuing in that vein there. You can certainly continue here as well, but they are two separate threads.

Edit: comma'ed things for clarification

[Guybrush Threepwood]

It's a parody of Nogods post, the assumptions were his. I'm open to more than one interpretation of God, as I'd guess you are open to more than one atheistic mechanism?

Define "atheistic mechanism". I assume it's the same as "logical mechanism", but I want confirmation.
As for you being open to more than one interpretation of god[1], I find that hard to believe.

1.	Lower case "g", by the way. Unless you're referring to Allah; the only god whose name is actually "God".

Hmmm let's see...a mechanism for the origins of the universe which explicitly purports to make creative intelligence redundant? e.g. static/eternal model, big crunch, M theory, Multiverse, some other cyclical models etc

also to be found in the same set as 'disproven wherever testable' theories I think?

My money would be on something closest to the Christian God if I had to pick, but pretty much any two random people in the same church will differ and have wiggle room on details, as atheists will on their hypothetical mechanisms, because we're all guessing here, and I think we're all smart enough to offer something to think about, but dumb enough to waste a beautiful summer afternoon on a computer!! what am I doing-  they're right this is addictive!    Good weekend to all!-

[One Above All]

Hmmm let's see...a mechanism for the origins of the universe which explicitly purports to make creative intelligence redundant? e.g. static/eternal model, big crunch, M theory, Multiverse, some other cyclical models etc

And what mechanisms would you consider to be "atheistic mechanisms"? I only ask because scientific theories couldn't care less about the existence of deities. It's you theists who see everything as being against your religion.

also to be found in the same set as 'disproven wherever testable' theories I think?

No clue what this means.

My money would be on something closest to the Christian God if I had to pick,

Because that's what you were raised to believe. You have no evidence, and you know it. While you're at it, why not worship any of the thousands of gods that other people believed in? Might as well, since you're so keen on Pascal's Wager.

but pretty much any two random people in the same church will differ and have wiggle room on details, as atheists will on their hypothetical mechanisms, because we're all guessing here,

Wrong, Mr. Genius. Now, I'm assuming that by "atheists" you mean "scientists", since atheists don't guess anything about science. As for scientists, they don't guess either. They make models based on observable evidence and test their models, by making predictions based on said models. Theists are the ones who guess.

[jdawg70]

Hmmm let's see...a mechanism for the origins of the universe which explicitly purports to make creative intelligence redundant? e.g. static/eternal model, big crunch, M theory, Multiverse, some other cyclical models etc

So a couple of things:
a) Stop bringing up the static/eternal model; we've got a lot more data nowadays and I don't know of anyone who considers that a viable model for explaining reality today.
b) In what manner do any of these hypotheses you bring up explicitly seek out to make creative intelligence redundant?  I do not understand that.  Is it because these hypotheses do not explicitly require creative intelligence or something?

My money would be on something closest to the Christian God if I had to pick

Do you happen to have any particular reasons for this or are you just picking something out of a hat?

[ParkingPlaces]

Hmmm let's see...a mechanism for the origins of the universe which explicitly purports to make creative intelligence redundant? e.g. static/eternal model, big crunch, M theory, Multiverse, some other cyclical models etc

So a couple of things:
a) Stop bringing up the static/eternal model; we've got a lot more data nowadays and I don't know of anyone who considers that a viable model for explaining reality today.

Guy is apparently trying to equate old science with the notion that all scientist a few hundred years ago were hell bent on disproving god so they came up with a bunch of stuff that today we know was obviously wrong, and he's  insisting that we still slavishly follow old texts.

And he is assuming that we atheists still adhere to the old ways, and that is apparently the "mechanism" he is so excited about.So here he is, making stuff up as he accuses us of adhering to made up stuff.

Hmmm, following made up stuff, believing old texts... why does that sound familiar? Could this be the most blatant case of the pot calling the kettle black in all of human history?

[nogodsforme]

Is this Guybrush character actually making fun of science and dissing the scientific method while using computer technology invented by applying the scientific method? Yes, yes he is. He was not the first to do this,  and he will not be the last. Sigh.

The scientific method has nothing to do with atheism or religious belief.  Chemistry and biology experiments don't vary depending on the religion or lack thereof of the people doing the experiments. Science will consistently give the same answer no matter what you believe in.

This the point in the discussion where I bring up the obvious point that science is about what works in application, not what people wish or hope would work. Religions based on invisible supernatural beings have to make all kinds of excuses for their gods, because their stuff does not work.

Let me say it again: if religions worked as people say they do, we would never have needed science. We would have just prayed to whatever god, god would fix the problem or not, and that would have been that. Of course, for many thousands of years, that is exactly what people were stuck doing. The past ten thousand years have been a controlled study of applying belief in religion to human problems like the earthquakes and volcanoes, how to communicate and travel reliably and quickly, how to cure leprosy and smallpox, what causes mental illness. And the problems stubbornly remained incomprehensible.

Until we figured out a way to systematically figure out what worked, what didn't, and to separate the two. We figured out what made sense, what reflected reality and what didn't. Now we know what causes earthquakes and we can build to account for them; we can tell when different kinds volcanoes will erupt and evacuate people. 

After we stopped begging the invisible gods to save our babies from smallpox and started vaccinating them--haven't heard much about smallpox recently have you? Instead of praying to gods to keep from getting cholera and typhoid, we wash our hands and devise sewer systems that keep the water clean. Amazing how many fewer people die of these things in places that apply science, compared to how many die in places where people are still depending on the whim of the invisible gods.

Now that religion has show itself to be utterly worthless in explaining everyday illnesses and natural hazards, the religious folks have retreated to the questions that scientists can't yet answer: theoretical physics and the origins of the universe. Because believing in gods always gave the correct answers before--why would anyone think that those stupid scientists will figure out the other things we don't yet know?

[DumpsterFire]

Once again, I'm saying that if you DO believe something without proof, be it God or the multiverse, it is meritorious to acknowledge that belief rather than claim supreme knowledge superior to everyone elses

If any atheist participating in this thread has expressed support for a specific first-cause of the universe kindly point it out, please. Because there is zero tangible evidence for the existence of gods (as you have admitted yourself), there is no logical reason to believe in any. Neither is there a reason to believe in anything, including other unproven theories about the origins of the universe, for which there is no evidence. My position (and I think most atheists agree) regarding first-cause is that we simply do not know how it happened, and likely never will. Please stop being so presumptuous.

I do not believe in any spontaneous purposeless universe creating mechanism,. I see no evidence of their existence so I do not believe in them. theism, is just that - lack of belief in those mechanisms.

If there is the same lack of evidence for your "spontaneous universe mechanism" as there is for gods, why believe in any of it?

[The Gawd]

so basically this boils down to "something from nothing" and "pascal"

I'm going to draft up a template answer for the common already addressed arguments so I can just copy and paste once the argument is diagnosed.

[Star Stuff]

"Only lies require faith"

[stuffin]

My money would be on something closest to the Christian God if I had to pick,

Hmmmm, a wagering Christian.....

I can't put my finger on it but something smells fishy...

 

[jaimehlers]

it is 'meritorious' to acknowledge your personal faith, that you have no proof for that belief. that's what I'm asking you re. your belief in atheism- however strong it may be, I suppose it's a sliding scale , I'd consider myself about 85% leaning towards God- how about you? I have no problem with alternative theories, alternatives are always needed to compare, I just don't consider them very plausible

You seem to be laboring under a misapprehension here.  Atheism is not a belief system.  It is simply a statement that a person does not believe in deities.  Usually, it means that one has concluded, from the dearth of evidence, that the likelihood of deities is so small that there is no point acting as if they exist.  In other words, you can't make any judgment about what an atheist believes from the fact that they're an atheist except that they do not believe in deities.

So, naturally, atheists have no proof that gods don't exist, just as I don't have any proof that we won't find aliens at Alpha Centauri.  So, they don't believe in gods, just as I don't think that there are aliens at Alpha Centauri.  But nobody looks at me askance for that lack of 'belief'.  The difference, I suppose, is that a lot of people do believe that gods exist.  But then we stray into the "fallacy of the majority" - just because a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true[1].  In short, it takes more than just belief to prove something true.

1.	see the common European belief that the world was flat, until Columbus proved them wrong

[Azdgari]

^^ Guybrush, in case it helps - atheists have belief systems.  These belief systems just aren't called "atheism".  Similarly, your belief system is not simply called "theism".  Neither label says much about one's belief system.

[screwtape]

I'd agree, and I think that every person of faith I know would also that blind faith is irrational.

That is my experience as well.  Then they go on to describe their faith in exactly the same way anyone would describe blind faith.  It is amazing how the brain works.

I don't know a single 'theist' who has nothing else to back up their belief with.

That's interesting.  I don't know a single one who has any evidence at all with which to back up their belief.  A few have arguments.  But arguments are not evidence. 

Why put theist in quotes?

Likewise you have faith in your wife based on observation as I have faith in God based on observation.

No.  This is what I have a problem with.  This sort of conflation.  They are not equivalent.  You are playing with words to try to say we are the same.  We're not.  In my example I directly observe a person and her behaviors and actions.  You directly obeserve...what?  A god?  If so, you would be a novelty. 

I have no more proof he exists than you do that your wife won't file for divorce tomorrow and take half your stuff with her!- it happens a lot!.

No.  You have less.  Filing for divorce tomorrow would have evidence.  She would have had to make preparations - have an attorney, a place to move to, possibly move money out of our joint account.  That there is no money trail, no unaccounted time, no change in behavior, indicates this will not happen tomorrow.  Absence of evidence really is evidence of absence, Donald Rumsfeld not withstanding.

The God - if we are talking about the conventional conception of the Abrahamic god - leaves no evidence, by definition.  If you anticipate your belief to not have an impact on reality, your belief is an irrelevant one.  If I were to believe an invisible, weightless gnome sat on my shoulder all the time, what would be the point?  He does nothing, changes no outcome of any situation.  Thus, he, like your god, is for all intents and purposes not a part of reality.

But we all committed to those marriages at some point on the same faith as you yes?

No.  I have already explained how your religious faith is not comparable to other kinds of faith.  In fact, I'd prefer not even use the word.  It is ambiguous and tends to be abused by the religious.  You people tend to subtly shift the meaning and context, intentionally or not, as you have done above.  It would be more above board - and better communication - to say exactly what you mean.

I think the vast majority of us just want to know the truth don't you?

No, I do not think the vast majority wants to know the truth.  I think the vast majority wants the beliefs they already have to be true.  That fact is the whole basis of apologetics.  Begin with the desired conclusion, and then work backward to the starting point.   

but I appreciate you acknowledging atheism is a belief!

I did no such thing.  It's not.  It is a rejection of a claim.  Your faux cheerful and cordial response is pretense covering up your childish attempt to put words in my mouth.  I find few things more disrespectful than that.



And learn to use the quote feature.