Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Keith Maitland on February 10, 2018, 10:21:38 PM
-
I think the following commentary by Alain Botton is a very good distillation of our predicament.
The modern world is wonderful in many ways (dentistry is good, cars are reliable, we can so easily keep in touch from Mexico with our grandmother in Scotland) – but it’s also powerfully and tragically geared to causing a high background level of anxiety and widespread low-level depression.
There are six particular features of modernity that have this psychologically disturbing effect. Each one has a potential cure, which we will only collectively put into action when we know more about the disease in question. Here are the six:
1. Meritocracy: Our societies tell us that everyone is free to make it if they have the talent and energy. The down side of this ostensibly liberating and beautiful idea is that any perceived lack of success is taken to be not, as in the past, an accident or misfortune, but a sure sign of a lack of talent or laziness. If those at the top deserve all their success, then those at the bottom must surely deserve all their failure. A society that thinks of itself as meritocratic turns poverty from a problem to evidence of damnation and those who have failed from unfortunates to losers. The cure is a strong, culturally endorsed belief in two big ideas: luck, which says success doesn’t just depend on talent and effort; and tragedy, which says good, decent people can fail and deserve compassion, rather than contempt.
2. Individualism: An individualistic society preaches that the individual and their achievements are everything and that everyone is capable of a special destiny. It is not the community that matters; the group is for no-hopers. To be ‘ordinary’ is regarded as a curse. The result is that the very thing that most of us will end up being, statistically speaking, is associated, with freakish failure. The cure is a cult of the good ordinary life – and proper appreciation of the pleasures and quiet heroism of the everyday.
3. Secularism: Secular societies cease to believe in anything that is bigger than or beyond themselves. Religions used to perform the useful service of keeping our petty ways and status battles in perspective. But now there is nothing to awe or relativise humans, whose triumphs and mishaps end up feeling like the be all and end all. A cure would involve regularly using sources of transcendence to generate a benign, relativising perspective on our personal sorrows: music, the stars at night, the vast spaces of the desert or the ocean would humble us all in consoling ways.
4. Romanticism: The philosophy of Romanticism tells us that each of us has one very special person out there who can make us completely happy. Yet mostly we have to settle for moderately bearable relationships with someone who is very nice in a few ways and pretty difficult in many others. It feels like a disaster – in comparison with our original huge hopes. The cure is to realise that we didn’t go wrong: we were just encouraged to believe in a very improbable dream. Instead we should build up our ambitions around friendship and non-sexual love.
5. The Media: The media has immense prestige and a huge place in our lives – but routinely directs our attention to things that scare, worry, panic and enrage us, while denying us agency or any chance for effective personal action. It typically attends to the least admirable sides of human nature, without a balancing exposure to normal good intentions, responsibility and decency. At its worst, it edges us towards mob justice. The cure would be news that concentrated on presenting solutions rather than generating outrage, that was alive to systemic problems rather than gleefully emphasizing scapegoats and emblematic monsters – and that would regularly remind us that the news we most need to focus on comes from our own lives and direct experiences.
6. Perfectibility: Modern societies stress that it is within our remit to be profoundly content, sane and accomplished. As a result, we end up loathing ourselves, feeling weak and sensing we’ve wasted our lives. A cure would be a culture that endlessly promotes the idea that perfection is not within our grasp – that being mentally slightly (and at points very) unwell is an inescapable part of the human condition and that what we need above all are good friends with whom we can sit and honestly discuss our real fears and vulnerabilities.
The forces of psychological distress in our world are – currently – much wealthier and more active than the needed cures. We deserve tender pity for the price we have to pay for being born in modern times. But more hopefully, cures are now open to us individually and collectively if only we recognise, with sufficient clarity, the sources of our true anxieties and sorrows.
-
Thanks for this.Good article. Expect Pinker quoted at you.
-
I agree with the first few points. Today's world for all it conveniences is geared more towards the rational mind and less for the 'heart'. Very individualistic and competitive.
On the plus side, it is possible to generally ignore the world and live your own life, which was not possible in earlier times.
A sense of belonging is what is most conspicuous by its absence.
-
Good article. I wish I could believe in his 'cures' but I think such aspirations are only going to get harder to realise. In a world of ever increasing competitiveness, shallowness, resource scarcity, how do people settle for contentment ? It is inbuilt into our nature to follow that dream, to believe
-
Dear Keith,
Thank you, I had completely forgot what wonderful little journeys this forum could send me on.
https://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0
A excellent TED talk.
From your OP and listening to the TED talk, one message for me stands out, involvement, to make a difference you need to be involved.
Gonnagle.
-
Good article. I wish I could believe in his 'cures' but I think such aspirations are only going to get harder to realise. In a world of ever increasing competitiveness, shallowness, resource scarcity, how do people settle for contentment ? It is inbuilt into our nature to follow that dream, to believe
Life experience. Don’t know if it happens to everyone but I think most of us experience something that breaks us open, so that we end up with a completely different set of priorities and clarity of vision. That still may result in a need for change which requires belief, but it won’t be for material things or status, and this is where contentment is found. At least that’s my experience.
-
There will always be problems in the world. However, I would not wish to go back to the way things were when I was young, I prefer the way it is now, in spite of all that is wrong with it.
-
https://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_atheism_2_0
A excellent TED talk.
Thanks for this, Gonnagle. Some interesting ideas. Atheism 2.0: chuck out all the silly, superstitious nonsense about gods from religion and keep the useful/helpful stuff...
Might be worth a topic of its own?
-
I like it, Gonners. Mind you I've always liked Alain de Botton's approach. I especially liked his discussion on the purpose of art. If only we could take out the good stuff from religions, and not allow rigidity to set in, then I think he's got a point.
-
I like it, Gonners. Mind you I've always liked Alain de Botton's approach. I especially liked his discussion on the purpose of art. If only we could take out the good stuff from religions, and not allow rigidity to set in, then I think he's got a point.
There's a thread on here about the possibility of rediscovering a concept of the sacred without religion.
-
Dear Stranger,
keep the useful/helpful stuff...
On you go old son :P I will jump in when the skipping ropes are going fast enough 8)
Gonnagle.
-
I think the following commentary by Alain Botton is a very good distillation of our predicament.
#FirstWorldProblems
If you think we are in a "predicament" go and live in Zimbabwe or the Sudan or Syria for a bit.
The modern world is wonderful in many ways (dentistry is good, cars are reliable, we can so easily keep in touch from Mexico with our grandmother in Scotland) – but it’s also powerfully and tragically geared to causing a high background level of anxiety and widespread low-level depression.
Bullshit.
1. Meritocracy: ... The down side of this ostensibly liberating and beautiful idea is that any perceived lack of success is taken to be not, as in the past, an accident or misfortune, but a sure sign of a lack of talent or laziness.
Actually, I don't see much evidence of this happening. Or rather, some people think this does happen, but others don't. For instance, people who have made a success are often labelled as "fat cats" and so on. Also some of us think that people in poverty should be helped no matter that it was their fault or not.
2. Individualism: An individualistic society preaches that the individual and their achievements are everything and that everyone is capable of a special destiny.
Can you name some of these societies please.
To be ‘ordinary’ is regarded as a curse. The result is that the very thing that most of us will end up being, statistically speaking, is associated, with freakish failure. The cure is a cult of the good ordinary life – and proper appreciation of the pleasures and quiet heroism of the everyday.
I disagree. I think, in our society, it is more a case that people take the attitude that everybody is special (and therefore nobody is). For example, my boss was telling me that his son brought home an award from his school sports day. The award was for "taking part", not winning (that was deemed unfair to the non winners).
Secular societies cease to believe in anything that is bigger than or beyond themselves.
That is a complete misrepresentation of what secularism. In a secular society you are free to believe there are bigger things beyond you if you so choose. Secular societies simply don't play favourites in the bigger and beyond stakes.
Religions used to perform the useful service of keeping our petty ways and status battles in perspective. But now there is nothing to awe or relativise humans, whose triumphs and mishaps end up feeling like the be all and end all.
Religions tell us things like we can't marry somebody if they are of the wrong sex or masturbate or turn on a light switch on Saturday. Religions have some pretty petty ways of their own.
The philosophy of Romanticism tells us that each of us has one very special person out there who can make us completely happy. Yet mostly we have to settle for moderately bearable relationships with someone who is very nice in a few ways and pretty difficult in many others. It feels like a disaster – in comparison with our original huge hopes. The cure is to realise that we didn’t go wrong: we were just encouraged to believe in a very improbable dream. Instead we should build up our ambitions around friendship and non-sexual love.
In what way is this a modern problem?
The media has immense prestige and a huge place in our lives – but routinely directs our attention to things that scare, worry, panic and enrage us,
I won't deny that this is a problem. However, is it worse than being fed information by the dictator du jour?
Modern societies stress that it is within our remit to be profoundly content, sane and accomplished. As a result, we end up loathing ourselves, feeling weak and sensing we’ve wasted our lives. A cure would be a culture that endlessly promotes the idea that perfection is not within our grasp – that being mentally slightly (and at points very) unwell is an inescapable part of the human condition and that what we need above all are good friends with whom we can sit and honestly discuss our real fears and vulnerabilities.
[/quote]
I'm sorry, but whilst thankfully never having experienced mental illness myself, I do know a lot of people who have and without exception, they have received the support they needed. I agree that the situation may be different in other societies (thinking of the USA in particular).
The forces of psychological distress in our world are – currently – much wealthier and more active than the needed cures. We deserve tender pity for the price we have to pay for being born in modern times. But more hopefully, cures are now open to us individually and collectively if only we recognise, with sufficient clarity, the sources of our true anxieties and sorrows.
The modern world has its problems for those who live in it, but your language appears to imply things have got worse. This is patently false.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
You tell that De Botton character, the mans talking a lot of rubbish >:(
Gonnagle.
-
I think the guy in the video is missing the foundation of religion and is latching on to its surface. Religions are not about architecture, culture, institutions, oratory, travel etc. They are about spirituality.
Spirituality is about progression, self development, love, eternal life, realizing our true self etc. The foundation remaining the same, even with very different cultural traditions, architecture, travel etc., like in different religions, the motivation and involvement will be the same.
But without the foundation of spirituality, everything else will be hollow.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
You tell that De Botton character, the mans talking a lot of rubbish >:(
Gonnagle.
I can't stand him - or rather I can't stand his writing (I don't know him personally). Just when we've more or less shed the shackles of religion, he wants to reimpose them but without specific gods.
-
Thanks for this, Gonnagle. Some interesting ideas. Atheism 2.0: chuck out all the silly, superstitious nonsense about gods from religion and keep the useful/helpful stuff...
Might be worth a topic of its own?
I noticed that De Botton included praise and thanksgiving in his list of useful stuff vis Thanking Shakespeare and Thanking Jane Austen as part of an atheist congregation.
There's a bit of a problem with that. Thanking the dead who you believe to be dead. Isn't that the beginnings of ancestor worship?
Who or what should be praised and thanked collectively by atheists?
-
I can't stand him - or rather I can't stand his writing (I don't know him personally). Just when we've more or less shed the shackles of religion, he wants to reimpose them but without specific gods.
Yes, let's go back to being told what to think and do. That's progress?
-
Religions tell us things like we can't marry somebody if they are of the wrong sex or masturbate.
That would explain why a lot of people on this forum are against it.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
In the mans TED talk he speaks about Sermons, he mentioned John Wesley who founded the Methodist Church, a great Orator, a good sermon does not tell you what to think but rather makes you think.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
In the mans TED talk he speaks about Sermons, he mentioned John Wesley who founded the Methodist Church, a great Orator, a good sermon does not tell you what to think but rather makes you think.
Gonnagle.
Religion put me in a box.
Is a good sermon one that makes you think, 'this is all bollocks'? Because whenever someone tries to tell me that God loves me so much that he gave his only begotten son that's pretty much what happens.
eta Just randomly googled Wesley's sermons and found this from his number 7, the Way to the Kingdom.
'I say of the heart. For neither does religion consist in Orthodoxy, or right opinions; which, although they are not properly outward things, are not in the heart, but the understanding. A man may be orthodox in every point; he may not only espouse right opinions, but zealously defend them against all opposers; he may think justly concerning the incarnation of our Lord, concerning the ever-blessed Trinity, and every other doctrine contained in the oracles of God; he may assent to all the three creeds, -- that called the Apostles', the Nicene, and the Athanasian; and yet it is possible he may have no religion at all, no more than a Jew, Turk, or pagan.'
Still up on the global Methodists website. Nice.
-
I think the following commentary by Alain Botton is a very good distillation of our predicament.
Most of it seems to revolve around self centredness. A couple of verses from the Tao Te Ching (of 500 BCE) seems to revolve around the same thing but in simpler times.
Why do people starve?
Because the rich corner the wealth to maintain their position.
This is why they starve.
Why are people difficult to lead?
Because officials over-regulate their lives.
This is why they rebel.
Why has life become cheapened?
Because the way of living of the wealthy makes excessive demands
This is why life is cheap;
However, those who do not act from self interest
Rise above those who act from self importance.
Being harmonious is like drawing on a bow,
The top is pulled down, the bottom is raised up;
The deficient is expanded and the surplus reduced.
The essence of harmony is to decrease that which has excess
And divert it to that which has insufficient.
The way of man is not like this.
He takes from those who do not have enough
And gives to those who already have too much.
Who is it who can provide to all from a surplus source?
Only he who is at one with Tao.
Therefore the Wise act without possessing,
Do what needs to be done without attachment
And refrain from seeking acclaim.
-
That would explain why a lot of people on this forum are against it.
Masturbation?
I think that would only be Floo.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
I am at a loss here, are you being sarcastic or agreeing with me??
Gonnagle.
-
Jeremyp has dealt with most of this, but I can never understand these complaints about the modern world, and its predicament. I grew up in a slum with no bathroom - hey, is it better to have a bathroom? Rhetorical question. My parents were eventually able to have foreign holidays, but sure, they had a burning existential doubt in their souls, heavy sarcasm.
It also seems very generalized, although I haven't read the original. We end up hating ourselves - really? Who, when, how, where?
-
Dear Wigs,
Must just be me but I think the man is talking complete sense but then maybe the NHS is in fine fettle, maybe there is no childhood obesity, maybe our kids teeth are not rotten by the age of five, maybe we are not on the brink of Brexit because we want to get rid of all those Johnny foreigners, maybe all those terrorist attacks have absolutely nothing to do with me, I am innocent m'lud, I could go on and on, climate change etc etc etc, but no, I don't think the man is talking about us now having indoor plumbing.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Wigs,
Must just be me but I think the man is talking complete sense but then maybe the NHS is in fine fettle, maybe there is no childhood obesity, maybe our kids teeth are not rotten by the age of five, maybe we are not on the brink of Brexit because we want to get rid of all those Johnny foreigners, maybe all those terrorist attacks have absolutely nothing to do with me, I am innocent m'lud, I could go on and on, climate change etc etc etc, but no, I don't think the man is talking about us now having indoor plumbing.
Gonnagle.
Well, the title refers to mental illness. So are we more anxious and depressed than people in the 19th century or the 18th century? I have no idea. I think that people who were depressed weren't treated all that well, women were legally nullified when they got married, kids were sent to work at very young ages, the Victorian NHS had a few problems. So things have got worse?
-
I've just reread my reply and thinking about the from the original post
The modern world is wonderful in many ways (dentistry is good, cars are reliable, we can so easily keep in touch from Mexico with our grandmother in Scotland) – but it’s also powerfully and tragically geared to causing a high background level of anxiety and widespread low-level depression.
I wonder if the problem is not that modern society is geared to generating these problems so much as that they come to the fore when other problems are resolved. For example, heart disease is a big killer today but, in previous centuries other things killed people more frequently. For instance, until about a hundred years ago, one in four women died in childbirth. Is the answer to heart disease to go back to the time when 25% of female mortality was due to bringing new life into the world? No.
Similarly, people might get angst today about not being extremely rich, but it's better than typhoid.
-
the NHS is in fine fettle
Well, in this country it exists. In the USA, if you are poor you don't have healthcare.
maybe there is no childhood obesity
And sixty years ago diseases of malnutrition like rickets were the issue.
maybe our kids teeth are not rotten by the age of five
They are not, thanks to modern dentistry.
maybe we are not on the brink of Brexit because we want to get rid of all those Johnny foreigners
That's a political issue.
maybe all those terrorist attacks have absolutely nothing to do with me
Thirty years ago, there were terrorist attacks.
climate change
Well, at least we know about it, and that is the first step to fixing it.
-
There's also the implication that we are more anxious and depressed than previously. Obviously, I haven't read the original, but I wonder if he backs this up in some way. How would we know this? I think in 1900 life expectancy was in the 40s and 50s, so is Botton saying that this was a better time? How, where, who?
-
Masturbation?
I think that would only be Floo.
What are you on about now?
-
What are you on about now?
Masturbation is achieving sexual gratification by self stimulation.
-
Dear Wigs,
Must just be me but I think the man is talking complete sense but then maybe the NHS is in fine fettle, maybe there is no childhood obesity, maybe our kids teeth are not rotten by the age of five, maybe we are not on the brink of Brexit because we want to get rid of all those Johnny foreigners, maybe all those terrorist attacks have absolutely nothing to do with me, I am innocent m'lud, I could go on and on, climate change etc etc etc, but no, I don't think the man is talking about us now having indoor plumbing.
Gonnagle.
My great great grandmother buried nine of her fifteen kids, the first of which was born when she was sixteen.
Now tell me again how much worse off me and mine are.
-
Masturbation is achieving sexual gratification by self stimulation.
I am aware of that, and have no problem with it. Far better to do that than have sex with a prostitute! :P
-
I am aware of that, and have no problem with it. Far better to do that than have sex with a prostitute! :P
You're against everything. I assumed you would be against masturbation as a part of "everything".
-
Dear Jeremyp and Wigs,
Nope, sorry but I don't see where you are going with comparing things now to what they were like in ye olden days, we have problems now, how do we fix them, and I honestly don't think Mr De Botton is some kind of doom monger, he is just making some very valid points.
Take his point about the media, today oxfam is all over the front page but for decades that charity has been a real force for good in this little world of ours, why is it not front page about the millions of children's lives it has saved.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jeremyp and Wigs,
Nope, sorry but I don't see where you are going with comparing things now to what they were like in ye olden days, we have problems now, how do we fix them, and I honestly don't think Mr De Botton is some kind of doom monger, he is just making some very valid points.
Take his point about the media, today oxfam is all over the front page but for decades that charity has been a real force for good in this little world of ours, why is it not front page about the millions of children's lives it has saved.
Gonnagle.
The problem I have is that his solution seems to be to go back to a version of the olden days.
The other problem I have is that people seem to be into self flagellation. It's not enough to acknowledge we have problems (which are not as serious as olden day problems), some people want to flagellate us in spite of the fact that we have generally improved things over the last few centuries.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
The problem I have is that his solution seems to be to go back to a version of the olden days.
Sorry but I don't see that at all, all I see is a man looking at present day problems and showing some ideas on how to fix them, and I don't see any mileage in comparing the olden days to what we are like presently.
His point on Secularism, it would be great if we could all stand in awe of the wonders of Earth and the Universe, we might then try and take better care of this little Earth, we need more Blue Planet programmes, and it is not our kids who need educating it is us, future generations are going to look back and ask, why are there no elephants, why is it I can only see a polar bear in a zoo, his point on Secularism is a wake up call to fill the void of religion with something akin to it, a zeal for this little planet we all inhabit.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jeremyp and Wigs,
Nope, sorry but I don't see where you are going with comparing things now to what they were like in ye olden days, we have problems now, how do we fix them, and I honestly don't think Mr De Botton is some kind of doom monger, he is just making some very valid points.
Take his point about the media, today oxfam is all over the front page but for decades that charity has been a real force for good in this little world of ours, why is it not front page about the millions of children's lives it has saved.
Gonnagle.
I don't think anyone is denying that there are problems today, but Botton seems to be saying that things are worse. Worse than when?
OK, forget olden days, when I was born, there was no NHS, and my mum remembered paying a shilling a week for some treatment, and a shilling was a lot for them. So are you saying that times were better then? Eh?
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Sorry but I don't see that at all, all I see is a man looking at present day problems and showing some ideas on how to fix them, and I don't see any mileage in comparing the olden days to what we are like presently.
His point on Secularism, it would be great if we could all stand in awe of the wonders of Earth and the Universe, we might then try and take better care of this little Earth, we need more Blue Planet programmes, and it is not our kids who need educating it is us, future generations are going to look back and ask, why are there no elephants, why is it I can only see a polar bear in a zoo, his point on Secularism is a wake up call to fill the void of religion with something akin to it, a zeal for this little planet we all inhabit.
Gonnagle.
But religion put men at the top of the tree and gave us the green light to destroy.
Sacredness of the planet hasn’t featured much in any religious life I’ve encountered. The solutions to our problems won’t be found in aping religion.
-
Dear Wigs,
Old friend, old partner in crime :P
but Botton seems to be saying that things are worse.
I don't see it, I think it was Jeremyp who sent us down this road, I don't honestly see from Keiths OP where he is saying we are worse off, what I do see is him pointing out 21st century maladies and how we might fix them.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Wigs,
Old friend, old partner in crime :P
I don't see it, I think it was Jeremyp who sent us down this road, I don't honestly see from Keiths OP where he is saying we are worse off, what I do see is him pointing out 21st century maladies and how we might fix them.
Gonnagle.
Well, I don't have a problem with discussing problems today. But the title 'how the modern world makes us mentally ill', (which may not be Botton's own title), suggests to me that we are worse off. Of course, the Victorians didn't have anxiety and depression.
-
There's also the implication that we are more anxious and depressed than previously. Obviously, I haven't read the original, but I wonder if he backs this up in some way. How would we know this? I think in 1900 life expectancy was in the 40s and 50s, so is Botton saying that this was a better time? How, where, who?
That's a fair point, How do we know? That question has also been asked of Pinker who was somehow able to pronounce statistically on violence in Ancient Africa.
-
Another issue is a missing link. Where is this stuff taken from?
-
3. Secularism: Secular societies cease to believe in anything that is bigger than or beyond themselves. Religions used to perform the useful service of keeping our petty ways and status battles in perspective. But now there is nothing to awe or relativise humans, whose triumphs and mishaps end up feeling like the be all and end all. A cure would involve regularly using sources of transcendence to generate a benign, relativising perspective on our personal sorrows: music, the stars at night, the vast spaces of the desert or the ocean would humble us all in consoling ways.
So atheists, secularists and those others with no religion don't do this anyway and need Botton to point out his prescription for a 'cure'?
What self righteous, self important wank.
-
Well, I've googled a paragraph from this, no sign of Botton. Has anybody else found it? I found a piece by somebody else, on 'the philosophy forum'. So who is it by?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2852/how-the-modern-world-makes-us-mentally-ill/p1
-
3. Secularism: Secular societies cease to believe in anything that is bigger than or beyond themselves. Religions used to perform the useful service of keeping our petty ways and status battles in perspective. But now there is nothing to awe or relativise humans, whose triumphs and mishaps end up feeling like the be all and end all. A cure would involve regularly using sources of transcendence to generate a benign, relativising perspective on our personal sorrows: music, the stars at night, the vast spaces of the desert or the ocean would humble us all in consoling ways.
So atheists, secularists and those others with no religion don't do this anyway and need Botton to point out his prescription for a 'cure'?
What self righteous, self important wank.
He's also using the term 'secular' to mean non-religious, not with its old meaning of separation of state and religion. Secular society can have tons of religion in them.
-
I strongly doubt that this is by Botton. So why put it in a thread as if it is?
-
He's also using the term 'secular' to mean non-religious, not with its old meaning of separation of state and religion. Secular society can have tons of religion in them.
Ours doesn't and isn't it the mission of the National Secular Society that we have tons less?
-
Well, I've googled a paragraph from this, no sign of Botton. Has anybody else found it? I found a piece by somebody else, on 'the philosophy forum'. So who is it by?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2852/how-the-modern-world-makes-us-mentally-ill/p1
Interesting.
-
I strongly doubt that this is by Botton. So why put it in a thread as if it is?
Probably the Chinese whispers of social media.
-
It seems to be by Gerald47, well, good old Gerald.
-
Dear Wigs,
I am glad the De Botton name was mentioned I thoroughly enjoyed his TED talk, a man who is going to be shot from both sides of the divide.
Gonnagle.
-
Ours doesn't and isn't it the mission of the National Secular Society that we have tons less?
What makes you think that, if an organisation has a concept in its name, that defines what the concept means? The National Secular Society should really be called the National Atheist Society.
-
Ours doesn't and isn't it the mission of the National Secular Society that we have tons less?
It really is a case of you can't get it rather than you don't get it Vlad, Gonners has a similar problem too; so don't bother your head with it Vlad, if you haven't got it by now after so many posters have explained secularism to you, at length, you're never going to get it.
Regards ippy
-
It really is a case of you can't get it rather than you don't get it Vlad, Gonners has a similar problem too; so don't bother your head with it Vlad, if you haven't got it by now after so many posters have explained secularism to you, at length, you're never going to get it.
Regards ippy
They explain what they would like it to appear Ippy.
-
You're against everything. I assumed you would be against masturbation as a part of "everything".
Stop making sweeping statements about me, I am NOT against everything, by any means. You really have it in for me today, what is your problem?
-
Dear ippy,
Gonners has a similar problem too;
True! So true, the whole atheist thing, we don't know what God is but hell we still don't believe in it, makes my eyes water just thinking about the atheist mind.
Gonnagle.
-
I don't think anyone is denying that there are problems today, but Botton seems to be saying that things are worse. Worse than when?
OK, forget olden days, when I was born, there was no NHS, and my mum remembered paying a shilling a week for some treatment, and a shilling was a lot for them. So are you saying that times were better then? Eh?
The NHS is far from perfect, but at least it is available free of charge at point of need, unlike the bad old days when there was none.
-
The NHS is far from perfect, but at least it is available free of charge at point of need, unlike the bad old days when there was none.
I think the point is that it is being eroded, welfare is becoming a dirty word, even charity is under fire and in a sort of perverse twist on scripture, ''The Geek shall inherit the earth.''
-
Dear Floo,
The NHS is the best in the world, what's wrong with it is the Tories, soon we won't have anything to be proud of, they just need to sell off the BBC and the Monarchy and they will have a full house, long live Corbyn! Long live Corbyn, and the first ass to mention communism gets a one way ticket back to the 70's >:(
Gonnagle.
-
Stop making sweeping statements about me, I am NOT against everything, by any means. You really have it in for me today, what is your problem?
The problem I have with you, is that on almost every topic, you chime in with your disapproval with whatever the topic is about. You never seem to think. You appear to hate everything.
I have said to you before "don't tell us when you dislike something, tell us when you like, something". Even though that would put you in a more positive light and avoid you having to post so much, you have always ignored my advice.
-
Dear Floo,
The NHS is the best in the world, what's wrong with it is the Tories, soon we won't have anything to be proud of, they just need to sell off the BBC and the Monarchy and they will have a full house, long live Corbyn! Long live Corbyn, and the first ass to mention communism gets a one way ticket back to the 70's >:(
Gonnagle.
You really think it would be better under that chap Corbyn? I doubt that, he doesn't seem able to punch his way out of a paper bag, let alone anything else. ::)
-
The NHS is the best in the world
Is it?
what's wrong with it is the Tories, soon we won't have anything to be proud of, they just need to sell off the BBC and the Monarchy and they will have a full house, long live Corbyn! Long live Corbyn, and the first ass to mention communism gets a one way ticket back to the 70's >:(
Corbyn is a useless twat. See I criticised him without using the word "communism".
Damn, you tricked me.
-
Dear Floo,
Oh yes! I would love to have a British rail again ( stand by for all the time travel remarks ) and I think the post office should lose its royal seal of approval until such times it is handed back to the great people of this little island.
Gonnagle.
-
Oh yes! I would love to have a British rail again
But it was shit.
and I think the post office should lose its royal seal of approval until such times it is handed back to the great people of this little island.
The great people that xenophobically voted for Brexit. The people on this island aren't "great" any more than anybody else.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
Is it?
And not because I work for it ::)
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/14/nhs-holds-on-to-top-spot-in-healthcare-survey
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Floo,
I told you the time travelers would appear :)
But it was shit.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
The great people that xenophobically voted for Brexit.
You got me there, no argument whatsoever.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
And not because I work for it ::)
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jul/14/nhs-holds-on-to-top-spot-in-healthcare-survey
Gonnagle.
There are more than eleven countries in the World, but there are countries on your list that I am surprised we beat.
-
Gonnagle,
Must just be me but I think the man is talking complete sense.
Yes, I think Mr. Botton's points are all well taken!
I would add that there are additional important sources of mental stress, nearly all associated with what I at least see as the disconnect between our biological, evolutionary heritage and our cultural creations, the former moving slowly and the latter, very rapidly. David Barash develops this notion in his forthcoming book, Through a Glass Brightly, out this summer.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/through-a-glass-brightly-9780190673710?cc=us&lang=en&#
I suspect that at least some of the sources of our distress are indeed due to the costs of being born in modern times, but with Stone Age brains.
Wigginhall,
Another issue is a missing link.
Where is this stuff taken from?
From Alain de Botton's own Twitter account last Wednesday.
Here:
https://mobile.twitter.com/alaindebotton/status/960913064504815616
-
Gonnagle,
Yes, I think Mr. Botton's points are all well taken!
I would add that there are additional important sources of mental stress, nearly all associated with what I at least see as the disconnect between our biological, evolutionary heritage and our cultural creations, the former moving slowly and the latter, very rapidly. David Barash develops this notion in his forthcoming book, Through a Glass Brightly, out this summer.
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/through-a-glass-brightly-9780190673710?cc=us&lang=en&#
I Read the review.
I would immediately question the narrative that science has progressively diminished humanity's self image rather than reduced humanity to a collection of bits built from from ancestors with no novelty.
Of course science gives us facts but in the end we have to live in our own skins.
I get the feeling I would disagree with the review's view of the self image of man. As with De Botton and Pinker the question is what stats or information do we have on self image in past times? I suspect a caricature historical human who sits against our present knowledge and model of the universe and arrogantly pronounces himself as central to thatrather than a much more narrow historical model.
Of course there are clues. The standard traditional Christian funeral service where we start from dust and end in dust and in the end we fair no better than the plants and there is the practical evidence of lives lived nearer to nature than since the enlightenment.
Also a scientific perspective not being shared by the majority is hardly surprising. Science is ecstatic. It regularly takes us out of ourselves because we employ a different mindset and as an ecstatic practice it becomes very attractive as a modus vivindi for those with the disposition.
I suppose i'll have to buy the book.
-
Gerald is a plagiarist.
-
Gerald is a plagiarist.
Uneducated Pleb though was very good
-
Uneducated Pleb though was very good
I can't see how anyone can see Uneducated Pleb as good and Pinker, who makes IMHO the very same assumptions about treating society en masse as Pleb criticises.
-
I can't see how anyone can see Uneducated Pleb as good and Pinker, who makes IMHO the very same assumptions about treating society en masse as Pleb criticises.
I don't see Uneducated Pleb as saying the same as Pinker's position at all but if you want to disagree with Uneducated Pleb then I suggest you post on that forum. about it.
ETA - Untangling your usual tortuous syntax, I think you are arguing that someone can't find good points in arguments that might be in disagreement - I disagree with that.
-
Uneducated Pleb though was very good
Agreed.
And yet Botton will be the one in the papers getting plaudits for his bilge. Still, Gerald's enjoying the ride for a bit.
-
I don't see Uneducated Pleb as saying the same as Pinker's position at all but if you want to disagree with Uneducated Pleb then I suggest you post on that forum. about it.
ETA - Untangling your usual tortuous syntax, I think you are arguing that someone can't find good points in arguments that might be in disagreement - I disagree with that.
I have not voiced agreement or disagreement with Pleb but would hazard that his perspective is american where you can be anything you want to be and that colours one's optipessimism.
-
I have not voiced agreement or disagreement with Pleb but would hazard that his perspective is american where you can be anything you want to be and that colours one's optipessimism.
See the ETA in the post that you ignored
-
See the ETA in the post that you ignored
ETA?
-
ETA?
Edited To Add - the second sentence in the post which you ignored
-
Just read Uneducated Pleb - seriously good. I'm just baffled why anyone would write at length about such bilge. Is de Botton considered to be a serious thinker? I guess he was having an off day. It reminds me of the old Reader's Digest.
-
Just read Uneducated Pleb - seriously good. I'm just baffled why anyone would write at length about such bilge. Is de Botton considered to be a serious thinker? I guess he was having an off day. It reminds me of the old Reader's Digest.
Yes, it’s interesting to see how thoroughly his ideas got demolished, yet he’s the one with the book deal.
-
Dear Wigs,
Well I just listened to this,
https://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_a_kinder_gentler_philosophy_of_success
And it ticked all the right boxes for me, I like the way this guy thinks.
Gonnagle.
-
Yes, it’s interesting to see how thoroughly his ideas got demolished, yet he’s the one with the book deal.
Time for a call out. What do you think uneducated plebs point was?...........or De Botton's for that matter?
Same question to Wigginhall.
-
Dear Wigs,
Well I just listened to this,
https://www.ted.com/talks/alain_de_botton_a_kinder_gentler_philosophy_of_success
And it ticked all the right boxes for me, I like the way this guy thinks.
Gonnagle.
Me too.
I like Pleb too but think his is the voice, in debating De Botton, of the 21st century metropolitan computer gamer. Where life is grand as long as you have a console, a degree and a Pizza delivery service.
-
Dear Vlad,
Me too.
I like Pleb too but think his is the voice, in debating De Botton, of the 21st century metropolitan computer gamer. Where life is grand as long as you have a console, a degree and a Pizza delivery service.
:o
Quick get on stage before it wears off.
I am listening again to his Atheism 2.0, what can atheists learn from religion, get yer tin hat ready ::)
Gonnagle.
-
Me too.
I like Pleb too but think his is the voice, in debating De Botton, of the 21st century metropolitan computer gamer. Where life is grand as long as you have a console, a degree and a Pizza delivery service.
Why is any of that, if true, relevant?
-
Hi Mr G, watched that yesterday on your recommendation and did put up a question which got lost in the morass.
I noticed that De Botton included praise and thanksgiving in his list of useful stuff vis Thanking Shakespeare and Thanking Jane Austen as part of an atheist congregation.
There's a bit of a problem with that. Thanking the dead who you believe to be dead. Isn't that the beginnings of ancestor worship?
Who or what should be praised and thanked collectively by atheists?
-
Dear ippy,
True! So true, the whole atheist thing, we don't know what God is but hell we still don't believe in it, makes my eyes water just thinking about the atheist mind.
Gonnagle.
I have to say Gonners, this post of yours and Vlad's post as well are both a demonstration of how right I was, neither of you are able to get your heads around secularism the pair of you haven't got a clue between you.
I'm as certain as I can be that even when I tell the pair of you that, believers in all all sorts of religions are also secularists, no doubt that'll fall on stony ground too.
Regards to the pair of you, ippy
-
Dear ippy,
True! So true, the whole atheist thing, we don't know what God is but hell we still don't believe in it, makes my eyes water just thinking about the atheist mind.
Gonnagle.
At a loss as to why you find that strange, Gonzo. If I don't know what something is, how could I have a belief that it existed?
-
Dear Vlad,
Ancestor worship?? Well we all do that in small ways, but I think the man was just using humour to make a point and I think the point was, well the point is ( I think ) if I point to the Bible for some kind of instruction the atheist will point out that I could have got the same instruction from Shakespeare or Austen but they don't relate as deeply to Shakespeare as I do to the Holy Bible.
Probably not making my point very clearly, in Church when they shout Amen they are not just shouting Amen "insert Amen here" they are shouting because they understand, they acknowledge, they feel it deeply within themselves.
And I don't know why I am waffling that De Botton character says it all better than I can.
Can I get an AMEN :)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear ippy,
I have to say Gonners, this post of yours and Vlad's post as well are both a demonstration of how right I was, neither of you are able to get your heads around secularism the pair of you haven't got a clue between you.
I have been away from this forum for a while but I am sure I have read atheists arguing about what secular means.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane,
At a loss as to why you find that strange, Gonzo. If I don't know what something is, how could I have a belief that it existed?
I find it strange that you have not explored all possibilities ( no one has ) but you all, all atheists stand by disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane,
I find it strange that you have not explored all possibilities ( no one has ) but you all, all atheists stand by
Gonnagle.
I doubt anyone can explore all possibilities - but you have to remember Gonzo, not having a belief in something isn't saying it doesn't exist.
-
I find it strange that you have not explored all possibilities ( no one has ) but you all, all atheists stand by
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
I'm with NS - I simply don't understand how anybody can believe in something when they can't say what it is. It's totally baffling to me.
How can you "explore possibilities" in this context - what is there to explore? What's the starting point?
The lack of belief in the existence of a god follows directly from the concept of the god in question being undefined. I have a lack of belief in sacvommawtuc too. Why? because I haven't got a clue what it is...
-
I find this whole ‘belief in’ thing really weird. I can’t believe in something unless I experience it as real, even if I want to. So in ‘exploring possibilities’ I can only explore things I can experience. Theists who say ‘we don’t know what god is’ nevertheless tend to have some abstract ideas about what god is, or at least does, such as god loves, god creates, god saves.
As a borderline atheist I don’t experience a personal god, therefore I can’t believe in one.
-
Dear Vlad,
Ancestor worship?? Well we all do that in small ways, but I think the man was just using humour to make a point and I think the point was, well the point is ( I think ) if I point to the Bible for some kind of instruction the atheist will point out that I could have got the same instruction from Shakespeare or Austen but they don't relate as deeply to Shakespeare as I do to the Holy Bible.
Probably not making my point very clearly, in Church when they shout Amen they are not just shouting Amen "insert Amen here" they are shouting because they understand, they acknowledge, they feel it deeply within themselves.
And I don't know why I am waffling that De Botton character says it all better than I can.
Can I get an AMEN :)
Gonnagle.
Yes I broadly got that.
I think De Botton was referring to the guidance people get from holy books and the different ways in which this is mediated (monolithic message or living, personal word).
I think De Botton is quite keen on guidance hence the Book of Life which he is associated with and because he suggests that atheism can go of the rails if not disciplined and congregational. That's why his ideas are resisted on this forum. More or less the same argument mainstream churches make.
Atheists on this forum imho tend to be more like 19th century frontier protestants where there is a tradition of fundementalism, of feeling in danger from people not fully signed up, of unmediated self interpretation of doctrine, and a congregational experience in which thinking is secondary to emotional fervour.
-
Dear Sane,
I doubt anyone can explore all possibilities - but you have to remember Gonzo, not having a belief in something isn't saying it doesn't exist.
I think most atheists say, there is no God/gods full stop.
Gonnagle.
-
How can you "explore possibilities" in this context - what is there to explore? What's the starting point?
How about the word God? For the person that has no response to that I would imagine it is hard to give one to or get someone to have a response.
But I think those people are few and far between. More common are those who feel a strange but vague glow at the word or a bit of a vague feeling of discomfort. These are eminently explorable I would have said.
-
Dear Vlad,
Atheists on this forum imho tend to be more like 19th century frontier protestants where there is a tradition of fundementalism, of feeling in danger from people not fully signed up, of unmediated self interpretation of doctrine, and a congregational experience in which thinking is secondary to emotional fervour.
Not just this forum ( I am not saying all ) I know you still remember the time Dawkins shut his forum down, much gnashing of teeth and foaming at the mouth :o
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Vlad,
Not just this forum ( I am not saying all ) I know you still remember the time Dawkins shut his forum down, much gnashing of teeth and foaming at the mouth :o
Gonnagle.
Yes there is, it strikes me, a fair amount of what used to be called wrath around in New Atheist circles.
I think many atheists do not credit Dawkins enough with the stamp, tenor and tone he has bequethed to his congregations.
-
Dear Sane,
I think most atheists say, there is no God/gods full stop.
Gonnagle.
Of the ones on here, and the ones I know very few say there are no gods. But the point is I'm talking about what I say and that is surely what is relevant to discussions about what I believe?
-
Dear Vlad,
Not just this forum ( I am not saying all ) I know you still remember the time Dawkins shut his forum down, much gnashing of teeth and foaming at the mouth :o
Gonnagle.
Do they tend to be though? Which would mean a majority of atheists on here. Who do you think follows Vlad's description ?
-
Dear Sane,
I think most atheists say, there is no God/gods full stop.
Gonnagle.
Totally wrong in my case, Gonners. I have no idea if any god exists but I've never come across any evidence that one(or more than one) does. So, how can I say that 'there is no God/gods'. I can only say that I have no belief in any god whatever. Hence, unless evidence comes to light, the whole lot of them have only incidental significance(cultural, historical) in the way in which I conduct my life.
-
I hope no god exists, otherwise I am in the deep proverbial! :o
-
I hope no god exists, otherwise I am in the deep proverbial! :o
Why?
-
Dear enki,
Never would I put you in the category of neoatheist, new atheist, arrogant atheist, angry atheist, but there are many out there at the mere mention of religion/God go off on one, on this thread we have good old Jeremyp, he dislikes De Botton,
Just when we've more or less shed the shackles of religion, he wants to reimpose them but without specific gods.
More or less shed the shackles!! De Botton wants to engage, old Jeremyp, my way or the highway.
No offence Jeremyp, just making a point.
Gonnagle.
PS: Now off for a haircut :P
-
Dear enki,
Never would I put you in the category of neoatheist, new atheist, arrogant atheist, angry atheist, but there are many out there at the mere mention of religion/God go off on one, on this thread we have good old Jeremyp, he dislikes De Botton,
More or less shed the shackles!! De Botton wants to engage, old Jeremyp, my way or the highway.
No offence Jeremyp, just making a point.
Gonnagle.
PS: Now off for a haircut :P
So because jeremyp disagrees with De Botton he is somehow saying There are no gods? Rhiannon also disagrees with de Botton, is she saying there are no gods?
-
How about the word God? For the person that has no response to that I would imagine it is hard to give one to or get someone to have a response.
But I think those people are few and far between. More common are those who feel a strange but vague glow at the word or a bit of a vague feeling of discomfort. These are eminently explorable I would have said.
My response to the word 'god' lies somewhere between horoscopes or ghosts and anti-vaccination or climate change denial. I see it as as superstition like horoscopes or ghosts and potentially dangerous like anti-vaccination or climate change denial.
How does that help?
-
I used to get a vague kind of glow, as Vlad puts it, but now I just go blank. It's like somebody talking about Manchester City, I know that some people glow a lot about them, but I go blank. Never mind. It's too early for a drink, so I'll have to make do with a sandwich.
-
Dear Sane,
I think most atheists say, there is no God/gods full stop.
Gonnagle.
I think you'll find Gonners that most people that are non-believers, are non-believers because they see no good reason to believe these things people like your good self refer to as god or gods are actually there to believe in, in the first place.
I don't disbelieve in god, how would I be able to disbelieve in something that there is no reason to think is around somewhere for me to disbelieve in?
This is where Leprechauns, Unicorns or the Tooth Fairy come into the frame, I've no more reason to believe in that lot any more than I have reason to believe in your god idea.
Regards ippy
-
I think most atheists say, there is no God/gods full stop.
Not this atheist. I just can't see a reason to take any of the many, many, varied, and often mutually contradictory notions of god at all seriously.
On the other hand, while some god-concepts can be ruled out (due to logical inconsistency or contrary evidence), I cannot positively rule out that something (or things) exists in all of reality that might reasonably be described as 'god'.
-
Yes, I thought it was the other way round, that most atheists do not claim that there is no god. How would they know? But I can't find stats on it, although I remember that Dawkins did do a survey, on his forum, but can't find it.
-
Dear Sane,
So because jeremyp disagrees with De Botton he is somehow saying There are no gods? Rhiannon also disagrees with de Botton, is she saying there are no gods?
Disagrees?? Yes Rhiannon disagrees, Jeremyp thinks he has been shackled!
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Stranger,
My response to the word 'god' lies somewhere between horoscopes or ghosts and anti-vaccination or climate change denial. I see it as as superstition like horoscopes or ghosts and potentially dangerous like anti-vaccination or climate change denial.
How does that help?
Yes that helps, my belief in God is just superstition and dangerous??
Gonnagle.
-
My response to the word 'god' lies somewhere between horoscopes or ghosts and anti-vaccination or climate change denial. I see it as as superstition like horoscopes or ghosts and potentially dangerous like anti-vaccination or climate change denial.
Sounds like you are defining God as something you don't like. Besides there is scientific evidence for vaccination and climate change, what is the scientific evidence for atheism?
Horoscopes and ghosts are pseudoscientific but there are many views of God which don't involve science or sit quite happily with it.
That leaves the question then what is the real reason for your initial reaction to God?
-
Dear Sane,
Disagrees?? Yes Rhiannon disagrees, Jeremyp thinks he has been shackled!
Gonnagle.
So - your point is to do with either most atheists stating that there is no god, in which case jeremyp disagreeing with de Botton is irrelevant. Or that most atheists on this forum fit in with Vlad's description and I don't see how jeremyp's reply fits in to that?
-
Dear Sane,
I said many not most, and your disagree, he does not just disagree he dislikes, he uses the word shackles!
Gonnagle.
-
Why?
If it sends you to burn in hell forever for mere unbelief, as I was taught as a child, that wouldn't be very pleasant would it?
-
Dear Vlad,
That leaves the question then what is the real reason for your initial reaction to God?
Sorry old chap, against the rules, sub section 5 paragraph 4 of the forum rules, thou shall not ask the atheist to examine their beliefs, it makes them think!
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Vlad,
Sorry old chap, against the rules, sub section 5 paragraph 4 of the forum rules, thou shall not ask the atheist to examine their beliefs, it makes them think!
Gonnagle.
Yes, I have noticed a reluctance to take the other part in any, as Hillside would put it, interlocution.
-
Yes that helps, my belief in God is just superstition and dangerous??
Not exactly...
- I actually can't work out what your belief actually is. You are so often the voice of reason on so many topics here but I just can't grasp the notion believing in something when you can't say what it is. I find you baffling.
- I said that was my (general) reaction to the word 'god' not to every single person's individual faith.
- Whereas I have yet to come across a god-concept that isn't (what I'd describe as) superstition, I only claimed that they are potentially dangerous. Quite clearly not all instances of belief in god(s) are dangerous and some seem to inspire positive attitudes in those who hold them.
-
Dear Vlad,
Sorry old chap, against the rules, sub section 5 paragraph 4 of the forum rules, thou shall not ask the atheist to examine their beliefs, it makes them think!
Gonnagle.
Is that true? Do you feel comfortable saying that, Gonzo? It reads like a lazy generalisation to me.
-
Sounds like you are defining God as something you don't like.
I wasn't defining god as anything - you asked for my reaction to the word, which is what I gave you.
Besides there is scientific evidence for vaccination and climate change, what is the scientific evidence for atheism?
Horoscopes and ghosts are pseudoscientific but there are many views of God which don't involve science or sit quite happily with it.
Once again, you asked for a reaction, not something directly comparable in every way.
That leaves the question then what is the real reason for your initial reaction to God?
The (real) reasons for my reaction is that I have never been presented with a reason to think that the various god concepts are anything more than superstition and that some people's god-concepts lead them to take attitudes that are dangerous.
-
Sorry old chap, against the rules, sub section 5 paragraph 4 of the forum rules, thou shall not ask the atheist to examine their beliefs, it makes them think!
Are you able you come up with some objective reason (evidence or logical argument) to take a god-concept seriously? If you can't - I would suggest that it is you who is not examining your beliefs...
-
Dear Sane,
I feel very comfortable saying it, we go back away on this forum and the old Beeb, I have asked on more than one occasion for the atheist to open up, purely because I would really like to understand why But the conversation never really gets started, it fizzles out, they would much rather explore my belief, they would much rather take my beliefs and throw cold water on them, so in my quieter moments when the grey cells are churning away I think why, are they afraid, is the topic to boring??
Gonnagle.
-
I feel very comfortable saying it, we go back away on this forum and the old Beeb, I have asked on more than one occasion for the atheist to open up, purely because I would really like to understand why But the conversation never really gets started, it fizzles out, they would much rather explore my belief, they would much rather take my beliefs and throw cold water on them, so in my quieter moments when the grey cells are churning away I think why, are they afraid, is the topic to boring??
But the point (in my case) is that the why begins and ends with never having been given a sensible reason to take any of the god-concepts seriously. I cannot understand why people do take it seriously - which I guess is why the conversation turns to why you believe.
What else are you expecting? I'd genuinely like to know.
-
Dear Sane,
I feel very comfortable saying it, we go back away on this forum and the old Beeb, I have asked on more than one occasion for the atheist to open up, purely because I would really like to understand why But the conversation never really gets started, it fizzles out, they would much rather explore my belief, they would much rather take my beliefs and throw cold water on them, so in my quieter moments when the grey cells are churning away I think why, are they afraid, is the topic to boring??
Gonnagle.
And I have happily opened up. When have I ever refused to answer a question?
-
I wasn't defining god as anything - you asked for my reaction to the word, which is what I gave you.
Once again, you asked for a reaction, not something directly comparable in every way.
The (real) reasons for my reaction is that I have never been presented with a reason to think that the various god concepts are anything more than superstition and that some people's god-concepts lead them to take attitudes that are dangerous.
But if we break down your objections they come from a philosophical materialism(Yes I am saying that as though it were a bad thing)
Any reading of your input recently shows an emotional dislike of religion in the form of anger and an irrational fear of religious danger but the biggest pointer to your action is your acceptance of the idea that an intelligent creator of the universe is a reasonable idea solong as you don't call it God.
Your agreement with Dawkins not having to know any theology to expertly dismiss everything you didnt know it contained is unreasonable.
-
Dear Stranger,
Are you able you come up with some objective reason (evidence or logical argument) to take a god-concept seriously? If you can't - I would suggest that it is you who is not examining your beliefs...
I examine them every single day, for me it is all part of being a Christian, it is a journey, I have tried to examine all the evidence, all the scientific evidence but nothing touches what God is, nothing says why I am the way I am, there is a hell of a lot of theory but nothing concrete, there is no fact to say, not one fact that there is no God.
Gonnagle.
-
But if we break down your objections they come from a philosophical materialism(Yes I am saying that as though it were a bad thing)
Any reading of your input recently shows an emotional dislike of religion in the form of anger and an irrational fear of religious danger but the biggest pointer to your action is your acceptance of the idea that an intelligent creator of the universe is a reasonable idea solong as you don't call it God.
Your agreement with Dawkins not having to know any theology to expertly dismiss everything you didnt know it contained is unreasonable.
I think you tread dangerous ground expressing your opinion of someone's motivation as a fact.
-
But if we break down your objections they come from a philosophical materialism(Yes I am saying that as though it were a bad thing)
Any reading of your input recently shows an emotional dislike of religion in the form of anger and an irrational fear of religious danger but the biggest pointer to your action is your acceptance of the idea that an intelligent creator of the universe is a reasonable idea solong as you don't call it God.
Pure fantasy. The reason is that I have never been presented with any evidence or argument for god that isn't obviously flawed. The (non-god) intelligent creator has been dealt with at length and I don't think it's "reasonable" but the argument is somewhat (only just) better than the god arguments.
Your agreement with Dawkins not having to know any theology to expertly dismiss everything you didnt know it contained is unreasonable.
Yawn - theology is irrelevant until you can demonstrate that it's about something real...
-
Dear Sane,
And I have happily opened up. When have I ever refused to answer a question?
Never, but it might just be me, maybe I don't know the right questions to ask, or maybe I don't like opening up a can of worms, but I do feel like it is a closed shop, we don't discuss it on this forum, one of the reasons I don't understand atheism, nobody wants to talk about it.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Vlad,
Sorry old chap, against the rules, sub section 5 paragraph 4 of the forum rules, thou shall not ask the atheist to examine their beliefs, it makes them think!
Gonnagle.
But I don't have any beliefs about gods to examine: all I've done is think about what those who do have beliefs about gods say and I've concluded that their beliefs are demonstrably flawed in various ways (depending on how they express their belief), to the extent that their god claim isn't a serious proposition.
-
I think you tread dangerous ground expressing your opinion of someone's motivation as a fact.
I don't think I have said anything here that Stranger would not agree with except perhaps that his fear of religion was irrational by don't of it's implied universality to be potentially so.
-
I examine them every single day, for me it is all part of being a Christian, it is a journey, I have tried to examine all the evidence, all the scientific evidence but nothing touches what God is, nothing says why I am the way I am, there is a hell of a lot of theory but nothing concrete, there is no fact to say, not one fact that there is no God.
I didn't claim that there was any evidence or argument that there is definitely no god(s) - which is why I accept the possibility.
However, that isn't a reason to take the idea of god(s) seriously - why would it be?
-
Dear Sane,
Never, but it might just be me, maybe I don't know the right questions to ask, or maybe I don't like opening up a can of worms, but I do feel like it is a closed shop, we don't discuss it on this forum, one of the reasons I don't understand atheism, nobody wants to talk about it.
Gonnagle.
It's true Atheism is often covered over in these parts with the default delusion and ''atheism is merely the lack etc.''
-
...one of the reasons I don't understand atheism, nobody wants to talk about it.
Perhaps you are expecting more than there is?
As several have said here - atheism (as applied, I think, to most atheists here) is simply the result of not finding the god-concepts and the reasons given for believing in them, at all convincing.
That's it. That really is all there is to it.
-
Yawn - theology is irrelevant until you can demonstrate that it's about something real...
It is not irrelevent if you then wish to make pronouncements upon what it is saying....and many obviously want to. Atheism itself is a theological position.
Your belief is evidence, IMHO of a slavish worship of even the great master Dawkins verbal toe clippings.
-
It's true Atheism is often covered over in these parts with the default delusion and ''atheism is merely the lack etc.''
atheism (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism) - Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Like it or not - that is what (true) atheism is.
-
Atheism itself is a theological position.
Drivel - see definition above.
Your belief is evidence, IMHO of a slavish worship of even the great master Dawkins verbal toe clippings.
Worse drivel. I guess making daft assertions is a way for you to avoid actually thinking.
-
atheism (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism) - Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Like it or not - that is what (true) atheism is.
In which case why don't people STFU after they've said it?
-
It does seem difficult to talk about not having a belief. Of course, the old joke was talking about not stamp collecting, and you could even set up a club for non stamp collectors. My old dad was an atheist, and he found the whole area deeply tedious, and there was little to talk about.
-
. I guess making daft assertions is a way for you to avoid actually thinking.
And I guess saying that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods is a way for you to avoid it.
-
Dear Sane,
Never, but it might just be me, maybe I don't know the right questions to ask, or maybe I don't like opening up a can of worms, but I do feel like it is a closed shop, we don't discuss it on this forum, one of the reasons I don't understand atheism, nobody wants to talk about it.
Gonnagle.
Atheism is a position on a single question. Do you believe in god(s)? And you answer no, that's it. No more complex no more deep. For atheism itself that is the only question that will gave any consistency.
-
And I guess saying that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods is a way for you to avoid it.
No, this is you making stuff up about motivations again. Tgatis what atheism is.
-
Dear Gordon,
But I don't have any beliefs about gods to examine: all I've done is think about what those who do have beliefs about gods say and I've concluded that their beliefs are demonstrably flawed in various ways (depending on how they express their belief), to the extent that their god claim isn't a serious proposition.
To me that is a very honest reply, if I say God is Love, the standard answer is the newborn with cancer, and that is fine, very human response, how can he be a God of Love if he allows that.
But what if I say God is that part of us waiting to be awakened, to be more human, by human I mean, that part which spits in the eye of the war mongers, that part of us that hates greed, that part of us that feels compassion for every living thing, this is my God and more.
Can you believe in that God??
Gonnagle.
-
In which case why don't people STFU after they've said it?
Because that's not all of what the people yohare talking to are. It's all of what atheism is.
-
Dear Gordon,
To me that is a very honest reply, if I say God is Love, the standard answer is the newborn with cancer, and that is fine, very human response, how can he be a God of Love if he allows that.
But what if I say God is that part of us waiting to be awakened, to be more human, by human I mean, that part which spits in the eye of the war mongers, that part of us that hates greed, that part of us that feels compassion for every living thing, this is my God and more.
Can you believe in that God??
Gonnagle.
No, because (a) it's nonsensical since surely the war mongering is Hunan so why is your position more human, and (b) surely that would mean if I said look here's a lamp that I am going to call 'god' you believe in the lamp existing ergo 'god' exists. It's not an argument it's a semantic game that makes the term meaningless
-
Dear Sane,
Atheism is a position on a single question. Do you believe in god(s)? And you answer no, that's it. No more complex no more deep. For atheism itself that is the only question that will gave any consistency.
Well our Gordon has just said he only disbelieves in what other have described as their God, so not gods but only the ones he has heard about.
Am I right Gordon?
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane,
Well our Gordon has just said he only disbelieves in what other have described as their God, so not gods but only the ones he has heard about.
Am I right Gordon?
Gonnagle.
And that's my position too. But I have no belief in gods that I haven't heard about. So I have a lack of belief in them too.
-
It does seem difficult to talk about not having a belief. Of course, the old joke was talking about not stamp collecting, and you could even set up a club for non stamp collectors. My old dad was an atheist, and he found the whole area deeply tedious, and there was little to talk about.
I suppose that's pre New Atheism atheism. I think New Atheism is the emotional response of antitheists to fundamentalist religion I don't think many would
deny that a kind of Toronto Blessing for atheists. That would explain it's antiintellectualism vis the response on this forum to De Botton who obviously didn't receive the 'gift'.
-
I suppose that's pre New Atheism atheism. I think New Atheism is the emotional response of antitheists to fundamentalist religion I don't think many would
deny that a kind of Toronto Blessing for atheists. That would explain it's antiintellectualism vis the response on this forum to De Botton who obviously didn't receive the 'gift'.
More made up drivel.
-
Dear Sane,
No, because (a) it's nonsensical since surely the war mongering is Hunan so why is your position mirehunan, and (b) surely that would mean if I said look here's a lamp that I am going to call 'god' you believe in the lamp existing ergo 'god' exists. It's not an argument it's a semantic game that makes the term meaningless
Is it, boy oh boy! very cynical, from what I have read ( yes Armstrong again ) early man had compassion for all living things, he only learn't war as a lazy get out clause, why should I toil in the field when I can go and steal the other buggers crop.
I think you need to read more Sriram, all about growing spiritually.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane,
Is it, boy oh boy! very cynical, from what I have read ( yes Armstrong again ) early man had compassion for all living things, he only learn't war as a lazy get out clause, why should I toil in the field when I can go and steal the other buggers crop.
I think you need to read more Sriram, all about growing spiritually.
Gonnagle.
Where did war come from if not humans? What does 'spiritually' mean?
-
Dear Sane,
And that's my position too. But I have no belief in gods that I haven't heard about. So I have a lack of belief in them too.
Well actually that was one answer I received many moons ago regarding God, why should I ponder on God if I don't believe in God/gods, basically the whole God question is out the window, nothing to see here move on folks.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane,
Well actually that was one answer I received many moons ago regarding God, why should I ponder on God if I don't believe in God/gods, basically the whole God question is out the window, nothing to see here move on folks.
Gonnagle.
That isn't what my post said. I pointed out that I will lack belief in something I have no knowledge of.
-
Dear Sane,
Well our Gordon has just said he only disbelieves in what other have described as their God, so not gods but only the ones he has heard about.
Am I right Gordon?
Gonnagle.
Not exactly: I don't actively disbelieve what they say since what they say is either fallacious or incoherent, so I just reject their arguments
You could say that I see no grounds to believe that 'god' is a serious proposition on the basis of the arguments advanced by theists but that doesn't equate to a belief that there are no gods.
In everyday speech I clearly don't believe in gods,for the reasons given, but by the same token I dont believe the proposition that there is a }=++<* since, for me, this }=++<* is as incoherent as gods - so not a serious proposition.
-
Dear Sane, Gordon and anyone else who joined in this merry go round,
Fair enough but I still liked Gordon's answer.
Gonnagle.
-
In which case why don't people STFU after they've said it?
Because of the problems associated with widespread belief in things for which there is no evidence or reasoned argument.
And I guess saying that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods is a way for you to avoid it.
No, telling the truth isn't avoiding anything: atheism is the lack of belief in any god(s).
The reason I don't STFU (as you put it) about it is as I stated above - but that is not a part of atheism. I'm sure some people must be atheists for reasons that are just as baseless as theism - but that wouldn't make them not atheists.
-
Because of the problems associated with widespread belief in things for which there is no evidence or reasoned argument.
I think the arguments are very reasoned vis Feser for whom there is no knockdown refutation available.
-
I think the arguments are very reasoned vis Feser for whom there is no knockdown refutation available.
why state an assertion as fact?
-
why state an assertion as fact?
Well there is no knockdown argument. If you think I am wrong produce one that is written in the language of logic and not New Atheism.
-
Well there is no knockdown argument. If you think I am wrong produce one that is written in the language of logic and not New Atheism.
And you repeat your assertion as fact.
-
Dear Vlad,
Feser?? do you mean
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/
Gonnagle.
-
I think the arguments are very reasoned vis Feser for whom there is no knockdown refutation available.
The Feser argument I looked at was nonsense - and I gave extensive reasons why in the Searching for GOD... topic, for example #26392 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg715954#msg715954) and #26413 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg716002#msg716002).
-
Dear Vlad,
Feser?? do you mean
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/
Gonnagle.
Yes, that's who Vlad is talking about
-
The Feser argument I looked at was nonsense - and I gave extensive reasons why in the Searching for GOD... topic, for example #26392 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg715954#msg715954) and #26413 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg716002#msg716002).
I seem to recall pointing out that you had the wrong end of the stick at one or two points and started riffing on science at others.
-
I seem to recall pointing out that you had the wrong end of the stick at one or two points and started riffing on science at others.
You basically kept on ignoring what I'd actually argued and making spurious allegations of inconsistency. There was no particular need for science, as I recall. But anyway, the argument is there for all to see and read - I stand by what I said. Feser's argument fell apart as soon as he tried to attribute the characteristics of 'god' to his 'end of hierarchy'; it became hopelessly contrived and then self-contradictory. It can also be refuted with a reductio ad absurdum using Tegmark's speculation as the 'end of hierarchy' - which is far more self-consistent.
Here is the argument in question: An Aristotelian Proof of the Existence of God (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAIHs5TJRqQ) - very long, very dull, and very silly.
-
Dear Vlad,
Feser?? do you mean
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/
Gonnagle.
That's the guy.
His line is that there is respect for the reasonableness of philosophical and metaphysical arguments for God...but that is limited to mainly people in the business including some atheists giving lie to the claim that there are no reasons to believe. What then is the basis of admitting that there might be a God which is what most atheists end up acknowledging.
There is also the support for Neil De Grasse Tysons idea that the universe could have a transcendent intelligent creator....as long as we don't call it God.
Of course, Dawkins and Krauss and Hawking have exempted, in some kind of Charismatic antitheist gifting, New atheists from having to bother with philosophy.
-
You basically kept on ignoring what I'd actually argued and making spurious allegations of inconsistency. There was no particular need for science, as I recall. But anyway, the argument is there for all to see and read - I stand by what I said. Feser's argument fell apart as soon as he tried to attribute the characteristics of 'god' to his 'end of hierarchy'; it became hopelessly contrived and then self-contradictory. It can also be refuted with a reductio ad absurdum using Tegmark's speculation as the 'end of hierarchy' - which is far more self-consistent.
It cant be refuted with Tegmarks theory since Tegmark is a form of the Feser argument. Stop waving Tegmark about Shamanically. Also Tegmarks speculation requires the multiverse whereas Fesers only requires the universe.
I seem to recall you trying to say he tried to attribute the characteristics of the christian God. He doesn't. He links his argument to classical philosophical descriptions of God.
In the end you resorted to ''we don't know' a lot thus your riffing on science.
-
Dear Vlad,
His line is that there is respect for the reasonableness of philosophical and metaphysical arguments for God...but that is limited to mainly people in the business including some atheists giving lie to the claim that there are no reasons to believe. What then is the basis of admitting that there might be a God which is what most atheists end up acknowledging.
Hello! Any atheist want to jump in, no reason to believe but admitting there might be a God?
Vlad, do me a favour, don't mention Dawkins, honestly the guy is more superficial than claims about diet food.
As for Feser, a whole new ball game :o I am off to eat and watch a rubbish movie!
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Vlad,
Hello! Any atheist want to jump in, no reason to believe but admitting there might be a God?
Vlad, do me a favour, don't mention Dawkins, honestly the guy is more superficial than claims about diet food.
As for Feser, a whole new ball game :o I am off to eat and watch a rubbish movie!
Gonnagle.
Yes, Vlad us as usual lying about what people actually say, and attributing motivations to people as facts which he is asserting
-
Dear Vlad,
Hello! Any atheist want to jump in, no reason to believe but admitting there might be a God?
Vlad, do me a favour, don't mention Dawkins, honestly the guy is more superficial than claims about diet food.
As for Feser, a whole new ball game :o I am off to eat and watch a rubbish movie!
Gonnagle.
Top ofthe evening to you Mr G.
-
It cant be refuted with Tegmarks theory since Tegmark is a form of the Feser argument. Stop waving Tegmark about Shamanically.
You really haven't a clue about logic, have you? The whole point of the reductio ad absurdum (look it up) is that Tegmark can be plugged in to the first part of Feser's argument.
Also Tegmarks speculation requires the multiverse whereas Fesers only requires the universe.
Which has bugger all to do with anything. Once again, the refutation does not require Tegmark's speculation to be true - just logically possible.
I seem to recall you trying to say he tried to attribute the characteristics of the christian God. He doesn't. He links his argument to classical philosophical descriptions of God.
I recall he tried to attribute omnipotence, omniscience, perfection, thoughts, and intelligence. All of which were hopelessly contrived, contradicted his earlier claims, and would apply with equal (in)validity to the laws of nature or (especially) to Tegmark's speculation.
In the end you resorted to ''we don't know' a lot thus your riffing on science.
Drivel.
-
Hello! Any atheist want to jump in, no reason to believe but admitting there might be a God?
Exactly - what's the problem? I can't totally rule out some sort of god(s) but I have seen no good reason to take any of the multitudinous and often contradictory ideas of god(s) seriously.
It's called the philosophical burden of proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)): it's for those who claim that there is a god, to provide the reasons. For all Vlad's waffle about philosophy, he doesn't seem to like that bit very much...
-
Exactly - what's the problem? I can't totally rule out some sort of god(s) but I have seen no good reason to take any of the multitudinous and often contradictory ideas of god(s) seriously.
It's called the philosophical burden of proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)): it's for those who claim that there is a god, to provide the reasons. For all Vlad's waffle about philosophy, he doesn't seem to like that bit very much...
It's a waste of time trying to get through to this pair Stranger, let's hope for their sakes they're on a wind up.
Regards ippy
-
Hello! Any atheist want to jump in, no reason to believe but admitting there might be a God?
There might be. I don't see any evidence that there is, but that doesn't prove there isn't.
Your turn: any theists want to jump in, no reason not to believe but admitting there might not be any gods?
-
There might be. I don't see any evidence that there is, but that doesn't prove there isn't.
Your turn: any theists want to jump in, no reason not to believe but admitting there might not be any gods?
I don't see any theists argue that naturalism or even atheism is completely and utterly unreasonable or that they see no reasons to propose it in that endearing mouth foamy way. And then go on to grudgingly and inconsistently to admit that they could be reasonable.
I would have thought the latter contradicts the former
I don't consider myself as someone who both believes there could be and believes there isn't simultaneously unlike most atheists around here and it's been a long time since I have had doubts about whether God is there.
-
I don't consider myself as someone who both believes there could be and believes there isn't simultaneously unlike most atheists around here...
It's amazing how some people still don't get a perfectly rational position. The whole point of (for example) "Russell's fecking teapot" (as Gonnagle christened it) is to point out that something that cannot be ruled out is not automatically a sensible idea that needs to be taken seriously.
I can't positively rule out god(s) (or orbiting teapots or any number of other fantastical but unfalsifiable stories) but I see absolutely no reason to believe any of them.
This isn't rocket science, what's so hard?
-
I don't consider myself as someone who both believes there could be and believes there isn't simultaneously unlike most atheists around here and it's been a long time since I have had doubts about whether God is there.
I don't think there are any gods but I am willing to admit I might be wrong.
You believe there are gods, in fact, you believe there is one very particular god. Are you willing to admit you might be wrong? A simple yes or no will suffice.
-
Exactly - what's the problem? I can't totally rule out some sort of god(s) but I have seen no good reason to take any of the multitudinous and often contradictory ideas of god(s) seriously.
It's called the philosophical burden of proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)): it's for those who claim that there is a god, to provide the reasons. For all Vlad's waffle about philosophy, he doesn't seem to like that bit very much...
To believe there may be a God and not investigate is irrational Stranger.
Any one prepared to make the effort for multiverses and universe simulators has blown their arguments for not taking God seriously.
-
To believe there may be a God and not investigate is irrational Stranger.
Any one prepared to make the effort for multiverses and universe simulators has blown their arguments for not taking God seriously.
I wouldn't have the equipment to investigate multiverses. And if God is defined as supernatural, then no equipment would ever be up to the job.
-
I wouldn't have the equipment to investigate multiverses. And if God is defined as supernatural, then no equipment would ever be up to the job.
That's not really my point. Multiverse and universal simulator are I presume being tackled equipmentlessly. That it is argued is reasonable.
To say there may be a God and have no investigation is irrational.
Surely it is the atheist equivalent of avoiding the worst case scenario.
-
To believe there may be a God and not investigate is irrational Stranger.
What I actually said was that a god(s) cannot be ruled out - in just the same way as orbiting teapots and invisible purple unicorns can't be ruled out.
Something that cannot be ruled out is not automatically a sensible, reasonable, or in any way credible idea. What is it that is so hard about this concept?
What would be irrational would be to try to investigate every single claim that cannot be ruled out - there isn't enough time in a human life. Further, it's not even as if there is only one god claim - people believe, and have believed, in thousands of them (http://www.godchecker.com/).
Any one prepared to make the effort for multiverses and universe simulators has blown their arguments for not taking God seriously.
I'm not sure what effort you think I'm making. Simulated universes are science fiction. Multiverses cover a wide range of ideas from the simple infinite spacial extent of this universe (which has some inductive evidence) to pure guesswork (Tegmark's mathematical ideas).
-
What I actually said was that a god(s) cannot be ruled out - in just the same way as orbiting teapots and invisible purple unicorns can't be ruled out.
Or multiverse or universal simulator. You are specially pleading and horselaughing.
-
What would be irrational would be to try to investigate every single claim that cannot be ruled out - there isn't enough time in a human life. Further, it's not even as if there is only one god claim - people believe, and have believed, in thousands of them (http://www.godchecker.com/).
Then you start with the scenario that would have the most significant outcome for you were it to be true.
Any other approach is irrational. Why for instance bother with gods who don't require belief whether for their benefit or yours.
-
That's not really my point. Multiverse and universal simulator are I presume being tackled equipmentlessly. That it is argued is reasonable.
To say there may be a God and have no investigation is irrational.
Surely it is the atheist equivalent of avoiding the worst case scenario.
Evidence for a multiverse comes from ESA's Planck satellite study of the CMB. I don't have the resources to launch satellites myself so I wait for the results.
No amount of tech however would reveal something that is defined as supernatural
-
Or multiverse or universal simulator. You are specially pleading and horselaughing.
Oh FFS, this really isn't rocket science, what is so hard? Being unfalsifiable doesn't not make an idea sensible and reasonable or worthy of consideration. Neither does it make it absurd.
Each idea must be assessed on its merits and the reasons given for it.
A simulated universe is not an idea I take seriously because the argument for it makes way too many dubious assumptions.
Multiverses fall into different categories and have different supporting arguments. Some are way more believable than others.
I have never been presented with any reason to take any of the god-concepts seriously that wasn't hopeless.
-
Oh FFS, this really isn't rocket science, what is so hard? Being unfalsifiable doesn't not make an idea sensible and reasonable or worthy of consideration. Neither does it make it absurd.
Each idea must be assessed on its merits and the reasons given for it.
A simulated universe is not an idea I take seriously because the argument for it makes way too many dubious assumptions.
Multiverses fall into different categories and have different supporting arguments. Some are way more believable than others.
I have never been presented with any reason to take any of the god-concepts seriously that wasn't hopeless.
While the above may be acceptable for one who has dismissed God entirely, to admit that God may exist and not seriously pursue investigation or thought is irrational.
To say that you wouldn't know where to begin is irrational as I have pointed out.
It is as I have said avoiding the worse case scenario for an atheist. Why then irrationally avoid an encounter with God?
-
Evidence for a multiverse comes from ESA's Planck satellite study of the CMB. I don't have the resources to launch satellites myself so I wait for the results.
No amount of tech however would reveal something that is defined as supernatural
But one God scenario is that he reveals himself to seekers.
Surely it would be rational to investigate what must be the worse case scenario for an atheist?
-
While the above may be acceptable for one who has dismissed God entirely, to admit that God may exist and not seriously pursue investigation or thought is irrational.
This appears to be your new mantra - I've explained my position and you've ignored it.
In addition, the idea of a god that has an important message that it wants to communicate to humanity and who cares about our response to it, is in direct and obvious contradiction to the world we observe. There is no obvious message.
-
This appears to be your new mantra - I've explained my position and you've ignored it.
In addition, the idea of a god that has an important message that it wants to communicate to humanity and who cares about our response to it, is in direct and obvious contradiction to the world we observe. There is no obvious message.
Still not examining the worst case scenario though which is probably that if you head away from him he would let you.
The world we observe matches exactly that kind of God.
None of your objections justify zero theological effort and because the stakes are so high such behaviour is irrational.
Any thing you've said might militate against a certain God but your overall argument is always going to be undermined by your admission that God may exist.
-
Still not examining the worst case scenario though which is probably that if you head away from him he would let you.
I'm not heading away from anything but baseless superstition - or something doing a very good job of pretending to be baseless superstition.
The world we observe matches exactly that kind of God.
Flat contradiction isn't a counterargument. Why would god hide its message in something that looks like all the other religions and superstitions in the world? It's an absurd idea.
None of your objections justify zero theological effort and because the stakes are so high such behaviour is irrational.
If god is hiding away in something indistinguishable from superstition and playing silly games of hide an seek, then it is evil and I would want nothing to do with it anyway.
Any thing you've said might militate against a certain God but your overall argument is always going to be undermined by your admission that God may exist.
Vampires, werewolves, and aliens who steal our thoughts may exist (can't be 100% ruled out) - perhaps I should to stocking up on garlic, silver bullets, and tinfoil...?
-
I'm not heading away from anything but baseless superstition - or something doing a very good job of pretending to be baseless superstition.
Flat contradiction isn't a counterargument. Why would god hide its message in something that looks like all the other religions and superstitions in the world? It's an absurd idea.
If god is hiding away in something indistinguishable from superstition and playing silly games of hide an seek, then it is evil and I would want nothing to do with it anyway.
Vampires, werewolves, and aliens who steal our thoughts may exist (can't be 100% ruled out) - perhaps I should to stocking up on garlic, silver bullets, and tinfoil...?
You cannot not seek God and then conclude he is hiding. That is irrational.
I fail to see why you are equating God with vampires, Leprechauns etc and not multiverse or simulators of this universe.
Explain your categorisations.
-
But one God scenario is that he reveals himself to seekers.
Either everybody who genuinely seeks becomes your subspecies of Christian (or some other specific type of believer and you are wrong); which would mean that the vast majority (including believers) are not genuinely seeking - or that god scenario is incorrect.
-
You cannot not seek God and then conclude he is hiding.
First, what has that got to do with what I said?
Second, of course you can - you can seek and find nothing in the way of gods.
That is irrational.
Repeating "that is irrational" like a mantra is irrational.
I fail to see why you are equating God with vampires, Leprechauns etc and not multiverse or simulators of this universe.
Explain your categorisations.
I have already explained this:
Each idea must be assessed on its merits and the reasons given for it.
A simulated universe is not an idea I take seriously because the argument for it makes way too many dubious assumptions.
Multiverses fall into different categories and have different supporting arguments. Some are way more believable than others.
I have never been presented with any reason to take any of the god-concepts seriously that wasn't hopeless.
For clarity: I have never been presented with any reason to take any of the vampire, leprechauns etc. stories seriously that wasn't hopeless.
-
But one God scenario is that he reveals himself to seekers.
Surely it would be rational to investigate what must be the worse case scenario for an atheist?
That god scenario lacks all objectivity. To find objective truth means eliminating the personal; this has been an overarching lesson of the last three hundred years. Anything less is just an indulgence of our own inner hopes and fears and prejudices.
-
How do we investigate the supernatural? Go and sit in churches? Listen to ethereal music? Any clues?
-
How do we investigate the supernatural? Go and sit in churches? Listen to ethereal music? Any clues?
Or 'seek' gods? anymore than seek huhbhbjhbcj?
-
I enjoyed Vlad's comment that if you head away from God, he will let you, and quote, 'The world we observe matches exactly that kind of God.'
Well, the world matches the kind of Venusian mermaid who leaves me alone. Damn those pesky naiads!
-
And again how does one head away from a god?
-
How do we investigate the supernatural? Go and sit in churches? Listen to ethereal music? Any clues?
Just read this one Wiggs, like it.
ippy
-
And again how does one head away from a god?
Now you are making me laugh. I suppose you find the place where he might be, and walk in the opposite direction. Hang on, God is everywhere, isn't he?
-
Now you are making me laugh. I suppose you find the place where he might be, and walk in the opposite direction. Hang on, God is everywhere, isn't he?
It's partly also a begging the question that there in not 'seeking' the god thing, you are heading away from it, and partly the assumption that we actually believe and are just lying about it. But in the light of my own issue that I haven't been given a logically coherent or meaningful definition of the god thing, I'm left in a whole green ideas sleep furiously pattern here.
As you say, if the 'god' has certain attributes that some of those who state they believe in it claim then even on that level it's a nonsense.
-
Another interesting Vladdism: 'None of your objections justify zero theological effort and because the stakes are so high such behaviour is irrational.'
The stakes are so high - hello, is this a reference to hell and salvation? Ooooer, missus, my knees are knocking like castanets.
-
Another interesting Vladdism: 'None of your objections justify zero theological effort and because the stakes are so high such behaviour is irrational.'
The stakes are so high - hello, is this a reference to hell and salvation? Ooooer, missus, my knees are knocking like castanets.
And what would be 'theological effort'? Are the measurements for this. Does an Our Father, 10 Hail Marys, and a Glory be equate to one kilojesus? Does observing Ramadan generate a megaallah?
-
It's partly also a begging the question that there in not 'seeking' the god thing, you are heading away from it, and partly the assumption that we actually believe and are just lying about it. But in the light of my own issue that I haven't been given a logically coherent or meaningful definition of the god thing, I'm left in a whole green ideas sleep furiously pattern here.
As you say, if the 'god' has certain attributes that some of those who state they believe in it claim then even on that level it's a nonsense.
From the alleged words of Jesus .... Heaven is within you ...... God is in Heaven .... therefore God is within you. The Aramaic words attributed to him when he was near death contained the (God) word El which means 'power' and so I would guess that if, from within, you feel empowered or enlivened then you have found God.
-
Another interesting Vladdism: 'None of your objections justify zero theological effort and because the stakes are so high such behaviour is irrational.'
The stakes are so high - hello, is this a reference to hell and salvation? Ooooer, missus, my knees are knocking like castanets.
Well I suppose you have identified a worst possible scenario. To hold that and believe that such might describe your alternative fate and laugh it off is indeed irrational.
-
It's partly also a begging the question that there in not 'seeking' the god thing, you are heading away from it, and partly the assumption that we actually believe and are just lying about it.
The belief I refer to here is that God may exist. Not acting on that or just laughing it off is irrational given the stakes and also not intellectually honest.
-
That god scenario lacks all objectivity. To find objective truth means eliminating the personal; this has been an overarching lesson of the last three hundred years. Anything less is just an indulgence of our own inner hopes and fears and prejudices.
We know that atheists have eliminated the personal however the personal or existential is inescapable.
To describe or reduce your personal self to mere hope, fear or prejudice seems to me to commit yourself to some kind of unforgiveable, inescapable self loathing and loathing of others.
-
The belief I refer to here is that God may exist.
Once again, the 'may exist' just refers to not being able to 100% rule out the possibility.
Not acting on that or just laughing it off is irrational given the stakes and also not intellectually honest.
Perhaps you should ponder the fact that we cannot 100% rule out a god that deliberately hides away and then condemns those people who are stupid enough to believe in gods without any evidence or reasoning, to eternal suffering. The proposition is no less likely than the existence of any of the gods of the world's religions; neither have any good reason to believe them and neither can be 100% ruled out.
Are you just going to laugh that off, given the stakes..?
-
Once again, the 'may exist' just refers to not being able to 100% rule out the possibility.
Perhaps you should ponder the fact that we cannot 100% rule out a god that deliberately hides away and then condemns those people who are stupid enough to believe in gods without any evidence or reasoning, to eternal suffering. The proposition is no less likely than the existence of any of the gods of the world's religions; neither have any good reason to believe them and neither can be 100% ruled out.
Are you just going to laugh that off, given the stakes..?
I have sought God, Have or are you?
-
I have sought God, Have or are you?
How did you do that? And what were you 'seeking'!
-
Well I suppose you have identified a worst possible scenario. To hold that and believe that such might describe your alternative fate and laugh it off is indeed irrational.
How did you determine what is a scenario and what is worst?
-
I have sought God, Have or are you?
Evasion noted. I refer you to all the points above.
Also, how can one seek a collection of different, mutually contradictory, often self-contradictory, baseless fairy tales (or a stories that look exactly like fairy tales)?
Also again, if there is a god that hides away in fairy tale lookalike stories, plays silly games of hide and seek, and then visits serious consequences on those that don't play its stupid games, is unjust and unreasonable and I would want nothing to do with such a god anyway.
-
Evasion noted. I refer you to all the points above.
Also, how can one seek a collection of different, mutually contradictory, often self-contradictory, baseless fairy tales (or a stories that look exactly like fairy tales)?
Also again, if there is a god that hides away in fairy tale lookalike stories, plays silly games of hide and seek, and then visits serious consequences on those that don't play its stupid games, is unjust and unreasonable and I would want nothing to do with such a god anyway.
That doesn't help the atheist case only the Anti God case.
Again if you believe there might be a God it would be irrational not to act on that and make excuses for that irrationality.
-
We know that atheists have eliminated the personal however the personal or existential is inescapable.
To describe or reduce your personal self to mere hope, fear or prejudice seems to me to commit yourself to some kind of unforgiveable, inescapable self loathing and loathing of others.
No, it is merely the avoidance of confirmation bias etc; I would have thought that was pretty obvious. If we want to establish any sort of objectivity that means minimising any subjectivity. All this 'personal seeking' business is the indulgence of subjectivity at the cost of objectivity. Psychology text books are full of this sort of insight.
-
No, it is merely the avoidance of confirmation bias etc; I would have thought that was pretty obvious. If we want to establish any sort of objectivity that means minimising any subjectivity. All this 'personal seeking' business is the indulgence of subjectivity at the cost of objectivity. Psychology text books are full of this sort of insight.
I would beg to disagree. After all what objective truth do you have that I couldn't?
'Cost to objectivity' is a myth since the only thing threatened is another belief.
If you believe there might be a God and then refuse to act on that for the sake of another belief then that is irrational.
-
That doesn't help the atheist case only the Anti God case.
Drivel.
Again if you believe there might be a God it would be irrational not to act on that and make excuses for that irrationality.
Nope. Given that:
- It is equally (un)likely that there is a god that punishes belief in gods for which there is no evidence, as it is that there is one that punishes disbelief.
- Both those possibilities are far, far less probable than there being no basis for these silly fairy tales at all.
- A god that hides in fairy tale lookalike stories would be unjust, unfair, and untrustworthy anyway.
- A god that condemns people for believing according to the (lack of) evidence would be doubly unjust and untrustworthy.
It is far more rational to take notice of the actual evidence - or lack thereof.
-
Drivel.
Nope. Given that:
- It is equally (un)likely that there is a god that punishes belief in gods for which there is no evidence, as it is that there is one that punishes disbelief.
Are you trying then to justify your disbelief because you think that is what God approves of?
[/list]
-
I would beg to disagree. After all what objective truth do you have that I couldn't?
'Cost to objectivity' is a myth since the only thing threatened is another belief.
If you believe there might be a God and then refuse to act on that for the sake of another belief then that is irrational.
I think you are over-egging the 'there might be a God' pudding for your own convenience: nobody is here is daft enough to exclude the possibility that there might be a god (or gods) but they usually couch this in terms of there being no good reasons currently to think it a serious proposition as things stand.
So your notion that someone like me is 'refusing to act' presumes that I think there is something worth investigating in the first place: and I don't, and nor do I have 'another belief' in relation to gods.
-
If you believe there might be a God and then refuse to act on that for the sake of another belief then that is irrational.
Atheists generally don't think there 'might be a god' - any more than they think there 'might be' vengeful fairies that punish you in the afterlife for doubting their existence or any other crazy idea that you might make up that has nasty consequences and is unfalsifiable.
Being unable to 100% rule things out doesn't equate to thinking they 'might be' true in any normal sense of the phrase.
You can make things up all day like that and they are all as equally (un)likely as any god-story. Not acting on the god-stories (assuming for a minute that there was a rational way to act on them, which there isn't) is no more irrational than not acting on the notion of the vengeful fairies.
Are you trying then to justify your disbelief because you think that is what God approves of?
What the hell gave you that idea? I'm just pointing out that the idea of a god that punishes belief in gods is no more more unbelievable than your idea of god (see #211 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15180.msg718688#msg718688)).
-
I think you are over-egging the 'there might be a God' pudding for your own convenience: nobody is here is daft enough to exclude the possibility that there might be a god (or gods) but they usually couch this in terms of there being no good reasons currently to think it a serious proposition as things stand.
So your notion that someone like me is 'refusing to act' presumes that I think there is something worth investigating in the first place: and I don't, and nor do I have 'another belief' in relation to gods.
You are refusing to act though since you do not think that it is worth investigating although the stakes are enormous. That then is the irrationality.
Whatever you are doing or not doing you are certainly having a punt on him not existing if you think that God might exist.
-
You are refusing to act though since you do not think that it is worth investigating although the stakes are enormous.
No: you claim the stakes are enormous, and that may be your personal feeling, but there are no good grounds for me to treat your personal feelings as being in any sense convincing.
That then is the irrationality.
On the contrary: I'd say it is reasonable and rational to reject claims involving religious superstitions where those advancing these claims offer no more than fallacy and incoherence: for crying out loud they can't even explain how they've assessed the risks of mistakes and lies in their preferred holy book.
Whatever you are doing or not doing you are certainly having a punt on him not existing if you think that God might exist.
I've just told you: I don't think there are any good reasons to consider that this God notion exists is a serious proposition worth active consideration since the arguments offered by proponents of this God are so utterly hopeless, which isn't the same thing as believing there is no God - but you know this already, or should by now.
-
While the above may be acceptable for one who has dismissed God entirely, to admit that God may exist and not seriously pursue investigation or thought is irrational.
To say that you wouldn't know where to begin is irrational as I have pointed out.
It is as I have said avoiding the worse case scenario for an atheist. Why then irrationally avoid an encounter with God?
Just stop OK. Stop.
It's perfectly simple. There is apparently no evidence that there is any god. It's been investigated for thousands of years and nobody has come up with anything that cannot easily be explained by the human imagination.
However, in the real World, nothing is 100% certain. When we agree we might be wrong it is simply an acknowledgement of that fact.
I think it speaks volumes that we are capable of admitting that we are not infallible but you, when challenged to admit that you might be wrong are incapable of doing that. There speaks the arrogance of a Christian.
-
That doesn't help the atheist case only the Anti God case.
Again if you believe there might be a God it would be irrational not to act on that and make excuses for that irrationality.
Every time I have considered the reasons given for the existence of God, I find them wanting. They seem to be the result of pure speculation, without any evidental back up whatever. Hence I would say I have acted on the possibility that God exists, and found nothing to encourage me to have a belief in any god.
On the personal level, too, I find no detectable influence that leads me to think that a god exists(indeed, my personal experiences are to the contrary), although I would not in any way suggest that my personal experiences carry any weight whatever, just as I suggest your experiences don't either. The only reason I mention this is because you seem to regard personal experiences as very important.
As I don't believe there are gods, but as I accept that it is possible that gods exist, I consider my approach to be entirely rational.
-
No: you claim the stakes are enormous, and that may be your personal feeling, but there are no good grounds for me to treat your personal feelings as being in any sense convincing.
On the contrary: I'd say it is reasonable and rational to reject claims involving religious superstitions where those advancing these claims offer no more than fallacy and incoherence: for crying out loud they can't even explain how they've assessed the risks of mistakes and lies in their preferred holy book.
I've just told you: I don't think there are any good reasons to consider that this God notion exists is a serious proposition worth active consideration since the arguments offered by proponents of this God are so utterly hopeless, which isn't the same thing as believing there is no God - but you know this already, or should by now.
A good reason is that God may exist Gordon. That is something you already apparently agree on. Your decision not to pursue or investigate is a belief. Since, given the stakes, non pursuit is irrational. There are no reasons not to only a belief that you shouldn't. Non pursuit is a high stakes gamble for the sake of a belief.
-
Just stop OK. Stop.
It's perfectly simple. There is apparently no evidence that there is any god. It's been investigated for thousands of years and nobody has come up with anything that cannot easily be explained by the human imagination.
However, in the real World, nothing is 100% certain. When we agree we might be wrong it is simply an acknowledgement of that fact.
I think it speaks volumes that we are capable of admitting that we are not infallible but you, when challenged to admit that you might be wrong are incapable of doing that. There speaks the arrogance of a Christian.
Can I ask you if you think there may be a god. If you do then saying you aren't going to bother to pursue the possibility because you don't think there is doesn't make much sense. It is of course a gamble which we are entitled to probe why such a punt is taken.
-
Vlad
Let me borrow your latest and change two words.
Can I ask you if you think there may be leprechauns. If you do then saying you aren't going to bother to pursue the possibility because you don't think there is doesn't make much sense. It is of course a gamble which we are entitled to probe why such a punt is taken.
-
Vlad
Let me borrow your latest and change two words.
Can I ask you if you think there may be leprechauns. If you do then saying you aren't going to bother to pursue the possibility because you don't think there is doesn't make much sense. It is of course a gamble which we are entitled to probe why such a punt is taken.
Not pursuing whether Leprechauns exist is a low stake affair. Since presumably you see one leprechaun you see them all.
A better analogy might be thinking there might be multiverse and pursuing that. As some do although compared with a possible God that would carry a lower stake.
-
You are refusing to act though since you do not think that it is worth investigating although the stakes are enormous. That then is the irrationality.
Whatever you are doing or not doing you are certainly having a punt on him not existing if you think that God might exist.
and you continue to talk about investigating something despite your inability to describe a methodology to do so despite being asked hundreds of times and dishonestly evading hundreds of times dishonestly
-
Not pursuing whether Leprechauns exist is a low stake affair.
Says you: do you think you might be wrong about that?
Since presumably you see one leprechaun you see them all.
Like gods you mean?
A better analogy might be thinking there might be multiverse and pursuing that.
On what basis?
As some do although compared with a possible God that would carry a lower stake.
How have you calculated the odds of each Mr Pascal?
-
Another interesting Vladdism: 'None of your objections justify zero theological effort and because the stakes are so high such behaviour is irrational.'
The stakes are so high - hello, is this a reference to hell and salvation? Ooooer, missus, my knees are knocking like castanets.
It's a valid point - given the importance of being right about it, if there is a God, one ought to expend a little thought on it. I don't believe that an objectively-existing God would punish someone who, after much thought, concluded that God didn't exist, and set about living a moral life on that assumprion, but God might be a bit annoyed by someone who never gave it a moment's thought, and lived a thoroughly selfish life, except when he was faced with a serious difficulty, when he suddenly believed and expected God to answer his prayers.
-
Says you: do you think you might be wrong about that?
Like gods you mean?
On what basis?
How have you calculated the odds of each Mr Pascal?
First of all. leprechauns have no personal impact at all, being, by all accounts contingent beings. There is no sensible encompassing description of Leprechauns which approximates to God.
In the west we generally have a working description of what God is from religion so we know what the stakes are.
If you believe such a God might exist then to just forget about it that is irrational both from the point of view of both positives or negatives.
Now to probability. That is something you have worked out yourself since you are taking a punt.
-
and you continue to talk about investigating something despite your inability to describe a methodology to do so despite being asked hundreds of times and dishonestly evading hundreds of times dishonestly
If you believe that God might exist and have taken a punt on not bothering you must have had or are using a methodology to come to that decision. Obviously you would logically need to change your mind about your current stratagem.
-
If you believe that God might exist and have taken a punt on not bothering you must have had or are using a methodology to come to that decision. Obviously you would logically need to change your mind about your current stratagem.
Don't be silly, Vlad: you open with 'If you believe that God might exist', which suggests you haven't been paying attention again.
What bit of 'I don't think there are any good reasons to consider that this God notion exists is a serious proposition worth active consideration since the arguments offered by proponents of this God are so utterly hopeless' didn't you get when I said this a few posts back.
-
Don't be silly, Vlad: you open with 'If you believe that God might exist', which suggests you haven't been paying attention again.
What bit of 'I don't think there are any good reasons to consider that this God notion exists is a serious proposition worth active consideration since the arguments offered by proponents of this God are so utterly hopeless' didn't you get when I said this a few posts back.
So you don't believe God may exist?
-
As an aside I think you guys are making what they used to term the
'I don't like Guinness, so I won't try it' argument.
-
So you don't believe God may exist?
I don't believe that the God claimed by theists 'exists' as described (or is implied) by the arguments used by these very same theists: so, as I said, in rejecting all their arguments for God as being incoherent of fallacious it follows that I don't think the proposition that 'there might be a God' is worthy of serious consideration.
I acknowledge that there may be a good argument for God that I've yet to encounter, but this good argument would need to avoid the various weaknesses of all the current arguments I've seen theists use to date.
-
This thread has wandered far from its original subject.
I think many, if not most, theologians and philosophers of religion would agree that God does not exist, because "exist" is an inadequate word to describe God's mode of being. It suggests that God is simply an object in the Universe, along with all the other objects, which is surely inadequate.
-
As an aside I think you guys are making what they used to term the
'I don't like Guinness, so I won't try it' argument.
There has to be Guinness before there is the option to try it: plus you're assuming there is Guinness in the first place but you've failed to convince me that there is in fact Guinness available.
I need to see the pint, feel its weight and coldness in the glass and smell the aroma - if convinced I might consider an opening sip: but sadly the glass has yet to be filled with anything that is recognisably Guinness.
-
I don't believe that the God claimed by theists 'exists' as described (or is implied) by the arguments used by these very same theists: so, as I said, in rejecting all their arguments for God as being incoherent of fallacious it follows that I don't think the proposition that 'there might be a God' is worthy of serious consideration.
I acknowledge that there may be a good argument for God that I've yet to encounter, but this good argument would need to avoid the various weaknesses of all the current arguments I've seen theists use to date.
I didn't ask about arguments for God, Gordon I just asked whether you think God may exist.
-
This thread has wandered far from its original subject.
I think many, if not most, theologians and philosophers of religion would agree that God does not exist, because "exist" is an inadequate word to describe God's mode of being. It suggests that God is simply an object in the Universe, along with all the other objects, which is surely inadequate.
Inadequate? Why?
'
-
I didn't ask about arguments for God, Gordon I just asked whether you think God may exist.
As I said, I think no good reasons have been offered to date to allow me to conclude that it may exist: I don't exclude the possibility it might but I think the God claim as it stands doesn't merit serious consideration currently pending a case being made for this God that is neither fallacious or incoherent.
How many times are you going to ask me to rearrange the same sentiments ? I made my position clear several posts back and even reiterated it to you.
-
I have sought God, Have or are you?
If god is supernatural then he isn't amenable to naturalistic methods like searching and measuring. If it really were possible to 'find' god then you'd be able to say where he is, which you can't. No one can truly find that which is unfindable; not without overdosing on euphemism.
-
This thread has wandered far from its original subject.
I think many, if not most, theologians and philosophers of religion would agree that God does not exist, because "exist" is an inadequate word to describe God's mode of being. It suggests that God is simply an object in the Universe, along with all the other objects, which is surely inadequate.
If 'exist' is inadequate, have you got a better term ?
How can something that does not exist be annoyed, as you reference in #233 ? There is something about having a cake and eating it going on here.
-
If 'exist' is inadequate, have you got a better term ?
How can something that does not exist be annoyed, as you reference in #233 ? There is something about having a cake and eating it going on here.
God can be found from within...through introspection and inner quest. The inner Self.....or inner Consciousness. The 'naturalistic' world is only the external objective world....not the inner subjective world. That is a fact ...but will it do for you?
Of course not! Because you think of the mind as just brain generated chemical and electrical reactions. Everything that we might value as an inner experience you will dismiss as imagination, hallucination, delusion etc.
So...how do we bridge the gap?!
-
As an aside I think you guys are making what they used to term the
'I don't like Guinness, so I won't try it' argument.
I used to like Guinness. In fact Guinness was once the most important thing in my life. Then one day Guinness stopped existing for me. I tried all the ways is used before to feel close to Guinness, and even some new ones, but the Guinness just wasn’t there.
Was i Guinness dodging?
-
Of course not! Because you think of the mind as just brain generated chemical and electrical reactions. Everything that we might value as an inner experience you will dismiss as imagination, hallucination, delusion etc.
That is what the evidence suggests. That Mind is the subjective aspect of Brain is what the evidence from science clearly suggests. So what are we supposed to do, invest in becoming science deniers, or do we take it on board and try to understand it ??
-
God can be found from within...through introspection and inner quest. The inner Self.....or inner Consciousness. The 'naturalistic' world is only the external objective world....not the inner subjective world. That is a fact ...but will it do for you?
When buddhists go looking for the inner self, they find it is not there. I think they are closer to the truth than most.
-
That is what the evidence suggests. That Mind is the subjective aspect of Brain is what the evidence from science clearly suggests. So what are we supposed to do, invest in becoming science deniers, or do we take it on board and try to understand it ??
If our consciousness is merely the result of chemical and electrical reactions in a brain that was not evolved to do advanced reasoning, how do you know that your reasoning is accurate, and specifically, how do you know that mind is only the result of reactions in the brain? I know it's an old, old argument, but I'm interested in your answer.
-
If our consciousness is merely the result of chemical and electrical reactions in a brain that was not evolved to do advanced reasoning,
Why do you think the brain evolved with a purpose, i.e. 'to do advanced reasoning'?
how do you know that your reasoning is accurate, and specifically, how do you know that mind is only the result of reactions in the brain? I know it's an old, old argument, but I'm interested in your answer.
What is your answer?
-
Why do you think the brain evolved with a purpose, i.e. 'to do advanced reasoning'?
I said that it didn't, not that it did.What is your answer?
I haven't got one.
-
I said that it didn't, not that it did.
Okay, but I still get the impression that you think the brain evolved with purpose.
-
Okay, but I still get the impression that you think the brain evolved with purpose.
I know enough to know that evolution does not proceed according to any plan or purpose.
-
This thread has wandered far from its original subject.
I think many, if not most, theologians and philosophers of religion would agree that God does not exist, because "exist" is an inadequate word to describe God's mode of being. It suggests that God is simply an object in the Universe, along with all the other objects, which is surely inadequate.
Or talking about it is surely meaningless? Essentially this approach ends up with the definition of god as No thing that has no attributes, a nonsense piece of pabulum. And as Wittgenstein would have it, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
-
Okay, but I still get the impression that you think the brain evolved with purpose.
If someone states that they don't see a purpose, how do you get the impression that they do?
-
You are refusing to act though since you do not think that it is worth investigating although the stakes are enormous. That then is the irrationality.
Whatever you are doing or not doing you are certainly having a punt on him not existing if you think that God might exist.
This is basically the old false dichotomy of Pascal's Wager.
Firstly, by believing in one of the many god-concepts you are taking just as much of a 'punt' as an atheist who doesn't bother with any. The stakes are just as 'high' for the believer.
You may claim that you did some 'seeking' (although how you might rationally go about that is unclear) and found the 'right' answer but you would then need to address all the other sincere 'seekers' who came to different conclusions (the majority - no matter what your religion, most people think you are wrong). You would need to deny their sincerity or have to admit that seeking just isn't enough and that there is actually no clear path to the truth at all.
Lastly, although the idea of some sort of god(s) cannot be 100% ruled out, the idea of a just, fair minded, omnipotent, omniscient god with an important message for humankind can be ruled out because it is simply inconsistent with the observed world in which we live: there is no clear message from such a god.
-
If you believe that God might exist and have taken a punt on not bothering you must have had or are using a methodology to come to that decision. Obviously you would logically need to change your mind about your current stratagem.
I don't believe that god might exist, I have no way of showing that it doesn't. Further I haven't yet heard a definition of god that is not logically contradictory or meaningless so it's effectively just white noise. Given I don't know what everyone has ever defined god as I cannot state that there is/is not a valid definition out there.
However, if a valid definition does exists I would need to understand a methodology for establishing evidence of such a thing. I note that you once again evaded that question as you have done so frequently and so dishonestly.
-
Or talking about it is surely meaningless? Essentially this approach ends up with the definition of god as No thing that has no attributes, a nonsense piece of pabulum. And as Wittgenstein would have it, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
Not really, since the argument is not about describing God but examining the decisions possible if one believes that God is possible. All are aware of what religion has to say about God and that is eminently investigable.
Given those descriptions and if one believes there might be a God then not to act oneself is irrational given the high stakes involved.
-
This is basically the old false dichotomy of Pascal's Wager.
Firstly, by believing in one of the many god-concepts you are taking just as much of a 'punt' as an atheist who doesn't bother with any. The stakes are just as 'high' for the believer.
You may claim that you did some 'seeking' (although how you might rationally go about that is unclear) and found the 'right' answer but you would then need to address all the other sincere 'seekers' who came to different conclusions (the majority - no matter what your religion, most people think you are wrong). You would need to deny their sincerity or have to admit that seeking just isn't enough and that there is actually no clear path to the truth at all.
Lastly, although the idea of some sort of god(s) cannot be 100% ruled out, the idea of a just, fair minded, omnipotent, omniscient god with an important message for humankind can be ruled out because it is simply inconsistent with the observed world in which we live: there is no clear message from such a god.
Ah Pascal's wager.....and yet we know in the face of thinking there might be a God not doing anything about it is de facto taking a punt. In fact I think it was Torridon who best describes what his money is on, reductionist materialism in which he finds virtue in eliminating himself from any investigation, or enquiry ever............ wither self examination and answering the question ''why is the importance of my sacrifice virtuous?''
-
Ah Pascal's wager.....and yet we know in the face of thinking there might be a God not doing anything about it is de facto taking a punt.
Once again, Brave Sir Vlad-Robbin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8IkbCeZ9to) runs away from the points raised...
-
Not really, since the argument is not about describing God but examining the decisions possible if one believes that God is possible. All are aware of what religion has to say about God and that is eminently investigable.
Given those descriptions and if one believes there might be a God then not to act oneself is irrational given the high stakes involved.
So you just decided to ignore what I said.
-
When buddhists go looking for the inner self, they find it is not there. I think they are closer to the truth than most.
Existentialist atheists use to talk about arriving at the ''abyss'', a talent presumably lost to the new atheists. I wonder though if this isn't the same as Augustine's God shaped hole.
-
So you just decided to ignore what I said.
If you do not believe there might be a god then you are not the subject of what I am going on about are you?
-
If you do not believe there might be a god then you are not the subject of what I am going on about are you?
It's difficult to tell at the best of times what you are going on about but it seems to me that Stranger, for example, is taking much the same position as me and you are positing a straw man along with your continued evasions.
-
Once again, Brave Sir Vlad-Robbin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8IkbCeZ9to) runs away from the points raised...
No what I've said is perfectly fair.
To believe that there might be a God and not act on that is a punt...... more than that it disqualifies anybody who makes that decision from rationally criticising the findings somebody who has chosen to, I would have thought.
-
It's difficult to tell at the best of times what you are going on about but it seems to me that Stranger, for example, is taking much the same position as me and you are positing a straw man along with your continued evasions.
I talk about the person who believes there might be god/cannot yet rule out a god and does not take steps to investigate.
If you are saying such people do not exist then you are deluded.
Keep up.
-
I talk about the person who believes there might be god/cannot yet rule out a god and does not take steps to investigate.
If you are saying such people do not exist then you are deluded.
Keep up.
But i don't rule out a god for the reasons explained.
-
If our consciousness is merely the result of chemical and electrical reactions in a brain that was not evolved to do advanced reasoning, how do you know that your reasoning is accurate, and specifically, how do you know that mind is only the result of reactions in the brain? I know it's an old, old argument, but I'm interested in your answer.
As far as neuroscience goes it is the only game in town, there is no alternative hypothesis on the horizon other than mind and brain being two sides of the same coin. It is for people making extra claims for the nature of mind to justify that.
-
But i don't rule out a god for the reasons explained.
Does it matter how one arrives at not ruling out a god?
-
No what I've said is perfectly fair.
To believe that there might be a God and not act on that is a punt...... more than that it disqualifies anybody who makes that decision from rationally criticising the findings somebody who has chosen to, I would have thought.
I have posted a refutation of this 'argument' and you have totally ignored it. Mindlessly repeating your assertions and ignoring the counterarguments makes both you and your religion look stupid.
-
I have posted a refutation of this 'argument' and you have totally ignored it. Mindlessly repeating your assertions and ignoring the counterarguments makes both you and your religion look stupid.
Where is this refutation?
Can thinking that god may exist and not doing a thing about it be rational? That is the question. Since there is nothing to lose if there is nothing after all and everything to gain if there is?
Even if we mind your objection to Pascal because of the range of spiritual experience that does not detract from the reasonable argument that if you do not seek you will not find anything.
To your refutation I say this. By doing nothing you are avoiding the possibility of any encounter....and that is what this boils down to.
-
Where is this refutation?
Firstly, by believing in one of the many god-concepts you are taking just as much of a 'punt' as an atheist who doesn't bother with any. The stakes are just as 'high' for the believer.
You may claim that you did some 'seeking' (although how you might rationally go about that is unclear) and found the 'right' answer but you would then need to address all the other sincere 'seekers' who came to different conclusions (the majority - no matter what your religion, most people think you are wrong). You would need to deny their sincerity or have to admit that seeking just isn't enough and that there is actually no clear path to the truth at all.
Lastly, although the idea of some sort of god(s) cannot be 100% ruled out, the idea of a just, fair minded, omnipotent, omniscient god with an important message for humankind can be ruled out because it is simply inconsistent with the observed world in which we live: there is no clear message from such a god.
The last paragraph in particular rules out the 'high stakes' you keep on wittering about.
-
The last paragraph in particular rules out the 'high stakes' you keep on wittering about.
Not really since you have ruled out all or any spiritual experience without actually putting yourself in line for it.
I don't think your last paragraph at all pertinent. If you think there may be a god and avoid doing anything about it then you are taking a gamble. There is no more to be said.
I think also you are overlooking procrastination at embarking on something that may result in an encounter or a change of mind.
-
Not really since you have ruled out all or any spiritual experience without actually putting yourself in line for it.
In what way could any sort of experience (let alone a subjective one) change the logic of what I said?
I don't think your last paragraph at all pertinent.
The first three words would seem to sum things up.
If you think there may be a god and avoid doing anything about it then you are taking a gamble. There is no more to be said.
Back to the mantra. ::)
Ignoring fantastical propositions that are supplied without any evidence or sound reasoning is a necessary part of sanity, let alone rationality. Yes, if said proposition is unfalsifiable, then it cannot (by definition) be 100% ruled out, so there is a (very small) chance that it is true and you can call that a 'gamble' if you want. However, it's a sound and rational one and one that is absolutely necessary to avoid being so open minded that your brain falls out (as somebody said).
I think also you are overlooking procrastination at embarking on something that may result in an encounter or a change of mind.
I think you're trying to convince yourself that other people are avoiding something....
-
When buddhists go looking for the inner self, they find it is not there. I think they are closer to the truth than most.
You are cherry picking now!! I can explain the Buddhist experience if you are interested in a more involved discussion on spirituality sometime.
-
You are cherry picking now!! I can explain the Buddhist experience if you are interested in a more involved discussion on spirituality sometime.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
-
I know enough to know that evolution does not proceed according to any plan or purpose.
Thank you. could you then go a bit further and say how you think evolution 'proceeds'?
Edited:
If someone states that they don't see a purpose, how do you get the impression that they do?
From the content of other posts, and also being subjective.
-
I think you're trying to convince yourself that other people are avoiding something....
If someone thinks a god might exist but refuses to take it any further is inescapably avoiding something. That would come out as hopping from one excuse to another.
Pascals own view from his pensees.
''What say [the unbelievers] then? "Do we not see," say they, "that the brutes live and die like men, and Turks like Christians? They have their ceremonies, their prophets, their doctors, their saints, their monks, like us," etc. If you care but little to know the truth, that is enough to leave you in repose. But if you desire with all your heart to know it, it is not enough; look at it in detail. That would be sufficient for a question in philosophy; but not here, where everything is at stake. And yet, after a superficial reflection of this kind, we go to amuse ourselves, etc. Let us inquire of this same religion whether it does not give a reason for this obscurity; perhaps it will teach it to us''
-
If someone thinks a god might exist but refuses to take it any further is inescapably avoiding something. That would come out as hopping from one excuse to another.
You don't seem to read what others have written: to date I have clearly stated that I see no good reasons (just plenty of bad ones) to think a God might exist so why would I expend any effort in making further enquiries?
Of course that doesn't mean I'm certain there is no God.
-
You don't seem to read what others have written: to date I have clearly stated that I see no good reasons (just plenty of bad ones) to think a God might exist so why would I expend any effort in making further enquiries?
Of course that doesn't mean I'm certain there is no God.
You seem to be hedging your bets,
And I have addressed this by stating you are taking a gamble given the stakes of God existing and you have not been able to rule god out.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
Yes...Anatma is a Theravada concept. Mahayana and Vajrayana (Tibetan) believe in souls and even gods and other higher level beings.
-
You seem to be hedging your bets,
And I have addressed this by stating you are taking a gamble given the stakes of God existing and you have not been able to rule god out.
What is the gamble here? What are the consequences of not finding god?
-
What is the gamble here? What are the consequences of not finding god?
I notice that Pascal says 'everything is at stake', in that quote by Vlad. Presumably, this refers to hell and damnation. So I am being asked to gamble on a God who is prepared to damn me for eternity if I pick the wrong choice - he's making you an offer you can't refuse. It's all warm and fuzzy, isn't it?
-
What is the gamble here? What are the consequences of not finding god?
That question presupposes a risk that even after a search there is no discovery.
A question that would be more apposite given my argument thus far is what are the consequences of not searching.
-
What is the gamble here? What are the consequences of not finding god?
And in the absence of a description of the god thing that makes sense or a way to find it, this is a sort of deaf dumb and blind man's buff seeking a non existent snark in a dark room
-
That question presupposes a risk that even after a search there is no discovery.
A question that would be more apposite given my argument thus far is what are the consequences of not searching.
Searching being here undefined and god also not defined in any meaningful way, your entire approach is meaningless.
-
If someone thinks a god might exist but refuses to take it any further is inescapably avoiding something. That would come out as hopping from one excuse to another.
Do stop being stupid and read what has been written to you.
If I am avoiding god, then you are avoiding vengeful fairies, aliens that control your thoughts, spaghetti monsters, vampires, werewolves, other gods, ghosts, orbiting teapots, invisible purple unicorns, and every other crazy, unfalsifiable nonsense that has ever been invented as well as all the other nonsense that we haven't got around to inventing.
To refer to people as avoiding things just because they cannot be falsified and therefore totally ruled out, is madness.
-
Searching being here undefined and god also not defined in any meaningful way, your entire approach is meaningless.
First of all I think we can include research into gods. Dawkins argument about not needing to know Leprechology precludes a search and seeks to discourage it in others. If one is of the ''this is only the preserve of nutters with halitosis I needn't trouble myself with it''persuasion as I was then Dawkins is in danger of adding a bit of celebrity authority.
God, Sane is precisely the thing you want to find out about and therefore a full definition from the outside rather than one discovered is not logical.
-
First of all I think we can include research into gods. Dawkins argument about not needing to know Leprechology precludes a search and seeks to discourage it in others. If one is of the ''this is only the preserve of nutters with halitosis I needn't trouble myself with it'' as I was then Dawkins is in danger of adding a bit of celebrity authority.
God, Sane is precisely the thing you want to find out about and therefore a full definition from the outside rather than one discovered is not logical.
Did any of that make sense in your head?
-
Do stop being stupid and read what has been written to you.
If I am avoiding god, then you are avoiding vengeful fairies, aliens that control your thoughts, spaghetti monsters, vampires, werewolves, other gods, ghosts, orbiting teapots, invisible purple unicorns, and every other crazy, unfalsifiable nonsense that has ever been invented as well as all the other nonsense that we haven't got around to inventing.
Dandy and assertive. Please state why vengeful fairies, aliens that control your thoughts, spaghetti monsters, vampires, werewolves, other gods, ghosts, orbiting teapots, invisible purple unicorns, are crazy, then state why God is crazy.
Then state why multiverse isn't or quantum theory isn't or string theory after all was it not one quantum boy who said 'your idea is crazy but is it crazy enough?''
-
Did any of that make sense in your head?
Sorry for outside read outset.
''Gentlemen we are not going to explore Van Dieman's land because we do not have detailed maps of it''
-
God, Sane is precisely the thing you want to find out about and therefore a full definition from the outside rather than one discovered is not logical.
Right, so you're saying that we need to somehow find out about something that hasn't been defined, for which there is no evidence, and no sound arguments...
(Insanity)2
-
Dandy and assertive. Please state why vengeful fairies, aliens that control your thoughts, spaghetti monsters, vampires, werewolves, other gods, ghosts, orbiting teapots, invisible purple unicorns, are crazy, then state why God is crazy.
There is no reason at all to think any of them are real.
Then state why multiverse isn't or quantum theory isn't or string theory after all was it not one quantum boy who said 'your idea is crazy but is it crazy enough?''
Quantum theory is one of the best tested theories in the history of science.
String theory is one of the attempts to unify quantum theory with general relativity (another extremely well tested theory).
I've explained about multiverses several times and can't be arsed to do it again as you never seem to pay any attention anyway...
-
Sorry for outside read outset.
''Gentlemen we are not going to explore Van Dieman's land because we do not have detailed maps of it''
Oh, Vlad takes begging the question for .0000001 of a penny
-
There is no reason at all to think any of them are real.
From what I've seen from your refutations of the reasons they all end in we don't know.
However there has to be some working out for why Ghosts etc are crazy......let's see it.
-
Oh, Vlad takes begging the question for .0000001 of a penjy
Beg pardon?
All i'm saying is that god is not merely his definition. That is what we hope to get to know once we have discovered him or definitely proved naturalism.
-
Beg pardon?
All i'm saying is that god is not merely his definition. That is what we hope to get to know once we have discovered him or definitely proved naturalism.
And Vlad doubles down on his begging the question, and adds in some straw.
-
And Vlad doubles down on his begging the question, and adds in some straw.
Explanation?
-
Explanation?
You assumed the thing you were trying to argue for (begging the question), god, and added something about naturalism that hadn't been claimed, straw.
-
From what I've seen from your refutations of the reasons they all end in we don't know.
Which further demonstrates your general inability to pay attention to what is said to you.
However there has to be some working out for why Ghosts etc are crazy......let's see it.
As I said, there is no reason at all to think any of them are real - it is therefore crazy to take them seriously.
WTF am I argument about this for? Do you think any of them (except your favourite type of god) are not crazy?
-
''Gentlemen we are not going to explore Van Dieman's land because we do not have detailed maps of it''
On the contrary:
Gentlemen, we are going to explore Van Dieman's land because we have evidence that it exists, even though we have not yet detailed maps of it.
Gentlemen we are not going to expend any more energy on Cervantes' Barataria because, having found no evidence for its actual existence, we have come to the conclusion that it is probably only a creation of someone's imagination. Hence, unless evidence comes to light that this is not so, we would rather spend our energies in more productive areas. :)
-
You assumed the thing you were trying to argue for (begging the question), god, and added something about naturalism that hadn't been claimed, straw.
No, I am merely talking here about the search for God. I gave two possible outcomes God or God free, maybe I should have said gods then that would have been gods or gods free.
Trying to pull anything like we don't know but we know it isn't god is a bit silly
-
On the contrary:
Gentlemen, we are going to explore Van Dieman's land because we have evidence that it exists, even though we have not yet detailed maps of it.
Or even we are going to explore Van Diemens Land because some people claim to have found it, even though we have not yet detailed maps of it.
-
As I said, there is no reason at all to think any of them are real - it is therefore crazy to take them seriously.
[/quote]
Show working out since ''there is no reason is a positive assertion''. You seem to have ended up arguing circularly here.
-
No, I am merely talking here about the search for God. I gave two possible outcomes God or God free, maybe I should have said gods then that would have been gods or gods free.
Trying to pull anything like we don't know but we know it isn't god is a bit silly
If you are just going to argue with points not in the posts you are replying to but made up stuff, it sort of makes discussion pointless. It has a sort of random quality which after a bottle of Bailey's Espresso Coffee, a few jellies and a watch of The Lair of the White Worm might be taken as charming but in the cold light of a 20 watt bulb is just heinously idiotic
-
I gave two possible outcomes God or God free...
Nope - zero evidence for any god(s) is not only a possible outcome it is the actual outcome.
Trying to pull anything like we don't know but we know it isn't god is a bit silly
Given zero evidence or reasoning for a fantastical story, the only rational conclusion is to reject it while admitting that it cannot be totally ruled out.
Any other conclusion is silly.
Oh, and of course, the god that is just and fair, has an important message for humankind, is able to deliver it in any way it chooses, and knows human nature, is 100% ruled out by the absence of a clear message.
-
Show working out since ''there is no reason is a positive assertion''. You seem to have ended up arguing circularly here.
Stop being an idiot.
-
Stop being an idiot.
''There is no reason is a positive assertion.
Crazy is a positive assertion.
Let's see working out from you which avoids using the one to support the other.
-
''There is no reason is a positive assertion.
Crazy is a positive assertion.
Let's see working out from you which avoids using the one to support the other.
Stop being an idiot.
Alternatively: stop trying to change the subject because your argument has been comprehensively demolished.
-
Given zero evidence or reasoning for a fantastical story, the only rational conclusion is to reject it while admitting that it cannot be totally ruled out.
So lets get this straight, the only rational conclusion is to reject it and not reject it at the same time.
-
Or even we are going to explore Van Diemens Land because some people claim to have found it, even though we have not yet detailed maps of it.
Or even,
We are going to try to establish the existence of Van Dieman's Land because some people claim to have found it. If we can verify these people's claims then we shall seek to explore it. If, after rigorous scrutiny, we find that there is no evidence of its existence, it would obviously be a meaningless activity trying to explore it as we have nothing to base our explorations on. Consequentially, we will divert our energies towards more meaningful projects. :)
-
If, after rigorous scrutiny,
But this is all about not scrutinising! Because we are gambling on something not being there without knowing that it isn't.
I think you might be stretching the metaphor too.
-
So lets get this straight, the only rational conclusion is to reject it and not reject it at the same time.
No. I meant what I said, not what you want me to have said.
-
No. I meant what I said, not what you want me to have said.
So what do you see as the difference between them?
-
Sorry old son I think your bonfire has been well and truly pissed on.
Back to Brave Sir Vlad-Robin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8IkbCeZ9to).
For the hard-of-thinking: it is perfectly possible to accept or reject an idea or proposal without 100% certainty. Indeed, outside of the fields of logic and mathematics, 100% certainty is simply not possible.
Hence one can reject a notion on the grounds of it having bugger all in the way of supporting evidence or reasoning while understanding that it is unfalsifiable.
This isn't rocket science, it's the way everybody gets through their lives.
Vlad, you need to grow up.
-
Back to Brave Sir Vlad-Robin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8IkbCeZ9to).
For the hard-of-thinking: it is perfectly possible to accept or reject an idea or proposal without 100% certainty. Indeed, outside of the fields of logic and mathematics, 100% certainty is simply not possible.
Hence one can reject a notion on the grounds of it having bugger all in the way of supporting evidence or reasoning while understanding that it is unfalsifiable.
This isn't rocket science, it's the way everybody gets through their lives.
Vlad, you need to grow up.
That's all very well but it amounts to the same thing. Refusal to pursue even without full
knowledge of correctness of refusal. In other words a punt, and even worse for you.......
a faith position.
See reply 312
Also is your rejection actual rejection or are you definition diddling?
Is it possible to rationally reject if something if it is actually unfalsifiable?
have as nice a day as you can.
-
But this is all about not scrutinising! Because we are gambling on something not being there without knowing that it isn't.
I think you might be stretching the metaphor too.
I think the metaphor has definitely been stretched towards its rather ludicrous limit.
If you call going where the evidence(or lack of evidence) leads, and making a provisional decisions based upon that evidence(or lack of evidence), as gambling, then so be it. However, if that is the case, then I gamble with every decision I make in whatever area you care to name, either consciously or unconsciously). The only thing one can possibly ascertain is one's assessment of the odds. If, after rigorous scrutiny, one comes to the conclusion that the idea of gods is unlikely(the odds are against), then it is quite rational not to believe in these gods. :)
-
I think the metaphor has definitely been stretched towards its rather ludicrous limit.
If you call going where the evidence(or lack of evidence) leads, and making a provisional decisions based upon that evidence(or lack of evidence), as gambling, then so be it. However, if that is the case, then I gamble with every decision I make in whatever area you care to name, either consciously or unconsciously). The only thing one can possibly ascertain is one's assessment of the odds. If, after rigorous scrutiny, one comes to the conclusion that the idea of gods is unlikely(the odds are against), then it is quite rational not to believe in these gods. :)
The question remains Enki. Can scrutiny which ends with a question mark over the existence or nonexistence of something be described as rigorous?
-
I think the metaphor has definitely been stretched towards its rather ludicrous limit.
If you call going where the evidence(or lack of evidence) leads, and making a provisional decisions based upon that evidence(or lack of evidence), as gambling, then so be it. However, if that is the case, then I gamble with every decision I make in whatever area you care to name, either consciously or unconsciously). The only thing one can possibly ascertain is one's assessment of the odds. If, after rigorous scrutiny, one comes to the conclusion that the idea of gods is unlikely(the odds are against), then it is quite rational not to believe in these gods. :)
But there is an extra dimension here, that of stake. Now everybody who has partaken in this debate has talked about odds but not stake with the exception of Wiggs and Rhiannon. My contention is that this is either conscious or unconscious avoidance.
How does one work out the probability of God or naturalism or any unfalsifiable?
-
So you think the stakes really are about whether we want to be saved or not? Is that why you believe?
-
So you think the stakes really are about whether we want to be saved or not? Is that why you believe?
I believe because I have encountered Christ and encountered God before opening up to Christ.
Jesus is salvation and what gives life it's meaning. I have glimpsed an existence where he is absent and can state that if my life is not so different from others he is dispensing a common grace to all but to keep us going to the point where we enjoy his fellowship. For me that is what can be passed up by any.
-
I believe because I have encountered Christ and encountered God before opening up to Christ.
Jesus is salvation and what gives life it's meaning. I have glimpsed an existence where he is absent and can state that if my life is not so different from others he is dispensing a common grace to all but to keep us going to the point where we enjoy his fellowship. For me that is what can be passed up by any.
But I once believed because I thought I'd encountered god but then god disappeared and stopped being real. And I tried all the 'methods' I'd used before of seeking god (Bible study, prayer, the sacraments, collective worship etc) but he didn't come back and I couldn't find him. So in the end I concluded that it hadn't been real to start with, but was something I'd needed for some reason.
And I find my life more meaningful now because I'm responsible for finding that meaning.
Your truth isn't my truth. Why is it so hard for you to accept that?
-
That's all very well but it amounts to the same thing. Refusal to pursue even without full
knowledge of correctness of refusal. In other words a punt, and even worse for you.......
a faith position.
See reply 312
You really aren't paying attention, are you? Or maybe you don't want to pay attention?
If you want to reduce all of our decisions about what to believe (outside of pure logic and maths) to a 'punt' then I guess you can, since we cannot actually be 100% certain of anything.
We have no choice in the matter - all it is possible to do, outside of logic and maths, is assess the evidence and arguments.
Also is your rejection actual rejection or are you definition diddling?
Translation?
Is it possible to rationally reject if something if it is actually unfalsifiable?
Yes - see above.
have as nice a day as you can.
Well it would be quite fun watching you make a total arse of yourself (yet again), if it wasn't actually rather sad...
-
But there is an extra dimension here, that of stake. Now everybody who has partaken in this debate has talked about odds but not stake with the exception of Wiggs and Rhiannon.
As I have already pointed out (twice) the sort of god that would make the stakes high in the way you seem to mean, is inconsistent with the world we observe.
If there is a god that is just and fair, has an important message for humankind, is able to deliver it in any way it chooses, and knows human nature, then there would be an obvious message from it.
There isn't such a message, so the proposition is falsified.
I have also pointed out that a god that punishes people for believing in gods for no good reason is unfalsifiable - so ignoring that possibility actually is what you keep calling a 'high stakes punt'.
-
The question remains Enki. Can scrutiny which ends with a question mark over the existence or nonexistence of something be described as rigorous?
Scrutiny which ends with a question mark, where the alternatives have equal merit,simply means that one has no means of judging which is the better answer. That doesn't mean the scrutiny has not been rigorous.
Scrutiny where one alternative is preferred over the other on the basis of evidence and logic, does not mean that the process hasn't been rigorous.
:)
-
But I once believed because I thought I'd encountered god but then god disappeared and stopped being real. And I tried all the 'methods' I'd used before of seeking god (Bible study, prayer, the sacraments, collective worship etc) but he didn't come back and I couldn't find him. So in the end I concluded that it hadn't been real to start with, but was something I'd needed for some reason.
And I find my life more meaningful now because I'm responsible for finding that meaning.
Your truth isn't my truth. Why is it so hard for you to accept that?
But on that topic. Do you really believe that ''my truth'' is really true and yours is too? Since my truth and your truth encompass what we think the universe is really about.
-
As I have already pointed out (twice) the sort of god that would make the stakes high in the way you seem to mean, is inconsistent with the world we observe.
Something else you need to explain but end up not doing so?
We have a world in which people make fatal choices often in the face of evidence or an alternative better fate.
-
As I have already pointed out (twice) the sort of god that would make the stakes high in the way you seem to mean, is inconsistent with the world we observe.
Something else you need to explain but end up not doing so?
FFS Vlad, the explanation is in the rest of the post you're replying to!
We have a world in which people make fatal choices often in the face of evidence or an alternative better fate.
Did that mean something before you typed it?
-
Something else you need to explain but end up not doing so?
FFS Vlad, the explanation is in the rest of the post you're replying to!
Did that mean something before you typed it?
Eh?
-
If there is a god that is just and fair, has an important message for humankind, is able to deliver it in any way it chooses, and knows human nature, then there would be an obvious message from it.
What is not obvious about the message of Christianity?
Since when did we have a world where it was not possible to insist on living the way we want rather than what is good for us and pay the price for it??
-
What is not obvious about the message of Christianity?
Well, let's see...
- There isn't a (singular) message of Christianity, it depends on which Christians you ask.
- None of the messages are obviously from any god.
- Most of the messages are self-contradictory.
- None of the gods pointed at by any of the messages have any supporting evidence or sound reasoning.
- Christianity itself, quite apart from being fragmented and riddled with disagreement and contradiction, is only one religion of many - all of which have other messages about other gods.
I'm sure there'd be more points if I could be bothered to spend any more time on it. The whole point being that a god that had the characteristics I listed would deliver a clear and unmistakable message.
Since when did we have a world where it was not possible to insist on living the way we want rather than what is good for us and pay the price for it??
In English?
-
Well, let's see...
- There isn't a (singular) message of Christianity, it depends on which Christians you ask.
- None of the messages are obviously from any god.
- Most of the messages are self-contradictory.
- None of the gods pointed at by any of the messages have any supporting evidence or sound reasoning.
- Christianity itself, quite apart from being fragmented and riddled with disagreement and contradiction, is only one religion of many - all of which have other messages about other gods.
I'm sure there'd be more points if I could be bothered to spend any more time on it. The whole point being that a god that had the characteristics I listed would deliver a clear and unmistakable message.
In English?
God, Jesus and salvation is pretty unmistakeable.
-
God, Jesus and salvation is pretty unmistakeable.
So Catholics, Baptists and Unitarians all agree on these issues?
-
God, Jesus and salvation is pretty unmistakeable.
Mr Privates , I'd like you to know I think you are a wonderful person .
-
But there is an extra dimension here, that of stake. Now everybody who has partaken in this debate has talked about odds but not stake with the exception of Wiggs and Rhiannon. My contention is that this is either conscious or unconscious avoidance.
How does one work out the probability of God or naturalism or any unfalsifiable?
I don't really get what you mean by 'stake' here. To the best of my knowledge I don't have a stake on whether any god exists or not. If one does, so be it. However, as I don't find anything which suggests one(or more than one) actually exists, why on earth should I bother with something which does not seem to affect my life, and, to all intents and purposes, does not even seem to exist? Why should I have a 'stake'in any particular god existing then? If I unconsciously avoid the idea of a god existing, then I wouldn't know, because that would be an unconscious process. However, I regard this as pure speculation on your part and, unless you have arguments forthcoming which backs up your contention as regards myself, I can quite easily reject it.
I see nothing which suggests that your God exists. So, in the absence of such evidence, and with the added incentive that much of what we already know can be explained without recourse to your God, I tend to think that the probability of your God existing is less than the probability of your God not existing.
The natural world has the inherent potential quality of greater explanatory power in reducing the falsifiability that it promotes in any of its elements and because of this it is amenable to testing and modifying its explanations on an intersubjective scale. This does not mean that supernaturalism does not exist, of course. However, because it seems to rely on the personal faith of its adherents, there seems to be no way in which it can be falsified at all. You pays yer money, and takes yer choice.(shrugs) :)
-
God, Jesus and salvation is pretty unmistakeable.
Not as a message from an actual, real god, they aren't. They look for all the world like just another set of religious myths, with no basis in reality.
Yet again you've simply ignored most of what I said and, more importantly, the whole point.
-
So Catholics, Baptists and Unitarians all agree on these issues?
So Catholics, Baptists and Unitarians all agree on these issues?
They agree that they are issues yes but that brings me back to the personal search.
As George Fox founder of the Quakers said "Christ says this, and the Apostles say this but what can thou say? Are thou a child of Light, and have walked in the Light, and that thou speaks, is it inwardly from God?"
-
Not as a message from an actual, real god, they aren't. They look for all the world like just another set of religious myths, with no basis in reality.
Yet again you've simply ignored most of what I said and, more importantly, the whole point.
I think your ignorance of theology is showing here, see previous quotation from Pascal.
As George Fox founder of the Quakers put it.
"Christ says this, and the Apostles say this but what can thou say? Are thou a child of Light, and have walked in the Light, and that thou speaks, is it inwardly from God?"
-
They agree that they are issues yes but that brings me back to the personal search.
As George Fox founder of the Quakers said "Christ says this, and the Apostles say this but what can thou say? Are thou a child of Light, and have walked in the Light, and that thou speaks, is it inwardly from God?"
Which sounds like a license to make it up so as to suit your personal search preferences - and clearly preferences vary, hence we see all the shades of Christianity and theology.
Your Fox quote sounds like an invitation to commit the relativist fallacy (it's true for me).
-
I think your ignorance of theology is showing here, see previous quotation from Pascal.
I think you've once again missed the whole point.
There is no clear, unambiguous message that is obviously from a real god. If you need to study theology to see it, then it isn't obvious. The absence of such a message rules out a god that has the attributes I listed - all of which are supposed to apply to most varieties of the Christian god.
-
I think you've once again missed the whole point.
There is no clear, unambiguous message that is obviously from a real god. If you need to study theology to see it, then it isn't obvious. The absence of such a message rules out a god that has the attributes I listed - all of which are supposed to apply to most varieties of the Christian god.
But I think you are setting knowledge of religion against some righteous self imposed prior dismissal of it. How can you, having done this, talk about obvious messages from real gods?
Secondly while we reduce, on slender evidence, so that there are as many christianities as christians on one hand (hyperbole) and that all religions are the same on the other and competing on the same terms, we are dodging observing a human attraction to search for God.
Im not talking here about a herd thing but an existential movement of the individual.
You cannot avoid that you are taking a bet on one set of beliefs against another. Namely not needing salvation because the universe is naturalistic and we live in a unverse free of stakes against needing salvation and God.
Hopefully you can see the comforting attraction of ignoring God and that it is merely an emotional crutch.
Avoidance of God for a stake free existence
-
Which sounds like a license to make it up so as to suit your personal search preferences -
That is possible but at the end of the day everything you don't actually know for yourself is something you are told you should believe is something you are taking in faith.
This is about finding the truth about God either way for yourself as it is yourself you are staking whatever decision you make.
-
But I think you are setting knowledge of religion against some righteous self imposed prior dismissal of it. How can you, having done this talk about obvious messages from real gods?
Once again, you are ignoring the basic and simple point. If there were a just and fair minded god, with an important message for humankind and it had the means to deliver it in a clear, unmistakable way (so that it was obviously a real message from a real god and not some human made myth), then it would do so. Otherwise one or more of those characteristics would be wrong: it either wouldn't be just and fair minded, didn't have the means, or didn't think the message was important enough.
There is nothing complicated in that - you should face up to it and stop avoiding the issue.
-
...it is yourself you are staking whatever decision you make.
You are, I assume, forgetting that you are betting against the god that will punish you for your baseless beliefs in your chosen myth. What is more, that god is actually unfalsifiable, whereas the sort of god you are trying to convince us about is falsified by the argument I gave above.
The stakes are far higher for you than those of us rejecting your contradictory god...
-
The Quaker faith is very much about personal truth. Today there are Buddhist Quakers, pagan Quakers, theist Quakers and non theist Quakers.
-
That is possible but at the end of the day everything you don't actually know for yourself is something you are told you should believe is something you are taking in faith.
Even if your faith seems to you to be like something distinct from knowledge you think you hold, which is what you seem to be saying, why do you feel inclined to believe (as in have faith in) in what you are told that doesn't correspond to any knowledge you hold? Surely you need to critique what you are told, else you'd end up having faith in everything and anything that is told to you - and I suspect you don't.
This is about finding the truth about God either way for yourself as it is yourself you are staking whatever decision you make.
Your method for finding the 'truth about God' is what exactly? It sounds to me like your approach to this 'truth' is entirely subjective: might you be wrong?
-
Vlad’s not answered my point about how I did love, accept and seek but couldn’t find what I once had. I was hoping he could tell me where I was going wrong, or at least explain why it happened.
-
Even if your faith seems to you to be like something distinct from knowledge you think you hold, which is what you seem to be saying, why do you feel inclined to believe (as in have faith in) in what you are told that doesn't correspond to any knowledge you hold? Surely you need to critique what you are told, else you'd end up having faith in everything and anything that is told to you - and I suspect you don't.
Your method for finding the 'truth about God' is what exactly? It sounds to me like your approach to this 'truth' is entirely subjective: might you be wrong?
Make up your mind Gordon either you want to go along in faith with what you are told or you want to critique what you are told.
What is it about the world that tells you that God is an unreasonable proposition? I can agree with every piece of researched and peer reviewed piece of science you agree to. So on what basis do we differ? Matters that are not established or disestablished by science.
Corporate religion too is agreed and there is corporate worship and fellowship as opposed to the new atheists fantasy of religious people always at odds with each other.
-
Vlad’s not answered my point about how I did love, accept and seek but couldn’t find what I once had. I was hoping he could tell me where I was going wrong, or at least explain why it happened.
Perhaps it might help if you explained what happened in more detail. I believe I have shared my testimony in some detail. Do you feel you could do that?
-
Perhaps it might help if you explained what happened in more detail. I believe I have shared my testimony in some detail. Do you feel you could do that?
I’ve done it on here several times.
-
You are, I assume, forgetting that you are betting against the god that will punish you for your baseless beliefs in your chosen myth. What is more, that god is actually unfalsifiable, whereas the sort of god you are trying to convince us about is falsified by the argument I gave above.
The stakes are far higher for you than those of us rejecting your contradictory god...
No you are asking to accept some of your definitions and beliefs concerning love and what you find baseless. etc. These are not scientific matters and are debateable in reason.
Besides why do you think your God has any more base than mine? And what does finding a god with base do for your claim that God is baseless?
-
Make up your mind Gordon either you want to go along in faith with what you are told or you want to critique what you are told.
The latter: you see I'm aware that humans are fallible.
What is it about the world that tells you that God is an unreasonable proposition?
The arguments offered by proponents of God are all clearly flawed, and therefore the God claim is unreasonable as argued by them.
I can agree with every piece of researched and peer reviewed piece of science you agree to. So on what basis do we differ?
On matters that are not within the scope of science and where there seems to be no alternative methodology to assess claims.
Matters that are not established or disestablished by science.
See above.
Corporate religion too is agreed and there is corporate worship and fellowship as opposed to the new atheists fantasy of religious people always at odds with each other.
Maybe not always, but often enough: the terms 'religious wars' and 'religious conflict' come to mind and can be applied throughout history right up to the present day. You'd have thought that by now this God would have done something about the constant in-fighting among theists.
-
I’ve done it on here several times.
can you reference it. I cannot recall reading it.
-
can you reference it. I cannot recall reading it.
It would have been a while ago. Think there’s a potted version on SforG but the fuller ones have probably gone in one of the purges.
I used to post about it because it interested me I guess. It doesn’t much now but if I get the time and can be bothered I’ll post it at some point.
-
The latter: you see I'm aware that humans are fallible.
The arguments offered by proponents of God are all clearly flawed, and therefore the God claim is unreasonable as argued by them.
On matters that are not within the scope of science and where there seems to be no alternative methodology to assess claims.
See above.
Maybe not always, but often enough: the terms 'religious wars' and 'religious conflict' come to mind and can be applied throughout history right up to the present day. You'd have thought that by now this God would have done something about the constant in-fighting among theists.
We can use philosophy and metaphysics.
Again What part of science is evidence of philosophical naturalism or scientism?
-
It would have been a while ago. Think there’s a potted version on SforG but the fuller ones have probably gone in one of the purges.
I used to post about it because it interested me I guess. It doesn’t much now but if I get the time and can be bothered I’ll post it at some point.
Thanks
What is SforG?
-
We can use philosophy and metaphysics.
So we can, and yet there are still these bad arguments being advanced by theists.
Again What part of science is evidence of philosophical naturalism or scientism.
No idea: you'll need to ask a proponent of philosophical naturalism or scientism (which I'm not). Do you know anyone here who fits that description?
-
Thanks
What is SforG?
The Searching for God thread.
-
No you are asking to accept some of your definitions and beliefs concerning love and what you find baseless. etc. These are not scientific matters and are debateable in reason.
I have no idea what this is about.
Besides why do you think your God has any more base than mine?
I don't - that's the point. You have been wittering on for ages about how we are taking a 'punt' by ignoring something without supporting evidence or argument just because it is unfalsifiable, so can't be 100% ruled out.
The god I've just 'discovered' is similarly free from those pesky arguments and evidence and is also totally unfalsifiable.
On the other hand, your god has been falsified, see #345 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15180.msg719054#msg719054).
And what does finding a god with base do for your claim that God is baseless?
You really should try to pay more attention...
-
I have no idea what this is about.
I don't - that's the point. You have been wittering on for ages about how we are taking a 'punt' by ignoring something without supporting evidence or argument just because it is unfalsifiable, so can't be 100% ruled out.
The god I've just 'discovered' is similarly free from those pesky arguments and evidence and is also totally unfalsifiable.
On the other hand, your god has been falsified, see #345 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15180.msg719054#msg719054).
Just and fairminded are not scientific terms Stranger. Nothing therefore can be falsified on these terms.
-
No idea: you'll need to ask a proponent of philosophical naturalism or scientism (which I'm not). Do you know anyone here who fits that description?
Anyone appealing to science in a non scientific context e.g. claiming that God can be falsified in terms of fairness and Justice.
-
Just and fairminded are not scientific terms Stranger. Nothing therefore can be falsified on these terms.
If a supposedly just and fair God appears to behave unjustly and unfairly, that falsifies that God's existence. Who says that you can only falsify something in scientific terms?
-
If a supposedly just and fair God appears to behave unjustly and unfairly, that falsifies that God's existence. Who says that you can only falsify something in scientific terms?
justice and fairness are not scientific and atheists would treat them as subjective and relative. If they are absolutes it is evident that humans do not have a proper handle on them and only something which is capable of realising Justice and fair-mindedness perfectly would give sense to the concept of absolute fairness and justice. A natural world would not have that capability.
-
Justice and fairness are objective and absolute. Punishing a guilty person is just; punishing an innocent one is unjust, beyond a peradventure in each case.
-
Just and fairminded are not scientific terms Stranger. Nothing therefore can be falsified on these terms.
It really doesn't matter - the subjective human understanding of justice and fairness will suffice. If the god in question is not fair-minded in the way humans generally understand the term, then it can't be trusted to behave according to that understanding with regard to its message and any promises contained therein. All bets, as they say, would be off.
Your fictional 'punt' is undermined - as if it wasn't daft enough to begin with...
-
Justice and fairness are objective and absolute. Punishing a guilty person is just; punishing an innocent one is unjust, beyond a peradventure in each case.
Which is of course the beginning of the moral argument for God.
A form of which says if fairness and justice are just made up then each individuals sense will be different and treating ones own as being more fair and just is not justified. Fairness and justice becomes debateable
If fairness is absolute then what represents or embodies or is it? It cannot be a human since experience militates against that conclusion.It cannot be nature since material energy is neutral in that respect since itcan be turned to good or bad. It must therefore be embodied in something capable of justice and fairmindedness absolutely.
-
Justice and fairness are objective and absolute. Punishing a guilty person is just; punishing an innocent one is unjust, beyond a peradventure in each case.
in your opinion.
-
It really doesn't matter - the subjective human understanding of justice and fairness will suffice.
Good luck with that one old boy since human understanding of justice and fairness is by no means agreed.
-
Which is of course the beginning of the moral argument for God.
A form of which says if fairness and justice are just made up then each individuals sense will be different and treating ones own as being more fair and just is not justified. Fairness and justice becomes debateable
If fairness is absolute then what represents or embodies or is it? It cannot be a human since experience militates against that conclusion.It cannot be nature since material energy is neutral in that respect since itcan be turned to good or bad. It must therefore be embodied in something capable of justice and fairmindedness absolutely.
Leaving aside question of whether they ate absolutes, why would a concept need to be embodied?
-
It really doesn't matter - the subjective human understanding of justice and fairness will suffice.
Since when have you guys allowed subjective human understanding to suffice?
When it suits apparently.
-
Leaving aside question of whether they ate absolutes, why would a concept need to be embodied?
Alright then freefloating. Should you insist though on irrealism you would be back to individual conceptions of fairness and justice.
Can fair mindedness be free floating? Surely that suggests a mind and fairness the dispensation of same from a source.
-
in your opinion.
Now you're being silly.
-
Good luck with that one old boy since human understanding of justice and fairness is by no means agreed.
Since when have you guys allowed subjective human understanding to suffice?
When it suits apparently.
I suggest you read and respond to all of what I said, instead of quote mining it (quite a bold step in such a short post).
A sense of basic fairness is fairly universal and even extends to non-human animals. The point also remains, that if we can't trust this god to give us a clear message, when it's vitally important that we get it, then we can't trust it to keep its promises.
Hence your daft 'punt' is undermined.
-
Alright then freefloating. Should you insist though on irrealism you would be back to individual conceptions of fairness and justice.
Can fair mindedness be free floating? Surely that suggests a mind and fairness the dispensation of same from a source.
Yawn. Evolution of social animals.
-
I suggest you read and respond to all of what I said, instead of quote mining it (quite a bold step in such a short post).
A sense of basic fairness is fairly universal and even extends to non-human animals. The point also remains, that if we can't trust this god to give us a clear message, when it's vitally important that we get it, then we can't trust it to keep its promises.
Hence your daft 'punt' is undermined.
Well then according to your argument fairness and Justice is agreed in humanity. That makes it akin to science. Therefore that favours absolute values. But the extent to the agreement is debateable between and within people so that might make it more like religion.
Your argument is a hedge between subjectivity and science.
We cant trust God? who is the we you are talking about.
Your appeal to non human animals is anthropomorphism of World of Disney proportions.
If subjective values count here then you cannot similarly dismiss them elsewhere.
-
Yawn. Evolution of social animals.
Are you saying then that human moral history works by classic Darwinism?
-
Now you're being silly.
No. Just pointing out that your statement wassimoky an assertion. Please show how you have determined that justice and fairness are objective and absolute?
-
No. Just pointing out that your statement wassimoky an assertion. Please show how you have determined that justice and fairness are objective and absolute?
Are you saying they are subjective and individual?
-
Alright then freefloating. Should you insist though on irrealism you would be back to individual conceptions of fairness and justice.
Can fair mindedness be free floating? Surely that suggests a mind and fairness the dispensation of same from a source.
What in earth do you mean be 'free floating? What has irrealusm got to do with anything. Why introduce the idea of fair mindedness, and then use it as a form of begging the question?
-
No. Just pointing out that your statement wassimoky an assertion. Please show how you have determined that justice and fairness are objective and absolute?
It's obvious to anyone except people like you who just enjoy being wind-up merchants. Now go away - you're boring me.
-
What in earth do you mean be 'free floating? What has irrealusm got to do with anything. Why introduce the idea of fair mindedness, and then use it as a form of begging the question?
I didn't introduce fair mindedness into the discussion Stranger did.
I introduced the idea of free floating to answer any objections you might have with the term embodied.
-
Can I ask you if you think there may be a god.
No you can't.
Not until I get a straight answer from you about whether you think there is any possibility that you might be wrong about God.
-
No you can't.
Oh alright.
-
I think many, if not most, theologians and philosophers of religion would agree that God does not exist, because "exist" is an inadequate word to describe God's mode of being.
I'm sorry steve but that really is total nonsense. Something either exists or it is a figment of somebody's imagination. It's a binary thing.
It suggests that God is simply an object in the Universe, along with all the other objects, which is surely inadequate.
If God does not manifest in the Universe in some sense, there's no difference between it existing or not existing,, from our point of view.
-
Oh alright.
Why are you so frightened of answering the question? All it needs is a yes or a no.If the answer is yes, you are just in the same boat as us atheists. If the answer is no, you are just a typical arrogant Christian, but we already believe that of you, so you won't lose any esteem.
-
I'm sorry steve but that really is total nonsense. Something either exists or it is a figment of somebody's imagination. It's a binary thing.
If God does not manifest in the Universe in some sense, there's no difference between it existing or not existing,, from our point of view.
Numbers. They are real, but they don't exist. They are abstract concepts.
-
Well then according to your argument fairness and Justice is agreed in humanity. That makes it akin to science. Therefore that favours absolute values. But the extent to the agreement is debateable between and within people so that might make it more like religion.
Your argument is a hedge between subjectivity and science.
My argument doesn't depend on how or why people come to a notion of fairness. It is an observation that a basic sense of fairness is common amongst humans but my argument doesn't even depend on that.
We cant trust God? who is the we you are talking about.
Anybody who thinks that it is basically unfair to hide or obscure a vitally important message from the people who need to hear it.
If subjective values count here then you cannot similarly dismiss them elsewhere.
Drivel. You seem to have a bizarre notion (apparent in your arguments about NdGT) that any vague similarity between arguments, or any shared concepts, somehow makes them equivalent. That is a stupid idea - each argument must be examined on its own merits.
-
Are you saying they are subjective and individual?
I'm asking SteveH to justify his assertion that they are objective and absolute.
-
No you can't.
Not until I get a straight answer from you about whether you think there is any possibility that you might be wrong about God.
No, I am no longer an agnostic. I also consider I have been to the 'abyss' of the old atheists and found it to be God shaped.
-
Numbers. They are real, but they don't exist. They are abstract concepts.
I don't argue with the existence of the abstract concept of God, although theists seem to have a lot of trouble agreeing on the form of that abstract concept.
As for whether numbers are real, can you show me -4?
-
I'm asking SteveH to justify his assertion that they are objective and absolute.
And i'm asking you whether you think they are subjective and individual.
-
I'm asking SteveH to justify his assertion that they are objective and absolute.
Some things just are - they don't need justifying.
-
Some things just are - they don't need justifying.
No, that's just building up more assertions.
-
And i'm asking you whether you think they are subjective and individual.
since I don't claim absolutely that they are you are asking an incorrect question.
-
No, I am no longer an agnostic. I also consider I have been to the 'abyss' of the old atheists and found it to be God shaped.
So you are a gnostic theist?
-
No, I am no longer an agnostic. I also consider I have been to the 'abyss' of the old atheists and found it to be God shaped.
I'll take that as a declaration that you are completely certain that God exists and that you admit no possibility that you might be mistaken. Although, you could have just written "no". I wasn't asking you to justify your position.
I'm pretty certain that God does not exist although I admit the possibility that I might be mistaken. The reason I don't go round investigating it is that I am almost completely certain that I will not find any evidence of God and I'll be wasting my time.
The Sun may not rise tomorrow, but despite the stakes involved, I take it you do not go round investigating the possibility.
-
I don't argue with the existence of the abstract concept of God, although theists seem to have a lot of trouble agreeing on the form of that abstract concept.
As for whether numbers are real, can you show me -4?
Does the pint and crisps and peanuts at Wetherspoons count?
-
Justice is objective from the definition of the word. Paying all your employees the same amount for the same work is just; paying the men more than the women is unjust. You may think that there is a case, in a certain specific situation, for paying the men more, but you can't claim that it's just.
-
Does the pint and crisps and peanuts at Wetherspoons count?
What a strange way of defining the concept of God.
-
Justice is objective from the definition of the word. Paying all your employees the same amount for the same work is just; paying the men more than the women is unjust. You may think that there is a case, in a certain specific situation, for paying the men more, but you can't claim that it's just.
And yet further assertion in your opening sentence.
-
I don't argue with the existence of the abstract concept of God, although theists seem to have a lot of trouble agreeing on the form of that abstract concept.
As for whether numbers are real, can you show me -4?
No, of course I can't. That's the point!
-
I'll take that as a declaration that you are completely certain that God exists and that you admit no possibility that you might be mistaken. Although, you could have just written "no". I wasn't asking you to justify your position.
I'm pretty certain that God does not exist although I admit the possibility that I might be mistaken. The reason I don't go round investigating it is that I am almost completely certain that I will not find any evidence of God and I'll be wasting my time.
The Sun may not rise tomorrow, but despite the stakes involved, I take it you do not go round investigating the possibility.
I have passed from Carl Sagans position which was there is always a place to put God to always finding a place where God is.
What can I do if the sun doesn't rise tomorrow? There isn't the same hopelessness with God.
-
I also consider I have been to the 'abyss' of the old atheists and found it to be God shaped.
Meaning, what exactly - is this a literal shape? Objective or subjective? :D
Vlad, every aspect of your argument has been comprehensively demolished.
You started off trying to claim that rejecting a proposition because it had no evidence or sound reasoning to back it up, while recognizing it was unfalsifiable, was somehow both accepting and rejecting it.
This is totally undermined by the fact that 100% certainty is not available outside of logic and mathematics. All anybody can do is assess the evidence and reasoning.
You then moved on to saying how dismissing and not investigating god was a 'high stakes punt'.
This is undermined by the fact that there isn't a single notion of god, a methodology to use to investigate, that other unfalsifiable ideas would actually make your belief just as risky, and that it's a basically daft idea anyway because of the previous arguments.
Finally, I pointed out that a trustworthy god would provide a clear, unmistakable message, if it was important to us - so the sort of god you are proposing and the associated risk you were trying to present, are further undermined.
Then you wanted to debate what the idea of trustworthy means.
Now we're into the shape of an abyss.
Talk about desperate straw clutching...
-
And yet further assertion in your opening sentence.
We are going round in circles here, so I'm ignoring this particular strand of the thread from now on. That doesn't mean that I admit that you're right.
-
What a strange way of defining the concept of God.
I was defining maths....possibly.
-
Justice is objective from the definition of the word. Paying all your employees the same amount for the same work is just; paying the men more than the women is unjust. You may think that there is a case, in a certain specific situation, for paying the men more, but you can't claim that it's just.
Doesn't your example contradict your assertion? Go back 50 years and you'll find men were routinely paid more than women and it was justified at the time the grounds that generally the men had to support families whereas the women didn't.
We consider it "just" that people doing the same work get the same reward. Our ancestors did not.
-
We are going round in circles here, so I'm ignoring this particular strand of the thread from now on. That doesn't mean that I admit that you're right.
No, it's not circles, you are just either refusing or unable to justify your assertion that the concepts are objective and absolute.
-
No, of course I can't. That's the point!
So how can you say that -4 is real?
There point is that -4 is an abstract concept, it exists in our minds. I do not argue that God as an abstract concept does not exist, that is clearly false, but it is not a concept that describes anything real.
-
Meaning, what exactly - is this a literal shape? Objective or subjective? :D
Since it is the atheists abyss there should be no bar for you to visit it.
-
Doesn't your example contradict your assertion? Go back 50 years and you'll find men were routinely paid more than women and it was justified at the time the grounds that generally the men had to support families whereas the women didn't.
We consider it "just" that people doing the same work get the same reward. Our ancestors did not.
Justice dictates that everyone gets the same pay for the same work. 50 years ago, paying men more than women may have been justified in the way that you say, but no-one would have pretended that it was just. The question is whether perfect justice is always the right way to go. After all, to Christians, the crucifixion was a massive overturning of justice - killing an innocent man - in the interest of mercy.
-
Meaning, what exactly - is this a literal shape? Objective or subjective? :D
Vlad, every aspect of your argument has been comprehensively demolished.
You started off trying to claim that rejecting a proposition because it had no evidence or sound reasoning to back it up, while recognizing it was unfalsifiable, was somehow both accepting and rejecting it.
This is totally undermined by the fact that 100% certainty is not available outside of logic and mathematics. All anybody can do is assess the evidence and reasoning.
Are you 100% certain of that?
-
Justice dictates that everyone gets the same pay for the same work. 50 years ago, paying men more than women may have been justified in the way that you say, but no-one would have pretended that it was just. The question is whether perfect justice is always the right way to go. After all, to Christians, the crucifixion was a massive overturning of justice - killing an innocent man - in the interest of mercy.
If that Jesus was crucified, a terrible death, he did seal his own fate by winding up the powers that be by being silly enough to infer he was some sort of messiah!
-
https://www.quora.com/Is-justice-a-subjective-concept-or-an-objective-one
-
If that Jesus was crucified, a terrible death, he did seal his own fate by winding up the powers that be by being silly enough to infer he was some sort of messiah!
Paulo rosae locuta est; causa finita est.
-
Justice dictates that everyone gets the same pay for the same work.
I've just shown you that that is not always the case.
Another example: sixty years ago justice dictated that men engaging in homosexual relationships were to be punished. We lost one of our greatest mathematicians because of that, but at the time, society considered it justice.
50 years ago, paying men more than women may have been justified in the way that you say, but no-one would have pretended that it was just.
Have you looked at the word "justified"? See how it's spelled?
to Christians, the crucifixion was a massive overturning of justice - killing an innocent man - in the interest of mercy.
By your qualification of the above with the words "to Christians" you admit that justice is subjective.
-
I give up. You're all mad - or wind-up merchants.
P.S. - This Have you looked at the word "justified"? See how it's spelled?
is the etymological fallacy.
-
https://www.quora.com/Is-justice-a-subjective-concept-or-an-objective-one
Justice (properly put) is a rational agreement between all concerned parties about the correct method for redressing a wrong.
Subjective then.
-
Since it is the atheists abyss there should be no bar for you to visit it.
I see no abyss.
Are you 100% certain of that?
Yes. It's a logical conclusion.
I see you've given up even trying or pretending to make any sensible arguments. ::)
-
I give up. You're all mad - or wind-up merchants.
Have you considered the possibility that we're not mad and that you might be wrong?
Justice is a human construct. The very fact that we frequently disagree on the appropriate punishment for a crime should tell you that it is not objective.
-
Justice dictates that everyone gets the same pay for the same work.
... except as in the parable of Matt 20 (1 - 16).
-
Subjective then.
The article calls it "inter-subjective". I added the link because it was an interesting contribution to the debate, not because it necessarily supported my position fully.
-
... except as in the parable of Matt 20 (1 - 16).
But no-one, least of all Jesus, said that that was just.
-
Have you considered the possibility that we're not mad and that you might be wrong?
Justice is a human construct. The very fact that we frequently disagree on the appropriate punishment for a crime should tell you that it is not objective.
I'm not sure that disagreement shows that as a concept it couldn't be objective. That there are people who think the earth is flat doesn't make the question of whether it is or not subjective. But there certainly doesn't seem a methodology for determining an objective truth about justice
-
I'm not sure that disagreement shows that as a concept it couldn't be objective. That there are people who think the earth is flat doesn't make the question of whether it is or not subjective. But there certainly doesn't seem a methodology for determining an objective truth about justice
So shouldn't justice then be discarded like religion?
-
But no-one, least of all Jesus, said that that was just.
That's because the motive behind the judgement was not based upon the logical equality implied in the extract from your post that I was commenting upon. The moral of the parable was 'You are only rewarded for doing God’s work or Will, not for doing it the longest.'
-
So shouldn't justice then be discarded like religion?
And the prize for non sequitur of the day goes yet again to Vlad.
-
And the prize for non sequitur of the day goes yet again to Vlad.
Not really, if your argument against religion is that there is no methodology why should that not extend to other things which have no methodology.
You seem to be defending the Woolysphere in which you get yer paper, have a blather in the pub, a sleep off and the lower orders can get back to their hutches with nerry a big question asked or answered........
-
Not really, if your argument against religion is that there is no methodology why should that not extend to other things which have no methodology.
I agree. It should.
Let's start with the methodology for determining which of the thousands of gods invented by humans is the real one.
I await your answer.
-
Not really, if your argument against religion is that there is no methodology why should that not extend to other things which have no methodology.
You seem to be defending the Woolysphere in which you get yer paper, have a blather in the pub, a sleep off and the lower orders can get back to their hutches with nerry a big question asked or answered........
That's not my argument against religion, indeed I'm not sure I have an 'argument' against religion as such.
Further you are getting confused about someone claiming something as true and someone saying they don't see how that can be demonstrated.
-
So shouldn't justice then be discarded like religion?
There is nothing innately wrong with the subjective. The problem with (many) religions is that they make claims about objective truth based on subjective 'evidence'.
-
There is nothing innately wrong with the subjective. The problem with (many) religions is that they make claims about objective truth based on subjective 'evidence'.
That's avoiding the special pleading that is involved when you talk about the collective subjective view of Justice and fair-mindedness with it's lack of methodology falsifying god
but the collective subjective views of religion in no way demonstrating god because of it's subjectivity and lack of methodology.
You now seem to be saying religion is ok unless you try to share it or think it appropriate for others and justice and fair-mindedness is OK and it's ok to share it and think it's appropriate for others.
-
Have you considered the possibility that we're not mad and that you might be wrong?
Yes. Have you?
-
Yes. Have you?
And you think you are right?
-
And you think you are right?
Well, obviously I think I'm right, or I wouldn't think what I think, would I? The point is that I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, and am willing to have my mind changed by good enough arguments and evidence.
-
That's avoiding the special pleading that is involved when you talk about the collective subjective view of Justice and fair-mindedness with it's lack of methodology falsifying god
Your capacity for distortion and 'misunderstanding' is truly staggering. Once again...
For my argument, it doesn't matter on what basis people arrive at a notion of fair-mindedness - all that matters is that people have such a sense and that, in broad terms and in some respects, it is agreed, and it is how we decide to trust or not trust other people.
If that were not the case, any theist claims that god is 'good' would be meaningless anyway. Here's a little parable:
If a company had a policy of summarily executing its employees, a year after they retire, unless they signed up to its pension scheme. They 'notified' them of this by making veiled references to it in various parts of a 1000 page policy manual. They then hid the manual in the fiction section of their library, beside a lot of similar but entirely fictional policy manuals with other dire warnings and other requirements to avoid them. The employees variously believed in the correct manual, the fictional ones, while some dismissed all of them because they were all too silly to be true. The company refused to clearly confirm or deny any of them but If somebody questioned them about this, their response was that people could investigate it for themselves and it was their fault if they didn't.
I would imagine you'd be hard pressed to find anybody that would regard that as fair.
Yet that is pretty much equivalent to what you are asking us to believe your god is doing.
Of course, you could argue that such a sense of fairness is a subjective human convention, not an objective truth, and you'd be right. However, that doesn't change the fact that this god is not behaving in a way that we recognize as fair, so predicting its future behaviour, regarding keeping promises, for example, would be futile.
Such a god would not be 'good' or 'fair' in any sense that is recognizable to humans.
-
Well, obviously I think I'm right, or I wouldn't think what I think, would I? The point is that I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, and am willing to have my mind changed by good enough arguments and evidence.
Do you think you have the truth, or your truth?
-
Well, obviously I think I'm right, or I wouldn't think what I think, would I? The point is that I'm open to the possibility that I'm wrong, and am willing to have my mind changed by good enough arguments and evidence.
You could then, one supposes, put forward arguments convincing enough to persuade non-believers to change their minds.Just one would be enough!
-
Do you think you have the truth, or your truth?
The truth. However, I repeat that I am open to the possibility that I am wrong, and that's what matters.
-
Your capacity for distortion and 'misunderstanding' is truly staggering. Once again...
For my argument, it doesn't matter on what basis people arrive at a notion of fair-mindedness - all that matters is that people have such a sense and that, in broad terms and in some respects, it is agreed, and it is how we decide to trust or not trust other people.
If that were not the case, any theist claims that god is 'good' would be meaningless anyway. Here's a little parable:
If a company had a policy of summarily executing its employees, a year after they retire, unless they signed up to its pension scheme. They 'notified' them of this by making veiled references to it in various parts of a 1000 page policy manual. They then hid the manual in the fiction section of their library, beside a lot of similar but entirely fictional policy manuals with other dire warnings and other requirements to avoid them. The employees variously believed in the correct manual, the fictional ones, while some dismissed all of them because they were all too silly to be true. The company refused to clearly confirm or deny any of them but If somebody questioned them about this, their response was that people could investigate it for themselves and it was their fault if they didn't.
If I as much suspected this I would demand to see the manager... Know what I am saying?
-
If I as much suspected this I would demand to see the manager... Know what I am saying?
The manager is nowhere to be found. There are multiple secretaries who claim to represent the true manager, but they all contradict each other...
:)
-
The manager is nowhere to be found.
But how can you say that if you think it is silly to look for him?
-
But how can you say that if you think it is silly to look for him?
Seriously? You really are terrified of facing the actual point, aren't you?
-
Yes. Have you?
Yes. It's turns out that we are right, not mad.
-
Seriously? You really are terrified of facing the actual point, aren't you?
That's what I think of you. You are trying to argue against the existence God by portraying him as absolutely evil.
-
That's what I think of you. You are trying to argue against the existence God by portraying him as absolutely evil.
Well the Christian god is evil. We are all condemned to death because some bloke in the past ate fruit from the wrong tree.
-
Well the Christian god is evil. We are all condemned to death because some bloke in the past ate fruit from the wrong tree.
-
The manager is nowhere to be found. There are multiple secretaries who claim to represent the true manager, but they all contradict each other...
I tend to think that instead of a direct approach to the company or to go straight to the manager you went through your spiritual solicitors Dawkins, Dennett and Harris who advised you not to bother since they haven't.
-
Well the Christian god is evil. We are all condemned to death because some bloke in the past ate fruit from the wrong tree.
Complete and utter straw man. No sensible Christian believes that.
-
That's what I think of you. You are trying to argue against the existence God by portraying him as absolutely evil.
- There is no real need to argue against the idea of god because the total absence of a sound argument or evidence for any (of the many different and contradictory) gods is quite enough to dismiss them.
- This is just pointing out another absurdity in your 'argument' that we are taking some sort of risk because many god concepts are unfalsifiable.
- I'm not portraying your god as absolutely evil, I'm pointing out that any god that was fair-minded (in the way understood by humans) would have produced a clear and unmistakable message, if it was important for us to hear it - which is clearly not the case.
- Further to the point on risk, you still haven't said why you think you are taking less risk by ignoring the (unfalsifiable) god that will punish you for believing in gods for no good reeason.
- Your arguments are already in tatters - see #405 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15180.msg719153#msg719153)
-
Complete and utter straw man. No sensible Christian believes that.
What do they believe then?
"The wages of sin are death"? Where's the justice in that?
-
- There is no real need to argue against the idea of god because the total absence of a sound argument or evidence for any (of the many
And yet you've just rattled of a parable outlining an idea of god which you want us to take as rational.We can pick holes in it for instance you seem to ignore any facility for going to the top or any acknowledgement that people claim to have done so and found satisfaction. Or that the Premise you now inject that God is found absent is different from an admission that there may be a God.
You begin with your preference and then steer your parable to the conclusion you want.
[/list]
-
Complete and utter straw man. No sensible Christian believes that.
I would suggest that there are a good many Christians who think it represents something and that, as a result, we all need 'saving' - which is just as bad as the literal interpretation.
I'm not sure what you mean by "sensible Christian" though - this seems to be a category I'm not familiar with...
-
And yet you've just rattled of a parable outlining an idea of god which you want us to take as rational.
[/list]
Read the rest of the post - and be careful when editing replies, so as to avoid things like '[/list]'...
-
What do they believe then?
"The wages of sin are death"? Where's the justice in that?
I will not be surprised to see that question avoided!
-
I've had a read through the latest posts on this thread and it looks to me we've got another Nicolas Marks, minus the righteous dynamic energy, Vlad has made his point that he's impenetrable to basic explanations of how everyday normal reasoning is for most people.
I don't think anyone will be able to penetrate this web of the magical, the mystical superstition based irrationality that he has wound around himself and when you add to that lot that he never answers anything asked of him, nor does he or has he given anything of a rational explanation of his reasoning, (loose term), for believing in this god stuff.
It would be quite interesting if Vlad was to deliver something, a really good logical/rational explanation for holding on to this obviously strongly held belief of his, I've no doubt it'll be a long wait.
Regards ippy
-
Well, Pascal was a famous Christian, already quoted by Vlad, and he wrote this: 'Do not be surprised at the sight of simple people who believe without argument. God makes them love him and hate themselves.' (Pensées).
Well, Pascal was a well-known Jansenist, and they had a particularly gloomy view, but isn't that a horrible thought - to make people hate themselves? Why would anyone search for a God who does that, except masochists?
-
I've had a read through the latest posts on this thread and it looks to me we've got another Nicolas Marks, minus the righteous dynamic energy, Vlad has made his point that he's impenetrable to basic explanations of how everyday normal reasoning is for most people.
I don't think anyone will be able to penetrate this web of the magical, the mystical superstition based irrationality that he has wound around himself and when you add to that lot that he never answers anything asked of him, nor does he or has he given anything of a rational explanation of his reasoning, (loose term), for believing in this god stuff.
It would be quite interesting if Vlad was to deliver something, a really good logical/rational explanation for holding on to this obviously strongly held belief of his, I've no doubt it'll be a long wait.
Regards ippy
First of all Ippy is your use of the word normal. This might represent normal thinking for an anglo saxon new atheist but is hardly normal in consideration of the worlds population so what ever else it is it is not statistically normal and thinking it is is a bit suspect.
Secondly, It all goes south from there.
-
- There is no real need to argue against the idea of god because the total absence of a sound argument or evidence for any (of the many different and contradictory) gods is quite enough to dismiss them.
And yet you haven't......why is this.[/list]
-
Well, Pascal was a famous Christian, already quoted by Vlad, and he wrote this: 'Do not be surprised at the sight of simple people who believe without argument. God makes them love him and hate themselves.' (Pensées).
Well, Pascal was a well-known Jansenist, and they had a particularly gloomy view, but isn't that a horrible thought - to make people hate themselves? Why would anyone search for a God who does that, except masochists?
Thank you Wiggs, well that doesn't seemed veiled at all, as Stranger is arguing.
-
And yet you haven't......why is this.[/list]
Haven't what? Dismissed the idea of gods (which I have done, and explained repeatedly)?
-
Haven't what? Dismissed the idea of gods (which I have done, and explained repeatedly)?
Nope, you say they are still possible which sounds a bit like your use of subjectivity for falsification argument. A cake and eat it one.[/list]
-
Nope, you say they are still possible...
That doesn't mean that I haven't dismissed them. I'll add the meaning of the word 'dismiss' to the very long list of things you don't understand.
dismiss (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dismiss) (sense 2) Treat as unworthy of serious consideration.
In case you're still confused, ponder the following...
- Have you dismissed the god that will punish you for believing in gods for no good reason?
- Have you dismissed the invisible purple unicorn?
- Do you have actual falsifications for either?
...which sounds a bit like your use of subjectivity for falsification argument. A cake and eat it one.[/list]
It's an argument you have not provided a counterargument for - blustering about subjectivity without providing specifics, doesn't count.
[/list]
Have you sprung a leak?
-
dismiss (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dismiss) (sense 2) Treat as unworthy of serious consideration.
How much serious consideration goes into that I wonder?[/list][/list]
-
Nope, you say they are still possible which sounds a bit like your use of subjectivity for falsification argument. A cake and eat it one.[/list]
what ? like 'domestos kills 99.9% of all germs' possibility ? straws man , you're clutching at 'em .
Do yourself a favour and grow up .
-
How much serious consideration goes into that I wonder?[/list][/list]
A great deal more than you are giving to what I'm saying.
-
That doesn't mean that I haven't dismissed them. I'll add the meaning of the word 'dismiss' to the very long list of things you don't understand.
dismiss (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/dismiss) (sense 2) Treat as unworthy of serious consideration.
In case you're still confused, ponder the following...
- Have you dismissed the god that will punish you for believing in gods for no good reason?
- Have you dismissed the invisible purple unicorn?
- Do you have actual falsifications for either?
.
Your definition of good reason or say, Pascals?
No, the pink unicorn is low stake
[/list]
It's an argument you have not provided a counterargument for - blustering about subjectivity without providing specifics, doesn't count.
Have you sprung a leak?
[/list][/list]
-
Do yourself a favour and grow up .
Give him a break, he wouldn't have anything to post if he did that...
-
Your definition of good reason or say, Pascals?
Pascal seems to have made the same basic logical mistake you have but it's irrelevant anyway because the god of which I speak agrees with me on the subject.
No, the pink unicorn is low stake
That wasn't the question.
-
Pascal seems to have made the same basic logical mistake you have but it's irrelevant anyway because the god of which I speak agrees with me on the subject.
That wasn't the question.
It is low stake. ''How can you have 'invisible pink''........... a technical hitch which, if you'll excuse the pun atheists seem to be completely blind to.
Your dismissal still remains high risk.
I haven't encountered your God and you haven't encountered him either nor will you because you have dismissed the search and others haven't.
Oh BTW isn't saying that most people share the same idea of justice and fair-mindedness an argumentum ad populum?
You are still saying that an argument for a God which you consider sensible somehow helps your atheism. Another cake and eat it argument?
I think ive gone over old ground here and am not leaving you time to reflect.
-
It is low stake. ''How a you have 'invisible pink' a technical hitch which, if you'll excuse the pun atheists seem to be completely blind to.
Your dismissal still remains high risk.
I haven't encountered your God and you haven't encountered him either nor will you because you have dismissed the search and others haven't.
Oh BTW isn't saying that most people share the same idea of justice and fair-mindedness an argumentum ad populum?
You are still saying that an argument for a God which you consider sensible somehow helps your atheism. Another cake and eat it argument?
I think ive gone over old ground here and am not leaving you time to reflect.
I'm guessing you have no concept of how pathetic and skin crawlingly cringing your argument is .
for god sake man , have some self respect
-
It is low stake. ''How a you have 'invisible pink' a technical hitch which, if you'll excuse the pun atheists seem to be completely blind to.
I didn't ask you what the stakes were, I asked you if you'd dismissed it or not. Please try to keep up. The invisible pinkness is no more silly than most versions of Christianity.
Your dismissal still remains high risk.
No higher than your dismissal of the god that will punish you for your belief.
Oh BTW isn't saying that most people share the same idea of justice and fair-mindedness an argumentum ad populum?
No. Why can't you even be bothered to look these things up?
You are still saying that an argument for a God which you consider sensible somehow helps your atheism. Another cake and eat it argument?
That doesn't make sense - sorry, I mean it makes even less sense than your usual nonsense.
I have outlined a concept of god that is unfalsifiable and I'm asking you if you've dismissed it. The reason being that, according to what seems to pass as 'logic' in your mind, unless you can falsify it, you can't dismiss it.
I think ive gone over old ground here and am not leaving you time to reflect.
Reflect on what? You're spouting self-contradictory drivel and ignoring or misunderstanding pretty mush everything that is being said to you. It's long since ceased resembling anything like a sensible discussion - it's just hilarious watching you tie yourself in knots...
-
I'm guessing you have no concept of how pathetic and skin crawlingly cringing your argument is .
for god sake man , have some self respect
And could you actually tell me what my argument is in a nutshell?
-
I didn't ask you what the stakes were, I asked you if you'd dismissed it or not. Please try to keep up. The invisible pinkness is no more silly than most versions of Christianity.
No higher than your dismissal of the god that will punish you for your belief.
No. Why can't you even be bothered to look these things up?
That doesn't make sense - sorry, I mean it makes even less sense than your usual nonsense.
I have outlined a concept of god that is unfalsifiable and I'm asking you if you've dismissed it. The reason being that, according to what seems to pass as 'logic' in your mind, unless you can falsify it, you can't dismiss it.
Reflect on what? You're spouting self-contradictory drivel and ignoring or misunderstanding pretty mush everything that is being said to you. It's long since ceased resembling anything like a sensible discussion - it's just hilarious watching you tie yourself in knots...
Unfalsifiability is to do with science Stranger. How then did you falsify my God? Look once we are outside of science there is logic and reason. What you are saying is that it is impossible to find God to be one thing or another. You need to justify that assertion logically and reasonably.
-
And could you actually tell me what my argument is in a nutshell?
yes , it can be found in a discarded nutshell
-
First of all Ippy is your use of the word normal. This might represent normal thinking for an anglo saxon new atheist but is hardly normal in consideration of the worlds population so what ever else it is it is not statistically normal and thinking it is is a bit suspect.
Secondly, It all goes south from there.
As usual Vlad off text again yes if you're referrilg to normal as it stands, on it's own, but as you know you've done your usual out of text, get out of jail free, reasoning.
I quite clearly refered to, normal, as follows: 'Vlad has made his point that he's impenatrable to basic explanations of how everyday normal reasoning is for most people', which used in this way it quite obviously differs considerably from using the word, 'normal', on it's own.
No doubt your next ploy is either no answer or create more of a muddle, instead of facing your failure to answer any post head on.
Regards ippy
-
Unfalsifiability is to do with science Stranger.
Not necessarily.
How then did you falsify my God?
I pointed out a contradiction.
Look once we are outside of science there is logic and reason.
Yes.
What you are saying is that it is impossible to find God to be one thing or another.
One what thing or another? You've lapsed into gibberish again.
You need to justify that assertion logically and reasonably.
I have justified everything I've said to you - if you can't keep up, you need to ask sensible questions about what I've actually said.
Speaking of which - none of this is actually an answer to any of the points I raised in the post you were ostensibly replying to. How about you try again...?
-
Not necessarily.
I pointed out a contradiction.
Yes.
One what thing or another? You've lapsed into gibberish again.
I have justified everything I've said to you - if you can't keep up, you need to ask sensible questions about what I've actually said.
Speaking of which - none of this is actually an answer to any of the points I raised in the post you were ostensibly replying to. How about you try again...?
Stranger, Vlad doesn't do answers, all he does is either, just no answer, in some way change the subject and turns your exchange into an unsortable muddle, you're wasting your time on him.
Regards ippy
-
Stranger, Vlad doesn't do answers, all he does is either, just no answer, in some way change the subject and turns your exchange into an unsortable muddle, you're wasting your time on him.
Yes, I know...
You're spouting self-contradictory drivel and ignoring or misunderstanding pretty mush everything that is being said to you. It's long since ceased resembling anything like a sensible discussion - it's just hilarious watching you tie yourself in knots...
-
I pointed out a contradiction.
No............ key to your argument was a subjective view of what justice and fair-mindedness was, , the use of the term veiled threat which even if we accept it as a threat and not a danger alert is in no way veiled since you know what it is. If there was a contradiction in the God of the narrative you concocted it's your contradiction.
As for a God punishing people for believing in him for the wrong reasons can that truly be unjust in all measures of justice. I'm not sure it can
You were smart to eschew evil God though.
-
yes , it can be found in a discarded nutshell
It sounds as though you cant give a nutshell account of my argument so let me help you.
God is or isn't
If you are not an atheist who knows that God doesn't exist then you believe that he may exist.
If you then take no steps to find out if he exists then you are taking a gamble that he isn't worth finding or that he doesn't exist and that this is somehow a neutral gamble rather than the high stakes of missing God.
-
No............ key to your argument was a subjective view of what justice and fair-mindedness was, , the use of the term veiled threat which even if we accept it as a threat and not a danger alert is in no way veiled since you know what it is. If there was a contradiction in the God of the narrative you concocted it's your contradiction.
Once again running away from most of my points - why are you so afraid to face logic (as if I didn't know)?
Look, you have a simple choice here. If you are going to claim that your god is 'good', 'just' and 'fair', then the only way those statements can have any meaning at all, is if you are referring to the way most humans regard those qualities (even though they are subjective conventions).
If that is the case, there is a contradiction with what is observed (no clear, message that is obviously from a god).
If you are going to claim that the words have some other meaning or that god is not 'good', 'just' and 'fair' (which is the logical equivalent), then we can deduce nothing about this god's actual values and cannot, for example, rely on it keeping its promises or being truthful - which makes your claim of the risks of not believing seem even more silly than they already are - because the risks of believing would be just as great.
No clear message from a god, either means that there is no god with an important message, or that if there is, it is not trustworthy.
God is or isn't
If you are not an atheist who knows that God doesn't exist then you believe that he may exist.
If you then take no steps to find out if he exists then you are taking a gamble that he isn't worth finding or that he doesn't exist and that this is somehow a neutral gamble rather than the high stakes of missing God.
Which is plane and simple idiocy, for the reasons already explained. Here we go again...
First of all there isn't one single god to consider - there are thousands of contradictory stories of very different gods, with very different 'risks' and different ways to avoid those 'risks'.
There has not been presented any sound arguments or evidence that would indicate that any of them are remotely likely to exist.
There is no methodology provided by which the claims can be objectively investigated. There are, in any case, far too many to spend much time on each in order to evaluate them, even if they all came with a sensible methodology (which none of them do).
The stories are either self-contradictory or unfalsifiable.
No sane person considers all baseless stories and assess the 'risks' associated with not believing them. For example, what steps have you taken to consider the possibility of alien mind control? Why aren't you wearing a tinfoil hat? You have also refused to consider the 'risks' associated with you having picked the wrong god.
If all that wasn't enough to dismiss the idea, we can then consider the fact that even those who claim to have taken the task of finding out if there is a god seriously, do not come to the same conclusion, they end up believing in different and contradictory gods or no gods at all. So even if we were daft enough to take your drivel seriously, it is quite obvious that there is no reliable way to a single "truth".
The whole thing is an obvious fool's errand.
So now you can quote this entire post and put another short piece of your inane drivel after it because you don't have the courage to really think about it...
-
Well said, Stranger. Applause.
Ippy, I avoid the hassle of Vlad's posts by not reading them!! :)
-
Once again running away from most of my points - why are you so afraid to face logic (as if I didn't know)?
Look, you have a simple choice here. If you are going to claim that your god is 'good', 'just' and 'fair', then the only way those statements can have any meaning at all, is if you are referring to the way most humans regard those qualities (even though they are subjective conventions).
If that is the case, there is a contradiction with what is observed (no clear, message that is obviously from a god).
If you are going to claim that the words have some other meaning or that god is not 'good', 'just' and 'fair' (which is the logical equivalent), then we can deduce nothing about this god's actual values and cannot, for example, rely on it keeping its promises or being truthful - which makes your claim of the risks of not believing seem even more silly than they already are - because the risks of believing would be just as great.
No clear message from a god, either means that there is no god with an important message, or that if there is, it is not trustworthy.
Which is plane and simple idiocy, for the reasons already explained. Here we go again...
First of all there isn't one single god to consider - there are thousands of contradictory stories of very different gods, with very different 'risks' and different ways to avoid those 'risks'.
There has not been presented any sound arguments or evidence that would indicate that any of them are remotely likely to exist.
There is no methodology provided by which the claims can be objectively investigated. There are, in any case, far too many to spend much time on each in order to evaluate them, even if they all came with a sensible methodology (which none of them do).
The stories are either self-contradictory or unfalsifiable.
No sane person considers all baseless stories and assess the 'risks' associated with not believing them. For example, what steps have you taken to consider the possibility of alien mind control? Why aren't you wearing a tinfoil hat? You have also refused to consider the 'risks' associated with you having picked the wrong god.
If all that wasn't enough to dismiss the idea, we can then consider the fact that even those who claim to have taken the task of finding out if there is a god seriously, do not come to the same conclusion, they end up believing in different and contradictory gods or no gods at all. So even if we were daft enough to take your drivel seriously, it is quite obvious that there is no reliable way to a single "truth".
The whole thing is an obvious fool's errand.
So now you can quote this entire post and put another short piece of your inane drivel after it because you don't have the courage to really think about it...
So let me get your takeaway points straight here
1: You cant be certain there isn't a God
2: God is a baseless story
3: If God is unjust he doesn't exist
4: A just god is crucial to the existence of any God.
5: A subjective view can falsify something.
6: There are only odds and not stakes
7: The person who says they do not actually know that God doesn't exist but lives as though he doesn't is not taking a bet or a faith position.
8: Because there are many points of view about God he cannot exist and therefore it is unreasonable to examine them or listen to your own ideas.
9: These points of view are all veiled and there is no truth in any of them because God has not revealed his message
10: Only those who hold the above 9 points are worthy of believing.
.......Vlad slaps and rubs hands together.
I'm afraid Stranger, you've rendered me a bit like the fart in the colander......which hole to motor through first?
-
So let me get your takeaway points straight here
That'll be the day!
1: You cant be certain there isn't a God
In exactly the same was as I can't be certain that there isn't an orbiting teapot and you can't be certain that god isn't going to punish you for your faith.
However, I can be certain that there isn't most versions of the Christian god because they are riddled with contradictions.
2: God is a baseless story
Yes.
3: If God is unjust he doesn't exist
No. Read what I said.
4: A just god is crucial to the existence of any God.
No. Read what I said.
5: A subjective view can falsify something.
It is possible - if the view actually defines the meaning of important parts of the proposition.
6: There are only odds and not stakes
No. Read what I said
7: The person who says they do not actually know that God doesn't exist but lives as though he doesn't is not taking a bet or a faith position.
It is most definitely not a faith position.
It is the normal way that every rational person uses in order to decide what to take seriously.
It is only as much as a risk as your continued refusal to accept the possibility of the god that is going to judge and condemn you for you faith.
8: Because there are many points of view about God he cannot exist and therefore it is unreasonable to examine them or listen to your own ideas.
No. Read what I said.
9: These points of view are all veiled and there is no truth in any of them because God has not revealed his message
No. Read what I said.
10: Only those who hold the above 9 points are worthy of believing.
Eh?
.......Vlad slaps and rubs hands together.
I'm afraid Stranger, you've rendered me a bit like the fart in the colander......which hole to motor through first?
Vlad enters a fantasy world, all of his own.
I guess 1 out of 10 is a start... ::) :)
-
That'll be the day!
In exactly the same was as I can't be certain that there isn't an orbiting teapot and you can't be certain that god isn't going to punish you for your faith.
However, I can be certain that there isn't most versions of the Christian god because they are riddled with contradictions.
Yes.
No. Read what I said.
No. Read what I said.
It is possible - if the view actually defines the meaning of important parts of the proposition.
No. Read what I said
It is most definitely not a faith position.
It is the normal way that every rational person uses in order to decide what to take seriously.
It is only as much as a risk as your continued refusal to accept the possibility of the god that is going to judge and condemn you for you faith.
No. Read what I said.
No. Read what I said.
Eh?
Vlad enters a fantasy world, all of his own.
I guess 1 out of 10 is a start... ::) :)
So that's one Not knowing that there isn't a God but living as though there isn't one is not a faith (belief without evidence) position.
and a side order of declaring Christian contradictions from someone who has declared they aren't even worth examining.
Fortunately Susan Doris helps out here as the archetypal dawkinsian who wont even read the arguments. In her own admission.
Also Stranger you want to make this a hidden God thing thus making your argument effectively ''You needn't bother looking for God because he is hidden'' Not sure that is at all sensible.
However an overall examination of your position leads back toscientism as the smoking gun.
-
Once again, Vlad runs away from facing the majority of the arguments.
So that's one Not knowing that there isn't a God but living as though there isn't one is not a faith (belief without evidence) position.
What are you finding so hard? More to the point, why won't you answer the questions I raise about the baseless stories that you are living your life as if weren't true?
Have some honesty and face up to the fact that you do this just as much as every other person does - except in the one respect of your favourite god-story.
If there is no reason to take an idea seriously, then it is both rational and necessary to sanity to dismiss it until and unless some new evidence or reasoning is presented that makes the idea credible.
Otherwise, you'd have to spend all your life investigating nonsense.
There is no need to take a faith position - if the proposition in question is unfalsifiable, one can remain open to further evidence.
This isn't rocket science - get a grip!
and a side order of declaring Christian contradictions from someone who has declared they aren't even worth examining.
I am familiar enough with Christianity (and with talking to Christians) to see the contradictions. I am continually both amazed and deeply saddened at the way faith totally blinds people to obvious, glaring contradictions at very heart of their beliefs.
-
Vlad now resorts to dishonesty.
Also Stranger you want to make this a hidden God thing thus making your argument effectively ''You needn't bother looking for God because he is hidden'' Not sure that is at all sensible.
Another blatant misrepresentation.
However an overall examination of your position leads back toscientism as the smoking gun.
How so?
-
Once again, Vlad runs away from facing the majority of the arguments.
What are you finding so hard? More to the point, why won't you answer the questions I raise about the baseless stories that you are living your life as if weren't true?
Have some honesty and face up to the fact that you do this just as much as every other person does - except in the one respect of your favourite god-story.
If there is no reason to take an idea seriously, then it is both rational and necessary to sanity to dismiss it until and unless some new evidence or reasoning is presented that makes the idea credible.
Otherwise, you'd have to spend all your life investigating nonsense.
There is no need to take a faith position - if the proposition in question is unfalsifiable, one can remain open to further evidence.
This isn't rocket science - get a grip!
I am familiar enough with Christianity (and with talking to Christians) to see the contradictions. I am continually both amazed and deeply saddened at the way faith totally blinds people to obvious, glaring contradictions at very heart of their beliefs.
I am just noting your conflation with whether acting on belief there is no God rather than knowledge that there isn't isn't merely a belief but a reasonable thing to do because the stakes are so small and a gamble with Christian contradictions and just God with a bit of hidden God.
Is it the futility of the first that leads you to need unjust God or hidden God?
We are arguing until the cows come in on the highness of the stakes and if you are familiar with Christianity you will therefore be aware of what they are.
In terms of contradictions so what? What field of endevour doesn't have them or try to examine them? As far as I can see they all agree that God can be found and can be found in Christ. Again I would question how far various christian contradictions can be used as an excuse not to pursue God. It seems pretty certain that the christian enterprise is geared towards the finding of God. The bald assertion that all lives involve searching for God without hope of finding is wrong. As is the assumption that you think the search for the truth about this is a waste of time so everybody should. That is a question of preference.
Which brings us to the elements which have wound up in our argument.
Is God a baseless story. Not when we start thinking about cosmology or teleology or ontology. Even Dawkins acknowledges that teleology is a natural response to the universe he then goes to criticise Paley involving arguments from science.....and he had a good run until Bostrom, Musk De Grasse Tyson, you and Hillside revived it recently.
So no I don't think God is baseless neither do I think arguments for an absolute morality are baseless.
-
I am just noting your conflation with whether acting on belief there is no God rather than knowledge that there isn't...
I am not acting on the belief that there is no god, I am acting on the belief that there is no reason at all to think that there is a god.
...isn't merely a belief but a reasonable thing to do because the stakes are so small...
The stakes are irrelevant because whatever you think they may be, there is always some other baseless, unfalsifiable story that reverses them. This is something I've pointed out repeatedly and you continue to totally ignore it.
...and a gamble with Christian contradictions and just God with a bit of hidden God.
I keep telling you that I don't speak gibberish.
Is it the futility of the first that leads you to need unjust God or hidden God?
I haven't a clue what you think is futile and I don't need any sort of god.
We are arguing until the cows come in on the highness of the stakes and if you are familiar with Christianity you will therefore be aware of what they are.
They are only high if your god is unjust and unfair.
In terms of contradictions so what? What field of endevour doesn't have them or try to examine them?
I know of no other field in which the very basic notions (a just, loving god vers. everybody needing salvation via the sacrifice of Jesus) are so hopelessly contradictory.
The bald assertion that all lives involve searching for God without hope of finding is wrong.
I made no such assertion. What I said was that those who claim to have searched do not all reach the same conclusion - there isn't even a clear majority consensus. Hence, even if we imagine that there is a truth to be found, there is no reliable way of finding it.
Is God a baseless story. Not when we start thinking about cosmology or teleology or ontology.
Feel free to present an argument...
...De Grasse Tyson...
I am simply not going to get into the total idiocy of linking this to theism again. It's pathetic, stupid, and infantile.
So no I don't think God is baseless neither do I think arguments for an absolute morality are baseless.
As I said, feel free to provide a rational basis for either.
You could also stop running away from the majoroty of what is said to you.
-
Dear Don Corleone,
Just when you think you are out they drag you back in again
>:(
I am familiar enough with Christianity (and with talking to Christians) to see the contradictions. I am continually both amazed and deeply saddened at the way faith totally blinds people to obvious, glaring contradictions at very heart of their beliefs.
So Stranger old fella, which glaring contradictions "at the very heart" amaze and sadden you.
Gonnagle.
-
So Stranger old fella, which glaring contradictions "at the very heart" amaze and sadden you.
The idea of a god that is just, fair, and loving is a direct contradiction to the idea that humans all (except for one, who was god incarnate, so doesn't really count) stand condemned by said god for being 'sinners' and that we all need 'saving' by accepting the Jesus' sacrifice (dying for our sins and all that malarkey) by believing or 'having faith'.
The point being that if 100% of people fail a test, then it cannot possibly be said to be a fair and appropriate test for people. It cannot be a realistic choice for people to live up to god's standard (otherwise at least some people would do so). Condemning us for something we have no choice about is unjust and unfair.
In short, if god was going to make a people and then test them against some standard, it should have made better people or devised a more realistic test.
Offering a get-out to those who believe just compounds the injustice.
Some Christians further compound the injustice of it all by blaming "original sin" - some couple eating the wrong fruit long ago (or whatever that story is supposed to represent) that somehow (but undoubtedly due to a choice of this god) turned us all into 'sinners' - which is even more unjust and unfair.
Now, I'm happy to accept that not all Christians share this view - but there seem to be a fair proportion in my experience that subscribe to at least some parts of it. I assume our Vlad does from all his talk of the 'high stakes' of dismissing the idea of god in recent posts...
ETA: Oh and then there's the fact that even if all this is true - then it is a further injustice that there is no clear and unmistakeable message from god that warns us of it. All we have is one religion, divided into many sects, cults and denominations, amongst many others, which in turn are just one set of superstitions amongst many more. All without any objective indication that it is true...
-
Now, I'm happy to accept that not all Christians share this view - but there seem to be a fair proportion in my experience that subscribe to at least some parts of it. I assume our Vlad does from all his talk of the 'high stakes' of dismissing the idea of god in recent posts...
Your thesis itself is a part view. I see no Christ in it in which case how is it a Christian contradiction? I see no personal responsibility either.
-
The old line from Fulke Greville is often cited as a basic contradiction - created sick, and commanded to be well. I'm not sure if it's a genuine contradiction, but it illustrates something about Christianity that makes me queasy. I am guilty apparently, just like that, from the beginning, or as Stranger says, we have all failed. Hence strange statements like Pascal's, God wants us to love him and hate ourselves. Why?
-
I see no Christ in it...
...we all need 'saving' by accepting the Jesus' sacrifice (dying for our sins and all that malarkey) by believing or 'having faith'.
::)
-
::)
damn.
-
The idea of a god that is just, fair, and loving is a direct contradiction to the idea that humans all (except for one, who was god incarnate, so doesn't really count) stand condemned by said god for being 'sinners' and that we all need 'saving' by accepting the Jesus' sacrifice (dying for our sins and all that malarkey) by believing or 'having faith'.
The point being that if 100% of people fail a test, then it cannot possibly be said to be a fair and appropriate test for people. It cannot be a realistic choice for people to live up to god's standard (otherwise at least some people would do so). Condemning us for something we have no choice about is unjust and unfair.
In short, if god was going to make a people and then test them against some standard, it should have made better people or devised a more realistic test.
Offering a get-out to those who believe just compounds the injustice.
Some Christians further compound the injustice of it all by blaming "original sin" - some couple eating the wrong fruit long ago (or whatever that story is supposed to represent) that somehow (but undoubtedly due to a choice of this god) turned us all into 'sinners' - which is even more unjust and unfair.
Now, I'm happy to accept that not all Christians share this view - but there seem to be a fair proportion in my experience that subscribe to at least some parts of it. I assume our Vlad does from all his talk of the 'high stakes' of dismissing the idea of god in recent posts...
ETA: Oh and then there's the fact that even if all this is true - then it is a further injustice that there is no clear and unmistakeable message from god that warns us of it. All we have is one religion, divided into many sects, cults and denominations, amongst many others, which in turn are just one set of superstitions amongst many more. All without any objective indication that it is true...
You stand condemned for your own sin but there is salvation in Jesus Christ who takes our sin. Alas there are those with placards with
'I want my sin'' and I want sin'', 'I don't want God' and even 'I have no sin'....what, never? You've never put a foot wrong or have an unloving attitude toward God or man.
That is, I think, at the bottom of Stranger's objection. He ignores the roots of the problem, the sociological aspects of the issue and any sense of individual agency or responsibility( That old devil empiricism again ). It is easier to make God the bad guy in order to righteously avoid him.
It ignores Christ by eliminating any sense that at no point has God left mankind without a test that can be passed. Although it is not a test in the way Stranger thinks thus undermining his objection.
.
However this is about Finding God. Something your never going to want to do if you wish to continue rejecting God.
Is God just and fair to let people who don't want him not to get him. To walk away from him? Not if they think it's juster and fairer for him to have them stuffed, mounted and gazing at him for eternity
-
God is more sinful than any human if the accounts in the Bible about its behaviour were true. Who/what is going to take away its sins?
-
God is more sinful than any human if the accounts in the Bible about its behaviour were true. Who/what is going to take away its sins?
Sin is rebellion against God. God can't rebel against God's self.
-
Sin is rebellion against God. God can't rebel against God's self.
Rebelling against the evil Biblical god, if it exists, is like rebelling against Hitler.
-
God is more sinful than any human if the accounts in the Bible about its behaviour were true. Who/what is going to take away its sins?
Yes you've said this before but it never goes beyond assertion.
The Christian view is this though. The natural world is sullied by human misuse, who also misuse themselves and each other, indeed they go as far as to misuse religion and science.
The Garden of Eden story is a parable, an unsullied world a relationship with God and then mankind breaks the trust.
Stranger dwells on the expulsion and the damnation of all sinners to hell but God has never damned all to hell.
Human history has been that humanity mucks the world up a world that was not thus. Legally God could have said, ''you've messed up that's it, be gone with you.'' Jesus shouts that he hasn't.
So what sins do you think God is guilty of?
-
You stand condemned for your own sin but there is salvation in Jesus Christ who takes our sin.
Which changes the basic point not one jot.
This god holds us to a standard that is clearly unrealistic for humans to achieve (otherwise some would) and then compounds its unfairness by offering a "get out of jail free" card, not to those who did better than others in its test, but rather to those who swallow, hook, line, and sinker, what looks for all the world like an utterly absurd fairy tale.
This is exactly why I'm so amazed and saddened by Christians - they really don't get how utterly daft, and glaringly contradictory, the whole story is.
Alas there are those with placards with
'I want my sin'' and I want sin'', 'I don't want God' and even 'I have no sin'....
Where?
However this is about Finding God. Something your never going to want to do if you wish to continue rejecting God.
I'm not rejecting anything at all except at totally ridiculous, incoherent, contradictory, fantastical story, for which there is absolutely no evidence or sound rational argument.
It's just way, way too silly to take seriously...
-
Sin is rebellion against God. God can't rebel against God's self.
Nobody can rebel against a fictional character.
-
Nobody can rebel against a fictional character.
Prove God is a fictional character, also how would you know if you say you cant rule him out and your not prepared to find out if he really is?
-
Human history has been that humanity mucks the world up a world that was not thus. Legally God could have said, ''you've messed up that's it, be gone with you.'' Jesus shouts that he hasn't.
Which uncovers a whole new level of injustice and contradiction. An omnipotent, omniscient creator would also be omni-responsible. There can be no free will with respect to such a being.
So what sins do you think God is guilty of?
We start with genocide...
-
Dear Stranger,
At the very heart That was my question, and your reply is a gloss over of all the things you think are wrong, no depth to your reply, a typical ( as our Vlad is fond of saying ) Dawkinsian reply.
The idea of a god that is just, fair, and loving is a direct contradiction to the idea that humans all (except for one, who was god incarnate, so doesn't really count) stand condemned by said god for being 'sinners' and that we all need 'saving' by accepting the Jesus' sacrifice (dying for our sins and all that malarkey) by believing or 'having faith'.
We are all sinners, but lets take religion out of the equation, none of us is perfect, we all suffer ( to a man woman and child ) from greed, jealousy, envy, hatred, at the very heart of Christianity we are taught to guard against these sins, these imperfections, Christians have Our Lord as a template, we try to behave as near to him and his teachings as is humanly possible, being a Christian is no get out clause, but I do agree with you that there are some Christians who do think this way.
The point being that if 100% of people fail a test, then it cannot possibly be said to be a fair and appropriate test for people. It cannot be a realistic choice for people to live up to god's standard (otherwise at least some people would do so). Condemning us for something we have no choice about is unjust and unfair.
A test, life is a bloody test, from the minute you are born until the day you shuffle off, it is all about how you deal with that test, the Bible is littered with stories about how we deal with that, The Prodigal son, poor old Job, Ecclesiastes.
In short, if god was going to make a people and then test them against some standard, it should have made better people or devised a more realistic test.
Make better people, a more realistic test, I honestly don't know how to answer this one.
Some Christians further compound the injustice of it all by blaming "original sin" - some couple eating the wrong fruit long ago (or whatever that story is supposed to represent) that somehow (but undoubtedly due to a choice of this god) turned us all into 'sinners' - which is even more unjust and unfair.
Aye some! But original sin is a crock, and then you witter on about the Adam and Eve Myth, that story is there to make you think, think deeply about the condition of man, other Myths are available, but as usual this one is brought up time and time again, why because you don't want to study and read the Bible, you just want to gloss over.
ETA: Oh and then there's the fact that even if all this is true - then it is a further injustice that there is no clear and unmistakeable message from god that warns us of it. All we have is one religion, divided into many sects, cults and denominations, amongst many others, which in turn are just one set of superstitions amongst many more. All without any objective indication that it is true...
No unmistakable message, well what I see, at the very heart of Christianity is to fight injustice, to guard against greed, Love for our fellow man, compassion, to take a good hard look at ourselves before we start pointing the finger at others.
You would find this out yourself, if you stopped looking at all the negatives and started exploring the good.
Gonnagle.
-
Which changes the basic point not one jot.
This god holds us to a standard that is clearly unrealistic for humans to achieve (otherwise some would) and then compounds its unfairness by offering a "get out of jail free" card, not to those who did better than others in its test, but rather to those who swallow, hook, line, and sinker, what looks for all the world like an utterly absurd fairy tale.
This is exactly why I'm so amazed and saddened by Christians - they really don't get how utterly daft, and glaringly contradictory, the whole story is.
Where?
I'm not rejecting anything at all except at totally ridiculous, incoherent, contradictory, fantastical story, for which there is absolutely no evidence or sound rational argument.
It's just way, way too silly to take seriously...
Again rules out all personal responsibility since Christianity states that mankind trusted(loved) God then breeched that trust. Christ is God taking the consequences of that breech onto himself. But if you still want your rebellion against God and don't want him God will not make you because that eliminates your capacity for trust.
Those are the elements lacking from your account and thats where I depart from it.
On another point how does offering everyone a get out of jail free card compound unfairness? God has not settled on merely intellectual assent but the capacity to love and free will.
-
Well said, Stranger. Applause.
Ippy, I avoid the hassle of Vlad's posts by not reading them!! :)
Hi Susan, logically you're right but I can't help it, there's some sort of horrible fascination watching each time someone responds to his outpourings how he manages to give such incongruous responses to anything asked of him.
He has so little understanding of the world about him and this turns his clashes into something like digging a hole through two short planks of wood with a small pin, in the hope that one day the hole will have gone all of the way through.
One of his most obvious inabilities is that, to this day he has never been able to understand exactly what secularism is, I've seen many efforts taken to enlighten him on this including my own but he has never progressed.
Kind regards ippy
-
We are all sinners, but lets take religion out of the equation, none of us is perfect, we all suffer ( to a man woman and child ) from greed, jealousy, envy, hatred, at the very heart of Christianity we are taught to guard against these sins, these imperfections, Christians have Our Lord as a template, we try to behave as near to him and his teachings as is humanly possible, being a Christian is no get out clause, but I do agree with you that there are some Christians who do think this way.
I don't think that anybody, least of all me, is claiming that humans don't have what most of us regard as imperfections. We certainly do have greed, jealousy, envy, hatred, and so on - things that we'd be much better off without or at least minimizing.
A test, life is a bloody test, from the minute you are born until the day you shuffle off, it is all about how you deal with that test, the Bible is littered with stories about how we deal with that, The Prodigal son, poor old Job, Ecclesiastes.
It's also littered with unedifying tales of a god of war, slaughter, genocide and the like - alongside very silly sets of rules and harsh punishments for imaginary crimes ("Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live").
Aye some! But original sin is a crock, and then you witter on about the Adam and Eve Myth, that story is there to make you think, think deeply about the condition of man, other Myths are available, but as usual this one is brought up time and time again, why because you don't want to study and read the Bible, you just want to gloss over.
I have read the bible (and studied it in my youth). Returning to it, I find it incoherent - yes, it's not without it's inspiring bits, but it's by no means consistent, nor does it actually deliver a single coherent message. I often wish Christians would read their bibles - I mean to see what it says, rather than to confirm what they already 'know'.
No unmistakable message, well what I see, at the very heart of Christianity is to fight injustice, to guard against greed, Love for our fellow man, compassion, to take a good hard look at ourselves before we start pointing the finger at others.
Which are all things that I cannot argue against. I did say that I was happy to accept that not all Christians shared the views I was outlining.
What I don't get is why you need to believe in a god in order to do all this or why you'd identify with the god of the bible (other than a carefully cherry-picked version).
-
Prove God is a fictional character, also how would you know if you say you cant rule him out and your not prepared to find out if he really is?
N P F again Vlad.
Regards ippy
-
Again rules out all personal responsibility since Christianity states that mankind trusted(loved) God then breeched that trust.
If what 'mankind' did in the past, is affecting how this god of yours judges individuals now, then that is a further injustice.
Christ is God taking the consequences of that breech onto himself.
Since the consequences would have been unjustly visited on us in the first place, that really isn't very impressive.
But if you still want your rebellion against God and don't want him God will not make you because that eliminates your capacity for trust.
I can't rebel against something I don't believe exists. Once again - I see absolutely no reason to take this seriously and many, many reasons (already given) to regard it as a very silly fairy tale.
On another point how does offering everyone a get out of jail free card compound unfairness?
Because it's apparently offered for being very gullible and swallowing multiple contradictions - without a shred of evidence or sound reasoning.
-
It reminds me of the 3-card trick, or Find the Lady. It's impossible to get it right, because the cards are stacked against you. The solution is to walk away, or in other words, reject the initial premises.
Initial premise - no man is good. Mark 10: 18.
-
Dear Stranger,
At the very heart That was my question, and your reply is a gloss over of all the things you think are wrong, no depth to your reply, a typical ( as our Vlad is fond of saying ) Dawkinsian reply.
We are all sinners, but lets take religion out of the equation, none of us is perfect, we all suffer ( to a man woman and child ) from greed, jealousy, envy, hatred, at the very heart of Christianity we are taught to guard against these sins, these imperfections, Christians have Our Lord as a template, we try to behave as near to him and his teachings as is humanly possible, being a Christian is no get out clause, but I do agree with you that there are some Christians who do think this way.
A test, life is a bloody test, from the minute you are born until the day you shuffle off, it is all about how you deal with that test, the Bible is littered with stories about how we deal with that, The Prodigal son, poor old Job, Ecclesiastes.
Make better people, a more realistic test, I honestly don't know how to answer this one.
Aye some! But original sin is a crock, and then you witter on about the Adam and Eve Myth, that story is there to make you think, think deeply about the condition of man, other Myths are available, but as usual this one is brought up time and time again, why because you don't want to study and read the Bible, you just want to gloss over.
No unmistakable message, well what I see, at the very heart of Christianity is to fight injustice, to guard against greed, Love for our fellow man, compassion, to take a good hard look at ourselves before we start pointing the finger at others.
You would find this out yourself, if you stopped looking at all the negatives and started exploring the good.
Gonnagle.
Gonners, Stranger has given you a roots and branches answer to this post of yours, I would only like to add that you're obviously, in spite of being a Scot, a very decent caring individual but your thinking appears to me, to be naive in the extreme.
I doubt I'll ever be seen as a paragon of virtue but at the same time I do live as reasonable a moral and ethical life as most other people such as yourself, all without having any kind of belief in religion and I can't see why believers such as yourself for some reason, best known to yourselves, think we, all of us can only lead an equitable moral and ethical life by having a belief in something mythical, magical or superstition based.
It's not like there's a shred of viable evidence that would support your religious beliefs or lend any weight to arguments for them.
Regards ippy
-
If what 'mankind' did in the past, is affecting how this god of yours judges individuals now, then that is a further injustice.
No because justice, it could be argued, could have been to completely exclude for ever and everyone from God's presence....are you beginning to see the objections to personal ideas of justice being the benchmark?
You are conflating original sin with personal sin.
original sin is a fourth century concept. I think that my answer to this would best be summed up to one of your earlier claims that God should have made better humans. Funnily enough Christianity starts with humans in perfect communion with God and they spoilt the image. Think Movie stars and Botox. Ah I hear you object, their spoiling of themselves is due to their human environment...In which case your excuse for them and their agency actually produces a version of original sin.
Christ of course is God's answer to the human predicament.
-
Yes you've said this before but it never goes beyond assertion.
The Christian view is this though. The natural world is sullied by human misuse, who also misuse themselves and each other, indeed they go as far as to misuse religion and science.
The Garden of Eden story is a parable, an unsullied world a relationship with God and then mankind breaks the trust.
Stranger dwells on the expulsion and the damnation of all sinners to hell but God has never damned all to hell.
Human history has been that humanity mucks the world up a world that was not thus. Legally God could have said, ''you've messed up that's it, be gone with you.'' Jesus shouts that he hasn't.
So what sins do you think God is guilty of?
Read the OT, the god character featured there is a very nasty piece of work, flooding a whole planet is the work of a psycho as are its sycophants like Abraham and his offspring, who lie, cheat and are sexually active with women who probably have no say in the matter! >:(
I don't actually believe the god character exists as it seems like a very human production.
-
If what 'mankind' did in the past, is affecting how this god of yours judges individuals now, then that is a further injustice.
Since the consequences would have been unjustly visited on us in the first place, that really isn't very impressive.
I can't rebel against something I don't believe exists. Once again - I see absolutely no reason to take this seriously and many, many reasons (already given) to regard it as a very silly fairy tale.
Because it's apparently offered for being very gullible and swallowing multiple contradictions - without a shred of evidence or sound reasoning.
Brilliant.
A spanking ad hominem to end with....and coming from a set of arguments which often end in we don't know.
God is omni responsible? Tell that to the magistrates.
Can't rebel against something you don't believe in? isn't that the problem concerning the climate?
-
Read the OT, the god character featured there is a very nasty piece of work, flooding a whole planet is the work of a psycho as are its sycophants like Abraham and his offspring, who lie, cheat and are sexually active with women who probably have no say in the matter! >:(
I don't actually believe the god character exists as it seems like a very human production.
The flooding thing could be a story Floo, there were floods but they would be a folk memory.
Yes people are like that but they aren't damned to hell because as even the OT says they turn to God.
Yes the OT can be a bit nasty but it is about a chosen nation and mankind getting itself in the poo with input on the importance of a personal relationship with God.
It is easy to fall into the temptation of the modern fallacy but think of the people who read the OT, were shocked by it, became atheists and then developed the Atom bomb which must have incinerated thousands of babies.
-
Since the consequences would have been unjustly visited on us in the first place, that really isn't very impressive.
The consequences of messing up the environment and personal relationships are 'not visited on us'. Just like Botox is not visited upon a celebrity opting for it.
I want to disregard God, be myself without his interference and yet have all the benefits from him and of him? Is that logical, just or fair minded?
-
N P F again Vlad.
Regards ippy
Since none of the usual Fallacy Police seem to want to make an arrest here let me do a citizens one.
An NPF is when you say you cannot disprove X therefore X must exist.
Now take what I said
Prove God is a fictional character, also how would you know if you say you cant rule him out and your not prepared to find out if he really is?
I am not saying he cant prove God is fictional I am just asking him to prove it because he has positively asserted it an therefore has the burden of proof.
F minus.
-
No because justice, it could be argued, could have been to completely exclude for ever and everyone from God's presence...
It could be argued only by somebody with no normal human sense of justice (or someone blinded by faith). There is a reason why 'collective punishment' is considered to be a war crime.
...are you beginning to see the objections to personal ideas of justice being the benchmark?
I didn't say anything about a personal sense of justice. I've already explain this. If you want more information use google scholar to look for human sense of fairness or similar - much has been written about it.
You are conflating original sin with personal sin.
Nope - that would be you and your imaginary friend.
original sin is a fourth century concept. I think that my answer to this would best be summed up to one of your earlier claims that God should have made better humans. Funnily enough Christianity starts with humans in perfect communion with God and they spoilt the image. Think Movie stars and Botox. Ah I hear you object, their spoiling of themselves is due to their human environment...In which case your excuse for them and their agency actually produces a version of original sin.
I've already addressed this several times. If we are (by nature) sinners, then the test is unfair. It matters not one jot how we came to be that way; unless we each personally chose it, then it is unjust to judge us for it. Modern humans are not individually responsible for spoiling the "perfect communion", so we should not be held responsible for the consequences.
This isn't complicated.
Christ of course is God's answer to the human predicament.
To punish somebody else for our "crimes" (which we shouldn't have been judged for anyway, for the reasons given above) is equally unjust - not to mention plane, bloody stupid with shades of sadomasochism. To make this farcical parody of justice conditional on us believing in all this total twaddle is as sick and twisted as it is ridiculous.
God is omni responsible? Tell that to the magistrates.
If you can come up with a coherent notion of 'free will' that makes any sense from the point of view of an omnipotent, omniscient creator, feel free to provide it.
Can't rebel against something you don't believe in? isn't that the problem concerning the climate?
Of course you can't rebel against something you don't believe in - doubly so if said something is utterly absurd. What's the climate got to do with the price of eggs?
The consequences of messing up the environment and personal relationships are 'not visited on us'. Just like Botox is not visited upon a celebrity opting for it.
Once again for the rousing chorus...
If we are (by nature) sinners, then the test is unfair. It matters not one jot how we came to be that way; unless we each personally chose it, then it is unjust to judge us for it. Modern humans are not individually responsible for spoiling the "perfect communion", so we should not be held responsible for the consequences.
I want to disregard God, be myself without his interference and yet have all the benefits from him and of him? Is that logical, just or fair minded?
Once again for the hard-of-thinking/reaading (not sure which it is): I don't want to disregard 'god' - I don't believ there is such a being to disregard. Form that, it logically followes that I don't want any of the benefits from or of (whatever that means) 'him' - I don't believe there are any of those either.
There really is precious little point in a discussion where you say something, I respond and say why I disagree, you then ignore it and just repeat the same stuff again.
You'd also do yourself a favour if you stopped and thought before replying - then, at the very least, you might not have to post three replies to one of my posts.
You might even learn something.
-
Dear ippy,
Gonners, Stranger has given you a roots and branches answer to this post of yours, I would only like to add that you're obviously, in spite of being a Scot, a very decent caring individual but your thinking appears to me, to be naive in the extreme.
I doubt I'll ever be seen as a paragon of virtue but at the same time I do live as reasonable a moral and ethical life as most other people such as yourself, all without having any kind of belief in religion and I can't see why believers such as yourself for some reason, best known to yourselves, think we, all of us can only lead an equitable moral and ethical life by having a belief in something mythical, magical or superstition based.
It's not like there's a shred of viable evidence that would support your religious beliefs or lend any weight to arguments for them.
Sorry old son but the question put to The Stranger was "at the very heart" and the answers I got were the basic atheist lets look at the bad bits of religion, he tells me he has studied the Bible, well I see no evidence, and just for the record, I am still studying, it would take a life time just to fully understand the Four Gospels, further I don't preach "I am better than you because I am a Christian" only that my faith my Christianity is my path, other paths are available.
And to end old son, when you say there is not a shred of evidence, I would say every single person on this forum is religious, it is what we are, it is how we think, someone a while back showed us some evidence that our very distant cousins showed signs of religion, the monkey or chimpanzee, we are Homo religious, me, I ask why? And please don't bother with the stock answer " we are mean seeking creatures who needed a reason for the volcano erupting".
Gonnagle.
PS: I like being human, in my next reincarnation if not a human then a Labrador with a good owner who does not believe in castration :o
Sorry forgot to add, definitely not an atheist, well maybe a cheerful atheist, always wondered why Sir Terry thought of himself as a cheerful atheist, where the falling Angel meets the rising ape.
-
Sorry old son but the question put to The Stranger was "at the very heart" and the answers I got were the basic atheist lets look at the bad bits of religion...
I'm rather surprised at this. The answer I gave to you pretty much agreed with what you seem to think of as the "very heart" of your faith.
...he tells me he has studied the Bible, well I see no evidence...
You seemed to be presenting the bible as entirely positive and I pointed out that it wasn't all positive. Do you disagree? IIRC you've criticized others for condemning homosexuality which the bible also condemns.
And I still don't understand why you need to believe in a god (let alone the biblical one) to support the ideas you presented as the the "very heart". I'm actually curious.
And to end old son, when you say there is not a shred of evidence, I would say every single person on this forum is religious...
I would say all humans have a tendency to be superstitious, rather than religious in particular. There are good (evolutionary) reasons why this may be the case but you don't seem to like them...
-
If we are (by nature) sinners, then the test is unfair.
Again, what test? and surely we live in a universe with consequences, You are asking for suspension of consequence? How would the universe be then. What are the consequences of turning away from God.
And yes for everything you've done you get an eternity in a luxury resort villa enjoying the emanences of God's energies without having to put up with him himself, cake....and eat it too!!!
Christ takes the consequences on himself as you do if your boy smashes the school 60 inch OLED but in this case with himself. The way is now open to the Father.
-
Again, what test?
How many times have I made this point - and now, you say you don't understand...?
The test which means we are condemned unless we get 'saved'. The test that everyone fails (except for god incarnate) and becomes a 'sinner' and is therefore inappropriate, unjust, and unfair.
...and surely we live in a universe with consequences, You are asking for suspension of consequence?
Yes we do, and no I'm not.
What are the consequences of turning away from God.
There is no evidence or reasoning to suggest that there is a god and therefore any such thing as turning away from it or any consequences for for doing so (if it were actually possible).
When will you get it into your head that I don't take any of the ideas of any of the multitudinous and contradictory god-stories at all seriously - so it's utterly pointless asking me questions that assume that your pet god-concept is actually real?
And yes for everything you've done you get an eternity in a luxury resort villa enjoying the emanences of God's energies without having to put up with him himself, cake....and eat it too!!!
Is this another part of your fantasy?
Christ takes the consequences on himself as you do if your boy smashes the school 60 inch OLED but in this case with himself.
Nobody (sane) blames a kid for being a kid, neither do they blame a child for its great grandfather's mistakes.
The way is now open to the Father.
But only, it would seem, if we believe this silly nonsense.
-
Since none of the usual Fallacy Police seem to want to make an arrest here let me do a citizens one.
An NPF is when you say you cannot disprove X therefore X must exist.
Now take what I said
Prove God is a fictional character, also how would you know if you say you cant rule him out and your not prepared to find out if he really is?
I am not saying he cant prove God is fictional I am just asking him to prove it because he has positively asserted it an therefore has the burden of proof.
F minus.
Now your piling more N P F onto N P F, not that you'll answer, why can't you understand you're using N P F?
Regards ippy
-
Dear ippy,
Sorry old son but the question put to The Stranger was "at the very heart" and the answers I got were the basic atheist lets look at the bad bits of religion, he tells me he has studied the Bible, well I see no evidence, and just for the record, I am still studying, it would take a life time just to fully understand the Four Gospels, further I don't preach "I am better than you because I am a Christian" only that my faith my Christianity is my path, other paths are available.
And to end old son, when you say there is not a shred of evidence, I would say every single person on this forum is religious, it is what we are, it is how we think, someone a while back showed us some evidence that our very distant cousins showed signs of religion, the monkey or chimpanzee, we are Homo religious, me, I ask why? And please don't bother with the stock answer " we are mean seeking creatures who needed a reason for the volcano erupting".
Gonnagle.
PS: I like being human, in my next reincarnation if not a human then a Labrador with a good owner who does not believe in castration :o
Sorry forgot to add, definitely not an atheist, well maybe a cheerful atheist, always wondered why Sir Terry thought of himself as a cheerful atheist,
Forget the good and bad about having a religious belief, it would make just as much sense to be a unicornist or a tooth fairyest there's equally as much viable evidence for any one of them, unless you can find something viable that proves me wrong, something I'm yet to see coming from any direction.
I suppose I could be taken for a 'Star Trekist', but then perhaps it could be better for all to be as serious about superstition based beliefs as I'am about 'Star Trekism'.
By the way your reference to the volcano example, sorry Gonners but it's a good one and it'll stand until such time religiosos can find anything better and as you must know that's unlikely.
I don't think of myself as an atheist, it's a little like calling someone a non-stamp collector, I prefer, I'm a non-religious person.
I put down my presence on this forum to a fascination I have as to how so many still hold these superstition based religious beliefs?
Kind regards ippy
By the way my maternal grandfather was a full blooded Scot, I try my best to keep it quite, does that make me kiltic?
-
How many times have I made this point - and now, you say you don't understand...?
The test which means we are condemned unless we get 'saved'. The test that everyone fails (except for god incarnate) and becomes a 'sinner' and is therefore inappropriate, unjust, and unfair.
And the inappropriateness etc is your opinion. Very much borne out of a mind set with freedom from consequence. Imagine if the driving test was run along those lines.
Why should the bullies and persecutors for example be allowed to ply their trade in heaven? Would they even want to be in a ''place'' where they are forbidden to do so?
Some get saved and thus have passed the test if you can use that terminology in the context of personal relationships.
I can only account for the all fail as in all sin but that is our choice.
If there is a test it's what we do with Christ and thus God.
-
Now your piling more N P F onto N P F, not that you'll answer, why can't you understand you're using N P F?
Regards ippy
Well we seem at odds with what an NPF is. What do the secular humanists say it is Ippy?
-
Well we seem at odds with what an NPF is. What do the secular humanists say it is Ippy?
This has been explained to you so many times by so many posters, what would be the point of trying even, you don't even understand secular humanism; I notice you can actually write the words secular and humanism.
Regards ippy
-
Prove God is a fictional character, also how would you know if you say you cant rule him out and your not prepared to find out if he really is?
The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. You are just asking people to prove that the Emperor has got no clothes on. Doesn't work like that.
-
This has been explained to you so many times by so many posters, what would be the point of trying even, you don't even understand secular humanism; I notice you can actually write the words secular and humanism.
Regards ippy
No It seems like every time I ask I'm told it has been explained many etc.
What has NPF got to do with SH apart from withholding their understanding from enquierers?
-
The burden of proof lies with those making the claim. You are just asking people to prove that the Emperor has got no clothes on. Doesn't work like that.
Yes and Stranger is claiming that God is a fictional character.
-
And the inappropriateness etc is your opinion. Very much borne out of a mind set with freedom from consequence. Imagine if the driving test was run along those lines.
The driving test is run along the lines I am suggesting. It tests if the person is good enough to be relatively safe on the road - it does not set an impossible standard of total perfection.
Imagine if everybody failed the driving test (because it was unrealistically difficult). Then imagine that there was a story that the One Perfect Driver passed the test long ago, was then taken away and tortured to death and people could get an exemption from the test if they really, really believed the story. Then you'd have the equivalent of your god's idea of fairness.
Why should the bullies and persecutors for example be allowed to ply their trade in heaven? Would they even want to be in a ''place'' where they are forbidden to do so?
Now you seem to be suggesting that the 'saved' are actually better people than the rest of us - do you have evidence?
If there is a test it's what we do with Christ and thus God.
And that is manifestly unfair and unjust - because it isn't about being 'good', it isn't even about accepting a clear and obvious message, it's about believing daft old stories that have exactly the same credibility as every other superstition on the planet: none whatsoever.
-
The driving test is run along the lines I am suggesting.
No, they don't let everybody pass. The driving test is not appropriate say for someone who is blind or subject to fitting etc.
The 'test' which was failed was a relationship between man and God. That's what the Adam and eve story is about. God takes the consequences in Christ. Christ is the way god forgives us.
It's about a betrayal of trust and love in which two parties loved and trusted and one breached. There was no finish line or scale of goodness to be tipped over once enough deeds had been done God loved man and visa versa from the beginning.
All the good deeds in the world would not tip the scale of justice because that isn't the right model.
In any case all good deeds without loving god would leave one good deed undone wouldn't it
-
The driving test is run along the lines I am suggesting. It tests if the person is good enough to be relatively safe on the road - it does not set an impossible standard of total perfection.
Imagine if everybody failed the driving test (because it was unrealistically difficult). Then imagine that there was a story that the One Perfect Driver passed the test long ago, was then taken away and tortured to death and people could get an exemption from the test if they really, really believed the story. Then you'd have the equivalent of your god's idea of fairness.
Now you seem to be suggesting that the 'saved' are actually better people than the rest of us - do you have evidence?
I'm not suggesting that at all since we all have the need to be saved.
In terms of better people how often will an atheist complain if a murderer announces themselves saved? Maybe the concept of 'Better person' should be batted back to atheists.
if the test is entering a relationship with God then the only exempt people from the test are those who exempt themselves I would have thought.
-
Yes and Stranger is claiming that God is a fictional character.
Which would be the default conclusion if the primary claim is not substantiated.
-
I'm not suggesting that at all since we all have the need to be saved.
In terms of better people how often will an atheist complain if a murderer announces themselves saved? Maybe the concept of 'Better person' should be batted back to atheists.
if the test is entering a relationship with God then the only exempt people from the test are those who exempt themselves I would have thought.
Saved from what?
-
No, they don't let everybody pass.
Nowhere have I suggested that everybody should pass. A test is obviously inappropriate if everybody passes or if everybody fails.
The 'test' which was failed was a relationship between man and God. That's what the Adam and eve story is about. God takes the consequences in Christ. Christ is the way god forgives us.
It's about a betrayal of trust and love in which two parties loved and trusted and one breached. There was no finish line or scale of goodness to be tipped over once enough deeds had been done God loved man and visa versa from the beginning.
All the good deeds in the world would not tip the scale of justice because that isn't the right model.
I've explained multiple times now why this is totally unfair and unjust and you keep ignoring in favour of just repeating the same thins.
One last time: individuals today are not responsible for whatever the Adam and Eve story represents, so it is unfair and unjust for us to be facing the consequences.
It is doubly unjust, barbaric, sick, and sadistic to punish Christ for it as some sort of substitute. Then the criteria for forgiveness is to believe this sick, silly, twisted fable of an unjust, barbaric god and call it 'good' and 'loving'.
It's not only unjust, it's sickening.
In any case all good deeds without loving god would leave one good deed undone wouldn't it
No.
-
Which would be the default conclusion if the primary claim is not substantiated.
And if the default conclusion turns out to be a positive assertion?
I other words Torridon you and the atheists are bending the rules to suit yourselves.
Shoddy!
-
I'm not suggesting that at all since we all have the need to be saved.
So what was the point of this:
Why should the bullies and persecutors for example be allowed to ply their trade in heaven? Would they even want to be in a ''place'' where they are forbidden to do so?
?
If being 'saved' doesn't make us better people, then we'd all still have a faults ('saved' or not) when going to heaven becomes an issue...
-
Nowhere have I suggested that everybody should pass. A test is obviously inappropriate if everybody passes or if everybody fails.
I've explained multiple times now why this is totally unfair and unjust and you keep ignoring in favour of just repeating the same thins.
One last time: individuals today are not responsible for whatever the Adam and Eve story represents, so it is unfair and unjust for us to be facing the consequences.
It is doubly unjust, barbaric, sick, and sadistic to punish Christ for it as some sort of substitute. Then the criteria for forgiveness is to believe this sick, silly, twisted fable of an unjust, barbaric god and call it 'good' and 'loving'.
It's not only unjust, it's sickening.
No.
The trouble is your misreading of the Christian account as I have spelt out to you.
Your conception of the test is winning Gods love by deeds. The adam and eve story is not about winning love but losing it because we choose to. Christ shows us that God is willing and wanting to resume that relationship. He loves us but do we love him?
Christ is God the son who voluntarily took on our sin. Every time we really forgive we take on in a way some of the consequences of anothers transgression toward us. They may not accept that forgiveness because they want an emnity between them and us.
You seem to be saying you don't want God but you don't want the consequences of not having him. To me that is a cake and eat it argument.
-
Yes and Stranger is claiming that God is a fictional character.
- Strictly speaking, I didn't claim that god was fictional, I said "Nobody can rebel against a fictional character." (#504 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15180.msg719517#msg719517)).
- Any god that would leave any actual, objective evidence of its existence in the world can be dismissed as fictional due to the total lack of such evidence.
- Any god that is self-contradictory can be dismissed as fictional because of the contradiction.
- I have spent many of the intervening posts pointing out contradictions in many of the Christian gods.
- From 2, 3, and 4, I'm happy to stand by the claim I didn't make with regard to the sort of gods indicated.
-
So what was the point of this:?
If being 'saved' doesn't make us better people, then we'd all still have a faults ('saved' or not) when going to heaven becomes an issue...
By now I hope you will pre-empt what I am going to say.
Love is transformative and Gods love must be transformative.
To go away from God is to desire not to be transformed.
Also I posed the question earlier, would people who would wish to ply ''evil trade'' want to be transformed?
-
By now I hope you will pre-empt what I am going to say.
Love is transformative and Gods love must be transformative.
To go away from God is to desire not to be transformed.
Also I posed the question earlier, would people who would wish to ply ''evil trade'' want to be transformed?
God and love is an oxymoron. ::)
-
Your conception of the test is winning Gods love by deeds.
If god is going to sit in judgement, that is the only fair and just way to do it.
The adam and eve story is not about winning love but losing it because we choose to.
No human today has made that choice.
Christ shows us that God is willing and wanting to resume that relationship.
Christ shows us nothing of the sort - it's twisted, barbaric, sadistic nonsense.
He loves us but do we love him?
There is nothing to love and if this bizarre god of yours actually did exist, it wouldn't deserve love.
Christ is God the son who voluntarily took on our sin.
The only reason everybody has 'sin' is because the test for 'sin' is inappropriate to human nature. God should have made better people or produced a more appropriate way of judging them.
The fact that everybody is a sinner condemns god as unfair and unjust.
You seem to be saying you don't want God but you don't want the consequences of not having him. To me that is a cake and eat it argument.
How many times? I don't believe in the choice or the consequences.
What's more, if this daft, self-contradictory fable, which has no supporting evidence and no rational basis, turns out to be true (which I don't believe for a second), then it would be further evidence of god's unfairness.
Love is transformative and Gods love must be transformative.
Where is the evidence?
To go away from God is to desire not to be transformed.
You can't 'go away' from a daft old myth.
Also I posed the question earlier, would people who would wish to ply ''evil trade'' want to be transformed?
Well, that would be a much better and more appropriate test than perfection. Those people who want to "ply an evil trade" could be punished and those of us who are just trying to do as best we can, with our imperfect human nature, should not be. Simples.
There you go, you can be more fair-minded than your god... :)
-
God and love is an oxymoron. ::)
Not everybody agrees Floo or finds the hungry wolvine look of a New atheist in full ridicule mode appealing.
-
And if the default conclusion turns out to be a positive assertion?
I other words Torridon you and the atheists are bending the rules to suit yourselves.
Shoddy!
That's wrong though. You're just playing semantic games. Not impressed.
-
That's wrong though. You're just playing semantic games. Not impressed.
Any positive assertion has the burden of proof ''God is fictional'' has no trace of the negative. Examine the sentence if you wish.
-
Any positive assertion has the burden of proof ''God is fictional'' has no trace of the negative. Examine the sentence if you wish.
Like I said, I'm not impressed by word games, and that's all you are doing.
-
Like I said, I'm not impressed by word games, and that's all you are doing.
I'm sorry you are going to have to submit your working out since 'God is fictional 'is clearly a positive assertion
Just as 'Flying spaghetti monster is fictional', or 'Leprechauns are fictional' and yet you try to find an antitheist who would let you get away with those? :)
-
Nobody can rebel against a fictional character.
The spirit of Oscar is not dead! ::)
-
I'm sorry you are going to have to submit your working out since 'God is fictional 'is clearly a positive assertion
Just as 'Flying spaghetti monster is fictional', or 'Leprechauns are fictional' and yet you try to find an antitheist who would let you get away with those? :)
Already explained that in #537. The primary claim is that god exists; it is that which has a burden of proof. All you are doing is picking up on responses to the primary claim hoping to find some wording that you can parade as if it were an original claim carrying an equivalent burden of proof. You're not fooling anyone.
-
Already explained that in #537. The primary claim is that god exists; it is that which has a burden of proof.
Agreed but not because it is the primary claim but because it is a positive assertion.
-
Not everybody agrees Floo or finds the hungry wolvine look of a New atheist in full ridicule mode appealing.
Not everyone has read the Bible, which lists god's atrocities .
-
Not everyone has read the Bible, which lists god's atrocities .
Unfortunately they are mans atrocities and the consequence of falling away. It's in genesis Floo since that is your reference. Having to rescue or preserve human goodness in warfare by terrible means is unfortunately the stamp of a fallen world. As Richard Feyneman might have possibly told you.
-
LR does have a point: they may have been human atrocities, but they were specifically commanded by God, according to the account.
-
Unfortunately they are mans atrocities and the consequence of falling away. It's in genesis Floo since that is your reference. Having to rescue or preserve human goodness in warfare by terrible means is unfortunately the stamp of a fallen world. As Richard Feyneman might have possibly told you.
The flood was god's atrocity. >:( God supposedly created human nature so it could enjoy humans suffering, imo.
-
The flood was god's atrocity. >:( God supposedly created human nature so it could enjoy humans suffering, imo.
It's rare that natural disasters are called atrocity so I suppose I shall have to grasp what your meaning is here.
Going back to Genesis Man is in unbroken communion with God so presumably that communion is not broken by natural processes. Prefall man does not experience death merely change.
After the fall In the course of time natural processes become visitations on humanity but clearly the quotidian events would be seen as a blessing and catastrophes as a curse from God. This would be the model until Zoroaster and the book of Job which introduce? the ideas of heaven and hell that death could indeed be just a change and a restoration of full communion and that bad things happen to good people and the sun shines on the righteous and unrighteousness etc.
So yes God allows natural processes in which we can get caught up in but also give the means to not only to survive but to prosper and also holds the promise of reuniting with him.
So I wonder if natural processes can be termed as atrocities.
-
The flood was god's atrocity. >:( God supposedly created human nature so it could enjoy humans suffering, imo.
It's rare that natural disasters are called atrocity so I suppose I shall have to grasp what your meaning is here.
Err... I'd of thought even you would be able to work out what she was referring to - go look at Genesis 6-8.
Going back to Genesis Man is in unbroken communion with God so presumably that communion is not broken by natural processes. Prefall man does not experience death merely change.
Once again we run up against your god's vindictive injustice - visiting the consequences of this 'fall' on furture generations who were not responsible for breaking this communion.
The god of the bible is simply not a just and fair being; it's a monster. This is why faith is so frightening: it blinds people to clear and obvious injustice.
-
It's rare that natural disasters are called atrocity so I suppose I shall have to grasp what your meaning is here.
Err... I'd of thought even you would be able to work out what she was referring to - go look at Genesis 6-8.
Once again we run up against your god's vindictive injustice - visiting the consequences of this 'fall' on furture generations who were not responsible for breaking this communion.
The god of the bible is simply not a just and fair being; it's a monster. This is why faith is so frightening: it blinds people to clear and obvious injustice.
I feel you are working on the model that God sees you doing wrong and then visits something bad on you. That is an historic model but another way of looking at this is to say since the fall we experience the natural world in an alienated way.
I don't think the lines were severed completely but this is due to the facility of Christ. As I said people find God in the OT but even where the communion is close and strong there is still rebellion. Neither Adam nor Eve or cain and Able, whoever the first humans to break the communion were guilty of Global warming or the Atom bomb.
I disagree with your conclusion that religion blinds people to clear and obvious injustice since that occurs in secular and atheist societies and individuals also.
That is why for example IMV a secularist can see 20 privileged bishops in the House of Lords but is completely oblivious to scores of other groups which are privileged but because they are secular, invisible.
-
I feel you are working on the model that God sees you doing wrong and then visits something bad on you.
I'm not working on such a model in general - but the the bible is quite explicit about this particular incident (Genesis 6:5-7 NIV):
5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”
(Quite what the other animals had done to deserve such fate, remains a mystery.)
That is an historic model but another way of looking at this is to say since the fall we experience the natural world in an alienated way.
Once again we have the unjust imposition of consequences of this 'fall' on people who never chose it.
I disagree with your conclusion that religion blinds people to clear and obvious injustice since that occurs in secular and atheist societies and individuals also.
I'm not saying that it doesn't happen outside of religion, but religion is very good at the job - witness all the otherwise good people who swallow the evil monster god of the OT without even admitting to themselves that that is what is being described. Then going on to accept that the condemnation of all of humanity as 'sinners' is somehow reasonable for humanity's creator to do, and that the perverse substitution of Christ is somehow an act of love.
That is why for example IMV a secularist can see 20 privileged bishops in the House of Lords but is completely oblivious to scores of other groups which are privileged but because they are secular, invisible.
Not really sure who you are referring to. How about an example?
-
No It seems like every time I ask I'm told it has been explained many etc.
What has NPF got to do with SH apart from withholding their understanding from enquierers?
Well Vlad, what do you expect, in spite of the numerous occasions you've had N P F fully explained too you and you still keep on giving out N P F's about this god belief of yours within your posts.
I can't prove leprechauns exist in the same way as you can't prove god exists, (for the sake of argument I believe in leprechauns and assert that they really do exist), it's now for you to prove me wrong about my asserted belief in leprechauns; now that's a N P F made by me referring to leprechauns.
I'm not making any serious claim about the existence of leprechauns, like most non-religious people, so it makes it the default position to take and incumbent on those that insist that leprechauns do exist to prove their case.
Substitute God for leprechauns and it's the same argument, different subject, try to demonstrate that you're not so thick that you can't understand this.
Don't expect any response from me if you choose to go into another one of your nonsense word jumble type responses.
Regards ippy
-
I'm not working on such a model in general - but the the bible is quite explicit about this particular incident (Genesis 6:5-7 NIV):
5 The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. 6 The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”
(Quite what the other animals had done to deserve such fate, remains a mystery.)
It's a story with true elements Stranger. Meditate on't.
-
Well Vlad, what do you expect, in spite of the numerous occasions you've had N P F fully explained too you and you still keep on giving out N P F's about this god belief of yours within your posts.
I can't prove leprechauns exist in the same way as you can't prove god exists, (for the sake of argument I believe in leprechauns and assert that they really do exist), it's now for you to prove me wrong about my asserted belief in leprechauns; now that's a N P F made by me referring to leprechauns.
I'm not making any serious claim about the existence of leprechauns, like most non-religious people, so it makes it the default position to take and incumbent on those that insist that leprechauns do exist to prove their case.
Substitute God for leprechauns and it's the same argument, different subject, try to demonstrate that you're not so thick that you can't understand this.
Don't expect any response from me if you choose to go into another one of your nonsense word jumble type responses.
Regards ippy
Why use the word Leprechauns though. Why not naturalism? or scientism? or empiricism? or materialism? Like God all explanations of the way things are.
IMHO it then becomes uncomfortable since they are positive assertions in there own right yet unfalsifiable.
-
It's a story with true elements Stranger.
What would those be?
Meditate on't.
Why?
-
What would those be?
Why?
Cos' anyone can get into shootin' from the hip mode on stuff which hasn't been read, Marked and inwardly digested properly. I speak as a fellow intellectual of course.
-
Why use the word Leprechauns though. Why not naturalism? or scientism? or empiricism? or materialism? Like God all explanations of the way things are.
IMHO it then becomes uncomfortable since they are positive assertions in there own right yet unfalsifiable.
True to form Vlad, you're incapable of giving a straight answer to anything, yes O K I've got it, would have been the correct answer, you just can't make yourself do it.
Regards ippy
-
True to form Vlad, you're incapable of giving a straight answer to anything, yes O K I've got it, would have been the correct answer, you just can't make yourself do it.
Regards ippy
yet again Ippy I am asking a question.
All answers have been given vis.
Antitheists are talking on religious issues with a shocking lack of knowledge of what they seem to want to talk about.
If atheism is merely the lack of faith in Gods then, as small pebbles fulfil that criteria, an atheist of that ilk has no more to say than a stone.
Let's face it Ippy what answer does your plucky, knees up muvva brown rhetorical question ''Its Crayp, Innit Vlad, wot you gotta say to that then Vlad, it's crayp, Craaayyyyyppp.!!!!! merit?
-
Antitheists are talking on religious issues with a shocking lack of knowledge of what they seem to want to talk about.
Odd that you never seem able to supply any of this pertinent knowledge. You often witter on about this supposed ignorance but you have never actually said, during the course of a debate on the validity of religion, "but what about X", where X represents a relevant fact from the field that materially affects the argument.
If atheism is merely the lack of faith in Gods then, as small pebbles fulfil that criteria, an atheist of that ilk has no more to say than a stone.
You seem to be confusing the definition of atheism with people who are atheists. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods but people who lack that belief often have other beliefs and attitudes (amazingly enough). They may, for example, want to promote a rational approach to matters of fact and hence to speak out against superstition.
-
You seem to be confusing the definition of atheism with people who are atheists. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods but people who lack that belief often have other beliefs and attitudes (amazingly enough). They may, for example, want to promote a rational approach to matters of fact and hence to speak out against superstition.
As maybe as that is the defence that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods is the retreat position if their prime identity, When Atheism is challenged.
Why not some honesty?, Something like I am an atheist because the way I see the world is not altered by religious claims......oh aye and how do you see the world?
This information is seldom forthcoming and so we have to glean what it is from the responses they give.
-
Odd that you never seem able to supply any of this pertinent knowledge. You often witter on about this supposed ignorance but you have never actually said, during the course of a debate on the validity of religion, "but what about X", where X represents a relevant fact from the field that materially affects the argument.
Your version of the fall in Genesis lacked and still does some important points and ends up a misinformed distortion avoiding the key point IMHO. In your account hard determinism and the myth of human responsibility is the conclusion. .
Dicky Underpants attempted later in the day to back you up suggesting the Adam and Eve account wasn't relevant.
Without the fall and God subsequently maintaining links with humanity there would be no Old Testament.
-
Dear Vlad,
Why not some honesty?, Something like I am an atheist because the way I see the world is not altered by religious claims......oh aye and how do you see the world?
Good luck with that old son, sometimes we see a small glimpse but then the petticoat is quickly covered and it is rapidly back to Flying Spaghetti Monsters and orbiting teapots :(
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Vlad,
Good luck with that old son, sometimes we see a small glimpse but then the petticoat is quickly covered and it is rapidly back to Flying Spaghetti Monsters and orbiting teapots :(
Gonnagle.
Good Morning Mr G
As usual you are straight there in a pithy sentence.
I have truly missed that recently. Good to see you back in action sir.
-
As maybe as that is the defence that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods is the retreat position if their prime identity, When Atheism is challenged.
Why not some honesty?, Something like I am an atheist because the way I see the world is not altered by religious claims......oh aye and how do you see the world?
This information is seldom forthcoming and so we have to glean what it is from the responses they give.
Is the way you see the world altered by Zeus ? The way we see the world is not a pastiche of things that we don't believe in, but rather the things that do seem plausible and useful to us. The vast majority of beliefs that humans have come up with are probably wrong or irrelevant; they might be curiosities at best.
-
As maybe as that is the defence that atheism is merely the lack of belief in Gods is the retreat position if their prime identity, When Atheism is challenged.
Why not some honesty?, Something like I am an atheist because the way I see the world is not altered by religious claims......oh aye and how do you see the world?
This information is seldom forthcoming and so we have to glean what it is from the responses they give.
I think it's much more that you don't seem to grasp the notion that atheism isn't a 'way of seeing the world'. I reject religious claims simply because I have never seen a good reason to take any of them seriously - as I've said many times.
What's hard about that?
Your version of the fall in Genesis lacked and still does some important points and ends up a misinformed distortion avoiding the key point IMHO. In your account hard determinism and the myth of human responsibility is the conclusion. .
But you haven't actually posted anything that changes my assessment - every time you post an account of it just confirms what I think and why I think it unjust and unfair.
Where's this missing information that makes all the difference?
Without the fall and God subsequently maintaining links with humanity there would be no Old Testament.
I know (that this is your belief), and it would still be unjust and unfair...
-
Good luck with that old son, sometimes we see a small glimpse but then the petticoat is quickly covered and it is rapidly back to Flying Spaghetti Monsters and orbiting teapots :(
Gonners - honesty I have no idea what you want to know. I'm totally mystified as to why "I see no reason to take the idea of god(s) seriously" isn't all that you need to know.
Please explain.
-
Dear Stranger,
See! Once again you turn it on its head, maybe that's a cue for a new thread, "give me ten good reasons why you are a atheist" but I fear the futility of that thread, stock one sentence answers >:(
Gonnagle.
-
Is the way you see the world altered by Zeus ? The way we see the world is not a pastiche of things that we don't believe in, but rather the things that do seem plausible and useful to us. The vast majority of beliefs that humans have come up with are probably wrong or irrelevant; they might be curiosities at best.
Still no closer as to what it is you belief just a gripe about what others believe.
-
Dear Stranger,
See! Once again you turn it on its head, maybe that's a cue for a new thread, "give me ten good reasons why you are a atheist" but I fear the futility of that thread, stock one sentence answers >:(
Gonnagle.
I genuinely don't understand what more you want to know. I promise I will answer any question you want to ask as honestly and completely as a can.
-
I think it's much more that you don't seem to grasp the notion that atheism isn't a 'way of seeing the world'. I reject religious claims simply because I have never seen a good reason to take any of them seriously - as I've said many times.
What's hard about that?
But you haven't actually posted anything that changes my assessment - every time you post an account of it just confirms what I think and why I think it unjust and unfair.
Where's this missing information that makes all the difference?
I know (that this is your belief), and it would still be unjust and unfair...
You can believe what you will and disagree with what you will. But if you are commentating on a Christian document or commenting on a Christian viewpoint you need at least to get it straight what is actually being said.
You were corrected at thes points
1. You asked why God did not make better humans who could have passed some test. Humans Started in perfect relationships with God and chose to spoil it.
2. God did not wickedly condemn all to death but through Christ keeps the way open
3. Your conflation of original sin and personal sin.
Humans were the better humans because they enjoyed a perfect relationship with God but threw that away.
Your conception of better humans presumably are people that have no choice but to love God......is that love.
You have ignored that Man walks away from God.
-
I genuinely don't understand what more you want to know. I promise I will answer any question you want to ask as honestly and completely as a can.
I think we want you to make good on this response.
Quote from: Private Frazer on Today at 08:14:53 AM
''If atheism is merely the lack of faith in Gods then, as small pebbles fulfil that criteria, an atheist of that ilk has no more to say than a stone.''
You seem to be confusing the definition of atheism with people who are atheists. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods but people who lack that belief often have other beliefs and attitudes (amazingly enough).
Go on then amaze us.
-
Once again you turn it on its head...
Is there a basic disconnect here? I regard it as fundamental (in everything, not only gods) that I need reasons in order to believe something.
If somebody presents anything - a new scientific hypothesis, a claim about some part of the world I I never visited, anything whatsoever that is a matter of fact (rather than a subjective opinion) then I need a reason to accept it. In some cases, the fact that I trust the person providing the information is enough but in other cases (say for a scientific hypothesis), I'd want to know what the evidence was or what reasoning had led to the conclusion.
If there are no such reasons, I see no reason to accept anything until and unless they are forthcoming. This is not an attitude unique to my approach to god claims.
-
You were corrected at thes points
1. You asked why God did not make better humans who could have passed some test. Humans Started in perfect relationships with God and chose to spoil it.
2. God did not wickedly condemn all to death but through Christ keeps the way open
3. Your conflation of original sin and personal sin.
Humans were the better humans because they enjoyed a perfect relationship with God but threw that away.
Your conception of better humans presumably are people that have no choice but to love God......is that love.
You have ignored that Man walks away from God.
I've addressed all these points (several times) and they still amount to unfair and unjust treatment of humanity by god. Do you need me to explain yet again...?
-
I think we want you to make good on this response.
Ask away.
Go on then amaze us.
With what? I gave an example immediately after you cut my quote. What else do you want to know?
-
Is there a basic disconnect here? I regard it as fundamental (in everything, not only gods) that I need reasons in order to believe something.
For some people the 'reason' is their belief satisfies a desire or need.
-
Dear Stranger,
See! Once again you turn it on its head, maybe that's a cue for a new thread, "give me ten good reasons why you are a atheist" but I fear the futility of that thread, stock one sentence answers >:(
Gonnagle.
Look, it's quite simple . You make the claim , it's up to you to provide the evidence for it . NOT ME.
But we've been here before , probably every day and people like you have NEVER provided any.
So if any one is mentally ill it's those who believe without evidence .
-
For some people the 'reason' is their belief satisfies a desire or need.
A bit like a child who invents an imaginary friend to satisfy some need ?
-
Is there a basic disconnect here? I regard it as fundamental (in everything, not only gods) that I need reasons in order to believe something.
If somebody presents anything - a new scientific hypothesis, a claim about some part of the world I I never visited, anything whatsoever that is a matter of fact (rather than a subjective opinion) then I need a reason to accept it. In some cases, the fact that I trust the person providing the information is enough but in other cases (say for a scientific hypothesis), I'd want to know what the evidence was or what reasoning had led to the conclusion.
If there are no such reasons, I see no reason to accept anything until and unless they are forthcoming. This is not an attitude unique to my approach to god claims.
Nothing here that a theist couldn't have said.
-
Dear Stranger,
Well I asked a long time ago, but here goes again, I am told atheism is just blah blah blah, but if I go on to the interweb, I can usually find some atheist foaming at the mouth, telling us about the evils of religion, the question is this, in your daily life, your thoughts and the way you view the world does your atheism affect this.
Here is an example, I am all for a day of rest for the whole world, a day when we shut down, a day for quiet contemplation, a day when we stick two fingers up at consumerism and yes I know it is pie in the sky stuff, I know we could never fully achieve this but a move towards this sort of thing would be nice, good for the planet, but when this question is raised on this forum the atheists are all over it, they talk of rights and going shopping 24/7 is a great thing.
Now I don't want to debate the above but is it a small sample of how your atheism affects your daily life?
Gonnagle.
-
For some people the 'reason' is their belief satisfies a desire or need.
Something wrong with desire or need?
Seems like you have a desire and need to avoid desire and need.
-
Is the way you see the world altered by Zeus ? The way we see the world is not a pastiche of things that we don't believe in, but rather the things that do seem plausible and useful to us. The vast majority of beliefs that humans have come up with are probably wrong or irrelevant; they might be curiosities at best.
That's a nice phrase - a pastiche of things we don't believe in. Of course, there are an infinite number of them.
I also think that there isn't a 'way I see the world'. I mean, that there isn't something consistent and unified about my views. I don't have a 'world view'. Of course, maybe other people do, I'm not sure. Things loom into my consciousness and loom out again, and some things seem beautiful and ugly and useful and pointless. I can make sense of it in a limited way - for example, the buses run about every 5 minutes into Hammersmith - but beyond that - it's OK not to make sense of it.
-
Look, it's quite simple . You make the claim , it's up to you to provide the evidence for it . NOT ME.
I guess if there is an argument in philosophy which led me on the path to God it is the moral argument funnily enough in a god free world evolved altruism and moral irrealism are not good enough answers to current human behaviour.
Firstly if Darwinian evolved altruism did eventually fully equate to a moral philosophy it would constitute an objective morality and still not be able to exclude God or eliminate actual wrongdoing.
With you Walter, we are back to gleaning your world view. I guess it's not being able to see, feel, hear, touch, taste or smell God.
-
Dear Waltz sing ma tilda,
Look, it's quite simple . You make the claim , it's up to you to provide the evidence for it . NOT ME.
But we've been here before , probably every day and people like you have NEVER provided any.
So if any one is mentally ill it's those who believe without evidence .
Grrrr! Grrrr! Mr Angry Atheist, aye I am mentally ill! I would blame it on atheists but the Tories are a much better reason >:(
Gonnagle.
-
That's a nice phrase - a pastiche of things we don't believe in. Of course, there are an infinite number of them.
I also think that there isn't a 'way I see the world'. I mean, that there isn't something consistent and unified about my views. I don't have a 'world view'. Of course, maybe other people do, I'm not sure. Things loom into my consciousness and loom out again, and some things seem beautiful and ugly and useful and pointless. I can make sense of it in a limited way - for example, the buses run about every 5 minutes into Hammersmith - but beyond that - it's OK not to make sense of it.
Ah yes, dear wigginhall, having a world view seems like it must be exhausting. You have to be re-evaluating everything all the time just in case there needs to be a change. I rather wish I could get that bus to Hammersmith and we could have a quiet pint in a pub and let the oasis of calm deal with all the looming things.
-
Well I asked a long time ago, but here goes again, I am told atheism is just blah blah blah, but if I go on to the interweb, I can usually find some atheist foaming at the mouth, telling us about the evils of religion...
You will indeed. The point being that being an atheist is a separate (lack of) belief to thinking religion is evil. I guess you'd have to be an atheist to think that religion is evil but many atheists (in my experience) simply don't care very much about religion - but they're not the ones who post a lot on the internet about the subject (for the obvious reason that they don't care).
So atheism is lacking belief in any gods and some people who lack that belief also think religion is evil.
...the question is this, in your daily life, your thoughts and the way you view the world does your atheism affect this.
I don't think so, as such. For myself I take the view that people should base beliefs (about matters of fact) on evidence and reasoning, so whenever people don't do that, then I tend to react against it. That's whether it's climate change denial, anti-vax, horoscopes, paranormal, ghosts, alien abductions, fake moon landings, religions, or whatever else.
ETA: So it's more the reason for my atheism that affects my daily life.
Here is an example, I am all for a day of rest for the whole world, a day when we shut down, a day for quiet contemplation, a day when we stick two fingers up at consumerism and yes I know it is pie in the sky stuff, I know we could never fully achieve this but a move towards this sort of thing would be nice, good for the planet, but when this question is raised on this forum the atheists are all over it, they talk of rights and going shopping 24/7 is a great thing.
This is actually an interesting question. If you (or anybody else) raised it in those terms, I be questioning the practicality of everybody doing it on the same day in the modern world, despite its possible advantages.
My reaction would be different if somebody's approach was along the lines of it being some god's commandment and everybody who does any work on god's day was evil and should be punished.
-
I've addressed all these points (several times) and they still amount to unfair and unjust treatment of humanity by god. Do you need me to explain yet again...?
A ''better human'' and allowing people who are by their own volition retreating from God to enjoy God fully are at best not addressing the points at all and at worse complete contradiction.
-
Dear Stranger,
Well I asked a long time ago, but here goes again, I am told atheism is just blah blah blah, but if I go on to the interweb, I can usually find some atheist foaming at the mouth, telling us about the evils of religion, the question is this, in your daily life, your thoughts and the way you view the world does your atheism affect this.
Here is an example, I am all for a day of rest for the whole world, a day when we shut down, a day for quiet contemplation, a day when we stick two fingers up at consumerism and yes I know it is pie in the sky stuff, I know we could never fully achieve this but a move towards this sort of thing would be nice, good for the planet, but when this question is raised on this forum the atheists are all over it, they talk of rights and going shopping 24/7 is a great thing.
Now I don't want to debate the above but is it a small sample of how your atheism affects your daily life?
Gonnagle.
It's not a small sample of how it affects mine. Indeed. my daily life appears t me unaffected by my atheism. To adapt Shakespeare
'Hath not an atheist eyes? Hath not an atheist hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a theist is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?'
Since theists are not consistent, after all when you rail against the Tories, May is a theist. Other religions including the one that Shakes was writing about have a different day of rest, are they to be told they are wrong?
-
Ah yes, dear wigginhall, having a world view seems like it must be exhausting. You have to be re-evaluating everything all the time just in case there needs to be a change. I rather wish I could get that bus to Hammersmith and we could have a quiet pint in a pub and let the oasis of calm deal with all the looming things.
Mr Sane
If you yearn for a world that comprises of a paper, a pie and a pint then in one sense that is your world view but given that idea might make you angry lets not call it that.
My approach is if you don't have a world view what warrant do you for taking part in a debate about it or even criticising someone elses?
This post was brought to you courtesy of The Gonnagleisation of posts scheme......
Getting straight there in a pithy sentence.
-
Mr Sane
If you yearn for a world that comprises of a paper, a pie and a pint then in one sense that is your world view but given that idea might make you angry lets not call it that.
My approach is if you don't have a world view what warrant do you for taking part in a debate about it or even criticising someone elses?
This post was brought to you courtesy of The Gonnagleisation of posts scheme......
Getting straight there in a pithy sentence.
What, to your mind, is a world view? I'm still not sure what one is.
-
Why do I need a warrant to take part in a debate? Is there some rule that I've missed?
-
Why do I need a warrant to take part in a debate? Is there some rule that I've missed?
Is announcing that this debate is all shit ''taking part in debate'' Wigginhall?
-
A ''better human'' and allowing people who are by their own volition retreating from God to enjoy God fully are at best not addressing the points at all and at worse complete contradiction.
But people who do not believe are not (generally speaking) "by their own volition retreating from God" - that's nothing but your fantasy. Finding all the multitudinous and contradictory god stories variously absurd, contradictory, and lacking in supporting evidence or sound reasoning is not a retreat. Neither do they want to "enjoy God fully" - they don't believe there is a god to enjoy.
As for "better humans" - once again, if everybody falls short of god's standard and needs 'saving' and forgiving, then god is applying an inappropriate standard to the beings it created.
Whatever happened in the past (the 'fall') doesn't change the justice and fairness of the situation people now find themselves in. People today didn't choose the 'fall'.
According to you - the way to please god now is to believe something that appears to be obvious nonsense or face the 'consequences' of which you speak.
That is manifestly unjust and unfair.
-
What, to your mind, is a world view? I'm still not sure what one is.
what is going on?
How is it going on?
why is anything on?
what are the limits of the going on?
Is there any meaning to the going on?
-
Is announcing that this debate is all shit ''taking part in debate'' Wigginhall?
Reference?
-
Is announcing that this debate is all shit ''taking part in debate'' Wigginhall?
Even for you that's an egregious lie.
-
what is going on?
How is it going on?
why is anything on?
what are the limits of the going on?
Is there any meaning to the going on?
That appears to be a random set of questions rather than any form of definition. And some of them seem incoherent,
-
I don't know what is going on. Any suggestions?
-
Reference?
Frazer, P. (2018). Rectal extraction and lying. Dishonestville: Fraud and Fake News.
-
I don't know what is going on. Any suggestions?
' Picket lines and picket signs'?
-
But people who do not believe are not (generally speaking) "by their own volition retreating from God" - that's nothing but your fantasy. Finding all the multitudinous and contradictory god stories variously absurd, contradictory, and lacking in supporting evidence or sound reasoning is not a retreat. Neither do they want to "enjoy God fully" - they don't believe there is a god to enjoy.
As for "better humans" - once again, if everybody falls short of god's standard and needs 'saving' and forgiving, then god is applying an inappropriate standard to the beings it created.
Whatever happened in the past (the 'fall') doesn't change the justice and fairness of the situation people now find themselves in. People today didn't choose the 'fall'.
According to you - the way to please god now is to believe something that appears to be obvious nonsense or face the 'consequences' of which you speak.
That is manifestly unjust and unfair.
The better human would have to be unable to do anything but to love God.
How is that human? That is manifestly unjust and unfair.
Forcing a human who does not want to enjoy God, To enjoy God is really the same thing and therefore as manifestly unjust and unfair.
I want to walk away from a relationship with God but I want all the benefits of that relationship with God is illogical and unreasonable.
Saying that God does not forgive is ignoring the message of christianity.
I seem to be repeating myself.
-
Dear Sane,
'Hath not an atheist eyes? Hath not an atheist hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions; fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a theist is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?'
Aye we are all human but the example I gave, The Stranger is all, but don't call it a God day >:( and no I don't want another debate about this, simply asking does the fact you are a atheist affect your thinking, I think it does, it must, maybe not to great extent for you, you are not the foaming at the mouth type ( well unless someone touches your beer ).
I am not looking for quick answers here, I am asking the atheist to have a long hard think, why? I honestly think they will have a better understanding of how theists think, it might stop some being so judgmental, after all questioning your own thinking is no bad thing, I do it all the time, and yes I need to work on my ego, my thinking is always beautiful thoughts. :-X
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane,
Aye we are all human but the example I gave, The Stranger is all, but don't call it a God day >:( and no I don't want another debate about this, simply asking does the fact you are a atheist affect your thinking, I think it does, it must, maybe not to great extent for you, you are not the foaming at the mouth type ( well unless someone touches your beer ).
I am not looking for quick answers here, I am asking the atheist to have a long hard think, why? I honestly think they will have a better understanding of how theists think, they might stop being so judgmental, after all questioning your own thinking is no bad thing, I do it all the time, and yes I need to work on my ego, my thinking is always beautiful thoughts. :-X
Gonnagle.
you seem to judging all atheists as being too judgemental?
-
Dear Sane,
Not all! Right!! Not all!
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane,
Not all! Right!! Not all!
Gonnagle.
From your post
' I am asking the atheist to have a long hard think, why? I honestly think they will have a better understanding of how theists think, they might stop being so judgmental'
Maybe you didn't mean to say that but how else can the above be read?
-
Dear Sensible,
Fixed it, right!! Ya big person that you are!
Gonnagle.
-
Even for you that's an egregious lie.
To me you and Wigginhall are proponents of the woolysphere in which World views are not appropriate for the man in his hutch for whom a paper, a pie, and a pint suffices. In other words IMHO you think that debating it is ''all shit''.
If you think I'm wrong Sane explain your own position instead of IMHO sneering at people who want to talk world views.
To me the issue is how can someone who views world views thus logically and meaningfully take part in a debate about it.
Is someone like Walter who stands up and says ''prove it'' and that's it debating?
please answer these points and not just rest on the facile accusation of lie.
You and Wiggs are like the Mr Kidd and Mr Wint of the forum. Having despatched 0061/2 codename Bluehillside, I feel you are now working on me.
-
Dear Sane,
Aye we are all human but the example I gave, The Stranger is all, but don't call it a God day >:( and no I don't want another debate about this, simply asking does the fact you are a atheist affect your thinking, I think it does, it must, maybe not to great extent for you, you are not the foaming at the mouth type ( well unless someone touches your beer ).
I am not looking for quick answers here, I am asking the atheist to have a long hard think, why? I honestly think they will have a better understanding of how theists think, it might stop some being so judgmental, after all questioning your own thinking is no bad thing, I do it all the time, and yes I need to work on my ego, my thinking is always beautiful thoughts. :-X
Gonnagle.
being an atheist does not cause me to be angry. However ,your sanctimonious way of thinking invites ridicule .
Don't confuse ridicule with anger , it's not the same thing .
-
Dear Vlad,
With you old son, it's a forum for questioning, all's fair in Love and war with words ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Why can't I deconstruct the idea of a world view? To do that, I don't need to have a world view, I just need some arguments.
-
Dear Vlad,
With you old son, it's a forum for questioning, all's fair in Love and war with words ;)
Gonnagle.
So you support Vlad lying about wigginhall's position?
-
The better human would have to be unable to do anything but to love God.
Don't be silly. At present (according to you) we have humans who all (100%) fail to live up to god's standard and you are claiming that the only possible alternative to that is to create humans who would all (100%) pass?
How is that human? That is manifestly unjust and unfair.
Whatever you say about 100% pass is equally applicable to 100% fail.
Forcing a human who does not want to enjoy God, To enjoy God is really the same thing and therefore as manifestly unjust and unfair.
Who suggested such a thing?
I want to walk away from a relationship with God but I want all the benefits of that relationship with God is illogical and unreasonable.
For fuck's sake Vlad, what part of this didn't you understand:
But people who do not believe are not (generally speaking) "by their own volition retreating from God" - that's nothing but your fantasy. Finding all the multitudinous and contradictory god stories variously absurd, contradictory, and lacking in supporting evidence or sound reasoning is not a retreat. Neither do they want to "enjoy God fully" - they don't believe there is a god to enjoy.
??
Saying that God does not forgive is ignoring the message of christianity.
I didn't say that.
I seem to be repeating myself.
As an alternative, I suggest reading what is said to you, thinking about it, and then responding to it.
-
Dear Waltz,
being an atheist does not cause me to be angry. However ,your sanctimonious way of thinking invites ridicule .
Don't confuse ridicule with anger , it's not the same thing .
Thanks for the clarification!
Gonnagle.
-
To me you and Wigginhall are proponents of the woolysphere in which World views are not appropriate for the man in his hutch for whom a paper, a pie, and a pint suffices. In other words IMHO you think that debating it is ''all shit''.
If you think I'm wrong Sane explain your own position instead of IMHO sneering at people who want to talk world views.
To me the issue is how can someone who views world views thus logically and meaningfully take part in a debate about it.
Is someone like Walter who stands up and says ''prove it'' and that's it debating?
please answer these points and not just rest on the facile accusation of lie.
You and Wiggs are like the Mr Kidd and Mr Wint of the forum. Having despatched 0061/2 codename Bluehillside, I feel you are now working on me.
there is no debate . By elevating your beliefs to the status of 'debate' does not give it any more value than it had before; ie zero . Unless you can provide supporting evidence ,of course .
-
To me you and Wigginhall are proponents of the woolysphere in which World views are not appropriate for the man in his hutch for whom a paper, a pie, and a pint suffices. In other words IMHO you think that debating it is ''all shit''.
If you think I'm wrong Sane explain your own position instead of IMHO sneering at people who want to talk world views.
To me the issue is how can someone who views world views thus logically and meaningfully take part in a debate about it.
Is someone like Walter who stands up and says ''prove it'' and that's it debating?
please answer these points and not just rest on the facile accusation of lie.
You and Wiggs are like the Mr Kidd and Mr Wint of the forum. Having despatched 0061/2 codename Bluehillside, I feel you are now working on me.
I asked you what a world view is and you just provided a set of questions some of which are incoherent. If you want to talk seriously then don't lie
-
Dear Waltz,
Thanks for the clarification!
Gonnagle.
you have been schooled !
-
Dear Sane,
I don't see a lie >:( I see someone questioning, maybe you and the Wigs should grow a skin, we have had this discussion before, maybe it is me, I am just to thick to spot Vlads lies.
Gonnagle.
-
I am asking the atheist to have a long hard think, why? I honestly think they will have a better understanding of how theists think, it might stop some being so judgmental, after all questioning your own thinking is no bad thing, I do it all the time, and yes I need to work on my ego, my thinking is always beautiful thoughts. :-X
I agree that questioning your own thinking is important - I do it all the time too.
Despite many conversations and thinking a lot about it, I still can't fathom why theists believe what they do.
-
Dear Sane,
I don't see a lie >:( I see someone questioning, maybe you and the Wigs should grow a skin, we have had this discussion before, maybe it is me, I am just to thick to spot Vlads lies.
Gonnagle.
Where does wigginhall announce 'this debate is all shit' as Vlad portrays it?
-
Where does wigginhall announce 'this debate is all shit' as Vlad portrays it?
Mr Kydd
If Mr Wint seems injured by my interpretation of his views amounts to that surely he can approach me.
Again My interpretation is that he thinks these matters/issues, as I listed to you, are not worth talking or bothering about. Hence the debate being all shit.
That is my impression on his view.
-
I agree that questioning your own thinking is important - I do it all the time too.
Despite many conversations and thinking a lot about it, I still can't fathom why theists believe what they do.
I'm with you all the way Stranger.
Maybe it's the inability to think critically that leads to theism (and I've put that politely).
-
Dear Stranger,
Well I asked a long time ago, but here goes again, I am told atheism is just blah blah blah, but if I go on to the interweb, I can usually find some atheist foaming at the mouth, telling us about the evils of religion, the question is this, in your daily life, your thoughts and the way you view the world does your atheism affect this.
Here is an example, I am all for a day of rest for the whole world, a day when we shut down, a day for quiet contemplation, a day when we stick two fingers up at consumerism and yes I know it is pie in the sky stuff, I know we could never fully achieve this but a move towards this sort of thing would be nice, good for the planet, but when this question is raised on this forum the atheists are all over it, they talk of rights and going shopping 24/7 is a great thing.
Now I don't want to debate the above but is it a small sample of how your atheism affects your daily life?
Gonnagle.
I don't really know if this is of any help, but I'll try.
I know that you'll have to take my word for it, but my wife is a very caring lady. She has two brothers, one of whom has cerebral palsy. He is my age, and my wife has always been very close to him, and has time and again shown a fierce and loyal protection towards him. We see him every week without fail, even though he is now unable to use his legs at all. He has carers 3 times a day, and can only be moved around by using a hoist. On occasions he has had some very pretty horrendous problems(e.g. 3 years ago he had pneumonia, and he was in danger of drowning from the build up of liquid in his lungs). My wife has always been there for him, and, on the times he has been in hospital, we have regularly visited him(sometimes all day) and, my wife, being a former nurse, has shown a practical quality which I could never attain. She has also helped two very old neighbours over quite a long period of time(indeed, as I write this, she has just finished shopping, and is going to have a cup of tea with one of the old ladies).
Now the point about this is that my wife is an atheist, in that she has no belief in any god at all. She simply doesn't have the need for one, and, unless the idea of god was mentioned, she would never even think on those lines. How does atheism affect her life? I would say very little as there are far more important things in her life to consider than the idea of a god.
That doesn't stop her having criticisms of religions however, when she sees some of the glaring discepancies in the deeds and thoughts of some religionists(her words would be'these stupid people').
She lives a reasonably fulfilling and satisfying life, she is practical and she is caring. Also, about 15 years ago, she delivered a dissertation to a study group on whether the modern world is in crisis, and she made some very salient points. We both attend a local humanist group monthly, the latest of which was on the subject of modern day slavery, and, again, she was not afraid to speak up and produced some eminently practical and compassionate points on how to alleviate the situation.
So, you ask how atheism affects your daily life. In her case it doesn't really. She simply can't be bothered with the idea of god and religion at all because she has no such beliefs. Why should she?
-
Mr Kydd
If Mr Wint seems injured by my interpretation of his views amounts to that surely he can approach me.
Again My interpretation is that he thinks these matters/issues, as I listed to you, are not worth talking or bothering about. Hence the debate being all shit.
That is my impression on his view.
And it is my impression that you are lying and do it frequently
And wigginhall did ask you for a reference for the statement.
-
I'm with you all the way Stranger.
Maybe it's the inability to think critically that leads to theism (and I've put that politely).
Except there are lots of theists who do think critically and lots of atheists who don't - people are way more complex than a simple binary here.
-
Except there are lots of theists who do think critically and lots of atheists who don't - people are way more complex than a simple binary here.
no they're not
-
Except there are lots of theists who do think critically...
About their reasons for theism?
...and lots of atheists who don't...
Definitely.
-
Enki
a nice example of how being atheist has no real influence on daily life , thanks .
-
About their reasons for theism?
Definitely.
Then that's a different claim from an inability to think critically as stated by Walter. I don't know whether the claim that they are unable to think critically on theism applies to all theists because I haven't talked to them, and I don't have their personal experiences.
-
no they're not
Ah a post that shows a lack of critical thinking by an atheist - thank you for the example
-
Then that's a different claim from an inability to think critically as stated by Walter. I don't know whether the claim that they are unable to think critically on theism applies to all theists because I haven't talked to them, and I don't have their personal experiences.
nope, you're miss representing me . My point was; if religious people were thinking critically they would not arrive at theism
Perhaps I didn't structure my sentence to your liking!
-
Ah a post that shows a lack of critical thinking by an atheist - thank you for the example
it was a gag . jesus!
-
it was a gag . jesus!
As was my reply - dawkins!
-
And it is my impression that you are lying and do it frequently
And wigginhall did ask you for a reference for the statement.
I am happy to let others make a judgment on your impression
You provided the reference didn't you?
Frazer, P. (2018). Rectal extraction and lying. Dishonestville: Fraud and Fake News.
That is a real reference isn't it?
Whoever P Frazer is they did write it yes?
-
nope, you're miss representing me . My point was; if religious people were thinking critically they would not arrive at theism
Perhaps I didn't structure my sentence to your liking!
I can only really go on what you post which was
'Maybe it's the inability to think critically that leads to theism'
So where was the misrepresentation?
-
As was my reply - dawkins!
my sides are splitting old chap
-
I am happy to let others make a judgment on your impression
You provided the reference didn't you?
Frazer, P. (2018). Rectal extraction and lying. Dishonestville: Fraud and Fake News.
That is a real reference isn't it?
Whoever P Frazer is they did write it yes?
No, it's not a real reference, It's joking about your lying but then you know that
-
nope, you're miss representing me . My point was; if religious people were thinking critically they would not arrive at theism
Demonstrate that is true.
After all there aren't any atheists really are there, there are just agnostics after all nobody says there is no God because they would have to know everything wouldn't they.....and who is it who is supposed to know everything?
-
I am happy to let others make a judgment on your impression
You provided the reference didn't you?
Frazer, P. (2018). Rectal extraction and lying. Dishonestville: Fraud and Fake News.
That is a real reference isn't it?
Whoever P Frazer is they did write it yes?
I rarely reply to your posts because of your intellectual dishonesty .
Does that help?
-
Demonstrate that is true.
After all there aren't any atheists really are there, there are just agnostics after all nobody says there is no God because they would have to know everything wouldn't they.....and who is it who is supposed to know everything?
that'll be me then ;D
-
No, it's not a real reference, It's joking about your lying but then you know that
Oh and I suppose no one else is allowed to post humourously. Away wi'ye.
-
Demonstrate that is true.
After all there aren't any atheists really are there, there are just agnostics after all nobody says there is no God because they would have to know everything wouldn't they.....and who is it who is supposed to know everything?
Agnostic and atheist are not different positions. As far as I am aware most of the atheists on here identify as agnostic atheists but then it's just you lying again
-
Oh and I suppose no one else is allowed to post humourously. Away wi'ye.
Didn't say that but it's just you lying again
-
that'll be me then ;D
In the woolysphere maybe.
-
Dear enki,
Yes it does help and I would love to have a conversation with your wonderful Angel of Mercy, one question I would ask, has she always been a atheist or did she lose her faith.
I would ask what drives her compassion, yes brotherly love would be one of them but are there other factors.
As I type this I am treading on eggshells, not wanting to say the wrong thing, your post is a beautiful post and should be treated as such but I will add, your good lady walks with my God every single day, she worships the Father every single day, I have said this before, but there are atheists who have more Christianity in their little finger than most Christians I have met, God Bless her ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Didn't say that but it's just you lying again
Could someone get Nearly Sane a glass of water, he seems to have hiccups.
-
Dear enki,
Yes it does help and I would love to have a conversation with your wonderful Angel of Mercy, one question I would ask, has she always been a atheist or did she lose her faith.
I would ask what drives her compassion, yes brotherly love would be one of them but are there other factors.
As I type this I am treading on eggshells, not wanting to say the wrong thing, your post is a beautiful post and should be treated as such but I will add, your good lady walks with my God every single day, she worships the Father every single day, I have said this before, but there are atheists who have more Christianity in their little finger than most Christians I have met, God Bless her ;)
Gonnagle.
sanctimony at its best , well done .
-
by the way , your god is murdering twat, have you read the bible?
-
Could someone get Nearly Sane a glass of water, he seems to have hiccups.
For Vlad
https://www.wikihow.com/Stop-Lying
-
sanctimony at its best , well done .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIP6EwqMEoE
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIP6EwqMEoE
that was a bit random! I like random 8)
-
For Vlad
https://www.wikihow.com/Stop-Lying
Thanks but your last reference i'm aware of was not reliable.
-
Thanks but your last reference i'm aware of was not reliable.
Always with the problem of induction
-
Agnostic and atheist are not different positions. As far as I am aware most of the atheists on here identify as agnostic atheists.
Which helps them be either one or another which ever way the heat is coming from.
But then they can make like Mt Tanaka and merely lack any belief in Gods.
-
Which helps them be either one or another which ever way the heat is coming from.
But then they can make like Mt Tanaka and merely lack any belief in Gods.
fuck me , nope, read it 5 times and still nothing !!!!!!
-
Which helps them be either one or another which ever way the heat is coming from.
But then they can make like Mt Tanaka and merely lack any belief in Gods.
More lying
-
by the way , your god is murdering twat, have you read the bible?
Has he had a proper trial for that and/or have you had one for publicly accusing Him?
-
More lying
Well done Sheldon, two scalps in two days. Cioa.
-
Has he had a proper trial for that and/or have you had one for publicly accusing Him?
I think a group of Jews in a ww2 prison camp did that/ and I'm not likely to unless god can show up in person.
-
Dear enki,
Thank goodness old Sane put your post in forum best bits because it has all gone to hell in a handbarrow on this thread :(
Gonnagle.
-
Well done Sheldon, two scalps in two days. Cioa.
Wow, you even depart with a lie
-
Dear Vlad,
Good luck with that old son, sometimes we see a small glimpse but then the petticoat is quickly covered and it is rapidly back to Flying Spaghetti Monsters and orbiting teapots :(
Gonnagle.
It's a shame to see in your writings how deep seated indoctrination over rules common sense, you obviously understand the significance of Bert's orbiting teapot but your, probably when young, indoctrination prevents you from rationalising it.
Always being the good old Gonners, doesn't add anything to the weakness of your reasoning or argument, however you wish to put it.
Regards ippy
-
yet again Ippy I am asking a question.
All answers have been given vis.
Antitheists are talking on religious issues with a shocking lack of knowledge of what they seem to want to talk about.
If atheism is merely the lack of faith in Gods then, as small pebbles fulfil that criteria, an atheist of that ilk has no more to say than a stone.
Let's face it Ippy what answer does your plucky, knees up muvva brown rhetorical question ''Its Crayp, Innit Vlad, wot you gotta say to that then Vl
This is exactly how you work Vlad, you now go into your usual unintelligible muddle of word soup that makes it impossible to have anything approaching a sensible exchange with you.
Regards ippy
-
It's a shame to see in your writings how deep seated indoctrination over rules common sense,
If believing there is no God is sense it isn't common.
-
It's a shame to see in your writings how deep seated indoctrination over rules common sense,
I didn't know Gonnagle was deep seatedly indoctrinated.
-
Dear ippy,
Aye that's me, me and my deep seated indoctrination, I suppose it just crept up on me, sort of ninja style indoctrination.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear ippy,
Aye that's me, me and my deep seated indoctrination, I suppose it just crept up on me, sort of ninja style indoctrination.
Gonnagle.
And deeply seated you apparently!!!
-
If believing there is no God is sense it isn't common.
You're so mixed up Vlad, I see no good reason to think there is such a thing as a god, I like most non-religious people see it this way around, generally we're not disbelievers.
Regards ippy
-
Dear ippy,
Aye that's me, me and my deep seated indoctrination, I suppose it just crept up on me, sort of ninja style indoctrination.
Gonnagle.
Were you taken away by nuns and shown videos of Dawkins while having needles under your fingernails?.......I'm just wondering how it's done and that.
-
Dear enki,
Yes it does help and I would love to have a conversation with your wonderful Angel of Mercy, one question I would ask, has she always been a atheist or did she lose her faith.
I would ask what drives her compassion, yes brotherly love would be one of them but are there other factors.
As I type this I am treading on eggshells, not wanting to say the wrong thing, your post is a beautiful post and should be treated as such but I will add, your good lady walks with my God every single day, she worships the Father every single day, I have said this before, but there are atheists who have more Christianity in their little finger than most Christians I have met, God Bless her ;)
Gonnagle.
I might be wrong but I think that we would have much more in common than that which divides us, Gonners.
She would hate to be called an 'angel of mercy'. She is simply doing what she feels is the right thing for her (perhaps this is the main reason she went into nursing in the first place). and, I would like to add, she has plenty of bad and irritating points(although she might well disagree with me on that). What drives her compassion, I think, is what drives most people's compassion, inner feelings of empathy and a wish to alleviate some of the bad things in life on a personal level. Being such a single minded person, when it comes to such things, she doesn't dwell on sentiment, but actually acts in a practical way to help.
She was never religious, so the idea of losing one's faith isn't really of any real significance in her life. However, she can react unfavourably to the things she hates about many religions, and, I suspect that this was partly the result of a very traumatic experience, when she was fairly young. What follows will explain that comment, and is something that I put on this Forum some years ago on a different thread. At that point I called her a very dear friend. With her agreement, I would like to say she is a very dear friend and also my wife. This is what she wrote, in her own words, spelling mistakes and all:
At the age of eighteen I was unmarried and pregnant. This was in the early sixties. It was considered by society, at that time, that to be pregnant and unmarried was unacceptable. So my only option was a mother and baby home resulting in adoption. The home that was chosen for me was run by a group of catholic nuns.
The home consisted of two large Victorian houses, one to house girls until six weeks pre birth. The last six weeks of pregnancy, birth and time spent waiting for the adoption to be arranged, was spent in the adjoining house.
We had to pay our board and lodgings. Except that each week our personal finances were reviewed by the nuns and if they considered we had too much money, they took it. I hid mine to avoid this!
Food was often inadequate, yet if questioned the amounts changed temporarily.
We were allowed little in respect of personal items.
We were not allowed post, we had to use the local Post office.
Friendships were discouraged and girls were split up when these became obvious.
We had little freedom, times allowed out were rigid with one late pass per month til 10pm.
No telephone, no family visitors allowed.
Little pre or post natal care.
No discussion or advice whatsoever about having a baby.
No understanding shown about the situation we were in.
Little or no conversation with nuns.
We worked constantly doing household tasks.
No entertainment, no tv, radio, music.
We had to attend the 'in house church' every day, being repeatedly told about the error of our ways. Constantly riminded that we had no one to blame but ourselves. We had to pray to God for forgiveness or we would go to hell.
No information about the actual adoption, the nuns were doing us a favour in removing the baby, giving it a chance for a decent life!
Any girl wanting to keep their baby was put under huge pressure to change their mind. Most did.
We felt that this pressure indicated that the babies were being sold, but I know of no evidence for this!
The whole experience was one of being in a prison with hard cold people who cared nothing for us or the babies.
Girls were not allowed to help each other when a birth was imminent.We were locked out of the delivery room.
I have no memory of the birth, except a dark room and a strange smell. I cannot remember having a baby.
The nuns were cold. They did not appear to care about us at all. Their regime had to be followed at all costs and it was an arduous one.
We were not allowed to care for our babies, the nursery being locked after feeds so that a mother could not attend to a crying baby. Consequently the house was always full of the sound of screaming babies.
I was lucky in some respects. My baby had a low birth weight, so I had to do an extra feed at 2am. I would spend most of the night nursing my baby going to bed about half an hour before 6am. (Time to get up and feed)
When the time came to give up the baby we were told the night before and given no information whatsoever about this process.
I had to find my own way with all my luggage and a baby, to a central building in the city, where the head nun just said "hello", took the baby and told me to leave.
We were not allowed any information about the adoptees and had to sign a form giving up all rights to the baby.
The ethos was coldness and punishment with the constant reminder that we were sinners and had to pray daily for Gods forgiveness.
As regards your last paragraph, I don't have any animosity at all for you saying this. This is what you think, no problem, and furthermore, I'm sure you are saying it with the best of intentions. Obviously both my wife and I don't think that way at all simply because neither of us are religious.
I would also like to thank NS for putting my last response on the Forum's Best Bits, and also Rhi for her lovely comment there. I did not expect this, and it came as a pleasant surprise. :)
-
You're so mixed up Vlad, I see no good reason to think there is such a thing as a god, I like most non-religious people see it this way around, generally we're not disbelievers.
Regards ippy
Have you eliminated cultural influences after all this is a secular country.
-
Dear ippy,
Aye that's me, me and my deep seated indoctrination, I suppose it just crept up on me, sort of ninja style indoctrination.
Gonnagle.
If you go back to my previous post to you you'll see where I indicated, I thought it probable you may have been indoctrinated when young, obviously I can't know how you were indoctrinated or when but most are indoctrinated with religion when very young.
The deep seated is where you, it seems to me, invariably reject the rational, like as I mentioned before, Bert's teapot.
Regards ippy
-
Have you eliminated cultural influences after all this is a secular country.
What are you on about now Vlad?
Regards ippy
-
What are you on about now Vlad?
Regards ippy
You may be culturally brainwashed in thinking religion is crackpot.
-
You may be culturally brainwashed in thinking religion is crackpot.
Not really Vlad, it's just the small fact that there's no evidence been offered that's verifiable for the magical, mystical or any of the superstition based parts of it, as you must be aware.
The evidence for the rest of it's not that convincing either, I suppose still believing in religions when in possession of the facts, such as they are, is, putting it mildly, a bit questionable.
Regards ippy
-
A bit like a child who invents an imaginary friend to satisfy some need ?
Yes, but it doesn't need to be an imaginary friend. It can be a source of power, a source of love, a source of protection, a source of life, etc usually with a means of invoking them, which is what 'God' means ... that which is invoked.
-
Not really Vlad, it's just the small fact that there's no evidence been offered that's verifiable for the magical, mystical or any of the superstition based parts of it, as you must be aware.
The evidence for the rest of it's not that convincing either, I suppose still believing in religions when in possession of the facts, such as they are, is, putting it mildly, a bit questionable.
Regards ippy
Brainwashed
If you have no world view like empiricism, scientism and naturalism then all you have is ridicule or lack of interest in religion. That's cultural.
-
If you have no world view like empiricism, scientism and naturalism then all you have is ridicule or lack of interest in religion.
Drivel. All one needs to dismiss religion is a general requirement for good reasons to in order to accept propositions about matters of fact.
-
1...Something wrong with desire or need?
2...Seems like you have a desire and need to avoid desire and need.
1... It depends upon the desire e.g. the desire to kill a lot of children in a school would be wrong.
2...No, just a desire to see them for what they are and to manage them rather than blindly allow them to manage me.
-
Brainwashed
If you have no world view like empiricism, scientism and naturalism then all you have is ridicule or lack of interest in religion. That's cultural.
I've never been tortured, except perhaps trying to unravel one of your posts feels like torture, get the O E D out and look up 'brainwashing', I do know what you mean but you've used the wrong word, but to be fair you're not on your own.
Regards ippy
-
Dear enki,
How do I reply to yet another wonderful post, first of all by saying I will delve no deeper, the RC Church, hell most Churches of that time have a lot to answer for, sadly that kind of Christian thinking is still rife but they are becoming fewer and fewer, those nuns may have thought they were doing the Lords will but sadly they were doing the Churches will, Churchianity versus Christianity.
But I will thank you for sharing, it is not often that a atheist opens up, shares part of their journey, very refreshing, better than being beaten over the head by some guy called Bert and his amazing teapot :P
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Vlad,
Were you taken away by nuns and shown videos of Dawkins while having needles under your fingernails?.......I'm just wondering how it's done and that.
Much more subtle than that, someone told me baby Jesus wanted me for a sunbeam, I was of a certain age to think, hey that sounds cool, I also was given a toy helicopter, that sealed the deal, sunbeams and helicopters, oh and there was orange squash and cake, those pesky Christians know how to turn a young lads head.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Vlad,
Much more subtle than that, someone told me baby Jesus wanted me for a sunbeam, I was of a certain age to think, hey that sounds cool, I also was given a toy helicopter, that sealed the deal, sunbeams and helicopters, oh and there was orange squash and cake, those pesky Christians know how to turn a young lads head.
Gonnagle.
As I have posted before the Pentecostalists once seduced me with the offer of singing and cake to run away at the age of 5 to join them
-
Dear Vlad,
Much more subtle than that, someone told me baby Jesus wanted me for a sunbeam, I was of a certain age to think, hey that sounds cool, I also was given a toy helicopter, that sealed the deal, sunbeams and helicopters, oh and there was orange squash and cake, those pesky Christians know how to turn a young lads head.
Gonnagle.
sounds like grooming to me. Bloody weird !
-
Dear Waltz,
Oh there was grooming to, but that was done by my dear old Ma, I never thought to ask her why I needed clean underwear to visit baby Jesus's house, I expect it was because of Mrs Johnstone who ran the Sunday school, that old biddy looked down her nose at everybody, she was a right pillock pillar of the community >:(
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Waltz,
Oh there was grooming to, but that was done by my dear old Ma, I never thought to ask her why I needed clean underwear to visit baby Jesus's house, I expect it was because of Mrs Johnstone who ran the Sunday school, that old biddy looked down her nose at everybody, she was a right pillock pillar of the community >:(
Gonnagle.
as I said, weird!
-
Dear Waltzer,
Aye that's Christians for you weirdest of the weird now about this flying spaghetti monster, how exactly does it fly?
Gonnagle.
-
Aye that's Christians for you weirdest of the weird now about this flying spaghetti monster, how exactly does it fly?
It's a deep mystery, that you need to spend many, many years in humble mediation and obedience to your Noodly Master to even begin to understand. I see no evidence that you have even begun to study - have you never been touched by His Noodly Appendages? Your should read The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00B0PFOIW).
I've never understood non-pastafarians - what possible reasons can you have to disbelieve? People who I ask never give a straight answer, they turn it on its head and ask why I believe! Even worse, some just they just say that there is no reason to believe in the FSM or that it's 'silly'! What sort of answer is that!?
-
It's a deep mystery, that you need to spend many, many years in humble mediation and obedience to your Noodly Master to even begin to understand. I see no evidence that you have even begun to study - have you never been touched by His Noodly Appendages? Your should read The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00B0PFOIW).
I've never understood non-pastafarians - what possible reasons can you have to disbelieve? People who I ask never give a straight answer, they turn it on its head and ask why I believe! Even worse, some just they just say that there is no reason to believe in the FSM or that it's 'silly'! What sort of answer is that!?
You're talking meatballs
-
Dear Stranger,
Thanks for that, it has been a strange day of walk down memory lane for me today, just for once I had hoped for something new but no, same old same old.
Have you read the thread about putting The God Delusion on stage, same old same old.
Gonnagle.
-
Thanks for that, it has been a strange day of walk down memory lane for me today, just for once I had hoped for something new but no, same old same old.
Have you read the thread about putting The God Delusion on stage, same old same old.
Yes - same old, same old - I'd hoped for something new too, so I guess we're both disappointed.
It's weird - talking to you about god, theism, and atheism is rather like entering the twilight zone - before our very eyes an apparently normal guy, with sound ideas on many subjects, gets transported into this bizarre parallel reality in which it's possible to believe in something without knowing what it is and in which people are supposed to have some deep reason to not believe in this whatever-the-fuck-it-is aside from the fact that we don't have a definition, or any reason to actually take the 'idea' seriously from what is actually said about it.
Bizarre and very depressing. :(
-
Dear Stranger,
Thanks for that, it has been a strange day of walk down memory lane for me today, just for once I had hoped for something new but no, same old same old.
Have you read the thread about putting The God Delusion on stage, same old same old.
Gonnagle.
I have very similar same old same old good feelings for my fellow person as you, but without having to have a Mr Magic Man in the sky in my imagination as some sort of judgement/comforter man, but that kind of thought does incline to make my good feeling for my fellow person, I think, a tad more ethical than any of my religious believing fellow persons.
I wish to do well by my fellow person on my own part I have no imaginary person I think is guiding me with what I should be doing in this area, I'm not looking for some kind or another of a heavenly kind of point scoring system and nor do I expect to be a bad person for all of my life and say sorry at the last possible moment in the hope of receiving the heavenly equivalent of an everlasting bag of sweeties.
Sorry Gonners you can do the good old boy stuff as much as you like there's not enough substance in it and virtually nothing to back this religious stuff up that could be considered a reasonable amount of evidence justifying it, but then of course as you tell me, it's the same old same old.
Who's doing the same old, same old.
Regards ippy
-
I have very similar same old same old good feelings for my fellow person as you, but without having to have a Mr Magic Man in the sky in my imagination as some sort of judgement/comforter man, but that kind of thought does incline to make my good feeling for my fellow person, I think, a tad more ethical than any of my religious believing fellow persons.
I wish to do well by my fellow person on my own part I have no imaginary person I think is guiding me with what I should be doing in this area, I'm not looking for some kind or another of a heavenly kind of point scoring system and nor do I expect to be a bad person for all of my life and say sorry at the last possible moment in the hope of receiving the heavenly equivalent of an everlasting bag of sweeties.
Sorry Gonners you can do the good old boy stuff as much as you like there's not enough substance in it and virtually nothing to back this religious stuff up that could be considered a reasonable amount of evidence justifying it, but then of course as you tell me, it's the same old same old.
Who's doing the same old, same old.
Regards ippy
A culturally conditioned post just look at the 21st century secular language
'Religious stuff
heavenly point scoring
Mr magic man in the sky.
-
Well, we've all had such a lovely day together and there's just enough time for me and Richard Dawkins to say;
Goodnight and God Bless x
-
Well, we've all had such a lovely day together and there's just enough time for me and Richard Dawkins to say;
Goodnight and God Bless x
Goodnight Walter, Goodnight Richard, Goodnight John Boy.
-
Dear Stranger,
Thanks for that, it has been a strange day of walk down memory lane for me today, just for once I had hoped for something new but no, same old same old.
Have you read the thread about putting The God Delusion on stage, same old same old.
Gonnagle.
Sometimes I read posts and I laugh, sometimes I think 'not again, sometimes 'wtf', this one is incredibly depressing. On a day when you got a couple of golden posts from enki, never mind any other replies, and you just dismiss it as nothing new, Gonzo. Really?
And worse it's all been done in a way that is based on thinking of atheists as some 'other' thing rather than just treat posters on here as people not labels. Gonzo, you and I have broken bread together and sunk pints and yet off you go and run with the tired schtick that atheists are different. A schtick that permeates this board with the ideas that the theists are deluded, with the ideas that Brexiteers are racist, Remoaners are anti democratic, Spurs fans are mad dreamers. I know that's because we are tribal and I have spent long times on here calling it out but coming from you, it is so depressing.
-
I'm sorry but I'm afraid New Atheism instructed atheists to ridicule theism.
Imho Gonnagles counterjibes are relatively benign and even affectionate.
-
I'm sorry but I'm afraid New Atheism instructed atheists to ridicule theism.
Imho Gonnagles counterjibes are relatively benign and even affectionate.
This reads like 'he started it, sir' As covered in the post I think it's wrong to indulge in lazy generalities - pointing out that other people do it isn't a justification
-
Sometimes I read posts and I laugh, sometimes I think 'not again, sometimes 'wtf', this one is incredibly depressing. On a day when you got a couple of golden posts from enki, never mind any other replies, and you just dismiss it as nothing new, Gonzo. Really?
And worse it's all been done in a way that is based on thinking of atheists as some 'other' thing rather than just treat posters on here as people not labels. Gonzo, you and I have broken bread together and sunk pints and yet off you go and run with the tired schtick that atheists are different. A schtick that permeates this board with the ideas that the theists are deluded, with the ideas that Brexiteers are racist, Remoaners are anti democratic, Spurs fans are mad dreamers. I know that's because we are tribal and I have spent long times on here calling it out but coming from you, it is so depressing.
the arrogance of a 'holier than thou 'delusion is a ugly thing to observe . It leads some people to tell others to go and play with the busses and disguising it with humour does not mask it's vitriol.
-
the arrogance of a 'holier than thou 'delusion is a ugly thing to observe . It leads some people to tell others to go and play with the busses and disguising it with humour does not mask it's vitriol.
And a further depressing post from you, Walter, continuing along the line of lazy generalisation, with an added faux innocence. If you try to provoke someone, it might not be that surprising if they react.
-
This reads like 'he started it, sir' As covered in the post I think it's wrong to indulge in lazy generalities - pointing out that other people do it isn't a justification
Gonnagle has only transgressed if gentle jibing and affectionate pricking of pomposity constitutes transgression imho.
Ridicule is the lingua Franca of this forum.
Gonnagle just picked up on something Stranger said about atheists having beliefs too. Like him I get frustrated that these are not properly articulated for full scrutiny.
I think that ranges from habitual adoption of the interrogator role rendering some unable to articulate beliefs to out and out hiding of beliefs because of love of the inquisitorial position.
Stranger did write what he thought his beliefs amounted to and I pointed out a theist could have written exactly the same.
There are and should be forums in which we share our common humanity but I doubt this is it or ever could be.
-
Gonnagle has only transgressed if gentle jibing and affectionate pricking of pomposity constitutes transgression imho.
Ridicule is the lingua Franca of this forum.
Gonnagle just picked up on something Stranger said about atheists having beliefs too. Like him I get frustrated that these are not properly articulated for full scrutiny.
I think that ranges from habitual adoption of the interrogator role rendering some unable to articulate beliefs to out and out hiding of beliefs because of love of the inquisitorial position.
Stranger did write what he thought his beliefs amounted to and I pointed out a theist could have written exactly the same.
There are and should be forums in which we share our common humanity but I doubt this is it or ever could be.
That's just saying 'he started it, sir' in some more words and continuing with the generalising.
-
And a further depressing post from you, Walter, continuing along the line of lazy generalisation, with an added faux innocence. If you try to provoke someone, it might not be that surprising if they react.
you are right NS, he has no idea I was trapped under a bus for three hours after a head on collision in motorbike accident some years ago
-
That's just saying 'he started it, sir' in some more words and continuing with the generalising.
Do you need to be this dogmatic and dismissive of my posts?
-
Gonnagle just picked up on something Stranger said about atheists having beliefs too. Like him I get frustrated that these are not properly articulated for full scrutiny.
One of the problems here is that Gonners seems to want to understand atheism and you seem to share the idea that there is an atheist set of beliefs, which there simply isn't.
Atheists (the people) obviously have beliefs but atheism is only a lack of belief in gods. People arrive at atheism via different thought processes. I can talk about my beliefs as much as you want - but I can't tell you anything about atheism other than it is not having any belief in gods.
Stranger did write what he thought his beliefs amounted to and I pointed out a theist could have written exactly the same.
But they never seem able to explain their theism in those terms - hence what you call the "adoption of the interrogator role".
-
One of the problems here is that Gonners seems to want to understand atheism and you seem to share the idea that there is an atheist set of beliefs, which there simply isn't.
Atheists (the people) obviously have beliefs but atheism is only a lack of belief in gods. People arrive at atheism via different thought processes. I can talk about my beliefs as much as you want - but I can't tell you anything about atheism other than it is not having any belief in gods.
But they never seem able to explain their theism in those terms - hence what you call the "adoption of the interrogator role".
Apparently Stranger you state you have beliefs.I believe those beliefs contribute to your atheism.
However you are more concerned imho with focussing on theism.
We must question why then you hide your core beliefs
-
That's just saying 'he started it, sir' in some more words and continuing with the generalising.
Theists have to be robust because of the posseing which I perceive on this forum.
-
Theists have to be robust because of the posseing which I perceive on this forum.
Can you write anything on this that isn't just another version of 'he started it, sir'?
-
Theists have to be robust because of the posseing which I perceive on this forum.
I can see it must be difficult and perhaps hurtful at times for you but you don't do yourself any favours .
when you are constantly being challenged do you not think to yourself ''hmmm, perhaps i'm wrong about my beliefs' and do a bit of re-thinking of your position?
You cannot deny the logic of the arguments against you and just to clarify , i have a lack of belief in the existance of any god and that is NOT a belief system
-
I can see it must be difficult and perhaps hurtful at times for you but you don't do yourself any favours .
when you are constantly being challenged do you not think to yourself ''hmmm, perhaps i'm wrong about my beliefs' and do a bit of re-thinking of your position?
You cannot deny the logic of the arguments against you and just to clarify , i have a lack of belief in the existance of any god and that is NOT a belief system
No that would constitute belief by posse.
I'm afraid all you are saying is be an atheist because we are. That seems to me week atheism.
If atheism is a lack of belief in God then I cannot be an atheist.
In any case what I find I'm chiefly presented with here though is Really we are agnostics can you not at least find yourself agreeing that we can never know.
To which my answer is no.
So really all you are saying is I should rethink my position because I should rethink my position.
-
[quote If atheism is a lack of belief in God then I cannot be an atheist.
even in your reply you miss out an important word and that is EXISTANCE !!
as in 'if atheism is a lack of belief in the EXISTANCE of god then i cannot be an atheist .
-
Do you need to be this dogmatic and dismissive of my posts?
If all you do is reformulate your statement to use the playground excuse of he started it, then it's difficult to see what else can be achieved.
-
even in your reply you miss out an important word and that is EXISTANCE !!
as in 'if atheism is a lack of belief in the EXISTANCE of god then i cannot be an atheist .
Surely the 'belief in God' form that Vlad used includes existence?
-
even in your reply you miss out an important word and that is EXISTANCE !!
as in 'if atheism is a lack of belief in the EXISTANCE of god then i cannot be an atheist .
Aka Ontology Walter. You see you'll be working from the philosophical materialism songsheet. For me that has huge issues.
1. It is based on a circular argument
2. There are issues concerning why it's here and how it got here aka Cosmology
3. It gives us nothing on whether there is or isn't any purpose generally aka Teleology
4. It doesn't give us any clues about what we ought to do aka morality.
Now you could take your cue from those around you which is what you are suggesting but that is rather like the blind leading the blind.
The critical moment for me was when I read the words of a person but realising these were coming from something else and not the woolly sphere of unknowing. That is when I became a theist.
-
Apparently Stranger you state you have beliefs.I believe those beliefs contribute to your atheism.
However you are more concerned imho with focussing on theism.
We must question why then you hide your core beliefs
So my penchant for hillwalking and skiing contribute to my pastime of not cross stitching.
-
So my penchant for hillwalking and skiing contribute to my pastime of not cross stitching.
Very clever until I point out that with all that skiing and hillwalking when would you have time for crossstiching?
-
Surely the 'belief in God' form that Vlad used includes existence?
no, I was making the distinction that I don't believe in the existence of god , whereas Vlad seams to think that I merely deny the existence , which is obvious in the way he says it . There is a fundamental difference . But Vlad appears to subconsciously miss that point
-
Very clever until I point out that with all that skiing and hillwalking when would you have time for crossstiching?
True; but trying to glimpse why I don't like cross stitching in terms of why I do like skiing seems a tad tortuous.
-
no, I was making the distinction that I don't believe in the existence of god , whereas Vlad seams to think that I merely deny the existence , which is obvious in the way he says it . There is a fundamental difference . But Vlad appears to subconsciously miss that point
I don't read it that way - if you lack a belief in god it appears to me you lack a belief in the existence of god not that you are denying an existent god
-
Apparently Stranger you state you have beliefs.I believe those beliefs contribute to your atheism.
Of course they do and I've explained exactly how.
We must question why then you hide your core beliefs
I'm not - what do you want to know?
-
The critical moment for me was when I read the words of a person but realising these were coming from something else and not the woolly sphere of unknowing. That is when I became a theist.
So you because a theist because you are terrified of not knowing - how rational of you... ::)
-
So you because a theist because you are terrified of not knowing - how rational of you... ::)
No, ignorance is bliss as they say
I became a theist because I found something behind the wordsI was reading.
As I discovered Jesus knowing is what became problematic.
Nothing wrong with not knowing but there is a problem with believing that is the state in which we should remain, surely.
-
Nothing wrong with not knowing but there is a problem with believing that is the state in which we should remain, surely.
I'm really not sure how you get a 'should' question from not knowing. There are things we don't know - that's a fact. We can try to find out as much as possible but if we don't have enough evidence or reasoning to come to a conclusion, we have to accept that state until and unless we get more.
-
I'm really not sure how you get a 'should' question from not knowing. There are things we don't know - that's a fact. We can try to find out as much as possible but if we don't have enough evidence or reasoning to come to a conclusion, we have to accept that state until and unless we get more.
True, there are things we don't know but once knowing going back to unknowing is not an option.
I think you'll find a thin line between what you are saying and a conclusion that everything, everything is just in the mind. Reasoning can not generate being.
-
True, there are things we don't know but once knowing going back to unknowing is not an option.
I guess, strictly speaking that is true but we're getting into the problem of what constitutes knowledge (classically "justified true belief" but then how to know that it's true and what about Gettier?). This is why science takes the view that theories are always open to be falsified by new evidence. More generally, we can always come across new information that can overturn a long held 'certainty'.
I think you'll find a thin line between what you are saying and a conclusion that everything, everything is just in the mind. Reasoning can not generate being.
Well the idea of everything being in the mind cannot be ruled out. However, there does appear to be an external, objective reality that is at least intersubjective - and if it isn't external and objective, it might as well be. As Philip K. Dick said: "reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away."
-
No, ignorance is bliss as they say
I became a theist because I found something behind the wordsI was reading.
As I discovered Jesus knowing is what became problematic.
Nothing wrong with not knowing but there is a problem with believing that is the state in which we should remain, surely.
if you'd read the Koran would you have become a Muslim?
-
I think you actually read a cookery book and became a fruit cake.
-
no, I was making the distinction that I don't believe in the existence of god , whereas Vlad seams to think that I merely deny the existence , wh
I've tried to bring this home to Vlad several times and like you Walter, I'm unable to make him understand that I'm not denying the existence of this god of his, it's just that to date haven't seen or heard of any evidential reason to think that there is such a thing as a god, so what would I 'be denying?
No doubt if Vlad does respond to this post no doubt it'll be some garbled, gobbledegooked kind of an incomprehensible response, yet again.
Regards ippy
-
no, I was making the distinction that I don't believe in the existence of god , whereas Vlad seams to think that I merely deny the existence , wh
I've tried to bring this home to Vlad several times and like you Walter, I'm unable to make him understand that I'm not denying the existence of this god of his, it's just that to date haven't seen or heard of any evidential reason to think that there is such a thing as a god, so what would I 'be denying?
No doubt if Vlad does respond to this post no doubt it'll be some garbled, gobbledegooked kind of an incomprehensible response, yet again.
Regards ippy
who cares mate , really , who cares ?
-
has it all gone tits up on here or something , weird posting?
-
has it all gone tits up on here or something , weird posting?
... or a possible answer to "How The Modern World Makes Us Mentally Ill"
-
... or a possible answer to "How The Modern World Makes Us Mentally Ill"
harrumph, that's the closest spelling of the sound that came out of my mouth
-
To be honest , I probably am mentally ill , who will be my judge ?
who in their right mind would live as I do ? an incident some years ago caused me to rethink everything I held dear and as result I simply fucked off and became what is commonly known as ''off grid'' but occasionally have Wi-Fi and have to visit a hospital , otherwise I am totally on my own .
In fact ,in some ways this board provides an access to the world I left behind . Although my grown up children fully understand and we are in contact as and when .
-
To be honest , I probably am mentally ill , who will be my judge ?
who in their right mind would live as I do ? an incident some years ago caused me to rethink everything I held dear and as result I simply fucked off and became what is commonly known as ''off grid'' but occasionally have Wi-Fi and have to visit a hospital , otherwise I am totally on my own .
In fact ,in some ways this board provides an access to the world I left behind . Although my grown up children fully understand and we are in contact as and when .
Fuckin hell, having this board as your access to the world must be a thing. Sort of like trying to understand Wittgenstein by a 1969 Halfords Ford Cortina manual with the even pages missing, the video of the Skandi Girls and fourteen fruit pastilles, none of which are the blackcurrant ones.
-
Fuckin hell, having this board as your access to the world must be a thing. Sort of like trying to understand Wittgenstein by a 1969 Halfords Ford Cortina manual with the even pages missing, the video of the Skandi Girls and fourteen fruit pastilles, none of which are the blackcurrant ones.
oh man , welcome to my world . At last !!!
-
in fact I'm embarrassed by my last comment , I wasn't looking for a portal .
-
oh man , welcome to my world . At last !!!
I have one of those days where if I said look how green the grass is, people would arguing it wasn't green, it was hujok
-
NS #743
:D
(Can I just ask: do you find that when you refresh the 'show unread topics' page that proxy has automatically jumped to the next unread one?
-
in fact I'm embarrassed by my last comment , I wasn't looking for a portal .
I can only say those posts where you appear to be not the character you have created are my favourites. Maybe you need to send more through the portal?
-
NS #743
:D
(Can I just ask: do you find that when you refresh the 'show unread topics' page that proxy has automatically jumped to the next unread one?
I don't use it. I use the recent posts.
-
I have one of those days where if I said look how green the grass is, people would arguing it wasn't green, it was hujok
maybe that's because you're just as much of a twat as I am or maybe they have never been able to see the colours
-
maybe that's because you're just as much of a twat as I am or maybe they have never been able to see the colours
Pretty much certainly as much of a twat. But today oh, the idiocy!!!! (And none of that, OK very very little of that was on here)
-
I can only say those posts where you appear to be not the character you have created are my favourites. Maybe you need to send more through the portal?
perhaps, but where's the fun in that , some folk on here think Walter is a real person , if I let more through the portal then people would begin to see the real me and I don't want that .
-
perhaps, but where's the fun in that , some folk on here think Walter is a real person , if I let more through the portal then people would begin to see the real me and I don't want that .
That's my favouritest post.
-
That's my favouritest post.
I know .
-
I know .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZnQQF7ucdM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZnQQF7ucdM
ahh , dental intervention at an early age is vital for adult appearances on TOTP
-
if you'd read the Koran would you have become a Muslim?
I could read it all now and have read a fair bit of it. It doesn't do anything for me. That was the point though the OT and NT didn't use to do anything for me and then it started to.
As I had time as a theist without personal knowledge of Christ I wonder how that was essentially any different from Judaism or Islam.
-
I could read it all now and have read a fair bit of it. It doesn't do anything for me. That was the point though the OT and NT didn't use to do anything for me and then it started to.
As I had time as a theist without personal knowledge of Christ I wonder how that was essentially any different from Judaism or Islam.
'personal knowledge of Christ' . Have you any idea how sad and ridiculous that sounds ? It's only because it's 'religious you can get away with saying it in public without being advised to seek psychiatric help.
-
'personal knowledge of Christ' . Have you any idea how sad and ridiculous that sounds ? It's only because it's 'religious you can get away with saying it in public without being advised to seek psychiatric help.
Stalinists saw religion as a psychiatric problem. Shouldn't you be out clog dancing?
-
Stalinists saw religion as a psychiatric problem.
Now Vlad, you wouldn't be attempting an association fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy), would you?
It's difficult to deny that many religious claims would be viewed very differently if seen in one, or a small number, of individuals - including your claim of "personal knowledge" of somebody who died 2000 years ago.
"This to me is the true horror of religion, it allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions what only lunatics could believe on their own. If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elvis Presley - you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus you're just a Catholic."
-- Sam Harris
-
Now Vlad, you wouldn't be attempting an association fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy), would you?
Are you thence saying that what motivated the Stalinists to suggest that religious people were mentally incapable cannot possibly be what motivates Walter to suggest it? or Sam Harris?
-
Now Vlad, you wouldn't be attempting an association fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy), would you?
It's difficult to deny that many religious claims would be viewed very differently if seen in one, or a small number, of individuals - including your claim of "personal knowledge" of somebody who died 2000 years ago.
"This to me is the true horror of religion, it allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions what only lunatics could believe on their own. If you wake up tomorrow morning thinking that saying a few Latin words over your pancakes is going to turn them into the body of Elvis Presley - you have lost your mind. But if you think more or less the same thing about a cracker and the body of Jesus you're just a Catholic."
-- Sam Harris
It's an interesting point, and has been dealt with in psychiatry (to an extent), by citing cultural influence. For example, in New Zealand, if a Maori patient tells a psychiatrist that he talks to his ancestors, the psychiatrist will take into account the traditional ancestor reverence practised by Maoris, (whakapapa).
In fact, some psychiatric definitions of 'delusion' exempt traditional beliefs and practices. So if a Western patient claims to have talked to the virgin Mary, this might be covered. I suppose if they claim to be her, they might be concerned.
An example of psychiatric definitions:
A false personal belief that is not subject to reason or contradictory evidence and is not explained by a person's usual cultural and religious concepts (so that, for example, it is not an article of faith).
(from medicine.net).
-
Are you thence saying that what motivated the Stalinists to suggest that religious people were mentally incapable cannot possibly be what motivates Walter to suggest it? or Sam Harris?
Neither Walter (in his post) nor Sam Harris (in the quote I posted) actually said that religious people are mentally incapable (neither did I).
Now go away and read about the association fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy) and explain why you brought up Stalinists...
-
In any case, the Soviets used psychiatry on quite a lot of people, if they were suspected of dissent. Being anti-Soviet could be viewed both as a criminal act, and as 'sluggish schizophrenia', whatever that means. Wiki calls the psychiatrists who did this 'the medical arm of the Gulag state'. Whether they really saw religion as an illness, I don't know.
The Wiki article looks quite good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union
-
Are you thence saying that what motivated the Stalinists to suggest that religious people were mentally incapable cannot possibly be what motivates Walter to suggest it? or Sam Harris?
another example of why I rarely respond to your posts . What is wrong with you??
-
Neither Walter (in his post) nor Sam Harris (in the quote I posted) actually said that religious people are mentally incapable (neither did I).
Now go away and read about the association fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy) and explain why you brought up Stalinists...
No but IMHO they suggest it and suggest was the word I used.
-
No but IMHO they suggest it and suggest was the word I used.
read the words I wrote , not what you think I wrote .
do you know what , I cant be bothered .
-
It's an interesting point, and has been dealt with in psychiatry (to an extent), by citing cultural influence. For example, in New Zealand, if a Maori patient tells a psychiatrist that he talks to his ancestors, the psychiatrist will take into account the traditional ancestor reverence practised by Maoris, (whakapapa).
Couldn't the psychiatrist just whack it onto his fee?
-
yet again Ippy I am asking a question.
Once in a while you might try answering one. It would make debates with you more constructive.
-
Once in a while you might try answering one. It would make debates with you more constructive.
Hi there jeremyp, I've gone back to this post you've referred to and it's just another one of those posts that Vlad keeps on spewing out ad infinitum, no I didn't answer this specific post of Vlad's, but I've tried so many times to give him a full explanation of all he is asking for in that post, it has been like talking to a brick wall, a waste of time, so inevitably most of us would think much the same as myself, what's the point of going in again.
Regards ippy
-
Hi there jeremyp, I've gone back to this post you've referred to and it's just another one of those posts that Vlad keeps on spewing out ad infinitum, no I didn't answer this specific post of Vlad's, but I've tried so many times to give him a full explanation of all he is asking for in that post, it has been like talking to a brick wall, a waste of time, so inevitably most of us would think much the same as myself, what's the point of going in again.
Regards ippy
Are you mistakenly thinking my post was addressed to you?
I was responding to Vlad who, by his own admission asks lots of questions, and yet the number of questions asked of him that he has failed to answer is astronomical.
-
Are you mistakenly thinking my post was addressed to you?
I was responding to Vlad who, by his own admission asks lots of questions, and yet the number of questions asked of him that he has failed to answer is astronomical.
Looks like I read you wrong, well there you go.
Regards ippy