Go to Naut's View
- Add a comment
- Go to Naut on Religion...Part II
Re: naut,
Thanks for your comment, callista. I think the confusion often arises because many people do not fully comprehend the difference between 'knowing' and 'believing', a difference which can often be neglected in daily life, but which becomes crucial when one wants to talk seriously about serious matters...
posted by
Nautikos
on September 15, 2007 at 7:19 AM
| link to this | reply
naut,
first off i like your posts, i find them educational and informative.
second i would like to say i enjoy reading the comments, although i dont understand if someone does not agree with your point of view why they continue to read.
if the existance of god cannot be proven other than one person saying, "god talks to me" but i have no proof, but you are a lier to say he doesnt exist, i might say you deal very patiently with these people. but again why do they try to make everyone believe their way? maybe misery does love company.
posted by
callista22001
on September 14, 2007 at 7:51 AM
| link to this | reply
Enigmatic
I try...
posted by
Nautikos
on September 12, 2007 at 5:37 PM
| link to this | reply
Naut
Right on, to your comments, below! 
posted by
Enigmatic68
on September 12, 2007 at 5:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Justi
To say that you have no knowledge of God is not at all the same thing as saying there is no God. It is simply saying that you cannot have knowledge of something that is beyond knowledge. You may have a strong faith and conviction in the existence of God! A strong faith is just that, a strong faith. It may even be that faith is stronger than knowledge, but it still isn’t knowledge.
Only something that can be ‘falsified’ (disproven) belongs into the realm of knowledge. Nobody can prove that God does not exist, not even you, lol. Therefore, God is not and cannot be an object of knowledge! 
posted by
Nautikos
on September 12, 2007 at 2:41 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
I accept that you too have to rely on 'belief only' that I and others like me have no knowledge of God. You cannot 'know' that.
To insist that you have real knowledge of such is to say you know for a fact there is not God. You do not know that. We can say we know for a fact there is a God; however, we cannot prove that to you. We do not attempt to do so, nor do we attempt to make you out as a less than highly intelligent human for 'believing' there is not a God. One can only have knowledge of God when one has a relationship with God. It makes no difference what information is used there is no proof that there is no God! My comments, are in fact, no less valid by acceptable proof than are yours. If you don't believe in God and 'feel' there is no such being. Why do you bother trying to prove what we know can not be proved?
posted by
Justi
on September 12, 2007 at 1:17 PM
| link to this | reply
Soul
Thanks! And it's a free country - you can believe anything you want...
posted by
Nautikos
on September 12, 2007 at 5:02 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
I do not subscribe to evolutionary theory, but the build-up is interesting. Let's wait for the continuation!
posted by
Soul_Builder101
on September 11, 2007 at 7:24 PM
| link to this | reply
Justi
I take the position that nobody has or can have knowledge of God, but that many people have a belief or faith in God. There is a radical difference between 'knowing' and 'believing', and if we do not maintain that difference, we end up speaking nonsense! I have tried to discuss that difference here http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/Nautikos/381308, and as I said to Krisles, it may be inadequate, but will have to do for now.
Over the centuries, many brilliant thinkers have tried unsuccessfully to prove the existence of God. They all gave up in the end (well, Bishop Berkeley didn't exactly give up, but he failed as did all the others.)
God is not an object of knowledge! God is an object of faith! And the believer should never look for a 'proof' that will never, ever be forthcoming...
posted by
Nautikos
on September 11, 2007 at 7:02 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
Both these comments were excellent between you and Krislis. How could knowledge of God be valid to a non believer, which is where I presume both the agnostic and the atheistic fall? The believer is the only entity in this equation holding the provable factor, that is to them, i.e. that being there is something is on the other end of a prayer that possesses an ability to communicate if non verbal. There is a relationship between the believer of Jesus and his God (Jesus). This is a fact never provable to the unbeliever which the believer was before he/she acquired their faith which is a gift of God. That is why I do respect and understand the unbeliever because I was one. That is where the respect comes in. I can respect you for your 'knowledgeable' and well written posts. You can't prove there is nothing to me, and I can't prove there is something there to you because we both have passed a strong personal defining point. It would be ridiculous and insensitive of me to attempt to prove to you God speaks to anyone or has spoken to me. it is truly more respect than you know when I don't say yes or no and why to you. It is totally unprovable. You need facts, I only need truth. They are often different.
posted by
Justi
on September 11, 2007 at 6:12 PM
| link to this | reply
Krisles
First of all, let me tell you that I am delighted. What we have here is a debate, the sort of thing I joined Blogit for in the first place, but haven’t found enough of.
Now to your question, which is relevant, and forces me to ‘unpack’ my thinking more precisely, which is good.
Let us begin by accepting that the atheist categorically rejects even the possibility of the existence of God, any God. Now, I suggest that, in the final analysis, this a position of faith based on plausibility, not knowledge. For what would the definite knowledge of God’s non-existence look like? How could you even formulate that?
The agnostic takes the word seriously in its precise (Greek) meaning and says initially ‘I don’t know’ if there’s a God, any God. This agnostic takes an even more radical position and says that even if there is a God, he is unknowable in principle. So he will accept the possibility that there is some version of something that one might call ‘God’, unknowable though it may be.
But, if by ‘God’ we mean the anthropomorphic, ‘personal’ God as depicted or ‘revealed’ in the Bible and the Koran, my position converges with that of the atheist. Again, not because I have any kind of final ‘proof’, which is not forthcoming, but because that God is more parsimoniously explained as a human construct rather than as ‘someone’ who runs the world ‘from the outside’, as it were.
Relevant for all this is also my view of the distinction between ‘faith’ and ‘knowledge’, which I have tried to lay out here http://www.blogit.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/Nautikos/381308, probably not adequately, but it’s a start, lol.
Hope this clarifies things.
posted by
Nautikos
on September 11, 2007 at 12:00 PM
| link to this | reply
Justi
You're welcome!
posted by
Nautikos
on September 11, 2007 at 11:58 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
As with the first installment, you have written a very clear, informative and thoughtful piece on religion. I actually have more need for clarification in your comment about your fellow agnostics and atheists (to Justi). Again, I'm going to be lazy and not research it myself but simply let you tell me your thoughts.....are not believers (in some kind of god) and atheists the two polar opposites on the continuum we might ascribe to a position in this....and agnostics neither one or the other, but undecided, still searching? I was confused by your putting agnostics and atheists together, as if they are in agreement.
I guess I don't really know the term for what I am....I believe in a higher intelligence....am inclined to believe in the Christ, but not positive of the particulars....take the Bible as a very "good book", but read it as something written (and re-written, reinterpreted) by men (and I do mean mainly of the gender definition!). I don't really question the whole issue a lot because.....like many things in this life....I believe anything is possible, but very little is or will every actually be known for sure, and thinking a lot about them is just a mental exercise. Belief in a higher being is a matter of simple faith for most of us....some may say simplistic, but it all boils down to most humans drop to their knees and pray for help when they hit their personal wall of helplessness (a point I think you are trying to make)....and, knowing I do this, I have to accept that I believe that there is help/answer outside myself.......and, accepting that is, I believe, the only true understanding of all of religion for myself I will ever have.
You can see why I stayed away so long....my comments are so wordy I have no time for posts!
posted by
Krisles
on September 11, 2007 at 10:21 AM
| link to this | reply
Naut
Thank you so very much. This is very clear to me. I do respect your views. I disagree with only one thread of it. I respect all their right to their religion, how can I not? I am not God. Thanks for making this clear to me.
posted by
Justi
on September 11, 2007 at 8:45 AM
| link to this | reply
Justi, dear,
I am trying to show that throughout history some form of religion appears to have been practiced by all cultures, and also why that is the case. Many of these religions vary widely in their beliefs. The belief in the Judaeo-Christian God is just one of many different forms, and is relatively recent.
Unlike many of my fellow agnostics and atheists, I am not opposed to all religion, and recognize its value, quite apart from the fact that it is a universal phenomenon that will always be with us in some form or other, and in my view those who don't like that will have to continue to be unhappy.
And while I do not believe in the Christian God, I do believe there is a lot of positive in Christianity. On the other hand, and for reasons I have spoken of in the past and shall speak of in greater detail later, I hold Islam to be very dangerous!
Finally, by the term 'revelation' I simply meant to refer to what is by many believed to be the 'revealed' word of God, as found in the Bible and the Koran. I do not believe that 'God' spoke to anyone ever, but that these writings are the writings of mortal men.
That's sort of my position in a nutshell, but as I have said on previous occasions, I will not ridicule anyone's faith. I just ask that my non-faith is respected as well!
posted by
Nautikos
on September 10, 2007 at 8:32 PM
| link to this | reply
intellectual I mean! mispelling.
posted by
Justi
on September 10, 2007 at 8:03 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
Please explain your comment on my comment. Your piece is titled Religion. You admit many places where Science is not clear on this and that etc., What you have not shown is that you can prove nearly as much against religion as I can for it even in your writing. I don't know what you mean by 'revelation'. I won't make other comments on this. I do wonder why if you are so opposed to religion. Why you try so hard to prove it's existence or non-existence. Are you trying to prove the inlectuall inability of those who live by faith? You can't. You may know a lot of the study of man, but you know nothing of God.
posted by
Justi
on September 10, 2007 at 7:59 PM
| link to this | reply
TAPS
Thanks!
posted by
Nautikos
on September 10, 2007 at 7:29 PM
| link to this | reply
Enigmatic
...well, there it is...
posted by
Nautikos
on September 10, 2007 at 7:28 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
Well, I do believe that you are doing a good job of both. People believe what they choose to believe even though some might think they have no choice.
posted by
TAPS.
on September 10, 2007 at 4:38 PM
| link to this | reply
Naut
Intentional - I wanted you to be thinking, "Is he serious?!" LOL! 
posted by
Enigmatic68
on September 10, 2007 at 4:30 PM
| link to this | reply
Enigmatic
You forgot the smiley at the end of your comment!
posted by
Nautikos
on September 10, 2007 at 4:19 PM
| link to this | reply
Justi
I really appreciate your comments, even if it is impossible for me to justify (no pun intended, lol) tracing everything back to 'revelation.'
posted by
Nautikos
on September 10, 2007 at 4:17 PM
| link to this | reply
Taps
Thanks! I guess what I am trying to show is how deeply the need for 'religion' is grounded in our existence as humans, but also that one can free oneself form it...
posted by
Nautikos
on September 10, 2007 at 4:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Naut
Would you please knock it off with this fluffy, superficial crap - and start (finally) writing about something profound and complex, for God's sake?!
posted by
Enigmatic68
on September 10, 2007 at 2:20 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
It is easily obvious that I am not as learned in anthropology or sociology of the prehistoric or primitive man as you are. I too don't believe the primitive man is simple. I can tell you what my faith has to say about them. It says man who has not been given a knowledge of Jesus was given a sense of God by Nature. He is not judged as one who knows of Jesus and is only held accountable for what he knows of God. God has left his stamp on all nature and man has only to address that He is there if they call him a coconut tree, a stone whatever when man knows there is a higher power that is all he is judged for and he has eternal life. This concept varies little throughout much of the world's religions in their simplest forms is my understanding.
I think you will have a difficult time getting a lot of comment on this. It is very well written and outside the realm of most our daily reading. But I really like seeing your points. Fifty years ago I would have raced out and got those books and taken up a lively discussion with you. Some of my brain cells have rust now as well as my joints.
posted by
Justi
on September 10, 2007 at 2:15 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos
Very interestingly and well written. It is so fascinating to me how humans can take the exact same things of science, nature, history, etc. to put forth the reasoning for their religious beliefs or the lack of them.
posted by
TAPS.
on September 10, 2007 at 2:13 PM
| link to this | reply