Who's going to protect the Christians?

[Lockjaw]

 

It's a little bit like not knowing the entire makeup of Space, we don't need to know all the details of dark matter/energy etc to be able to say 'space exists' or not (and bear in mind to some people in the past 'space' as we know it didn't exist, some believed it was merely a ceiling over the earth etc).

 

The thing is, though, we know (now) that space exists so belief isn't required. I fully agree that it is possible to know that something exists without fully, or even slightly, understanding it. I know, for instance, that jazz music exists!

 

What I can't come to terms with, though, is how people can believe in something without "knowing" anything about what it is.

[PaliRichard]

The thing is, though, we know (now) that space exists so belief isn't required. I fully agree that it is possible to know that something exists without fully, or even slightly, understanding it. I know, for instance, that jazz music exists!

 

What I can't come to terms with, though, is how people can believe in something without "knowing" anything about what it is.

 

That is a puzzle - but as Dave says, and in my experience I think this too, people do have certain elements that make sense to them and give them that faith (and it is totally irrelevant as to whether, ultimately that thing, or God exists).

 

For example. If I were a Christian, and believed in God, and a tragedy happened in my life, and my belief in God comforted me, I could then argue that God had comforted me. As many Christians are taught that this is part of Gods attributes this could reinforce their view that 'God' existed.

 

This is part of the rather complex web of faith that is so often misunderstood by the Anti religious. It is somewhat irrelevant whether what you have faith in exists, if you can recognise and touch something you associate with that faith it is reinforcing.

 

This is entirely different to blind faith in which people just believe in something because they have been told it exists, something they have been indoctrinated into.

 

If I want a new fence (and I do) and go to Mr 'A' and he says 'I can build you a good fence' and I take his word for it that is blind faith.

 

If I go to Mr 'B' but have seen a fence he built for my Aunt Tilly and it looks sound then I can have genuine faith that he can build me a good fence - it may be rubbish and fall down, that is irrelevant, the faith I had in him was genuine based on 'evidence'.

 

Thus with God, if you believe because you have been told 'God exists' then that is blind faith.

 

If you believe because Aunt Tilly says God will comfort you and your faith comforts you in a time of trouble that can be percieved as evidence for God - whether or not God actually exists.

[MrSmith]

Which is why people need to know which definition of 'God' they're using when they come to deciding whether they are atheist or not.

To be an atheist you have to lack belief in all gods.

 

 

If for example, they're talking about the Christian God as per the subject of this thread- if they have no belief in that God, then they are atheist about it.

No that means you don’t believe in that God but may well believe in another God making you a theist, not an atheist.

 

 

What about the issue of people having different ideas about what the Christian God is?

 

Precisely even the people that believe in the same God can’t agree on what it is or can do.

 

No problem, as the Christian God has certain attributes by definition- for example, being the creator of the universe. If someone has an idea of a God, and that idea does not include the fact that it's the creator of the universe, then clearly, it's not the Christian God.

Atheism isn’t the disbelief in the Christian God.

 

This means that anyone who does not have a belief that the universe was created by the God in question, must therefore be an atheist (when it comes to the Christian God).

No it doesn’t because it isn't claimed that all god created the universe.

 

They don't need to know every single characteristic of the God in question, to be atheist about that God.

Atheism is the lack of belief in all God, lacking belief in one God does not make you an atheist.

[janie48]

That is a puzzle - but as Dave says, and in my experience I think this too, people do have certain elements that make sense to them and give them that faith (and it is totally irrelevant as to whether, ultimately that thing, or God exists).

 

For example. If I were a Christian, and believed in God, and a tragedy happened in my life, and my belief in God comforted me, I could then argue that God had comforted me. As many Christians are taught that this is part of Gods attributes this could reinforce their view that 'God' existed.

 

This is part of the rather complex web of faith that is so often misunderstood by the Anti religious. It is somewhat irrelevant whether what you have faith in exists, if you can recognise and touch something you associate with that faith it is reinforcing.

 

This is entirely different to blind faith in which people just believe in something because they have been told it exists, something they have been indoctrinated into.

 

If I want a new fence (and I do) and go to Mr 'A' and he says 'I can build you a good fence' and I take his word for it that is blind faith.

 

If I go to Mr 'B' but have seen a fence he built for my Aunt Tilly and it looks sound then I can have genuine faith that he can build me a good fence - it may be rubbish and fall down, that is irrelevant, the faith I had in him was genuine based on 'evidence'.

 

Thus with God, if you believe because you have been told 'God exists' then that is blind faith.

 

If you believe because Aunt Tilly says God will comfort you and your faith comforts you in a time of trouble that can be percieved as evidence for God - whether or not God actually exists.

Believers don't think it is just they who are comforted in grief.

[Tallisman]

There is one religion that all other religions need protecting from. It is a vile religion.

[janie48]

There is one religion that all other religions need protecting from. It is a vile religion.

There are good and bad people in all religions,and among the non-religious too.

[PaliRichard]

Believers don't think it is just they who are comforted in grief.

 

I know they don't, but that's irrelevant to the point of individual faith which is what we're talking about.

 

Also I wasn't picking on Christianity, I could have used many examples from any religion, I just chose that one as we're talking specifically about Christianity and it is something often cited by anti Theists as a reason for 'blind faith'.

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2013 at 19:42 ----------

 

BTW Lockjaw my space example was crap - sorry

 

My point was to try and point out that ignosticism is technically a non-position as all religions can cite some attribute that they claim is representitive of their God. You can either agree or disagree with that position as representing God but you don't need to say that you need to know all the 'facts' about God before make a decision as to whether you believe in him or not.

[Ryedo40]

I can't be an atheist because I can’t lack a belief in something[God] without first knowing what the something is[God].

 

If you are ignorant of something then you will have an absence of a belief. So I don't agree with you here.

 

I think you'd still be an atheist. After all, if you are not theist, you are an atheist(meaning: not theist: someone who has an absence of belief in god or gods).

[Lockjaw]

 

BTW Lockjaw my space example was crap - sorry

 

 

I didn't think so - it made your point pretty clearly to me.

 

Regarding the comfort thing, yeah, of course & I bear no ill will towards those finding comfort from their faith.

 

My personal feeling on that, though, is that it is rather sad. It is a shame we've evolved so far and yet still have to make up imaginary gods in order to make us feel better about our position in the great scheme of things. I really do believe quite firmly that it is our way of over-riding the survival instinct.

 

Funnily enough, it was the comfort thing which finally convinced me, after a school-life-time of attempted indoctrination, that I didn't believe in any Gods. I was at the funeral of my paternal Grandma which was about 5 years after the funeral of my Grandad. Same church, same clergyman, SAME WORDS. OK, altered a little bit for the gender difference but apart from that it was identical. Suddenly I was ripped from my eternal admiration of the architecture which is always manifest in even the lowliest of churches and I thought: This is all a bunch of gonads isn't it? The whole charade is being played out purely to comfort those there.

 

Since then I've had my fair share of loss and have managed to find comfort each time without needing any magic beings. To be honest, since that day I've found myself more able to talk to others about loss having been freed from the shackles of mumbo jumbo.

 

All just my opinion, of course.

[MrSmith]

If you are ignorant of something then you will have an absence of a belief. So I don't agree with you here.

 

I think you'd still be an atheist. After all, if you are not theist, you are an atheist(meaning: not theist: someone who has an absence of belief in god or gods).

 

The problem I have with that is I might have a belief in it but know it as something other than God, so until someone can accurately describe God I can't know that I lack a belief in it.

 

If I had never heard of a table, I wouldn't lack a belief it because I have seen one and touched one but didn’t know what it was called.