CharlieHebdo

Ludovico

@bondjames-You are not an agnostic. Or rather, agnosticism is not a position on belief, it is a position on knowledge: atheism (or theism, for that matter) are agnosticism are not mutually exclusive: you can be an agnostic theist (you do not claim knowledge but believe in God) or an agnostic atheist (you do not claim knowledge on the question but disbelief). Technically, we are all agnostics, even the Pope, because nobody has decisive knowledge of the existence or the inexistence of God. If someone had proof of God (not personal experience, I mean verifiable proof), we would know about it. But if you don't know if a God exists and do not believe in one (let alone worship), then you are an atheist, however "soft" your atheism may be.

This cartoon from Tracie Harris explains it very well: http://www.atheist-community.org/atheisteve/?id=33

Will_Once

Sorry, but I can't agree with that. None of us can get inside each other's heads and appreciate what we do and do not know. No-one apart from the Pope can appreciate what the Pope knows, just as no-one apart from me can say what I know.

Decisive verifiable proof is a red herring. None of us can prove that we aren't disembodied brains in a tank. So nothing can ever be proved 100% because there is always the possibility that our experiences, and all of our evidence, might not be real.

You could just as easily argue that all of us are believers because none of us can prove with 100% certainty that god does not exist.

I am an atheist, but this line of argument is going much too far.

Ludovico

But that's solipsism and that's pretty pointless. You do not need to prove a negative. The burden of proof remains in the one doing the positive assertion.

Will_Once

No, you need to prove an assertion whether it is positive or negative. I could claim that ... oh, let's make one up ... I could claim that America doesn't exist. That's a negative, so according to your definition I don't need to prove it.

Right, now it's over to you. If you think that America exists, the burden of proof lies with you because you are the one making the positive assertion. I can now sit back and leave it up to you to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that America exists. I don't have to argue anything.

See the point? It's a false logic.

Every now and again people on either side of the God debate come up with some smart-arse logical explanation about why God either must exist or can't possibly exist. Everyone has tried it from Thomas Aquinas to Dawkins. And smart-arse explanations usually end up being exactly that - smart-arse explanations. They carry next to no weight because they usually rely on some false logic.

bondjames

@Ludovico, I think I am agnostic, based on this definition:
"a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

I cannot personally put my 'faith' in the unproven. I expect evidence. That's just me. Having said that, I do believe there is more out there than we know and can see, touch, feel etc. We only have 5 senses. That doesn't mean there isn't something out there that is beyond those senses, whatever it may be. So I'm open to learning more in my lifetime through science.

What I personally cannot do is hold steadfastly to some belief for which there is no evidence, and for which more than half of the world's population does not agree, or has their own version of it. That to me is a convenient man made parable until proven otherwise. Sure, people believe in it, but people thought the world was flat too until someone showed them otherwise. Strength in numbers does not make something true - does not necessarily give it credence.......

So as I said, I'm open to suggestion. Open to changing my mind. However, the argument must be persuasive. It does not need to be conclusive mind you. Just persuasive. I have not heard anything in this thread to date that is persuasive for the existence of god.

I know a lot of people who have become believers due to something that touched them personally which they attribute to god. However, from my perspective, it could just as easily have been random chance. That is not evidence. That is not conclusive or even persuasive.

It's interesting that some will abuse you for doubting them, some will walk away from discussing it after bringing it up, because they can't argue it logically (despite their strong belief in it) and some will just not engage in a discussion at all. I can never do that on any subject. If I am to believe something strongly, I need it to meet my internal requirements for logical consistency and evidential conclusiveness - and I should be able to substantiate my belief or argument properly. Otherwise, I could be subject to delusion, which is something I try very hard to avoid. That's just me though. To each their own. I'm not here to judge......just to discuss openly.

Ludovico

Will_Once wrote: »

No, you need to prove an assertion whether it is positive or negative. I could claim that ... oh, let's make one up ... I could claim that America doesn't exist. That's a negative, so according to your definition I don't need to prove it.

Right, now it's over to you. If you think that America exists, the burden of proof lies with you because you are the one making the positive assertion. I can now sit back and leave it up to you to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that America exists. I don't have to argue anything.

See the point? It's a false logic.

Every now and again people on either side of the God debate come up with some smart-arse logical explanation about why God either must exist or can't possibly exist. Everyone has tried it from Thomas Aquinas to Dawkins. And smart-arse explanations usually end up being exactly that - smart-arse explanations. They carry next to no weight because they usually rely on some false logic.

Absolutely and completely false. There is by the way overwhelming evidence that America exists. It has already been discovered a long time ago, by the way. If I was telling you that I have killed a few people and buried them in my back garden, you would not believe me out of hand. The burden of proof would be on me (or anyone suspecting me of being a serial killer), to prove that the claim is true. The default position on any claim, especially an extraordinary one, is skepticism towards it until evidence are brought to make you think the contrary. Atheism is the default position to the God claim.

And I do not say that God does not exist for complete and utter certainty and that my opinion is unchangeable on the matter. I am saying, like actually most atheists, that we have no evidence for its existence, for one, therefore I do not believe he does, and furthermore that God's existence, while not completely impossible, is implausible. Atheism is the default position. I am very happy to change my view on the matter if someone brings me evidence on the contrary. This is even the case of Dawkins: he himself said that God is not completely impossible.

@bondjames-You are describing yourself as an atheist, whether you like the label or not (I have no problem with it). If you say there may be hypothetically a god but do not know, thus do not believe (and you said yourself you reject belief unless there is sufficient evidence for it), then you are an atheist. An agnostic can be an atheist, as agnosticism is a stand on knowledge (or the lack of), but he can also be a theist (believing in God while not claiming he has special knowledge).

Will_Once

You haven't offered any evidence for the existence of America. You say that there is overwhelming evidence, so where is it? Remember, according to your logic, the burden of proof is with the person making the positive assertion. You are making the positive assertion that America exists. And you haven't proved it.

The reason is simple. There is absolutely no reason why the burden of proof has to lie with the positive assertion. It's a logical fallacy.

You say that there is no evidence for existence of God. Except that is demonstrably not true. People of faith regularly produce evidence. They point to things like miracles. The fact that nearly every human civilization has had some for of God, independently arrived at. The fact that, until recently (arguably), more people believed in a God that didn't.

You might dispute these claims for evidence, but you can't deny that these claims exist. So it is silly talk to say that there is no evidence. It might be more accurate to talk about insufficient evidence or unclear evidence.

So the conclusion that atheism is the default position is just wrong. It is an attempt to win the argument outright based on flawed logic. I have seen the same sort of argument used by people of faith to prove that there must be a god. And their arguments are just as weak and insubstantial.

Go into any bookstore. Alongside Dawkin's "God Delusion" you will find several books arguing for the existence of God and why (in their opinion) Dawkins is wrong. Just as Dawkins produces his "evidence", so they too produce theirs.

Read both sides of the argument. Weigh up both sets of evidence. Decide for yourself. But please drop this line of argument that we are all atheists and there is no evidence. Because that argument is based on several logical holes and will not convince anyone.

I am an atheist. I would like more people to be atheists. But we are not going to convince them with an argument as weak as this.

Ludovico

Actually, there is a reason why the burden of proof reside in the person making the positive assessment: because if it was not the case, any claim would be held as true, no matter how contradictory to other claims or unsustainable they may be. If I claim the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, or the flying teapot between March and Earth, then if you accept these claims as true, or even reasonable, you think any person being skeptical about these claims have the burden of proof? A claim is sustainable regarding the amount and quality of evidence. I do NOT need to prove the existence of America: its existence has been established before beyond the shadow of a doubt. Heck, Amerigo Vespucci did it a couple of centuries ago. And let's not forget that the existence of America and of God are not even remotely the same claim.

Claims is no evidence, personal revelation is also no evidence. Believers have given absolutely no evidence of God's existence. Arguing that belief in God and the amount of believers is evidence of God is circular argument and argument to popularity... and pointless to assert the validity of a claim. "I believe in Zeus, so does my fellow Greeks, ergo, Zeus must exist, I mean, if he didn't, why would we believe in him?"

And, by the way, you are making the logical fallacy by shifting the burden of proof: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Shifting_the_burden_of_proof

patb

The "you can't prove there is no God" argument is as old as the hills and, IMHO, not even worth replying to. However, it is an indication that anyone using that argument has not really made any great effort in working things out for themselves. Its just common sense and does not require any flying teapots.
PS anyone feel free to start a thread on why Unicorns, flying pigs, lucky heather, ghosts, mind readers, time travelers , talking rats, spiders on Mars, UFO visits exist because you can't prove they don't so clearly , believers deserve to be respected.

bondjames

So much for 'freedom of speech and expression' with the US and UK's 2nd best buddy in the middle east. We've really got to stop buying oil from and supply weapons to these oppressive imbeciles:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33039815

CommanderRoss

@Ludovico what's there unreasonable about that teapot? have you ever found an unreasonable teapot? It's out there, beeing perfectly perfect.

First off I will prove that there will never be a god, as the existence is impossible. It's logic, baby!
God, by essence, is a 'super natural' beeing, I think we'll all agree. Which would mean God can do things that the laws of physics do not allow. But there's a catch. Science, in essence, searches for explanations of all happenings. When something is registered, science will try to recreate it and thus explain it. So, when science finally finds this 'God' beeing, it will adjust nature's laws in such a way that the proven existence of the 'supernatural'behaviour is explained, making it..... natural! With no 'super' to be found. Hence, there's no way a god can exist.

So, where does this feeling of 'there's more between heaven and earth' come from? Well, perhaps we know more then we do. As we, perhaps, are predestined. Eh? say what? say science! http://secondnexus.com/technology-and-innovation/physicists-demonstrate-how-time-can-seem-to-run-backward-and-the-future-can-affect-the-past/?ts_pid=2

Schrodinger's cat got a lot of litter!

Dragonpol

timmer wrote: »

interesting post as always @bondjames
@benny I'm sure respects your respectful tone

@ludivoco. that's the best post I've read from you ever on such matter. I'm not being patronizing. It was interesting.

as for burden of proof. there is no burden as no one is trying to convince anyone of anything, or shouldn't be IMO.
Personally I don't care what people believe. I am more concerned about their actions.
I can be very respectful of agnostic beliefs. I only have to look at where I was 20 years ago or even 10 years ago.
I grew up Catholic too, but I filed it way at first opportunity, and went about the business of living, minus any interest in matters spirtual or otherwise weighty.

I eventually came back, after about 20 years maybe. I had reason to seek greater meaning. I revisited the faith of my upbringing and found it to be fullfilling. Appealed to both my reason and my sense of the spiritual realm.
I find scripture based Christian theology to be fascinating.
In fact I think Christianity perfectly explains why the world is the way it is, and ultimately what it all means. And historically I am hardly alone in that belief, but I wasn't always that way.
That's where my seeking took me. That simple.
But I am not naive to think we are all going to be on the same page, in terms of our seeking.
As Newman says, "it is as crazy to argue a person to faith as it is to torture'

It's not necessary anyway,in a civilized, free society to beat each over the head and debate the superiorty of one's world view.
We need co-exist.

As for the notion of God, its a given we are talking about the transcedent realm.
If one cannot even conceive of a reality beyond the reach of the 5 senses, then the discussion ends there, and thats fine, but mankind has always sought the spiritual.
We have an innate sense of our soul, that which gives us capacity to do both good and bad.

Theologian Newman maintains the transcendent realm,is not accessible via unaided human reason. How could it be otherwise?
If one reads either Newman or Thomas Aquinas, and surely others, they explain the limits of unaided human reason.
A knowing, or awareness of the divine requires spiritual exercises beyond the limits of unaided human reason.
One does need to seek, via spiritual exercises, and that can be as simple as just thinking about such things in a humble and honest way, and asking God, even with the qualifier, if you exist, for spiritual guidance.

Christianity is not an elitist faith. It is accessible to anyone of humble heart.
One does not need to be able to plough through learned scribblings of theologians.
But the theology exists and is intellectually rigourous and accessible to those who wish to delve.
Meantime, Christ, divinity, which is what Christianity is about, desires that all mankind seek the good with humble heart( and humble heart is key) and as they do, they have greater capacity to do the divine will, and the only reason divine will matters, which is a matter of Christian faith of course, is that the divine will is perfect, ie all loving, all merciful.
It is the divine will or desire, that we make our way back to the garden so to speak, or heaven.
The theology underpinning "evil," (and evil is a biblical term), is that evil has a spiritual scource, and that source plays to our fallen nature, plays to our vanities, in hope of reducing our capacity to do the divine will.
Most persons doing evil, large or small, are convinced they are actually doing good. The nature of evil is to play to our vanities, and deceive.

Whether one ascribes to the theology or not, there is no doubt, that all of us have capacity for both good and evil. That should be plainly evident.
Christianity explains the theological underpinnings for how that is, and asks that we embrace our saved nature, as opposed to our fallen nature.

It teaches that all humans have access to the "good." whether they are of faith or not. Christ walks with all of us. His saving graces are accessible to all. That is the teaching, but we do have free will.
We can reject our conscience, our better nature, and we all do it, everyday to some extent.
No-one can die in a perfect state of grace. We just do our best. The afterlife is essentially a processing and purifying of the soul. The condition of one's soul though is entirely related to what one sowed when alive.

A tenet of Catholic-Christianity is that Christ is present in the sacraments of the Church.
The sacraments are what define the Church. People participate in the sacrament of Sunday Eucharist via the mass and the other sacraments, so as to have greater capacity to do the divine will. That's really all thats going on, however one can delve deeper into the theology and the mysteries of sacred scripture, and spend a lifetime engaged in such activity, if that is truly your vocation.
Most of us though, need concern ourselves with our jobs, and the business of living and doing what we do.
A guy driving a plough though, that can't read, can derive as much spiritual nourishment from the mass, as the bishop that's thoroughly versed in scripture and who helps determine the liturgcial calender for the year.

As for scripture, it's God's covenant with man. Its sacred mysteries are revealed to anyone of humble heart.
Genesis, essentially translates to God created the universe, at least the creation part of it. The details don't matter. Its not meant to be a primer on how to construct your own universe. The universe is billions of years old, and its obviously not intended that it took 7 days to make. Rather it took what it took. Who knows, via science, we can reverse engineer and maybe figure it out.
But what is a day? Its one revolution of the earth. There was no such thing until the solar system existed anyway.
Genesis is meant to be revelatory, divine revelation, as all scripture is. It's not intended as historical or scientific tomes.
Man creates those himself, through application of those disciplines.

As for morality, we all like to form our own morality, and naturally we clash, which is what causes much of the strife in the world.
I think one of the best examinations of morality or man's quest for justice is Plato's Republic.
I read it in university and it stuck. Basically Socrates presides over a raucus discussion of what is justice. Various segments of society all throw their best arguments on the table.
Socrates, using the socratic method, shoots them all down.
In frustration, they demand that if he is so friggin smart, please do impart, what justice might be, to us lessers.
Happy to oblige, he goes on a long dissertation and again using the socratic method concludes that man can only be just, if he is all knowing, ergo justice is beyond mans reach.
But you don't need to read Plato to figure that out. The guy on the plough can come to that conclusion just from his own experience of the world.
Hence man's search for the all-knowing or God. It flows naturally from our innate sense of our own limitations as a species.
If there is universal good, a universal morality, a universal perfect justice, it flows from a transcendent all-knowing source.
What the nature of that source might be -assuming it even exists (but if it doesn't, as Plato tells us, then justice does not exist) - is what we seek, or maybe choose not to seek.

We muddle on. But again, this is only what I believe from a Christian perspective. I am not arguing or debating. I am just throwing it out there, seeing as this thread evolved into a faith or no-faith discussion.

I respect everyone's individual journeys including what ludovico penned above.
How could I not, when my own journey has taken me all over the place.

But again, faith and religion or non-faith or whatever is all very interesting,but I do think our main task in life, is to get off the keyboard and be productive in the world that surrounds us.
Again as Fleming said,via Bond, do not be pre-occupied with death, get on with the business of living and doing "good' as you understand it.

I don't have the exact Fleming Bond credo handy, but it exists. I just can't remember what book.

I have decided that I was being hasty and to return to the debates in this thread in the continued interests of balance lest we be outweighed by atheist argument! I wish to stand up for my faith and indeed faith in general and this arena seems as good a place as any to discuss such matters. The arguments have been good, on both sides.

Well said, @timmer. See my article here ('Musings on James Bond and Religion') for my thoughts on the matter:

http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/musings-on-james-bond-and-religion.html

I'd love to hear your views on this article. :)

bondjames

Good to see you back @Dragonpol.

I agree, it's always good to read both sides of an interesting debate. One which likely will never result in agreement - these discussions have been going on for centuries!

---

I had a chance to reread @timmer's post above carefully this time, since I admit that I didn't really do that the first time as it was quite long.

From my perspective, what he is describing above are 'human' values. He has embraced the Christian faith that shares these values, but the values themselves are essentially human. That's what I get from reading his post. Why? Because I am not Christian or of any faith, and I have not read scripture, and yet I embrace all of the above values that he describes.

Arguably, the Beatles said it best- i.e. "All You Need is Love. Love is All You Need". We don't need Jesus or Mohammed to figure that out. Compassion for fellow man/woman (or fellow living beings, including trees, dogs, etc. and especially those different from us), along with a purpose driven existence to do good are human attributes. The ability to be swayed to do bad, or 'evil' are also, sadly, human attributes.

Like @timmer (and most intelligent people with a sense of humility) I have wrested with my place in the world. What it all means. Why we're all here. Is there something bigger than us. Why is life unfair. Why do some succeed and some not. etc. etc.

I have also observed...... I see the good, the bad, in all of us. Of all faiths. Those who subscribe to faith and those who don't. Quite frankly, I don't see any difference. I see religious people behaving like buffoons and I see aethiests doing the same. It's true that if one is following religious values at their purest, then one should not commit bad acts, but sadly, no one does that. As @timmer says, "we all like to form our own morality, and naturally we clash, which is what causes much of the strife in the world."

So, one of the problems I have with religion - given my observation that both the religious and the non-religious are capable of absolute barbarism in the name of doing good - is that it is a sort of club, and like all clubs, it runs the risk of creating a false sense of relative righteousness and exclusivity, at the expense of inclusion. That is not because of any problem with religion itself, but rather with the tendency for the human ego to get in the way......i.e. because of the tendency for humans to assume that because they are religious or of a certain denomination, they are in some way superior, or closer to the divine or spiritual than the rest of us. That to me is a load of bull.... Witness the Irish Catholic/Protestant conflicts, or the current Middle East Sunni/Shia ones. Whether one wants to admit it or not, these conflicts are/were mainly about religion, and different interpretations of the unknown. How absolutely idiotic!

Additionally, just because one does not subscribe to one of the major religions or faiths does not mean that one is not spiritual. One does not need scripture or answers to be spiritual.....to be respectful of our minion status in the universe,.to realize that we are all judged, whether by the simple laws of action and reaction (physics) or god.....To not be accepting of that is to be an idiot of another kind imho....

So religion and religious teachings are best taken with a pinch of salt from my perspective. Like a good story or a good fairy tale, they can teach morality.....they can teach correct behaviour......but they must not be taken literally. It is the literal interpretation which is dangerous in my opinion. Why? Because if the literal interpretation were correct, then whether you like it or not, you are essentially saying that Christianity is superior to Buddhism, to Hinduism, to Judaism, to Islam. That is an inherently dangerous conclusion to draw, especially when there is limited or no evidence to back it up. That is where conflict begins because over time these attitudes get seared into the subconscious to the point where they become fact.

My view on this thing is that religion can help someone to find spirituality.....to transcend one's ego....to accept one's relative unimportance in the world, but it is only one way. Not the only way........and certainly not gospel (no pun intended).

---

I read your blog on Bond, and learnt a lot from it which I did not know, as I've not read many of the novels (shameful I know!). Well written and researched. I think you're correct that he may have been born a Presbyterian Protestant (since he assumed many of Fleming's character) but I don't think there is any evidence that the man is/was religious - moral definitely, but certainly no evidence of religion.

CommanderRoss

@Dragonpol, first off, welcome back! happy you decided to stick around!
I think, in your article, the evidence is, shall we say, at best circumstantial. The slaying of a dragon is not a religious theme, as there are many non-christian folklore tales of slaying dragons. And even if it was meant to be St. Gearge, which, as I recall, he even says too, it would be his best reference, as St. George is England's patron saint.
In the end, you conclude that Bond is a practising Presbytarian. But I can't agree on that. I myself have a Protestant background, about two generations back. And yes, that would give Bond a certain set of values, but says nothing about actually practising the religion (as you might have deducted, as an example, I'm not religious).

Ludovico

Bond doesn't seem to be practicing. His beliefs or religious notions are vague at best and he has no trouble or remorse being the lover of married women. He may be a theist, even a Christian, but not very practicing, if at all.

patb

Its very rare that I watch the news and it brings on genuine fear but did anyone see the BBC news footage of everyday life in Mosul under IS rule. We need to get a grip on this ASAP

Thunderfinger

IS is not going away any time soon. They have the support of the US.

DaltonCraig007

Don't know if to start a new thread or not, but there has been an apparent terrorist attack in southern France this morning. 2 men entered chemical/gas station, decapitated someone and opened up some cannisters to cause a big explosion. They left an islamic flag at the entry of the factory (next to the decapitated head, says the tv channels), and 1 of these men has been arrested, who apparently declared he is a member of the Islamic State.

patb

Thanks for the update. If you based your view of World events on the run up to our General Election, you would have thought this issue had gone away. But it's clearly here and we are as far away from finding a solution as we were ten years ago

Ludovico

DaltonCraig007 wrote: »

Don't know if to start a new thread or not, but there has been an apparent terrorist attack in southern France this morning. 2 men entered chemical/gas station, decapitated someone and opened up some cannisters to cause a big explosion. They left an islamic flag at the entry of the factory (next to the decapitated head, says the tv channels), and 1 of these men has been arrested, who apparently declared he is a member of the Islamic State.

Might as well keep this one. Two threads would be far too depressing.

A darn shame it happened again. But at least the French police knows their job.

patb

Lets just remind ourselves that this has nothing to do with religion at all. The Islamic flag has not relevance at all.

Suivez_ce_parachute

Well, it shows that they could not built their own bomb, so I'm afraid we'll hear about the "it's the economics, not the religion, stupid" once again.

Ludovico

And they used a knife while the police will hunt them down with guns. These poor terrorists.

I'm being sarcastic of course.

bondjames

Tragic, but totally unsurprising. There will be more attacks of this nature.

bondjames

And it may have come sooner than I expected. Possible ISIS/ISIL link in an attack in Tunisia. It's ongoing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3140454/Tourists-run-lives-Tunisian-beach-gunman-carries-attack-outside-hotel-packed-Britons.html

patb

they put "packed britons" into the page title to boost google hits even though there is no direct evidence of this and still within the article "packed with western holiday makers" - so much worse than other people dying , sorry to digress but the Fail is beyond bad,
yes, the violence continues

DaltonCraig007

ISIS has made it's first major attack in Koweit today aswell, reports of atleast 25 dead.

Suivez_ce_parachute

FYI, the author of the attack in France seems to be once again someone with a fulltime job, he was not the richest of France obviously, but not the poor lone wolf with a grudge against society as the dreaded "everything is explained by economics nowadays" theory goes, to dismiss the responsability of religion...

Thunderfinger

This is how Islam has always spread. Nothing new.

RogueAgent

I think Governments around the world need to act. Until it is resolved their is the old say "The enemy of my enemy is my friend".