Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on July 16, 2015, 03:31:33 PM
-
deleted
-
If you do believe in hell, what do you think it is like?
Yes I do, Floo. In my view, it is 'simply' external existence without the God who created us. For some, that may sound very promising - almost heavenly; for others, it doesn't.
-
If you do believe in hell, what do you think it is like?
Yes I do, Floo. In my view, it is 'simply' external existence without the God who created us. For some, that may sound very promising - almost heavenly; for others, it doesn't.
It feels like that to me now, so what's the difference?
-
It feels like that to me now, so what's the difference?
If I understand your current position on the issue, NS, there probably isn't much difference. The only real long-term difference would be that you wouldn't have the opportunity to discuss the possibility of God's existence, as you do here.
-
It feels like that to me now, so what's the difference?
If I understand your current position on the issue, NS, there probably isn't much difference. The only real long-term difference would be that you wouldn't have the opportunity to discuss the possibility of God's existence, as you do here.
It's not NS by the way.
I do not understand, I do not believe we currently have a god in this universe, and yet we can still discuss the possibility of it.
What would a universe with no god in it look like?
I suggest it would look just like this one.
-
If you do believe in hell, what do you think it is like?
-
I try not to contemplate it...I don't intend to go there.
-
If as a Christian you don't believe in the place, why not, presumably you believe in heaven? Do you believe non believers cease to be when they die?
-
I believe in the new life in Christ which started when I accepted Him, and will reach its fullness when I see Him face to face.
-
If you do believe in hell, what do you think it is like?
-
I try not to contemplate it...I don't intend to go there.
-
If as a Christian you don't believe in the place, why not, presumably you believe in heaven? Do you believe non believers cease to be when they die?
-
I believe in the new life in Christ which started when I accepted Him, and will reach its fullness when I see Him face to face.
Do you believe in hell, was the actual question?
-
"I try not to contemplate it....I don't intend to go there" answers your question.
-
Of course hell exists. There's abundant evidence of it.
It's just that it's not something that exists after death - that's a perfectly foul, vile concept.
-
Do you believe in hell ?
Nope.
Noone can torture you when you are dead. Comes with the territory of being dead.
-
If you do believe in hell, what do you think it is like?
Yes I do, Floo. In my view, it is 'simply' external existence without the God who created us.
What is external existence ? What is the evidence for it ?
-
If you do believe in hell, what do you think it is like?
I think Ecclesiastes said all that needs to be said about the matter:
5] For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward; but the memory of them is lost.
10] Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in the grave (Sheol), to which you are going.
Ecclesiastes 9
-
"The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all nations that forget God." Psalm 9:17
Now the wicked and the righteous do not go to the same place so I cannot accept that hell is just the grave. Nope, in this case hell is more than the grave.
-
"The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all nations that forget God." Psalm 9:17
Now the wicked and the righteous do not go to the same place so I cannot accept that hell is just the grave. Nope, in this case hell is more than the grave.
'Hell' 'Grave', same word - 'Sheol' throughout the OT, as far as I'm aware.
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die" Ezekiel
-
It's not NS by the way.
Sorry, my mistake
I do not understand, I do not believe we currently have a god in this universe, and yet we can still discuss the possibility of it.
Precisely, you believe that there is no god, yet you can still debate/discuss the possibility. In hell, I don't believe that you will be able to because then God will definitely not be there.
What would a universe with no god in it look like?
I would have to question whether there would be a universe if God was not here.
I suggest it would look just like this one.
That's your prerogative.
-
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die" Ezekiel
So, are you agreeing that there is such a thing as a soul?
-
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die" Ezekiel
So, are you agreeing that there is such a thing as a soul?
Hebrew 'nephesh' seems to be used to mean simply the whole person, as 'soul' is sometimes used in English.
"And man became a living soul" - Genesis 2, if I'm not mistaken.
I'm not denying that these concepts changed over time in the scriptures - particularly during the inter-testamental years. By the time we get to Christianity, lots of other stuff has got mixed into the pudding.
-
Precisely, you believe that there is no god, yet you can still debate/discuss the possibility. In hell, I don't believe that you will be able to because then God will definitely not be there.
So God isn't omnipresent?
-
If you do believe in hell, what do you think it is like?
If as a Christian you don't believe in the place, why not, presumably you believe in heaven? Do you believe non believers cease to be when they die?
1) Yes.
2) Separation from God.
-
If you do believe in hell, what do you think it is like?
Yes I do, Floo. In my view, it is 'simply' external existence without the God who created us. For some, that may sound very promising - almost heavenly; for others, it doesn't.
AHHH So you think there's at least ONE place where God ISN'T then.
How can this be ??????
-
If you do believe in hell, what do you think it is like?
Yes I do, Floo. In my view, it is 'simply' external existence without the God who created us. For some, that may sound very promising - almost heavenly; for others, it doesn't.
AHHH So you think there's at least ONE place where God ISN'T then.
How can this be ??????
I don't know where this idea has come about. Indeed, God is everywhere as the Psalmist says "If I ascend into heaven, thou art there: if I descend into hell, thou art present".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_hell#Orthodox_conceptions_of_hell
-
EXACTLY but there are obviously some here who feel this.
How can there be ANYWHERE God isn't. God wouldn't be God then, eh???
-
If you do believe in hell, what do you think it is like?
Yes I do, Floo. In my view, it is 'simply' external existence without the God who created us. For some, that may sound very promising - almost heavenly; for others, it doesn't.
So it looks like you're already there then Hope, since there's no credible evidence to support the god idea.
ippy
-
No Mr. Dicky,
Sheol is used several different ways with different meanings and one should keep context in mind when reading that word.
-
If you do believe in hell, what do you think it is like?
If as a Christian you don't believe in the place, why not, presumably you believe in heaven? Do you believe non believers cease to be when they die?
Well, if our friend Ralph were here, he would treat you to a big colourful picture explaining what a loaded question is!
You have built into your question an assumption that whether or not you are a "non-believer" has something to do with whether you go to heaven. Why not ask that rather than assume it?
-
So it looks like you're already there then Hope, since, in my humble opinion, there's no credible evidence to support the god idea.
ippy
FIFY, ippy
-
I don't know where this idea has come about. Indeed, God is everywhere as the Psalmist says "If I ascend into heaven, thou art there: if I descend into hell, thou art present".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_hell#Orthodox_conceptions_of_hell
It comes from Jesus' own teaching that those in hell are separated from God, ad_o. They will not be in his presence.
-
Again you say there are places where YOUR god is not?????
Not THE GOD then is it ?!!?!?
-
"The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all nations that forget God." Psalm 9:17
Now the wicked and the righteous do not go to the same place so I cannot accept that hell is just the grave. Nope, in this case hell is more than the grave.
'Hell' 'Grave', same word - 'Sheol' throughout the OT, as far as I'm aware.
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die" Ezekiel
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
Daniel 12:2
-
Again you say there are places where YOUR god is not?????
Not THE GOD then is it ?!!?!?
Why not? As I understand it, when we get to this point in time - namely Judgement Day - God will allow those who don't want to have anything to do with him to have their wish. They will simply not have his presence with them. They will have made their choice and he will respect that choice. Or are you trying to suggest that God will overrule freewill and impose his presence regardless of an individual's choice whilst alive? It what you suggest is the case, then yes, I'd agree - Not THE GOD then.
-
It's not NS by the way.
Sorry, my mistake
I do not understand, I do not believe we currently have a god in this universe, and yet we can still discuss the possibility of it.
Precisely, you believe that there is no god, yet you can still debate/discuss the possibility. In hell, I don't believe that you will be able to because then God will definitely not be there.
What would a universe with no god in it look like?
I would have to question whether there would be a universe if God was not here.
I suggest it would look just like this one.
That's your prerogative.
No you make a big mistake when you say I believe there is no god.
I think you misstyped as you know I am an atheist, and that is s not atheism.
I do not believe your God exists, BUT that is NOT the same as saying I believe your God does not exist.
Do you understand the difference, as it to s crucial and you need to understand and accept this
-
Again you say there are places where YOUR god is not?????
Not THE GOD then is it ?!!?!?
Why not? As I understand it, when we get to this point in time - namely Judgement Day - God will allow those who don't want to have anything to do with him to have their wish. They will simply not have his presence with them. They will have made their choice and he will respect that choice. Or are you trying to suggest that God will overrule freewill and impose his presence regardless of an individual's choice whilst alive? It what you suggest is the case, then yes, I'd agree - Not THE GOD then.
What would a universe that has no god look like?
How would it differ from this one?
Remember there is no evidence of a God or gods in this one and anyone that thinks there is does itvsoley on faith or make believe.
-
It's not NS by the way.
Sorry, my mistake
I do not understand, I do not believe we currently have a god in this universe, and yet we can still discuss the possibility of it.
Precisely, you believe that there is no god, yet you can still debate/discuss the possibility. In hell, I don't believe that you will be able to because then God will definitely not be there.
What would a universe with no god in it look like?
I would have to question whether there would be a universe if God was not here.
I suggest it would look just like this one.
That's your prerogative.
No you make a big mistake when you say I believe there is no god.
I think you misstyped as you know I am an atheist, and that is s not atheism.
I do not believe your God exists, BUT that is NOT the same as saying I believe your God does not exist.
Do you understand the difference, as it to s crucial and you need to understand and accept this
Do you really have to be so condescending?
-
I don't know where this idea has come about. Indeed, God is everywhere as the Psalmist says "If I ascend into heaven, thou art there: if I descend into hell, thou art present".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_hell#Orthodox_conceptions_of_hell
It comes from Jesus' own teaching that those in hell are separated from God, ad_o. They will not be in his presence.
Then show us where, in your opinion, and we shall see.
Nothing exists apart from God. Were God to completely to withdraw his presence from anywhere or anything it would cease to exist.
-
Then show us where, in your opinion, and we shall see.
The story about the sheep and goats in Matthew 25. 41 ‘Then he will say to those on his left, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was ill and in prison and you did not look after me.”
44 ‘They also will answer, “Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or ill or in prison, and did not help you?”
45 ‘He will reply, “Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.”
46 ‘Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.’
Nothing exists apart from God. Were God to completely to withdraw his presence from anywhere or anything it would cease to exist.
I believe that this is where John Stott got his idea of annihilationism. Perhaps that is what 'eternal punishment' involves? The Bible doesn't explain it in detail. In a way, that is understandable; rather than frightening people into heaven by explaining hell in detail, it seeks to encourage people into heaven by giving rather more detail about what life in heaven will be like.
Interestingly, it was only with the advent of Faust and writings such as that of Dante that the modern hellfire and brimstone idea of hell became 'popular'.
-
That passage says nothing about being completely separated from God. The isea of a firery prison goes back long before Dante etc and for good reason, for that is the picture scripture paints. But it is not a place where God is not present. The fire is God himself, or rather his presence.
-
Nothing exists apart from God. Were God to completely to withdraw his presence from anywhere or anything it would cease to exist.
Where on earth did you get this bizarre idea from?
-
He's a closet pantheist it would seem
-
Isn't God 'everywhere, IN everything?
How could I go to a 'place' where there is NO God?
How can there be somewhere God cannot be or go?
Nick
-
He's a closet pantheist it would seem
No indeed! God transcends creation but he is also immanent. In otherwords, as to substance God is distinct from creation but he's energies are present throughout it. Pantheism would confuse God with creation itself.
-
Nothing exists apart from God. Were God to completely to withdraw his presence from anywhere or anything it would cease to exist.
Where on earth did you get this bizarre idea from?
There's nothing bizarre about it. It's pretty standard Christian belief. Everything was created by God and nothing exists apart from God.
-
It's not NS by the way.
Sorry, my mistake
I do not understand, I do not believe we currently have a god in this universe, and yet we can still discuss the possibility of it.
Precisely, you believe that there is no god, yet you can still debate/discuss the possibility. In hell, I don't believe that you will be able to because then God will definitely not be there.
What would a universe with no god in it look like?
I would have to question whether there would be a universe if God was not here.
I suggest it would look just like this one.
That's your prerogative.
No you make a big mistake when you say I believe there is no god.
I think you misstyped as you know I am an atheist, and that is s not atheism.
I do not believe your God exists, BUT that is NOT the same as saying I believe your God does not exist.
Do you understand the difference, as it to s crucial and you need to understand and accept this
Do you really have to be so condescending?
This is to make the point.
I have stated a fact.
It has to be acknowledged otherwise further discussion will be on the wrong footing.
Do you understand that NOT believing your God exists is NOT the same as believing that your God does not exist?
The difference is crucial but easy to miss it seems.
-
If there is any difference (if being the operative word) then it's so minute as to be totally insignificant.
-
If there is any difference (if being the operative word) then it's so minute as to be totally insignificant.
That's the mistake.
There is a massive difference and unless you understand it you will continue to make logical mistakes.
Anyone who writes computer code would see and be aware of the massive difference between the two statements which I admit at first reading seem to be equivalent but they are not.
-
Do you understand the difference, as it to s crucial and you need to understand and accept this
So, are you saying that the Oxford Dictionary definition is wrong - "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods".
-
Do you understand the difference, as it to s crucial and you need to understand and accept this
So, are you saying that the Oxford Dictionary definition is wrong - "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods".
They are two meanings and are NOT equivalent.
I lack a belief in your God.
Try this to understand a bit easier.
I have a lawn and I do NOT believe it has an odd number of blades of grass.
I also do NOT believe it has an even number.
-
If there is any difference (if being the operative word) then it's so minute as to be totally insignificant.
That's the mistake.
There is a massive difference and unless you understand it you will continue to make logical mistakes.
Anyone who writes computer code would see and be aware of the massive difference between the two statements which I admit at first reading seem to be equivalent but they are not.
Fairy nuff.
-
They are two meanings and are NOT equivalent.
I lack a belief in your God.
So, you hold one of the two possible positions that define atheism. So your suggestion that "I think you misstyped as you know I am an atheist, and that is s not atheism" is actually incorrect. Or are you saying that you are an atheist who believes in a god other than the Christian God?
-
They are two meanings and are NOT equivalent.
I lack a belief in your God.
So, you hold one of the two possible positions that define atheism. So your suggestion that "I think you misstyped as you know I am an atheist, and that is s not atheism" is actually incorrect. Or are you saying that you are an atheist who believes in a god other than the Christian God?
No not a all.
I lack a believe in ALL and any god(s).
I do not believe in any god.
That is NOT the same as saying I believe no god(s) exist.
The difference is subtle but when you have looked at as much computer code as I have, it is massive.
I hate lots of nested double not if statements as you turn somersaults trying to figure out what some code is doing.
-
I do not believe in any god.
That is NOT the same as saying I believe no god(s) exist.
The difference is subtle but when you have looked at as much computer code as I have, it is massive.
I hate lots of nested double not if statements as you turn somersaults trying to figure out what some code is doing.
But your stance still adheres to the dictionary definition of atheism, meaning that your claim that I had mistyped continues to be wrong. By the way, I don't do computer code; I do human code, especially as we are dealing in human code on a site such as this.
-
I do not believe in any god.
That is NOT the same as saying I believe no god(s) exist.
The difference is subtle but when you have looked at as much computer code as I have, it is massive.
I hate lots of nested double not if statements as you turn somersaults trying to figure out what some code is doing.
But your stance still adheres to the dictionary definition of atheism, meaning that your claim that I had mistyped continues to be wrong. By the way, I don't do computer code; I do human code, especially as we are dealing in human code on a site such as this.
If you do code it improves your logic.
So you will know that not believing X is true, is NOT the same as believing X is false.
You do see that?
-
I do not believe in any god.
That is NOT the same as saying I believe no god(s) exist.
The difference is subtle but when you have looked at as much computer code as I have, it is massive.
I hate lots of nested double not if statements as you turn somersaults trying to figure out what some code is doing.
But your stance still adheres to the dictionary definition of atheism, meaning that your claim that I had mistyped continues to be wrong. By the way, I don't do computer code; I do human code, especially as we are dealing in human code on a site such as this.
If you do code it improves your logic.
So you will know that not believing X is true, is NOT the same as believing X is false.
You do see that?
There are at least two definitions of "atheism" that I know of. The OED one is "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" which fits how BR (and many others here) use it. However, there is also the definition from places such as Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which equate atheism as follows, "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." To help avoid confusion (and have a bit of fun), I tend to use the terms "weak atheism" (BR/OED version) and "strong atheism" (Stanford).
Thus BR is a "weak atheist."
(Back to lurking for a bit).
-
I do not believe in any god.
That is NOT the same as saying I believe no god(s) exist.
The difference is subtle but when you have looked at as much computer code as I have, it is massive.
I hate lots of nested double not if statements as you turn somersaults trying to figure out what some code is doing.
But your stance still adheres to the dictionary definition of atheism, meaning that your claim that I had mistyped continues to be wrong. By the way, I don't do computer code; I do human code, especially as we are dealing in human code on a site such as this.
If you do code it improves your logic.
So you will know that not believing X is true, is NOT the same as believing X is false.
You do see that?
There are at least two definitions of "atheism" that I know of. The OED one is "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" which fits how BR (and many others here) use it. However, there is also the definition from places such as Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which equate atheism as follows, "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." To help avoid confusion (and have a bit of fun), I tend to use the terms "weak atheism" (BR/OED version) and "strong atheism" (Stanford).
Thus BR is a "weak atheist."
(Back to lurking for a bit).
In the same way, "I believe there is a god" is not the same as "I don't believe that there are no gods".
-
If you do believe in hell, what do you think it is like?
If as a Christian you don't believe in the place, why not, presumably you believe in heaven? Do you believe non believers cease to be when they die?
I do not believe there is a cop out...non believers cease to be when they die?
As for HELL why are you asking?
Wondering if I am going to find you venting your anger and other insults further down the thread. :)
I believe that those who are Christians do not dwell much on hell. After all they won't be going there. Just as we know that no one has to go there. God judges from the books but what does one sin mean? If the wages of sin is death but love covers over many sins... who really knows.
Perfection is something to work towards but the truth is a Christian relies on Grace from God through Jesus Christ. No one perfect but Jesus as a human being. The only one without sin.
Maybe we have something wonderful ahead. Though I know you won't believe me and may mock I don't want ((you)) OR ANYONE to go to hell.
As far as I could tell from Dives and Lazarus they simply reversed the roles... But Dives could not cross back too late...
It is when it is all thrown together which you need to fear in the lake of fire.
-
I do not believe in any god.
That is NOT the same as saying I believe no god(s) exist.
The difference is subtle but when you have looked at as much computer code as I have, it is massive.
I hate lots of nested double not if statements as you turn somersaults trying to figure out what some code is doing.
But your stance still adheres to the dictionary definition of atheism, meaning that your claim that I had mistyped continues to be wrong. By the way, I don't do computer code; I do human code, especially as we are dealing in human code on a site such as this.
If you do code it improves your logic.
So you will know that not believing X is true, is NOT the same as believing X is false.
You do see that?
There are at least two definitions of "atheism" that I know of. The OED one is "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" which fits how BR (and many others here) use it. However, there is also the definition from places such as Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which equate atheism as follows, "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." To help avoid confusion (and have a bit of fun), I tend to use the terms "weak atheism" (BR/OED version) and "strong atheism" (Stanford).
Thus BR is a "weak atheist."
(Back to lurking for a bit).
In the same way, "I believe there is a god" is not the same as "I don't believe that there are no gods".
Actually I think these are the same.
If belief in a god is TRUE.
Then it is also TRUE that you do NOT believe there are no gods.
Double negatives are a problem.
If you do not believe there are no gods, then you must believe in at least one god.
-
If there is any difference (if being the operative word) then it's so minute as to be totally insignificant.
That's the mistake.
There is a massive difference and unless you understand it you will continue to make logical mistakes.
Anyone who writes computer code would see and be aware of the massive difference between the two statements which I admit at first reading seem to be equivalent but they are not.
There is a massive difference, yes. And agnostic is someone who lacks a belief in god because they believe that there is no way of knowing whether a god exists or not. An atheist is someone who believes there is no god. Which are you?
(Yes, I know all about the etymology and the "a" prefix...)
-
If there is any difference (if being the operative word) then it's so minute as to be totally insignificant.
That's the mistake.
There is a massive difference and unless you understand it you will continue to make logical mistakes.
Anyone who writes computer code would see and be aware of the massive difference between the two statements which I admit at first reading seem to be equivalent but they are not.
There is a massive difference, yes. And agnostic is someone who lacks a belief in god because they believe that there is no way of knowing whether a god exists or not. An atheist is someone who believes there is no god. Which are you?
(Yes, I know all about the etymology and the "a" prefix...)
No that is wrong, and I cannot believe you do not already know this as it is explained so many times.
An atheist is someone who does not believe a god exists. He/she does NOT believe a god does not exist.
I am an agnostic atheist, I do not believe a god exists but I do not claim to know a god does not exist.
Atheism and agnosticism are different. One about belief, the other about knowledge.
-
Actually I think these are the same.
If belief in a god is TRUE.
Then it is also TRUE that you do NOT believe there are no gods.
Double negatives are a problem.
If you do not believe there are no gods, then you must believe in at least one god.
OK, let's get rid of the double negative. I believe that there is a god, is not the same as, I don't believe that "there are no gods".
The first is a monotheistic belief, the second is clearly plural.
-
Atheism and agnosticism are different. One about belief, the other about knowledge.
I know that! I just outlined exactly that difference.
-
...
An atheist is someone who does not believe a god exists.
Agreed. He/she does NOT believe a god does not exist.
That should read "He/she does NOT NECESSARILY believe a god does not exist (or better "believe no god exists"). The position you describe is weak/agnostic atheism. A strong atheist does indeed believe no god exists.
I am an agnostic atheist, I do not believe a god exists but I do not claim to know a god does not exist.
Understood and accepted.
Atheism and agnosticism are different. One about belief, the other about knowledge.
Too simple. There are different types of agnosticism as well. There are agnostics who say, "I just don't know whether any gods exist", but there are some for whom agnosticism is that it is not possible to know whether gods exist, i.e. they "know" we can't know.
-
I do not believe in any god.
That is NOT the same as saying I believe no god(s) exist.
The difference is subtle but when you have looked at as much computer code as I have, it is massive.
I hate lots of nested double not if statements as you turn somersaults trying to figure out what some code is doing.
But your stance still adheres to the dictionary definition of atheism, meaning that your claim that I had mistyped continues to be wrong. By the way, I don't do computer code; I do human code, especially as we are dealing in human code on a site such as this.
If you do code it improves your logic.
So you will know that not believing X is true, is NOT the same as believing X is false.
You do see that?
There are at least two definitions of "atheism" that I know of. The OED one is "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" which fits how BR (and many others here) use it. However, there is also the definition from places such as Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which equate atheism as follows, "‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." To help avoid confusion (and have a bit of fun), I tend to use the terms "weak atheism" (BR/OED version) and "strong atheism" (Stanford).
Thus BR is a "weak atheist."
(Back to lurking for a bit).
In the same way, "I believe there is a god" is not the same as "I don't believe that there are no gods".
Actually I think these are the same.
If belief in a god is TRUE.
Then it is also TRUE that you do NOT believe there are no gods.
Double negatives are a problem.
If you do not believe there are no gods, then you must believe in at least one god.
Disagree. Double negatives can make one's brain ache, but they are important. Not believing there are no gods is not the same as believing there is a god. Not believing there are no gods may just mean the person has no view on whether there are no gods.
-
Actually I think these are the same.
If belief in a god is TRUE.
Then it is also TRUE that you do NOT believe there are no gods.
Double negatives are a problem.
If you do not believe there are no gods, then you must believe in at least one god.
OK, let's get rid of the double negative. I believe that there is a god, is not the same as, I don't believe that "there are no gods".
The first is a monotheistic belief, the second is clearly plural.
That's nonsense, surely? You are proposing that it would be logical and consistent to say "I believe in god" and "I believe that there are no gods"; which of course it would not.
If someone said "I don't believe in ghosts" - but then later said "I am firmly convinced that there is a ghost in my house", you would I am sure pick them up for contradicting themselves. If they argued "ah, I said I don't believe in ghosts, plural; the one in my house is just a ghost, singular" you would think they were talking nonsense.
-
We will just have to agree to disagree, Cyber!
Btw, talking of ghosts, the usually seem to be clad. I suppose there must be ghost clothes, too! ;D
-
...
An atheist is someone who does not believe a god exists.
Agreed. He/she does NOT believe a god does not exist.
That should read "He/she does NOT NECESSARILY believe a god does not exist (or better "believe no god exists"). The position you describe is weak/agnostic atheism. A strong atheist does indeed believe no god exists.
I am an agnostic atheist, I do not believe a god exists but I do not claim to know a god does not exist.
Understood and accepted.
Atheism and agnosticism are different. One about belief, the other about knowledge.
Too simple. There are different types of agnosticism as well. There are agnostics who say, "I just don't know whether any gods exist", but there are some for whom agnosticism is that it is not possible to know whether gods exist, i.e. they "know" we can't know.
I strong atheist (I do not like the term) would be a gnostic atheist and they would have the burden of proof for such a position.
I am an agnostic atheist. I simply do not believe the case for god has met it's burden of proof.
In the courtroom analogy, I find god not guilty of existing.
-
...
I strong atheist (I do not like the term) would be a gnostic atheist and they would have the burden of proof for such a position.
I agree.
I am an agnostic atheist. I simply do not believe the case for god has met it's burden of proof.
I understand your position.
-
So it looks like you're already there then Hope, since, in my humble opinion, there's no credible evidence to support the god idea.
ippy
FIFY, ippy
O K Hope, so again where is this elusive evidence then, let's have it, a lot of us will be going down your road if you could supply it; just think of all of those brownie points and get weaving.
Still waiting.
ippy
-
It's not NS by the way.
Sorry, my mistake
I do not understand, I do not believe we currently have a god in this universe, and yet we can still discuss the possibility of it.
Precisely, you believe that there is no god, yet you can still debate/discuss the possibility. In hell, I don't believe that you will be able to because then God will definitely not be there.
What would a universe with no god in it look like?
I would have to question whether there would be a universe if God was not here.
I suggest it would look just like this one.
That's your prerogative.
No you make a big mistake when you say I believe there is no god.
I think you misstyped as you know I am an atheist, and that is s not atheism.
I do not believe your God exists, BUT that is NOT the same as saying I believe your God does not exist.
Do you understand the difference, as it to s crucial and you need to understand and accept this
Do you really have to be so condescending?
B R's being quite tame compared to the stuff you hand out daily B A.
ippy
-
If you do believe in hell, what do you think it is like?
If as a Christian you don't believe in the place, why not, presumably you believe in heaven? Do you believe non believers cease to be when they die?
I do not believe there is a cop out...non believers cease to be when they die?
As for HELL why are you asking?
Wondering if I am going to find you venting your anger and other insults further down the thread. :)
I believe that those who are Christians do not dwell much on hell. After all they won't be going there. Just as we know that no one has to go there. God judges from the books but what does one sin mean? If the wages of sin is death but love covers over many sins... who really knows.
Perfection is something to work towards but the truth is a Christian relies on Grace from God through Jesus Christ. No one perfect but Jesus as a human being. The only one without sin.
Maybe we have something wonderful ahead. Though I know you won't believe me and may mock I don't want ((you)) OR ANYONE to go to hell.
As far as I could tell from Dives and Lazarus they simply reversed the roles... But Dives could not cross back too late...
It is when it is all thrown together which you need to fear in the lake of fire.
Hi there Sass how's he evidence going have you managed to come up with any, Hope seems to think he has some why don't you two team up and nail this problem the pair of you have?
ippy
-
In the meantime, you could try learning punctuation.
-
In the meantime, you could try learning punctuation.
Hi there A O, still in your narrow little dream world?
ippy
-
Whether or not I live in a dream world, others can decide; but at least I can punctuate (reasonably well) thus rendering my posts (reasonably) intelligible compared to yours.
-
It's not NS by the way.
Sorry, my mistake
I do not understand, I do not believe we currently have a god in this universe, and yet we can still discuss the possibility of it.
Precisely, you believe that there is no god, yet you can still debate/discuss the possibility. In hell, I don't believe that you will be able to because then God will definitely not be there.
What would a universe with no god in it look like?
I would have to question whether there would be a universe if God was not here.
I suggest it would look just like this one.
That's your prerogative.
No you make a big mistake when you say I believe there is no god.
I think you misstyped as you know I am an atheist, and that is s not atheism.
I do not believe your God exists, BUT that is NOT the same as saying I believe your God does not exist.
Do you understand the difference, as it to s crucial and you need to understand and accept this
Do you really have to be so condescending?
B R's being quite tame compared to the stuff you hand out daily B A.
ippy
Do you know what "condescending" means, ippy?
-
Whether or not I live in a dream world, others can decide; but at least I can punctuate (reasonably well) thus rendering my posts (reasonably) intelligible compared to yours.
Well goody for you.
I have to admit you seem to understand my posts very well, considering.
Ar well it's talking to yourself day for you tomorrow, that'll help you get over all of these mountainous problems you seem to be having.
ippy
-
It's not NS by the way.
Sorry, my mistake
I do not understand, I do not believe we currently have a god in this universe, and yet we can still discuss the possibility of it.
Precisely, you believe that there is no god, yet you can still debate/discuss the possibility. In hell, I don't believe that you will be able to because then God will definitely not be there.
What would a universe with no god in it look like?
I would have to question whether there would be a universe if God was not here.
I suggest it would look just like this one.
That's your prerogative.
No you make a big mistake when you say I believe there is no god.
I think you misstyped as you know I am an atheist, and that is s not atheism.
I do not believe your God exists, BUT that is NOT the same as saying I believe your God does not exist.
Do you understand the difference, as it to s crucial and you need to understand and accept this
Do you really have to be so condescending?
B R's being quite tame compared to the stuff you hand out daily B A.
ippy
Do you know what "condescending" means, ippy?
I can explain it to you if you're finding it difficult, it really wouldn't be that much trouble, I love helping people any time I can.
ippy
-
I can explain it to you if you're finding it difficult, it really wouldn't be that much trouble, I love helping people any time I can.
ippy
If you actually know, then why naively use it, when it so aptly describes your post? As you are so helpful, maybe you could elucidate (another word for you to look up!))
-
"The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all nations that forget God." Psalm 9:17
Now the wicked and the righteous do not go to the same place so I cannot accept that hell is just the grave. Nope, in this case hell is more than the grave.
'Hell' 'Grave', same word - 'Sheol' throughout the OT, as far as I'm aware.
"The soul that sinneth, it shall die" Ezekiel
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
Daniel 12:2
Yes, most of us who know something about the OT and the Bible in general know that quote from Daniel. It is virtually unique in the OT in referring to some definite afterlife or resurrection. It is of course a very late scripture in the OT, and reflects the way beliefs of the ancient Hebrews were beginning to change - and they changed a lot, as can be seen from the writings known as the 'Apocrypha'. As I said in a previous post:
I'm not denying that these concepts changed over time in the scriptures - particularly during the inter-testamental years. By the time we get to Christianity, lots of other stuff has got mixed into the pudding.
.
However, my comments in this thread are not meant to argue ideas about "What the message of the OT really is" (and certainly not what the message of the Bible really is, since there are many viewpoints expressed throughout). I simply wish to reiterate that I agree with Ecclesiastes' unequivocal statement: When you're dead, you're dead.
-
I can explain it to you if you're finding it difficult, it really wouldn't be that much trouble, I love helping people any time I can.
ippy
If you actually know, then why naively use it, when it so aptly describes your post? As you are so helpful, maybe you could elucidate (another word for you to look up!))
Still got a problem then B A.
ippy
-
I can explain it to you if you're finding it difficult, it really wouldn't be that much trouble, I love helping people any time I can.
ippy
If you actually know, then why naively use it, when it so aptly describes your post? As you are so helpful, maybe you could elucidate (another word for you to look up!))
Still got a problem then B A.
ippy
What does "elucidate," mean, without looking it up? 8)
-
I can explain it to you if you're finding it difficult, it really wouldn't be that much trouble, I love helping people any time I can.
ippy
If you actually know, then why naively use it, when it so aptly describes your post? As you are so helpful, maybe you could elucidate (another word for you to look up!))
Still got a problem then B A.
ippy
What would be your problem if I were to ask, have you still got a problem?
ippy
What does "elucidate," mean, without looking it up? 8)
-
However, my comments in this thread are not meant to argue ideas about "What the message of the OT really is" (and certainly not what the message of the Bible really is, since there are many viewpoints expressed throughout). I simply wish to reiterate that I agree with Ecclesiastes' unequivocal statement: When you're dead, you're dead.
I don't think anybody disagrees with that, neither is the bible just taking it from man's angle. We are resurrected from death not ''we carry on living but in a different form.''
-
WHAT ?!?!?!? Like some kind of zombie ????
-
If you do not believe there are no gods, then you must believe in at least one god.
Nope. A belief that there are gods is not the same as believing in one of them. I believe that there are other planets with life on them in the Universe, but there is no specific planet I know of that has life on it.
-
I believe that there are other planets with life on them in the Universe, but there is no specific planet I know of that has life on it.
Assuming you mean other than Earth - why would you believe in something for which there is no evidence?
-
I believe that there are other planets with life on them in the Universe, but there is no specific planet I know of that has life on it.
Assuming you mean other than Earth - why would you believe in something for which there is no evidence?
Because from what science has shown us already, there is a high probability that the conditions for life to begin exist in other planets in the universe.
-
I believe that there are other planets with life on them in the Universe, but there is no specific planet I know of that has life on it.
Assuming you mean other than Earth - why would you believe in something for which there is no evidence?
Because from what science has shown us already, there is a high probability that the conditions for life to begin exist in other planets in the universe.
Name any yet found. You accuse theists of having no argument, even though there is evidence for their beliefs; but you make a statement which has not an iota of evidence to back it up. I see a little inconsistency there!
-
I believe that there are other planets with life on them in the Universe, but there is no specific planet I know of that has life on it.
Assuming you mean other than Earth - why would you believe in something for which there is no evidence?
Because from what science has shown us already, there is a high probability that the conditions for life to begin exist in other planets in the universe.
I think you are right, but are a very long way from Earth, so we haven't made contact as yet. It seems pretty inconceivable that our planet is the only one to host intelligent life in the whole of the vast universe.
-
I believe that there are other planets with life on them in the Universe, but there is no specific planet I know of that has life on it.
Assuming you mean other than Earth - why would you believe in something for which there is no evidence?
Because from what science has shown us already, there is a high probability that the conditions for life to begin exist in other planets in the universe.
I think you are right, but are a very long way from Earth, so we haven't made contact as yet. It seems pretty inconceivable that our planet is the only one to host intelligent life in the whole of the vast universe.
Even if the right conditions applied for the existence of life, it doesn't necessarily mean it will evolve. So, unless there is evidence, then you have no substantive argument.
-
I believe that there are other planets with life on them in the Universe, but there is no specific planet I know of that has life on it.
Assuming you mean other than Earth - why would you believe in something for which there is no evidence?
Because from what science has shown us already, there is a high probability that the conditions for life to begin exist in other planets in the universe.
I think you are right, but are a very long way from Earth, so we haven't made contact as yet. It seems pretty inconceivable that our planet is the only one to host intelligent life in the whole of the vast universe.
Any statistician will tell you that it is literally impossible to assess the probability of there being life elsewhere in the universe, as we have a sample of one - Earth. What jeremyp and floo and Let are articulating is nothing more than a mixture of wishful thinking and subjective intuition - the sort of thing you might expect us god-botherers to get up to! 2
-
I don't know about 'wishful thinking'. Humanoids on another planet might someday want to try to do a takeover bid for ours! :o All I am saying is that whilst we have no evidence that there is intelligent life out there, it would be extremely weird if we were the only planet to host such life.
-
I don't know about 'wishful thinking'. Humanoids on another planet might someday want to try to do a takeover bid for ours! :o All I am saying is that whilst we have no evidence that there is intelligent life out there, it would be extremely weird if we were the only planet to host such life.
Does "weird" mean statistically unlikely, or just subjectively counter-intuitive? I
-
I don't know about 'wishful thinking'. Humanoids on another planet might someday want to try to do a takeover bid for ours! :o All I am saying is that whilst we have no evidence that there is intelligent life out there, it would be extremely weird if we were the only planet to host such life.
Does "weird" mean statistically unlikely, or just subjectively counter-intuitive? I
Statistically unlikely that we are the only such planet, imo.
But "statistically' and 'imo' just don't go together, floo. You're not using statistics at all, not in the slightest. You are bolting the word 'statistically' onto your guess to make it look (or feel) less like a guess.
-
I don't know about 'wishful thinking'. Humanoids on another planet might someday want to try to do a takeover bid for ours! :o All I am saying is that whilst we have no evidence that there is intelligent life out there, it would be extremely weird if we were the only planet to host such life.
Not really, Floo. There might be life on other planets in other solar systems, but it would be interesting to know the statistical probability of chance creating a planet of sufficient similarity to the Earth to allow humanoids to develop. IIRC, its pretty slim.
-
I believe that there are other planets with life on them in the Universe, but there is no specific planet I know of that has life on it.
Assuming you mean other than Earth
I thought that was clear from the first sentence where I said "I believe there are other planets with life on them".
- why would you believe in something for which there is no evidence?
Probability. If I throw a dice and conceal it before anybody sees it, would you believe I had thrown a six? Probably not. If I threw a thousand dice and concealed them all before anybody saw them, would you believe that at least one of the throws was a six? I'd hope so, in spite of the fact that you have no evidence that any particular one came up six.
-
I don't know about 'wishful thinking'. Humanoids on another planet might someday want to try to do a takeover bid for ours! :o All I am saying is that whilst we have no evidence that there is intelligent life out there, it would be extremely weird if we were the only planet to host such life.
Does "weird" mean statistically unlikely, or just subjectively counter-intuitive? I
Statistically unlikely that we are the only such planet, imo.
But "statistically' and 'imo' just don't go together, floo. You're not using statistics at all, not in the slightest. You are bolting the word 'statistically' onto your guess to make it look (or feel) less like a guess.
Blimey talk about PEDANTIC!
Floo, that's not pedantry - it's absolutely central to what we're talking about
-
I don't know about 'wishful thinking'. Humanoids on another planet might someday want to try to do a takeover bid for ours! :o All I am saying is that whilst we have no evidence that there is intelligent life out there, it would be extremely weird if we were the only planet to host such life.
Not really, Floo. There might be life on other planets in other solar systems, but it would be interesting to know the statistical probability of chance creating a planet of sufficient similarity to the Earth to allow humanoids to develop. IIRC, its pretty slim.
It is. That's probably why there are many people - I'm one of them - who on statistical grounds think that the probability of life elsewhere in the universe is as good as 1, but the likelihood of any of that life being akin to humans is effectively zero.
-
I believe that there are other planets with life on them in the Universe, but there is no specific planet I know of that has life on it.
Assuming you mean other than Earth
I thought that was clear from the first sentence where I said "I believe there are other planets with life on them".
- why would you believe in something for which there is no evidence?
Probability. If I throw a dice and conceal it before anybody sees it, would you believe I had thrown a six? Probably not. If I threw a thousand dice and concealed them all before anybody saw them, would you believe that at least one of the throws was a six? I'd hope so, in spite of the fact that you have no evidence that any particular one came up six.
Brilliant post.
-
I believe that there are other planets with life on them in the Universe, but there is no specific planet I know of that has life on it.
Assuming you mean other than Earth
I thought that was clear from the first sentence where I said "I believe there are other planets with life on them".
- why would you believe in something for which there is no evidence?
Probability. If I throw a dice and conceal it before anybody sees it, would you believe I had thrown a six? Probably not. If I threw a thousand dice and concealed them all before anybody saw them, would you believe that at least one of the throws was a six? I'd hope so, in spite of the fact that you have no evidence that any particular one came up six.
Yes, because with the dice we have exactly the data we need to make that statistical analysis. With planets we just don't.
We know if it is a six sided dice that after a thousand throws it is likely to have turned up something in the region of 166 sixes. But if it was a thousand sided dice we would not be so sure. If it was a million sided dice we would think it unlikely to throw a six after a thousand throws.
In the case of life on other worlds we have not the foggiest idea how many sides the dice has.
You and floo keep bandying around the word "statistics" - ok then tell me the statistics. And I mean real statistics, not the joker from the sixties who just preloaded his equation with lots of completely arbritary "let's say"s . One in how many planets has life on it? One in a thousand? One in a billion? On in x, where x = the number of planets which actually exist? Go on - your belief is based on stats, so tell me the stats.
-
In the case of life on other worlds we have not the foggiest idea how many sides the dice has.
Rubbish! Off the top of my head I would say that the number of sides is not very high. The planet would have to be composed of elements capable of interaction to form compounds, it would have to be within a certain band of distance from its sun, and probably a few other things which a chemist/biologist would know about, but that's all.
-
In the case of life on other worlds we have not the foggiest idea how many sides the dice has.
Rubbish! Off the top of my head I would say that the number of sides is not very high. The planet would have to be composed of elements capable of interaction to form compounds, it would have to be within a certain band of distance from its sun, and probably a few other things which a chemist/biologist would know about, but that's all.
(a) We are talking about planets which have life on them, not planets with conditions capable of sustaining life. The two need not be the same value.
(b) I see the "rubbish" when I say we don't know what the odds are... but I don't see the odds. What are the odds, Len?
-
In the case of life on other worlds we have not the foggiest idea how many sides the dice has.
Rubbish! Off the top of my head I would say that the number of sides is not very high. The planet would have to be composed of elements capable of interaction to form compounds, it would have to be within a certain band of distance from its sun, and probably a few other things which a chemist/biologist would know about, but that's all.
(a) We are talking about planets which have life on them, not planets with conditions capable of sustaining life. The two need not be the same value.
(b) I see the "rubbish" when I say we don't know what the odds are... but I don't see the odds. What are the odds, Len?
I don't know what the odds are any more than you do, but they certainly don't run into the millions you were claiming.
-
Yes, because with the dice we have exactly the data we need to make that statistical analysis. With planets we just don't.
We know if it is a six sided dice that after a thousand throws it is likely to have turned up something in the region of 166 sixes. But if it was a thousand sided dice we would not be so sure. If it was a million sided dice we would think it unlikely to throw a six after a thousand throws.
In the case of life on other worlds we have not the foggiest idea how many sides the dice has.
You and floo keep bandying around the word "statistics" - ok then tell me the statistics. And I mean real statistics, not the joker from the sixties who just preloaded his equation with lots of completely arbritary "let's say"s . One in how many planets has life on it? One in a thousand? One in a billion? On in x, where x = the number of planets which actually exist? Go on - your belief is based on stats, so tell me the stats.
There aren't only a thousand planets in the Universe.
Anyway, this is all beside the point I was making. My planet post was in response to Be Rat.s post that not believing there are no gods is equivalent to believing in a god. The dice example works just as well as a refutation of that.
-
In the case of life on other worlds we have not the foggiest idea how many sides the dice has.
Rubbish! Off the top of my head I would say that the number of sides is not very high. The planet would have to be composed of elements capable of interaction to form compounds, it would have to be within a certain band of distance from its sun, and probably a few other things which a chemist/biologist would know about, but that's all.
(a) We are talking about planets which have life on them, not planets with conditions capable of sustaining life. The two need not be the same value.
(b) I see the "rubbish" when I say we don't know what the odds are... but I don't see the odds. What are the odds, Len?
I don't know what the odds are any more than you do, but they certainly don't run into the millions you were claiming.
Please specify where I made such an absurd claim. I explicitly said we have no idea whatsoever what the odds are.
For someone who prides himself on his rational devotion to logic, you really are careless with words like "certainly"! Upon what evidence do you base this certainty? Because I know you don't believe anything without evidence.
-
In the case of life on other worlds we have not the foggiest idea how many sides the dice has.
Rubbish! Off the top of my head I would say that the number of sides is not very high. The planet would have to be composed of elements capable of interaction to form compounds, it would have to be within a certain band of distance from its sun, and probably a few other things which a chemist/biologist would know about, but that's all.
(a) We are talking about planets which have life on them, not planets with conditions capable of sustaining life. The two need not be the same value.
(b) I see the "rubbish" when I say we don't know what the odds are... but I don't see the odds. What are the odds, Len?
I don't know what the odds are any more than you do, but they certainly don't run into the millions you were claiming.
Professor Andrew Watson, of the University of East Anglia, does have an idea:
He suggests the number of evolutionary steps needed to create intelligent life, in the case of humans, is four. These probably include the emergence of single-celled bacteria, complex cells, specialized cells allowing complex life forms, and intelligent life with an established language.
“Complex life is separated from the simplest life forms by several very unlikely steps and therefore will be much less common. Intelligence is one step further, so it is much less common still,” said Prof Watson.
His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years.
-
Please specify where I made such an absurd claim. I explicitly said we have no idea whatsoever what the odds are.
This is the analogy I was referring to, and that you were using as an "argument".
"But if it was a thousand sided dice we would not be so sure. If it was a million sided dice we would think it unlikely to throw a six after a thousand throws."
-
I think another reason that makes me tend toward life on other planets, is what you have to believe to think there is none.
You have to believe that this is the only planet in all the many billions of planets that must exist that have the ability to have life as we know it, and this is only life as we know it. We do not know what the limits of life are.
The biggest issue for me is the emergence of life from non life. Once life has begun, then evolution will take over and shape the life (given the required possible variation) for the situation on that planet.
We do not know how likely that is, but you would have to believe that we are special, and it has only happened once.
This could be the case, but it seems spectacularly self centred the think this place the place where we are is the only place and has some special significance. When we look into the universe, there is nothing special about this place.
It could be that we are alone, but I think you have to accept more unlikely things to think that we are.
-
This could be the case, but it seems spectacularly self centred the think this place the place where we are is the only place and has some special significance. When we look into the universe, there is nothing special about this place.
It could be that we are alone, but I think you have to accept more unlikely things to think that we are.
Sadly, that is what believers think ... that they ARE special, that "God" created them to worship and obey him.
There appears to be no way we can rescue them from the illusion, and I quite understand that. The carrot is very tempting and the stick very threatening if you are credulous enough to let the story override your scepticism.
-
Why are some people so adamant intelligent life on Earth is unique, even though the universe is so vast?
It puts a bit of a dent in their narcissism, I guess. Narcissism and monotheism go hand in hand after all.
-
Just had a visit by the local Jehovas witnesses.
Nice people, but not a logical thought between them.
Nice chat though, but I told them not to waste the magazine on me.
-
His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years.
That makes no sense without a given volume of space/area as well as time.
-
Why are some people so adamant intelligent life on Earth is unique, even though the universe is so vast?
It puts a bit of a dent in their narcissism, I guess. Narcissism and monotheism go hand in hand after all.
So it is only monotheists who think there is unlikely to be intelligent life on other planets?
Just in case you are wondering about my own view, I really don't know what the chances are.
-
Why are some people so adamant intelligent life on Earth is unique, even though the universe is so vast?
It puts a bit of a dent in their narcissism, I guess. Narcissism and monotheism go hand in hand after all.
So it is only monotheists who think there is unlikely to be intelligent life on other planets?
Just in case you are wondering about my own view, I really don't know what the chances are.
Nor does anybody else, but we know enough to claim that the probability of it is not so remote as they like to think.
-
Why are some people so adamant intelligent life on Earth is unique, even though the universe is so vast?
It puts a bit of a dent in their narcissism, I guess. Narcissism and monotheism go hand in hand after all.
So it is only monotheists who think there is unlikely to be intelligent life on other planets?
Just in case you are wondering about my own view, I really don't know what the chances are.
Nor does anybody else, but we know enough to claim that the probability of it is not so remote as they like to think.
Do we? It seems very much like guesswork all round to me.
-
Do we? It seems very much like guesswork all round to me.
Naturally! I wouldn't expect anything else from a believer. :)
-
If you do believe in hell, what do you think it is like?
If as a Christian you don't believe in the place, why not, presumably you believe in heaven? Do you believe non believers cease to be when they die?
I don't believe in a physical Hell, a place of eternal torment. Churches used to use that idea to frighten people into believing. I am sure some cease to exist altogether when they die, I wouldn't be arrogant enough to presume who does and doesn't.
There can be Hell on earth for some! No doubt about that. Also people often suffer terribly when they have done something wrong, it never leaves them no matter how much they are forgiven and try to forgive themselves. I cannot see God punishing someone again if they have been through torment already.
-
Do we? It seems very much like guesswork all round to me.
Naturally! I wouldn't expect anything else from a believer. :)
But it isn't from you? That must mean you have some actual figures we can work on.
Please quote them.
-
Do we? It seems very much like guesswork all round to me.
Naturally! I wouldn't expect anything else from a believer. :)
But it isn't from you? That must mean you have some actual figures we can work on.
Please quote them.
Figures aren't needed when the facts are obvious. I have quoted the case as I see it, Alan. I didn't expect you to accept it, and you have not disappointed me.
We will have to leave it at that.
-
Do we? It seems very much like guesswork all round to me.
Naturally! I wouldn't expect anything else from a believer. :)
But it isn't from you? That must mean you have some actual figures we can work on.
Please quote them.
Figures aren't needed when the facts are obvious. I have quoted the case as I see it, Alan. I didn't expect you to accept it, and you have not disappointed me.
We will have to leave it at that.
So tell me on what evidence you decided it is obvious, please.
-
Please specify where I made such an absurd claim. I explicitly said we have no idea whatsoever what the odds are.
This is the analogy I was referring to, and that you were using as an "argument".
"But if it was a thousand sided dice we would not be so sure. If it was a million sided dice we would think it unlikely to throw a six after a thousand throws."
But I never claimed that the odds of there being life on other worlds was in the millions. I was pointing out that we don't know. I imagine you lack what is required to understand the concept of admitting you don't know something, but that's the way it is.
You seem to imagine I am saying that it is unlikely that there is life on other planets. I am saying no such thing.
-
Why are some people so adamant intelligent life on Earth is unique, even though the universe is so vast?
Who is adamant that that is the case?
-
This could be the case, but it seems spectacularly self centred the think this place the place where we are is the only place and has some special significance.
Sadly, that is what believers think ...
Well, I'm a believer (fuck knows why you're bringing religion into this, but there it is) and I think no such thing.
-
So it is only monotheists who think there is unlikely to be intelligent life on other planets?
[/quote]
I am a monotheist, and I don't think it's unlikely that there is intelligent life on other planets.
-
Nor does anybody else, but we know enough to claim that the probability of it is not so remote as they like to think.
Who has claimed that the probability is remote?
-
You seem to imagine I am saying that it is unlikely that there is life on other planets. I am saying no such thing.
Then I apologise for misunderstanding you.
-
You seem to imagine I am saying that it is unlikely that there is life on other planets. I am saying no such thing.
Then I apologise for misunderstanding you.
hmmm
I am not sure how you could misunderstand me saying "We have no idea at all what the odds are" and think I said "I think I know what the odds are".....
But thanks, apology accepted x
-
So it is only monotheists who think there is unlikely to be intelligent life on other planets?
I am a monotheist, and I don't think it's unlikely that there is intelligent life on other planets.
[/quote]
And even the rather odious C.S. Lewis wrote about such possibilities. He even attempted a re-enactment of the "Original Sin" scenario in one of his novels. I believe trying to give such a specifically Christian slant to such speculations to be especially bonkers, but full marks to him for having the imagination conceive such possibilities.
I'm told that intelligent life has evolved here on earth - though I rather doubt the quoted figures about how much there is - and relatively 'primitive' life has succeeded in the most incredibly hostile environments here, so the idea that life could not evolve elsewhere in such a vast universe seems small-minded and egocentric in the extreme.
-
the idea that life could not evolve elsewhere in such a vast universe seems small-minded and egocentric in the extreme.
I am not aware of anyone having expressed such an idea, so you seem to be getting terribly indignant about something which hasn't happened!
-
So it is only monotheists who think there is unlikely to be intelligent life on other planets?
I am a monotheist, and I don't think it's unlikely that there is intelligent life on other planets.
And even the rather odious C.S. Lewis wrote about such possibilities. He even attempted a re-enactment of the "Original Sin" scenario in one of his novels. I believe trying to give such a specifically Christian slant to such speculations to be especially bonkers, but full marks to him for having the imagination conceive such possibilities.
I'm told that intelligent life has evolved here on earth - though I rather doubt the quoted figures about how much there is - and relatively 'primitive' life has succeeded in the most incredibly hostile environments here, so the idea that life could not evolve elsewhere in such a vast universe seems small-minded and egocentric in the extreme.
Odious? What has that got to do with the arguments being put forward?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3146196/Aliens-exist-look-like-HUMANS-Life-planets-evolved-similar-way-Earth-biologist-claims.html
-
Why are some people so adamant intelligent life on Earth is unique, even though the universe is so vast?
It puts a bit of a dent in their narcissism, I guess. Narcissism and monotheism go hand in hand after all.
I suppose this explains the fact that when asked about Jesus' comment that he has 'other sheep which are not of this fold' (John 10:16), very few Christians - at least - will say that they know what this means since there is no indication whether the 'other folds' referred to, are earthly or universal. As such, Christianity says absolutely nothing about humanity having a cosmic uniqueness.
-
Nor does anybody else, but we know enough to claim that the probability of it is not so remote as they like to think.
Not so remote as who like to think, Len? (See my previous post for the context to this question)
-
Why are some people so adamant intelligent life on Earth is unique, even though the universe is so vast?
It puts a bit of a dent in their narcissism, I guess. Narcissism and monotheism go hand in hand after all.
I suppose this explains the fact that when asked about Jesus' comment that he has 'other sheep which are not of this fold' (John 10:16), very few Christians - at least - will say that they know what this means since there is no indication whether the 'other folds' referred to, are earthly or universal. As such, Christianity says absolutely nothing about humanity having a cosmic uniqueness.
I guarantee that if signals from another civilisation are ever discovered, Christians will very quickly find a passage in the bible that predicted it!
-
Nor does anybody else, but we know enough to claim that the probability of it is not so remote as they like to think.
Not so remote as who like to think, Len? (See my previous post for the context to this question)
Those who think the the possibility of other life in the universe is remote or zero.
-
Those who think the the possibility of other life in the universe is remote or zero.
I asked because your post I quoted clearly uses the pronoun 'they' to refer to 'monotheists' in Alien's post you were responding to and I wanted to check that that was what you had intended despite there being nothing in either Old or New Testaments, Jesus' teachings or Jewish and Christian doctrine to support your suggestion. Are you saying that Islam, Sikhism, Ba'hai, Zoroastrianism and other monotheistic faiths such as elements of Hindusim teach the universal/cosmic uniqueness of life - especially human life?
-
Those who think the the possibility of other life in the universe is remote or zero.
I asked because your post I quoted clearly uses the pronoun 'they' to refer to 'monotheists' in Alien's post you were responding to and I wanted to check that that was what you had intended despite there being nothing in either Old or New Testaments, Jesus' teachings or Jewish and Christian doctrine to support your suggestion. Are you saying that Islam, Sikhism, Ba'hai, Zoroastrianism and other monotheistic faiths such as elements of Hindusim teach the universal/cosmic uniqueness of life - especially human life?
You know as well as I do that what the various religions "teach" depends on who is referring to them. There appear to be many ways to translate what scriptures mean, but the truth is that the only people who know for sure what they were teaching were the authors, and they are no longer around to refer to.
The only thing I am sure of is that many believers do not accept the idea that there may be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. They believe that "God" created the universe and everything in it for the sole purpose of bringing all humans to believe in him and join him in heaven after earthly death.
-
Why are some people so adamant intelligent life on Earth is unique, even though the universe is so vast?
It puts a bit of a dent in their narcissism, I guess. Narcissism and monotheism go hand in hand after all.
I suppose this explains the fact that when asked about Jesus' comment that he has 'other sheep which are not of this fold' (John 10:16), very few Christians - at least - will say that they know what this means since there is no indication whether the 'other folds' referred to, are earthly or universal. As such, Christianity says absolutely nothing about humanity having a cosmic uniqueness.
I guarantee that if signals from another civilisation are ever discovered, Christians will very quickly find a passage in the bible that predicted it!
With 2 billion or so people identifying as Christians, I am sure there will be some.
Do you know of any passages in the Bible which says or implies there is no intelligent life apart from on this planet?
-
The only thing I am sure of is that many believers do not accept the idea that there may be intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. They believe that "God" created the universe and everything in it for the sole purpose of bringing all humans to believe in him and join him in heaven after earthly death.
And the evidence for this 'only thing I am sure of' would be ...?
-
Why are some people so adamant intelligent life on Earth is unique, even though the universe is so vast?
It puts a bit of a dent in their narcissism, I guess. Narcissism and monotheism go hand in hand after all.
I suppose this explains the fact that when asked about Jesus' comment that he has 'other sheep which are not of this fold' (John 10:16), very few Christians - at least - will say that they know what this means since there is no indication whether the 'other folds' referred to, are earthly or universal. As such, Christianity says absolutely nothing about humanity having a cosmic uniqueness.
I guarantee that if signals from another civilisation are ever discovered, Christians will very quickly find a passage in the bible that predicted it!
With 2 billion or so people identifying as Christians, I am sure there will be some.
Do you know of any passages in the Bible which says or implies there is no intelligent life apart from on this planet?
No, but then I do not expect the writers of the bible to have given it any consideration due to the fact they they were totally ignorant of the universe they were in.
I expect what will happen, as has happened in the past, that when some new discovery is found, some idiot will point the some vague passage in the bible and claim it foretold or predicted the event. This is of course nonsense and simply interpreting some vague text to mean what you want it to.
An example might be that some chistians claim that the bible new the world was a sphere and that it hung in space hence it new all about the orbit of the Earth around the Sun etc. Complete nonsense.
The bible only seem able to predict scientific discoveries AFTER science has discovered them.
That shoud give those christians pause for thought.
-
The bible only seem able to predict scientific discoveries AFTER science has discovered them.
That shoud give those christians pause for thought.
Perhaps you could provide us with examples of scientific discoveries that the Bible predicts AFTER being disovered by science.
-
Why are some people so adamant intelligent life on Earth is unique, even though the universe is so vast?
It puts a bit of a dent in their narcissism, I guess. Narcissism and monotheism go hand in hand after all.
I suppose this explains the fact that when asked about Jesus' comment that he has 'other sheep which are not of this fold' (John 10:16), very few Christians - at least - will say that they know what this means since there is no indication whether the 'other folds' referred to, are earthly or universal. As such, Christianity says absolutely nothing about humanity having a cosmic uniqueness.
I guarantee that if signals from another civilisation are ever discovered, Christians will very quickly find a passage in the bible that predicted it!
With 2 billion or so people identifying as Christians, I am sure there will be some.
Do you know of any passages in the Bible which says or implies there is no intelligent life apart from on this planet?
No, but then I do not expect the writers of the bible to have given it any consideration due to the fact they they were totally ignorant of the universe they were in.
I expect what will happen, as has happened in the past, that when some new discovery is found, some idiot will point the some vague passage in the bible and claim it foretold or predicted the event. This is of course nonsense and simply interpreting some vague text to mean what you want it to.
An example might be that some chistians claim that the bible new the world was a sphere and that it hung in space hence it new all about the orbit of the Earth around the Sun etc. Complete nonsense.
The bible only seem able to predict scientific discoveries AFTER science has discovered them.
That shoud give those christians pause for thought.
I agree with you to a large extent. As far as I can tell, the bible does not make scientific claims and people saying it does are incorrect. It does not teach cosmology and this has been recognised by at least some respected Christian leaders for ages. For example John Calvin wrote the following in his commentary on Genesis 1:16, "For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere."
-
The bible only seem able to predict scientific discoveries AFTER science has discovered them.
That shoud give those christians pause for thought.
Perhaps you could provide us with examples of scientific discoveries that the Bible predicts AFTER being disovered by science.
That the Earth is a sphere, and orbits the Sun.
-
That the Earth is a sphere, and orbits the Sun.
There is nothing in the Bible that argues otherwise; remember that the flat-earth idea is a Greek one, not Jewish or Christian
-
the idea that life could not evolve elsewhere in such a vast universe seems small-minded and egocentric in the extreme.
I am not aware of anyone having expressed such an idea, so you seem to be getting terribly indignant about something which hasn't happened!
Oh no, cyber - I wasn't alluding to you. I know perfectly well you weren't implying any such thing.
-
So it is only monotheists who think there is unlikely to be intelligent life on other planets?
I am a monotheist, and I don't think it's unlikely that there is intelligent life on other planets.
And even the rather odious C.S. Lewis wrote about such possibilities. He even attempted a re-enactment of the "Original Sin" scenario in one of his novels. I believe trying to give such a specifically Christian slant to such speculations to be especially bonkers, but full marks to him for having the imagination conceive such possibilities.
I'm told that intelligent life has evolved here on earth - though I rather doubt the quoted figures about how much there is - and relatively 'primitive' life has succeeded in the most incredibly hostile environments here, so the idea that life could not evolve elsewhere in such a vast universe seems small-minded and egocentric in the extreme.
Odious? What has that got to do with the arguments being put forward?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3146196/Aliens-exist-look-like-HUMANS-Life-planets-evolved-similar-way-Earth-biologist-claims.html
I think in many ways he was rather odious - that's just my view. However, he was prepared to consider that life on other worlds was entirely plausible - something that some people here seem anxious to deny (quoting statistics on occasion, as if they offered any reasonably argument on these matters)
(And just to placate cyberman yet again, I realised from the first that you weren't among the 'alien-life-deniers'.)
-
So it is only monotheists who think there is unlikely to be intelligent life on other planets?
I am a monotheist, and I don't think it's unlikely that there is intelligent life on other planets.
And even the rather odious C.S. Lewis wrote about such possibilities. He even attempted a re-enactment of the "Original Sin" scenario in one of his novels. I believe trying to give such a specifically Christian slant to such speculations to be especially bonkers, but full marks to him for having the imagination conceive such possibilities.
I'm told that intelligent life has evolved here on earth - though I rather doubt the quoted figures about how much there is - and relatively 'primitive' life has succeeded in the most incredibly hostile environments here, so the idea that life could not evolve elsewhere in such a vast universe seems small-minded and egocentric in the extreme.
Odious? What has that got to do with the arguments being put forward?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3146196/Aliens-exist-look-like-HUMANS-Life-planets-evolved-similar-way-Earth-biologist-claims.html
I think in many ways he was rather odious - that's just my view. However, he was prepared to consider that life on other worlds was entirely plausible - something that some people here seem anxious to deny (quoting statistics on occasion, as if they offered any reasonably argument on these matters)
(And just to placate cyberman yet again, I realised from the first that you weren't among the 'alien-life-deniers'.)
I won't push any more after this post, but I'm still wondering why your accusing CS Lewis of being odious was relevant to the point you made.
-
Nor does anybody else, but we know enough to claim that the probability of it is not so remote as they like to think.
Not so remote as who like to think, Len? (See my previous post for the context to this question)
Those who think the the possibility of other life in the universe is remote or zero.
And who are they? Are you making up opponents, Len?
-
(And just to placate cyberman yet again, I realised from the first that you weren't among the 'alien-life-deniers'.)
Are there any?
-
However, he was prepared to consider that life on other worlds was entirely plausible - something that some people here seem anxious to deny (quoting statistics on occasion, as if they offered any reasonably argument on these matters)
Perhaps you can 'name and shame' the 'some people here', DU. I've already asked Len to do something similar, but he hasn't been able to do so yet.
-
That the Earth is a sphere, and orbits the Sun.
There is nothing in the Bible that argues otherwise; remember that the flat-earth idea is a Greek one, not Jewish or Christian
You misunderstand. Some Christians use some passage in the bible one where it talks about a circle, and claim this actually means sphere.
I think there is some passage that says the world hangs on nothing and use this to say it means the world in space.
It only meant these things once science had discovered it to be true.
The bible tells us nothing ahead of scientific discovery. Had this really been inspired by some all knowing being, it made sure that nothing other than was known at the time went in, so that it looks like it was not inspired by a being with even an verage 21st century scientific average understanding, never mind all knowing.
-
There is nothing in the Bible that argues otherwise; remember that the flat-earth idea is a Greek one, not Jewish or Christian
You have it the wrong way round, the spherical Earth idea is Greek, not Jewish. The Jewish Bible is full of metaphors about the shape of the Earth. It is referred to as circular, as having four corners, as being immovable and set on pillars, as having tent like heavens, as hanging on nothing. There is nowhere in the Jewish Bible where it is even hinted that the Earth is spherical. There are plenty of places where it is hinted that it is not.
-
His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years.
That makes no sense without a given volume of space/area as well as time.
This is Shaker, theologian, philosopher, literary expert, now top scientist. I quoted the figures from a scientist, whose knowledge almost certainly dwarfs yours..Yet you have the gaul to make a facetious comment in your self-assumed superiority. Give some facts as to why you know better.
-
The bible tells us nothing ahead of scientific discovery. Had this really been inspired by some all knowing being, it made sure that nothing other than was known at the time went in, so that it looks like it was not inspired by a being with even an verage 21st century scientific average understanding, never mind all knowing.
The Bible doesn't tell us anything of this sort even after scientific discovery. As Alien pointed out at 9.53 this morning, "As far as I can tell, the bible does not make scientific claims ... . It does not teach cosmology and this has been recognised by at least some respected Christian leaders for ages." The purpose of the Bible isn't to be a scientific textbook, despite what some creationists might want us to believe; the purpose of the Bible is to explore trhe purpose of humnity and the nature of the creator God.
-
The bible tells us nothing ahead of scientific discovery. Had this really been inspired by some all knowing being, it made sure that nothing other than was known at the time went in, so that it looks like it was not inspired by a being with even an verage 21st century scientific average understanding, never mind all knowing.
The Bible doesn't tell us anything of this sort even after scientific discovery. As Alien pointed out at 9.53 this morning, "As far as I can tell, the bible does not make scientific claims ... . It does not teach cosmology and this has been recognised by at least some respected Christian leaders for ages." The purpose of the Bible isn't to be a scientific textbook, despite what some creationists might want us to believe; the purpose of the Bible is to explore trhe purpose of humnity and the nature of the creator God.
But we do see some Christians claiming the bible does indeed have information of this kind. The thing is, it is only AFTER some scientific discovery.
-
You have it the wrong way round, the spherical Earth idea is Greek, not Jewish.
Sorry, jeremy, you are partly right. I've been doing a certain amount of reading around this subject over the last few months and managed to get myself confused. Plato posited the idea of a combinations of circular paths around a spherical earth. From what I understand (and I may yet be wrong) even Plato regarded these circular paths to all be within a single plane - 1D, in effect)
The Jewish Bible is full of metaphors about the shape of the Earth. It is referred to as circular, as having four corners, as being immovable and set on pillars, as having tent like heavens, as hanging on nothing.
As you say, all these are metaphorical references. Iirc, they all come from the poetry books. Are you saying that poetry has to be taken as literally true?
-
You have it the wrong way round, the spherical Earth idea is Greek, not Jewish.
Sorry, jeremy, you are partly right. I've been doing a certain amountnof reading around this subject over the last few months and managed to get myself confused. Plato posited the idea of a combinations of circular paths around a spherical earth. From what I understand (and I may yet be wrong) even Plato regarded these circular paths to all be within a single plane - 1D, in effect)
The Jewish Bible is full of metaphors about the shape of the Earth. It is referred to as circular, as having four corners, as being immovable and set on pillars, as having tent like heavens, as hanging on nothing.
As you say, all these are metaphorical references. Iirc, they all come from the poetry books. Are you saying that poetry has to be taken as literally true?
For goodness sake!
Of course we are not, but some Christians point to these passages as if they foretold something we did not know about the universe.
I am pleased to see that you do not claim this and that the book has ONLY information known at the time.
This being the case why would anyone conclude it was inspired by some all knowing being?
If I went back in time I could inspire a better book!
-
But we do see some Christians claiming the bible does indeed have information of this kind. The thing is, it is only AFTER some scientific discovery.
Again, I'd disagree with your second point. As for the 1st, who would these 'some Christians' be?
-
You have it the wrong way round, the spherical Earth idea is Greek, not Jewish.
Sorry, jeremy, you are partly right. I've been doing a certain amountnof reading around this subject over the last few months and managed to get myself confused. Plato posited the idea of a combinations of circular paths around a spherical earth. From what I understand (and I may yet be wrong) even Plato regarded these circular paths to all be within a single plane - 1D, in effect)
The Jewish Bible is full of metaphors about the shape of the Earth. It is referred to as circular, as having four corners, as being immovable and set on pillars, as having tent like heavens, as hanging on nothing.
As you say, all these are metaphorical references. Iirc, they all come from the poetry books. Are you saying that poetry has to be taken as literally true?
For goodness sake!
Of course we are not, but some Christians point to these passages as if they foretold something we did not know about the universe.
I am pleased to see that you do not claim this and that the book has ONLY information known at the time.
This being the case why would anyone conclude it was inspired by some all knowing being?
If I went back in time I could inspire a better book!
You always seem to know what Christians think. How? Name three who believe the above!
-
You have it the wrong way round, the spherical Earth idea is Greek, not Jewish.
Sorry, jeremy, you are partly right. I've been doing a certain amount of reading around this subject over the last few months and managed to get myself confused. Plato posited the idea of a combinations of circular paths around a spherical earth. From what I understand (and I may yet be wrong) even Plato regarded these circular paths to all be within a single plane - 1D, in effect)
In your reading, you clearly haven't got as far as Eratosthenes. He's famous for two things. One is a mathematical sieve. Guess what the other one is.
The Jewish Bible is full of metaphors about the shape of the Earth. It is referred to as circular, as having four corners, as being immovable and set on pillars, as having tent like heavens, as hanging on nothing.
As you say, all these are metaphorical references. Iirc, they all come from the poetry books. Are you saying that poetry has to be taken as literally true?
No, I'm not, but they are the only things in the Bible that give a clue as to the thinking of its authors on the subject. If you had to make a guess, it would be that the Bible's authors World view was of a flat Earth. This should not be unexpected, it was only at around the time the Bible was written - or later - that the World's most advanced thinkers (the Greeks) started coming up with the idea of a spherical Earth.
-
Of course we are not, but some Christians point to these passages as if they foretold something we did not know about the universe.
Of course, we are regularly told by folk like yourself that only the original authors knew what they meant by what they wrote. Is there any reason why such material might not indicate a greater understanding thatn we like to conceive?
I am pleased to see that you do not claim this and that the book has ONLY information known at the time.
I claimed nothing of the sort, BR. What I said is that the Bible deals in purpose and intention. Whilst these can be deemed to be infomation, they are of a different nature to scientific knowledge.
This being the case why would anyone conclude it was inspired by some all knowing being?
Possibly because it deals with aspects of life that can't be investigated 'scientifically', and things that are supra-science.
If I went back in time I could inspire a better book!
Oh, you're another of these folk who reckon that you'd produce something that tells everything as it is, thus destroying humanity's freedom of choice and comndemning us to being mere robots?
-
Hope
Why would me giving these primitive people the benefit of a greater understanding of how the universe works turn them into robots.
I would love a time traveller from the future to come and write a book detailing things known in the future. It would not make us robots but could be a great help.
Do you accept the bible has no one information in it that was not already known at the time?
-
In your reading, you clearly haven't got as far as Eratosthenes. He's famous for two things. One is a mathematical sieve. Guess what the other one is.
I'd heard of him, but never seen his name written down. Suppose it has to do with the fact that a lot of this kind of stuff I learn is from the radio or from TV documentaries.
No, I'm not, but they are the only things in the Bible that give a clue as to the thinking of its authors on the subject. If you had to make a guess, it would be that the Bible's authors World view was of a flat Earth. This should not be unexpected, it was only at around the time the Bible was written - or later - that the World's most advanced thinkers (the Greeks) started coming up with the idea of a spherical Earth.
IIRC, the Greeks were borrowing ideas from the East which we appear to have completely lost the records of.
-
Why would me giving these primitive people
For one thing, 'these primitive people' had no less complex social structures as we have today and they understood a number of natural situations at leastr as well as we do. They weren't primitive; they were just less reliant on technology. Technology doesn't make a society more advanced in the widest sense of the word - in fact, in some ways, it makes a society less advanced (how many children of the 1st Century AD would have believed that an egg came from a box or that milk came from a factory?
...the benefit of a greater understanding of how the universe works turn them into robots.
Is a knowledge of how the universe works the most important aspect of human life? I doubt it. By making out that it is, you divorce society from the more important things - like relationships with other human beings and turn humanity into spoon-fed robots who don't think things through.
I would love a time traveller from the future to come and write a book detailing things known in the future. It would not make us robots but could be a great help.
I doubt it would help us in any way at all. After all, if we were to discover something by this means that hadn't been discovered for another 300 years in reality, what would that do to the future?
Do you accept the bible has no one information in it that was not already known at the time?
No, I don't. The Bible is a progression of new concepts and ideas steadily building on existing understanding.
-
So just how much of the Bible can one, technically, get rid of ???
-
So just how much of the Bible can one, technically, get rid of ???
-
None of it.
-
Hope almost suggests we can at least not pay any attention to early parts of it. From a practical POV anyway.
-
Hope almost suggests we can at least not pay any attention to early parts of it.
I don't think he does. Isn't he simply saying that, contrary to what the fundies think and what the atheists want us to think, it is not a set of scientific and historical data/
-
Hope almost suggests we can at least not pay any attention to early parts of it.
I don't think he does. Isn't he simply saying that, contrary to what the fundies think and what the atheists want us to think, it is not a set of scientific and historical data/
Lazy, incorrect and habitual generalisation about atheists.
-
Hope almost suggests we can at least not pay any attention to early parts of it.
I don't think he does. Isn't he simply saying that, contrary to what the fundies think and what the atheists want us to think, it is not a set of scientific and historical data/
Lazy, incorrect and habitual generalisation about atheists.
Fair point - there are many atheists who don't want that. Many who, for example, would not do something so facile as simply choose a verse from the OT and smugly write "we are told" after it, as though it tells you anything at all about Christians beliefs about God.
But there are some, aren't there NS? The odd one here and there who wants discussing Christian beliefs to be simply about finding something daft or inconsistent in the OT and then smugly saying "ah, but gods had sex with women we are told" >chortle chortle<
But I am sure you would never indulge in such lazy, inaccurate habitual behaviour.
Now, let's just see what's going on on other threads...
-
Hope almost suggests we can at least not pay any attention to early parts of it.
I don't think he does. Isn't he simply saying that, contrary to what the fundies think and what the atheists want us to think, it is not a set of scientific and historical data/
Lazy, incorrect and habitual generalisation about atheists.
Fair point - there are many atheists who don't want that. Many who, for example, would not do something so facile as simply choose a verse from the OT and smugly write "we are told" after it, as though it tells you anything at all about Christians beliefs about God.
But there are some, aren't there NS? The odd one here and there who wants discussing Christian beliefs to be simply about finding something daft or inconsistent in the OT and then smugly saying "ah, but gods had sex with women we are told" >chortle chortle<
But I am sure you would never indulge in such lazy, inaccurate habitual behaviour.
Now, let's just see what's going on on other threads...
Agreed there are some. I think it's fair enough to treat the Bible as literal if dicussing it with someone who is a literalist but incorrect to do so with someone who doesn't. It is also fair enough to ask why their view is ciorrect as opposed to the literalist, but I'm not an atheist because teh Bible is a bit odd in parts so I tend to stay away from teh discussions on it.
Thwere are some areas where I struggle to see how even a metaphorical reading has in any sense something worthwhile to say such as the Flood but then that's true of Bashful Anthony as well.
-
Why does it have to be metaphorical? Why can't it just be wrong?
Maybe the people who wrote it thought it was true, were neither lying nor employing metaphor, but were just wrong?
-
Why does it have to be metaphorical? Why can't it just be wrong?
Maybe the people who wrote it thought it was true, were neither lying nor employing metaphor, but were just wrong?
Again agreed, it could welll be and if the individual thinks that I (and others) should deal with their beliefs on that basis. It's why I mentioned BA because he does disassociate himself from that approach.
-
I won't push any more after this post, but I'm still wondering why your accusing CS Lewis of being odious was relevant to the point you made.
Gor blimey! It's really quite simple: even though I sometimes find C.S. Lewis quite odious, I still concede that he had the mental capacity and imagination to perceive that life on other worlds beside this was a distinct possibility. A possibility that some on this thread seem reluctant to grant. No big deal - I don't live my life in the expectation of having a close encounter with little green beings from a planet circling a star in the Andromeda nebula
-
(And just to placate cyberman yet again, I realised from the first that you weren't among the 'alien-life-deniers'.)
Are there any?
It is quite clear from this thread that some are very unwilling to concede this. Perhaps not so strangely, it is often among those who consider that Christ's Incarnation and Atonement was a once-only event in the universe. God incarnating himself and atoning for the sins of beings in distant galaxies just makes such believers seem just that bit less 'special'. Shaker picked up on this idea of how certain Christians like to feel 'special' - which prompted my own post.
-
I won't push any more after this post, but I'm still wondering why your accusing CS Lewis of being odious was relevant to the point you made.
Gor blimey! It's really quite simple: even though I sometimes find C.S. Lewis quite odious, I still concede that he had the mental capacity and imagination to concede that life on other worlds beside this was a distinct possibility. A possibility that some on this thread seem reluctant to grant. No big deal - I don't live my life in the expectation of having a close encounter with little green beings from a planet circling a star in the Andromeda nebula
Why always green? I would prefer a nice shade of blue.
-
However, he was prepared to consider that life on other worlds was entirely plausible - something that some people here seem anxious to deny (quoting statistics on occasion, as if they offered any reasonably argument on these matters)
Perhaps you can 'name and shame' the 'some people here', DU. I've already asked Len to do something similar, but he hasn't been able to do so yet.
You will find at least one whose attitude seems distinctly opposed to the idea, if you look.
-
I won't push any more after this post, but I'm still wondering why your accusing CS Lewis of being odious was relevant to the point you made.
Gor blimey! It's really quite simple: even though I sometimes find C.S. Lewis quite odious, I still concede that he had the mental capacity and imagination to concede that life on other worlds beside this was a distinct possibility. A possibility that some on this thread seem reluctant to grant. No big deal - I don't live my life in the expectation of having a close encounter with little green beings from a planet circling a star in the Andromeda nebula
Why always green? I would prefer a nice shade of blue.
Well, I suppose they might be friendly, and therefore prepared to take our preferences into consideration whilst determining how we perceived them (presuming that their vastly superior intelligence would allow them to control our perceptions in this manner). On the other hand they might just want to scare the shit out of you....
-
(And just to placate cyberman yet again, I realised from the first that you weren't among the 'alien-life-deniers'.)
Are there any?
It is quite clear from this thread that some are very unwilling to concede this.
Not being funny, I haven't seen that. can you post a quote for me?
-
You will find at least one whose attitude seems distinctly opposed to the idea, if you look.
Instead of treasure-hunt clues like this, why not just name them and quote them? I am not trying to refute you, I just want to know what you are referring to.