Religion

Major Nikon

(36,915 posts)

17. That's really just where faith starts

Tue Jul 9, 2019, 09:51 AM

Jul 2019

If you define a god as some entity that exceeds the capabilities of humans, then I suspect most atheists would agree such an entity possibly if not probably exists or has existed in the universe. However, that's not the god in which faithers are referring. They are referring to a conveniently invisible interventionist creator god that prescribes a moral code for humans with the conveniently unverifiable promise of reward or punishment if that moral code is broken.

If you want to consider the question scientifically, it shouldn't be ignored faithers are making several claims here and while the first one is improbable each successive one which builds on the previous is exponentially less probable. Interestingly enough rather than call out those who are making absurdly incredible claims, Gleiser wants to single out those who are calling bullshit.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

57 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

"Atheism is inconsistent with science, says Dartmouth physicist Marcelo Gleiser " [View all] edhopper Jul 2019 OP

The hard atheism straw man is theists' go-to argument. Act_of_Reparation Jul 2019 #1

Then immediately followed by the assertion of rejection of faith is "faith" Major Nikon Jul 2019 #4

Yes, atheism is inconsistent with science. But so is the concept of religion. DetlefK Jul 2019 #2

Given the complete absence of any evidence for a God edhopper Jul 2019 #3

That's the difference between faith and knowledge. DetlefK Jul 2019 #7

Good point. edhopper Jul 2019 #15

"Shouldn't we ask whether God's existence is provable/disprovable at all?" Act_of_Reparation Jul 2019 #6

While at the sime time pre-supposing God's non-existence. DetlefK Jul 2019 #9

So, your argument is "I can't prove god exists because I don't know what god is"? Act_of_Reparation Jul 2019 #13

No, my argument is that we don't know whether the question even has an answer. DetlefK Jul 2019 #19

I could substitute "vampires" for "god" and using the same argument... Act_of_Reparation Jul 2019 #21

Actually you should first define your terms Major Nikon Jul 2019 #8

Define your terms!! SCantiGOP Jul 2019 #10

I have seen both definitions used in practice. DetlefK Jul 2019 #12

You can be both an agnostic and an atheist Major Nikon Jul 2019 #20

Any god worthy of the name Mariana Jul 2019 #22

Yes. Even the 1) Bible god hisself says we could and should look for proofs Bretton Garcia Jul 2019 #40

About that last part Lordquinton Jul 2019 #44

Because we are finite and can't prove him edhopper Jul 2019 #46

That depends on the definition of "proof". DetlefK Jul 2019 #48

If those things edhopper Jul 2019 #50

There is a difference between finite and infinite gods: DetlefK Jul 2019 #47

But? If an infinite god promises to deliver a billion pizzas at 10PM? Bretton Garcia Jul 2019 #49

Thor does indeed fly through the air on a chariot pulled by two goats. trotsky Jul 2019 #51

That fire-breathing dragon... NeoGreen Jul 2019 #52

Nothing is absolutely certain in an Infinitely complex universe. Bretton Garcia Jul 2019 #54

Well of course. trotsky Jul 2019 #56

Yeah. Bretton Garcia Jul 2019 #57

Numbers are infinite. Voltaire2 Jul 2019 #53

In which case ... Bretton Garcia Jul 2019 #55

That's where the faith part comes in? Zambero Jul 2019 #5

That's really just where faith starts Major Nikon Jul 2019 #17

How do you have a belief in disbelief? Thomas Hurt Jul 2019 #11

you don't edhopper Jul 2019 #16

True. guillaumeb Jul 2019 #25

Because it's not a belief edhopper Jul 2019 #34

I accept that this is your view. guillaumeb Jul 2019 #35

Yes we know you insist on defining atheism for atheists. trotsky Jul 2019 #36

No, I insist on defining what it is. guillaumeb Jul 2019 #37

You seem to have fallen into a neverending Arguement Sketch... NeoGreen Jul 2019 #38

Pretty much. trotsky Jul 2019 #39

The best part is he defines himself as both a deist and a theist Major Nikon Jul 2019 #41

'god' is the proffered hypothesis... NeoGreen Jul 2019 #14

Yes edhopper Jul 2019 #18

only need to disprove them to the extent.. uriel1972 Jul 2019 #23

True. guillaumeb Jul 2019 #24

Why is God unprovable? edhopper Jul 2019 #27

Ask God. guillaumeb Jul 2019 #28

If I could ask God something edhopper Jul 2019 #29

One might be able to ask, in a sense, guillaumeb Jul 2019 #30

The unclear edhopper Jul 2019 #31

How convenient. A one-time answer in the form of a human before the first camera was invented. AtheistCrusader Jul 2019 #33

Substitute purple people eater for god and the circular logic works the same Major Nikon Jul 2019 #42

Only the one eyed, one horn, flying variety edhopper Jul 2019 #43

Such a boring argument in the abstract... Moostache Jul 2019 #26

Sure. And not believing in the fucking easter bunny is inconsistent with science. enki23 Jul 2019 #32

I get this feeling when theists try to talk science Lordquinton Jul 2019 #45