A strawman is a poor way to start a response. Nowhere have I claimed that “trust requires the shutting off of reason”. I do claim that FAITH requires the shutting off of reason. You appear to have deliberately replaced one word with another, thus distorting the meaning of my words.

Here is what I originally said: “Faith requires the shutting off of reason.” It was TWO posts above yours.

Of course, the reason for you doing this is obvious: the two have totally different philosophical and psychological meanings, a fact you clearly accept, otherwise you wouldn’t have felt the need to deliberately replace the words. So despite knowing the two words have different meanings in this discuss, you deliberately misrepresented me in order to make your case seem stronger. Interesting.

If you wish to disagree with this definition you are twisting the meaning of your own beliefs and religion. If you want “faith” to mean “trust” then you’re distorting the true religious meaning of the word. If all the evidence and reason pointed towards Christianity and god, the word ‘faith’ would be meaningless. Nobody has “faith” that the sun will rise tomorrow, we simply know it. Nobody has “faith” that the heart pumps blood, we know it because it’s a proven scientific fact. Nobody has “faith” that they exist; their very ability to even think on the issue establishes the fact. However, nobody “knows” that gods exists. There is not a single fact of existence that points towards god. In fact the fact of existence is positive proof that the supernatural (and god) is a meaningless expression. The very fact of existence makes virgin births, weeping statues, resurrection, talking donkeys, burning bushes, arks, worldwide floods, disembodied “souls”, angels and demons, impossible. Nobody “knows” the first thing about such imaginary events/creatures, they have “faith” in them. Which I think says it all.

Elika said: “Your really unquantified claim that atheism presupposes fewer unreasonable premises is quite entertaining.”

Another example of you twisting my words. Let’s look at what I actually said:

“Atheists aren’t necessarily more intelligent than theists, they just believe in one fewer irrational proposition”

I didn’t say anything about presupposing premises. I only claimed that atheists BELIEVE in ONE FEWER irrational propositions. Which is true. I am not defending atheists in general and don’t identify myself with the same “crowd” as Hitchens and co; the New Atheists, if you will. I disagree with all of them on the most fundamental philosophical issues. The only thing I have in common with them is atheism. But atheism isn’t a primary or a worldview. Atheism is a philosophical statement drawn from an epistimological primary: existence exists, which means the supernatural doesn’t. The justification of this can be found in other articles of mine.

Elika said: “There are many reasonable, (rational) justifications for a person to “believe” and especially to trust.”

I don’t disagree. There are many reasonable rational justifications for a person to believe and trust. What does this have to do with anything? Oh, I see, you’re switching words again. According to you then, “trusting” then I can cross the road if I see no cars in either direction is the same as “trusting” that god sent a flood to murder every single living thing on the planet because “man is evil”, and then afterward promises never to do it again because…”man is evil.”

Elika said: “Now, perhaps you meant “belief in God”?”

There is no ‘perhaps’ about it. That is clearly what I meant, and you know it. But you spent 90% of your reply twisting words and only addressed what I actually meant at the very end.

Elika said: “Either way, both claims are evidently incorrect.”

Well one of those claims is one I never made; you just made up something and pretended I said it.

As for the other, that “faith is irrational”, it is not “evidently” incorrect, as you have no evidence that faith is reliable. But if you had proof for any of the supernatural propositions you hold, you wouldn’t need faith, you would just say “Hey I know God exists, and here is the proof”. And if you did that you would become the most famous person in human history.

But of course, you can’t. Not just because there is no evidence for god, but because the facts of existence preclude the supernatural.

If I appear curt, it’s because I don’t take kindly to being misquoted and misrepresented. If you wish to continue this discussion I suggest you read my comments more carefully and argue what I actually said, not what you think or would like me to have said. Doing otherwise raises questions over your integrity.

Elika’s Response:
———————–
Okay dude. I thought we were past this? How is that you claim that “Trust requires the shutting off of reason”?

I use the term “Trust” here, because there is no such thing as “Blind Faith” in Scripture. But regardless of how you choose to define faith, (as belief or as trust), Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.

Your really unquantified claim that atheism presupposes fewer unreasonable premises is quite entertaining.

There are many reasonable, (rational) justifications for a person to “believe” and especially to trust.

Now, perhaps you meant “belief in God”? It would be nice to figure out what you are talking about. Either way, both claims are evidently incorrect. I just want to know which you are talking about.

http://www.kohen.com/2008/06/christopher-hitchens-answered.html

Although, I dont really see the point in anybody debating the existence of god.. Paticularly with Hitch or Dawkins. They (believers) only come out of it looking ignorant and naive.

But as Hitchens says, the best part of being an atheist, is getting to argue.

Well yeah, you should read that sentence again

Would it be fair to say that you believe that sensory experience and reason are the basis for existence? If so, would that mean that atoms had not existed before they were discovered?

No. Sensory experience is an epistemological axiom not a metaphysical primary – the metaphysical primary is existence; existence exists. Everything is subject to existence, including consciousness, which means that existence exists independent of consciousness.

Man had no knowledge of atoms before he was capable of knowing through experience, but atoms existed all along.

If i say that I believe that there are blue men that live on Pluto, then would it be possible for them to exist according to your philosophy?

If you’d understood what I’d said so far, you wouldn’t ask that question. Consciousness describes reality, it does not affect it. Reality cannot be affected by our thoughts, hopes, desires, or emotions. (Incidentally, that is why the Objectivist ethics recommends action based on reason, never emotion. To act on emotion is to reverse the order of cause and effect; it is trying to change the universe to your whim).

Of course, in a religious worldview, consciousness has primacy over existence. To the religious, the idea of reality changing to suit our demands (or God’s) is accepted. Unfortunately, this contradicts any epistemological basis for reason, so faith must be used. It renders man’s mind impotent and useless at knowing anything or reaching any conclusion. It turns man into a thoughtful automaton that must obey “god” based on “faith”. But how does man “know” that god exists? Blank out. How does man “know” that what he’s being told is in fact “right”? Blank out. How does man “know” that his faith in one thing is accurate whilst faith in another thing is not? Blank out.

How does the religious man “know” these things? He feels they are right; once again we see the attempt to translate emotion into reality. He “feels” God’s presence; he “just knows” his faith is true whilst everyone else’s faith is wrong. This is the cause of a Primacy of Consciousness worldview: emotionalism; the effect: self-destruction. Emotionalism is the placing of one’s feelings (regardless of rationality or source) over reality itself. Nothing is more deadly to man. Why? Because existence exists, whether we want it to or not.

Emotions react to existence, not the other way around. A PoC worldview is fundamentally false, therefore god cannot exist.

If i say that I believe that there are blue men that live on Pluto, then would it be possible for them to exist according to your philosophy?

Please explain how the supernatural cannot exist. Aren’t there many things that cannot be perceived by man’s senses? Why do you say that God is like a square circle.

You are still hanging onto the idea that god’s existence is a matter of empirical detection; as if someday we can learn for certain whether he exists or not via sense experience. But we have already established that even if god exists, he is not open to the possiblity of human knowledge. However, we will now go on to see that proof of god is irrelevant, because he actually CANNOT exist:

Ultimately, everything knowable is transformed into knowledge via our senses and a process of reason. Whilst we cannot see atoms, we can study their structure with electron microscopes which communicate data via the senses. If we do not study atoms ourselves, we can read about science in books or hear lectures – which is sense experience. The denial of sense experience is the denial of knowledge, which is why, axiomatically, sense experience is taken as valid.

The supernatural is a fantasy term used to sum of all sort of magical beings that cannot properly exist in “our” universe, (as if there were more than one). But existence exists, and ONLY existence exists. If a being exists, it is part of existence; it is part of the universe – the totality of existence. And if a being exists, it is that being (itself) and acts according to its nature. Cause and effect is a property of identity; all existents behave according to their nature and the result is effect. This cannot be denied without denying the nature of existence. Now, a supernatural being is one that contradicts this rule and the law of identity. To take one example: ghosts. This is a non-physical immaterial being that can: see, hear, speak, move, etc. This is a laughable flouting of reality: to see without eyes or the impact of light waves, to hear without ears and the affect of soundwaves. To speak, without vocal cords or the ability to transform air into noise. Etc etc.

To take another example: god. God is a being that is supposedly outside of existence (in other words, it is non-existent), that can violate the law of existence at whim. He can make a pear an apple, or a planet a ball-bearing, at will. But miracles are, as David Hume quite rightly said, a violation of the very principles of sense experience. Our knowledge rests on the axioms that existence exists, and that we can experience it. If existence exists, then miracles are impossible, and any being that can contradict reality is impossible. If we presuppose that existence exists (which we must), EVERYTHING is subject to existence and the law of identity, including god. Which means god cannot have any sort of power to violate this law. (And this is without even getting into the contradictions inherent in god’s personality and nature!)

Square circles cannot exist, because squares and circles are defined in such a way as to be mutually exclusive. What you are witnessing here is the law of identity at work. “God” and “existence” are mutually exclusive. They are both defined in such ways as to be mutually exclusive. You would have to significantly modify your definition of god to make it possible to exist, in which case it would not be your god anymore. We know that existence exists. Therefore god doesn’t.

If a supernatural being were able to reveal certain aspects of it’s identity, then would it exist?

I have more questions, but i will wait on those so you don’t get a typing cramp

As far as truth is concerned, Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life”. I hope the scripture quotations don’t offend you. Feel free to throw in some Rand.

BTW, it wasn’t me calling you foolish. It was King David of Israel in Psalm 14:1

I’m aware of the verse. Time was, I could look up any verse in the bible in 10 seconds

i don’t think you are being harsh, you are just not applying the same standard to your own ideology that you are to mine. You claim that you can be 100% certain that my beliefs are wrong without having to prove it, but i have to prove that i’m right? That is a double standard.

I don’t have to prove that your beliefs are wrong. Proof presupposes that we have the capacity for reason, reason being the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. However, the supernatural is a contradiction of the axiom that existence exists and that existence is identity; that we can be sure that A = A. In other words, the supernatural is a denial of existence. If we CAN KNOW anything, we can know the supernatural cannot exist.

If you have no proof that means that we are in the same boat. You don’t have to believe in the existence of a Creator, but it is arrogant to claim that you are 100% certain that He is not there if you have no proof that He is not there.

Is it arrogant to believe that square circles don’t exist?

The difference between Objectivism and the usual empiricist atheists who deny god, is that I don’t have to give degrees of probability for the existence of god. I am not asking you to prove that god exists either – I know he doesn’t. The entire concept is antithetical to reason. The epistemological primary is existence, which means existence exists. IF god existed, It would be subject to this axiom, which means existence exists (including god) no matter what god wills or whims. Therefore, “god” cannot deny or change existence or identity; miracles are impossible; the supernatural is a contradiction. In fact, god’s entire personality is a contradiction (a being that should have no values of any kind, yet it does, but that’s another discussion).

So it’s not arrogance, and it’s not a question of proof. Proof presupposes logic and reason, which presupposes that existence is our epistemological primary. Metaphysically, philosophically, god cannot exist.

I am not one that thinks that if you don’t believe in God that you are evil. I know that there are good and bad people on both sides of the issue. I also know that both sides cannot be right. I hope that you are interested in knowing the truth and not in defending an ideology, because an idea that cannot stand up to scrutiny is not worth defending.

I am indeed interested in truth; truth being the conscious identification of fact. Since fact is knowledge derived by a process of reason using data from man’s senses, and man’s senses CAN NEVER identify the supernatural, knowledge or “truth” about god is a contradiction in terms.

But I totally agree that an idea that cannot stand up to scrutiny is not worth defending; unfortunately the concept of “god” fails at the first hurdle. If you have the same commitment to truth, I hope you stick around for a good discussion.

I am not one that thinks that if you don’t believe in God that you are evil. I know that there are good and bad people on both sides of the issue. I also know that both sides cannot be right. I hope that you are interested in knowing the truth and not in defending an ideology, because an idea that cannot stand up to scrutiny is not worth defending.

I will have to read up on Objectivism. I confess i do not know enough about that philosophy to even have a response.

You have zero proof for your beliefs which is what would be expected of figments of your imagination.

If you think I have been too harsh with my response, I’d remind you that you are calling atheists foolish and implying they have a burden of proof which is absurd. Anyway, I identify as an Objectivist primarily which makes me an atheist in principle and practice. This also means that I don’t agree with all atheists just because they’re atheists. Being an atheist says nothing about your personality, morality, or rationality.

If a grey goose flies overhead, it proves that there are grey geese. It does not prove that all geese are grey. This is why you foolish atheists have a burden of proof also, if you claim to know that there is no God.

You should be honest and just claim to be agnostic. if not then show me the proof for your “knowledge”. Ohhhhh, that’s right, you don’t have any.