Struth, now it seems that belief/disbelief in the deity has nothing to do with knowledge..." Theism and atheism don’t address knowledge. They are positions with regards to belief."

So somehow this belief/disbelief simply materialises out of the ether with knowledge not playing a part.

I'm not so sure of that. I'd be the first to agree that belief is not based on logic deduction but instead on an emotional act of faith, but that faith has to be based on some level of knowing, even if others may disagree with what the believer thinks they know.

That is why (contra childish Venn diagrams) black/white thinking doesn't have to apply here. There are grey areas that its perfectly legitimate to occupy. The fact that I don't disbelieve there is DM doesn't mean that it automatically follows that I therefore believe it exists. I'm happy to await further knowledge.

Similarly with the deity. I neither beleive nor disbeleive, I'm just awaiting further knowledge. That that knowledge may come 30 seconds after I'm brain dead (now there's a free kick) is less than ideal but something I'm reconciled to.

I started in this thread just trying to articulate the notion that the deity can't be proven or disproven because its unknowable. Seems I've done too good a job. AJ now seems to think nothing can be known about the supernational and all disbelief (and belief) is based on utter ignorance.

//So somehow this belief/disbelief simply materialises out of the ether with knowledge not playing a part.//

Well definitely not out of the aether, because I know that doesn't exist (ethers are a class of organic compounds, and they do exist). I refer you to the Michelson-Morley interferometry experiment, which constitutes dammning evidence against the aether.

My hypothesis would be that it materialises out of the brain. (dis)belief starts where knowledge ends.

//but that faith has to be based on some level of knowing//

I disagree. Knowledge is the antithesis of faith.

"The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.' 'But, says Man, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' 'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and vanishes in a puff of logic."
- Douglas Adams (PBUH)

//There are grey areas that its perfectly legitimate to occupy.//

As long as they're the right sort of grey areas, of course.

//AJ now seems to think nothing can be known about the supernational//

I assume you mean supernatural.

I agree; the supernatural is unknowable by definition.

The existence of the supernatural is necessarily a question of belief. For the record, I don't believe in the supernatural.

But I still know God necessarily exists. Just not NNS's concept of God, which would require belief in the supernatural.

Oh, welcome back, mhaze.

I guess the sophistry required to misconstrue what others say takes time to formulate, eh? Yes, yes, I know. You’ve been busy.

<<Struth, now it seems that belief/disbelief in the deity has nothing to do with knowledge...>>

Not necessarily. The belief can be formed based on things that an individual knows (e.g. their mere existence). I smell a straw man coming on.

<<So somehow this belief/disbelief simply materialises out of the ether with knowledge not playing a part.>>

And there’s the strawman. No, I haven’t said that. All I had said was what you quoted:

"Theism and atheism don’t address knowledge. They are positions with regards to belief." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8106#252532)

Nice try, though.

<<... faith has to be based on some level of knowing, even if others may disagree with what the believer thinks they know.>>

Firstly, no, faith, by definition, does not require knowledge. Indeed, it is the antithesis of knowledge. For if we have knowledge, then we don't require faith.

http://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faith

Secondly, no, we don’t need to “know” anything to form beliefs. Beliefs can be formed based on other beliefs.

<<That is why … black/white thinking doesn't have to apply here. There are grey areas that its perfectly legitimate to occupy.>>

You have not yet demonstrated that I have engaged in any black and white thinking. Theism and atheism are, by definition, a legitimate dichotomy. You have said nothing to counter this. All you have done is knock a straw man down by pretending that my claim discounted the possibility that beliefs can be based on knowledge or other beliefs, while completely ignoring the fact that theism and atheism are simply responses with regards to what one believes on a single issue.

<<The fact that I don't disbelieve there is DM doesn't mean that it automatically follows that I therefore believe it exists. I'm happy to await further knowledge.>>

Okay, but because you don’t believe that dark matter exists, you are a-dark-matter-ist with regards to that question.

Continued…

…Continued

The only difference is that we don’t have labels such as ‘dark-matter-ist’ and ‘a-dark-matter-ist’ because there aren’t people running around asserting that dark matter definitely exists, and that we should believe it; nor are there people telling others how to live their lives, based on such a belief.

<<Similarly with the deity. I neither beleive nor disbeleive, I'm just awaiting further knowledge.>>

As above. Then you are an atheist because you don’t believe. You even acknowledged this yourself earlier. Now, in another apparent attempt to paint me as some fool who is unable to see shades of grey, you go back on that.

You seemed to have missed the point of my Venn diagram in your hasty attempt to dismiss it with an accusation of supposed childishness. There is belief (theism) and there is everything else (atheism (i.e. not theist)).

<<That that knowledge may come 30 seconds after I'm brain dead (now there's a free kick) …>>

As a general rule, I don’t take free kicks like that (certainly not like your ‘Blind Freddy' kick). I think it smacks of desperation and should be unnecessary for anyone with the facts on their side.

<<I started in this thread just trying to articulate the notion that the deity can't be proven or disproven because its unknowable. Seems I've done too good a job.>>

No, you didn’t do a good job at all. Right off the bat I had shown one form of “the diety” that can be disproved.

<<AJ now seems to think nothing can be known about the supernational and all disbelief (and belief) is based on utter ignorance.>>

Where did I say or imply anything of the sort?

Still waiting to hear what you weighed up to arrive at the opinion that it is more likely than not that “the diety” exists, too, by the way.

Paul Erdos, the mathematician, called God the Supreme Fascist. The following points to an article dealing with the devotion and love that humans have toward tyrants. When Hitler was in power most Germans loved him. The love for God is similar to the love for other tyrants, real or imaginary.

https://aeon.co/essays/the-omnipotent-victim-how-tyrants-work-up-a-crowds-devotion?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=3a448c0ffb-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_02_11&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-3a448c0ffb-68658997

"The wishes that underpin religious belief have to do with deliverance from human helplessness. We are vulnerable to the forces of nature, such as disease, natural disasters and ultimately death, and also to the acts of other human beings who can harm us, kill us or treat us unjustly. In recognising our helplessness, Freud thinks, we are thrown back on an infantile prototype: memories of the utter helplessness that we experienced as infants – our complete and appalling dependence on the adults who cared for us (or failed to care for us). Religious people deal with their feelings of helplessness, he suggested, by clinging to the illusion of a powerful, protective deity who will grant them an afterlife.

There are clear links between Freud’s analysis of the religious impulse, and psychological forces at play in the political sphere. Politics is, explicitly, a response to human vulnerability. Our deepest hopes and fears permeate the political arena, and this makes us susceptible to political illusions, which are often clung to with such impassioned tenacity, and so refractory to reasoned argument, that they fit Freud’s characterisation of delusions. From this perspective, authoritarian political systems echo monotheistic religions. Like God himself, the leader is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. His words define the horizons of reality. He must be praised and appeased, but never challenged. His enemies are, by definition, in league with the forces of evil."