Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: jeremyp on August 12, 2021, 02:38:03 PM
-
Today is the last day of Atheism.
Some religionists (all Christians I believe, but I may be wrong) have organised a Global Prayer to End Atheism (https://www.facebook.com/events/942359172978622/?active_tab=about) and they are doing it today. It's quite clever really because, if it works, that will prove there is a god, but it will also mean there are no atheists left to deny the truth. If it fails, there will still be atheists and it will be absolute proof that there is no god and all the theists will give up their gods.
So as of tomorrow, the theist/atheist debate will be resolved.
-
Tghere are supposed to be four 'gibgrins' here. Let's see if I can do it properly this time:
:D :D :D :D
-
I'll be interested to see what excuses are offered when their prayer initiative fails - unless!
-
I'll be interested to see what excuses are offered when their prayer initiative fails - unless!
Oh, that's easy ..... God is merciful and thou shalt love thy neighbour even if he is an atheist.
-
Oh, that's easy ..... God is merciful and thou shalt love thy neighbour even if he is an atheist.
Oh, I thought we were all secretly believers who were just lying to look cool (presumably because it's healthier than smoking, or something).
I'll have to wait and see if I'm overtaken by a sudden urge to sign up to the Church of Satan in the morning.
O.
-
Oh, I thought we were all secretly believers who were just lying to look cool (presumably because it's healthier than smoking, or something).
I'll have to wait and see if I'm overtaken by a sudden urge to sign up to the Church of Satan in the morning.
O.
... better to worship Sol. You going to see a lot of his vengeance in the coming years.
-
Today is the last day of Atheism.
Some religionists (all Christians I believe, but I may be wrong) have organised a Global Prayer to End Atheism (https://www.facebook.com/events/942359172978622/?active_tab=about) and they are doing it today.
Now then, I wonder how you'd all feel if I said I was joining in.
-
Now then, I wonder how you'd all feel if I said I was joining in.
Go for it Vlad - and if I'm still an atheist tomorrow how would you judge the prayer initiative?
-
Go for it Vlad - and if I'm still an atheist tomorrow how would you judge the prayer initiative?
It isn't your turn tomorrow.
-
It isn't your turn tomorrow.
I have no idea what you mean by that.
-
Did the theists give a definite date when all atheism would end or did they just give the date they were praying for the end of atheism?
The Facebook page doesn't seem to specify.
-
I have no idea what you mean by that.
Atheism ends but not all atheists converted at same time.
-
Did the theists give a definite date when all atheism would end or did they just give the date they were praying for the end of atheism?
The Facebook page doesn't seem to specify.
I'm never going to forgive you VG. You prompted me to look at the FB page. Yes you did, don't deny it. I can't unsee it now. I know, I should have known better.
Dear Lord (if you do exist) have you seen what they are doing in your name?
-
Atheism ends but not all atheists converted at same time.
So atheism hasn't ended then (if there are still some of us left) - yes?
-
So atheism hasn't ended then (if there are still some of us left) - yes?
Which part of ''atheism ends'' aren't you getting Gordon. Anyone who predicts a date and time for it is on a hiding to nothing imv.
Any way you never answered my question which is how would you feel if I said I'd joined in? How do you feel about this anyway? threatened? sad like when the last Babylonian bid farewell to his old pet ankylosaurus?
-
Which part of ''atheism ends'' aren't you getting Gordon. Anyone who predicts a date and time for it is on a hiding to nothing imv.
Any way you never answered my question which is how would you feel if I said I'd joined in? How do you feel about this anyway? threatened? sad like when the last Babylonian bid farewell to his old pet ankylosaurus?
So if atheism ends any time in, say, the next 100,000 years then the prayer will have worked? I'd have liked some kind of timescale to determine whether or not these prayers are effective, since without that how can we ever judge?
Do I feel threatened: no.
-
I'm never going to forgive you VG. You prompted me to look at the FB page. Yes you did, don't deny it. I can't unsee it now. I know, I should have known better.
Dear Lord (if you do exist) have you seen what they are doing in your name?
Haha - I felt bad about looking at the page too. Figured I might as well share the joy. But I couldn't bring myself to play the video - was it everything and more that you hoped for? I was just looking for a definite date on the page or some details, anything.
Looks like your conversion could take place slowly...very slowly... :P
-
So if atheism ends any time in, say, the next 100,000 years then the prayer will have worked? I'd have liked some kind of timescale to determine whether or not these prayers are effective, since without that how can we ever judge?
Do I feel threatened: no.
It looks as though we may have differing views of what the terms ''prayer'' and ''prayer works'' mean with yours approximating more to Star Wars the force than mine.
On the other hand you aren't at all guilty as some of the outrageous displays by american preachers effectively ordering God about. You'd like a timescale? Have you asked for one from the only person likely to have one?
After all Gordon who needs to know that you tried to bypass atheists constraint at going to God directly?
-
It looks as though we may have differing views of what the terms ''prayer'' and ''prayer works'' mean with yours approximating more to Star Wars the force than mine.
I'm supposing that those doing this praying are doing so with some expectation of a result: I'd just like them to tell us what constitutes a result.
On the other hand you aren't at all guilty as some of the outrageous displays by american preachers effectively ordering God about. You'd like a timescale? Have you asked for one from the only person likely to have one?
Presumably, as noted above, the people behind this event will have thought through how they'd measure its success - it would be nice to know what we should be looking out for by way of results.
After all Gordon who needs to know that you tried to bypass atheists constraint at going to God directly?
Don't be silly.
-
Presumably, as noted above, the people behind this event will have thought through how they'd measure its success -
That sounds a bit managerese. I find myself able not to think in those terms but if your mind is fixed in that idiom, Firstly they will be motivated by hope and that in some sense it is,I think, what theologians call God's primary will. However they will or should be mindful that Jesus didn't give times or dates concerning the day when atheism becomes an untenable, according to scripture.
-
That sounds a bit managerese. I find myself able not to think in those terms but if your mind is fixed in that idiom, Firstly they will be motivated by hope and that in some sense it is,I think, what theologians call God's primary will. However they will or should be mindful that Jesus didn't give times or dates concerning the day when atheism becomes an untenable, according to scripture.
'Hope' is all very well, Vlad, but it needs to be tempered by a dash of realism: I might hope that one day soon hair will spontaneously reappear on the top of my head, but realism suggests otherwise so that, therefore, to actively hope for that would be pointless.
The same applies to this prayer initiative, which looks like being no more than a pointless gesture even if those involved think they are making a point. Moreover, I suspect they have set themselves for failure, which seems rather naive of them.
-
'Hope' is all very well, Vlad, but it needs to be tempered by a dash of realism: I might hope that one day soon hair will spontaneously reappear on the top of my head, but realism suggests otherwise so that, therefore, to actively hope for that would be pointless.
The same applies to this prayer initiative, which looks like being no more than a pointless gesture even if those involved think they are making a point. Moreover, I suspect they have set themselves for failure, which seems rather naive of them.
The hope of a world where everyone has a relationship with God is in the same category as the hope many express on here that everyone becomes atheist and this is just people nailing their colours to the mast.
My own position is based on the occasion of being shifted from a hope that atheism would last forever to a conviction that it won't.
-
The hope of a world where everyone has a relationship with God is in the same category as the hope many express on here that everyone becomes atheist and this is just people nailing their colours to the mast.
But I can't think of anyone here who has overtly stated that they hope everyone becomes atheist: so who are you thinking of?
My own position is based on the occasion of being shifted from a hope that atheism would last forever to a conviction that it won't.
On what do you base your conviction?
-
But I can't think of anyone here who has overtly stated that they hope everyone becomes atheist: so who are you thinking of?
On what do you base your conviction?
The inner witness of the holy spirit, Scripture which talks of a phase shift in existence in which God will be self evident to all, a taster of which I have experienced and finally the spectacle of goddodgery by people on this forum. Which had new atheism existed years ago would be enough to make me think about such overt avoidance behaviour.
-
The inner witness of the holy spirit, Scripture which talks of a phase shift in existence in which God will be self evident to all, a taster of which I have experienced and finally the spectacle of goddodgery by people on this forum. Which had new atheism existed years ago would be enough to make me think about such overt avoidance behaviour.
Oh so it's a feeling you've had inside.
You self ID as a religioso.
-
Oh so it's a feeling you've had inside.
You self ID as a religioso.
What part of "being shifted....from a hope that atheism would last for ever to a conviction it won't" aren't you getting Trent?
-
The inner witness of the holy spirit, Scripture which talks of a phase shift in existence in which God will be self evident to all, a taster of which I have experienced and finally the spectacle of goddodgery by people on this forum. Which had new atheism existed years ago would be enough to make me think about such overt avoidance behaviour.
What is "goddodgery"?
Maybe I have misunderstood, but it sounds like you think atheists avoid god? Doesn't avoiding something require you to believe it exists in order to form the intent to avoid it? If atheists don't have a belief that gods exists how are you evidencing an intention to avoid?
Having been an atheist, I wasn't avoiding gods - the idea of gods just seemed meaningless and therefore the whole concept was irrelevant other than where other people's religious beliefs constrained or impinged on my day to day life e.g. school requiring me to attend religious assemblies - having to get lots of late marks and admonitions about my time-keeping because being forced to listen to the head pontificate about good and bad in religious terms or Jesus dying for my sins was irritating.
My reaction to being forced to listen to this type of think was to push back and force religious people to listen to my views - so I wrote in large black letters on the back of my lab coat "God did not create Man, Man created God". I am fairly certain I succeeded in irritating the religious back, which only seemed fair. As far as I was concerned we were even - they shoved religion down my throat and I shoved atheism down theirs. It seemed a good balance but then suddenly the school banned everyone from writing on our lab coats and we all had to wash all the writing off or get new ones.
-
The inner witness of the holy spirit, Scripture which talks of a phase shift in existence in which God will be self evident to all, a taster of which I have experienced and finally the spectacle of goddodgery by people on this forum. Which had new atheism existed years ago would be enough to make me think about such overt avoidance behaviour.
You've forgotten to clarify who here you were thinking of when you said that they had expressed the hope that "that everyone becomes atheist".
Your personal conviction that atheism won't last forever seems to rest on your feeling that you experienced some form of divine encounter - is it possible you are mistaken?
-
You've forgotten to clarify who here you were thinking of when you said that they had expressed the hope that "that everyone becomes atheist".
Your personal conviction that atheism won't last forever seems to rest on your feeling that you experienced some form of divine encounter - is it possible you are mistaken?
I think Susan Doris has expressed a hope that everyone becomes atheist. I would suggest that's it's implied in the posting of bluehillside, and arguably a couple of others.
-
What part of "being shifted....from a hope that atheism would last for ever to a conviction it won't" aren't you getting Trent?
Shifted by what? A feeling? A voice? What?
If it's a feeling, I repeat, you are self Id'ing, which we can choose to accept or reject because it's based on a feeling. What part of that aren't you getting Walt?
-
Shifted by what? A feeling? A voice? What?
If it's a feeling, I repeat, you are self Id'ing, which we can choose to accept or reject because it's based on a feeling. What part of that aren't you getting Walt?
God is definitionally as far as we and reality are concerned is, in anybodies book an ultimate reality, in the same order as an infinitely old and eternal universe or a universe that ops out of nothing. We will never know for sure which or either of these two universes is the real thing. God on the other hand is perfectly free to allow people to be aware and react to himself.
And that is precisely what started happening the moment you just read this since your response would have either been mild ire or sweet agreement. Mild ire that I had introduced get outs from the two possible alternatives to God or mild ire against the agnostic position..........or mild ire at having to go to the ''unknown unknowns'' gambit.
My encounter therefore stimulated within me in turns, a questioning of my moral status, reception of a temporary ability to complete focus on a single thing, God, I was faced with a decision to open or close myself to God in the knowledge that I could, whatever the choice not deny my encounter I am not ashamed of any feelings I had as a consequence although many I couldn't resist having and some I didn't want at all, your notion of a free floating feeling without stimulus being debateable, although I know christians and of christians who have no stand out feelings at the point I was at.
I don't believe my arguments on here are based around feelings but more philosophical. Although I strongly council your examination of your own feelings e.g. do you find you draw comfort from any atheistic philosophy, do you, for instance, stop worrying when Richard Dawkins states there probably isn't a God ( Atheist Bus Campaign)
-
I think Susan Doris has expressed a hope that everyone becomes atheist. I would suggest that's it's implied in the posting of bluehillside, and arguably a couple of others.
What Sane said.
-
God is definitionally as far as we and reality are concerned is, in anybodies book an ultimate reality,
God isn't an ultimate reality. You are just posting what you want to be real.
I don't have mild ire or sweet agreement, maybe bafflement at your increasingly complex justifications and twisty turny reasoning.
I pay very little heed to Dawkins. I do, after all, have a life to live. As to drawing comfort from them, no I don't. I draw comfort from my friends and loved ones. I don't need comfort from professional atheists or professional religionists for that matter.
-
What is "goddodgery"?
Maybe I have misunderstood, but it sounds like you think atheists avoid god? Doesn't avoiding something require you to believe it exists in order to form the intent to avoid it? If atheists don't have a belief that gods exists how are you evidencing an intention to avoid?
Goddodgery is the conscious or subconscious avoidance of God/the truth of God and the manifest behaviours which ensue. Avoiding something doesn't then require an overt or conscious belief in it. Belief could also be masked by self delusion and the desire for whatever reason to overtly maintain the status quo of atheism. I do know a believer who, at his own admission, publicly continued to profess atheism even though he had encountered God.
Having been an atheist, I wasn't avoiding gods
I am bound to ask whether you think subconsciously you might have been although the new testament has a parable of a ploughworker suddenly uncovering a treasure the meaning of course is like your own experience - the idea of gods just seemed meaningless and therefore the whole concept was irrelevant other than where other people's religious beliefs constrained or impinged on my day to day life e.g. school requiring me to attend religious assemblies - having to get lots of late marks and admonitions about my time-keeping because being forced to listen to the head pontificate about good and bad in religious terms or Jesus dying for my sins was irritating.
So were religious ideas meaningless or irritating to you? I was actually told by my parents to avoid holy talk of any kind. I did have an uncle who was openly evangelical but I recall my mother, after his rare visits sweeping the house for religious tracts some of which he had authored, bibles, etc and my father treated him as a figure of fun.
My reaction to being forced to listen to this type of think was to push back and force religious people to listen to my views - so I wrote in large black letters on the back of my lab coat "God did not create Man, Man created God". I am fairly certain I succeeded in irritating the religious back, which only seemed fair. As far as I was concerned we were even - they shoved religion down my throat and I shoved atheism down theirs. It seemed a good balance but then suddenly the school banned everyone from writing on our lab coats and we all had to wash all the writing off or get new ones.
And here you are, a theist!
-
God isn't an ultimate reality. You are just posting what you want to be real.
What can I say, Trent.....I expected you to say God may not be an ultimate reality(although philosophically He is)? But no, you seemed whipped up by this talk enough to declare God isn't an ultimate reality(positive assertion). You are just posting what you feel
(Another positive assertion) Since you have made two positive assertions, you know what you have to do.
I don't have mild ire or sweet agreement,
No, it doesn't sound like it. maybe bafflement at your increasingly complex justifications and twisty turny reasoning.
And yet I don't suppose that bafflement extends to , in the experience of ''coming out, denial of one's own sexuality, self denial of one's own sexuality, avoidance behaviour of
one's own sexuality are all accepted phenomena whereas any of these outside that sphere are ''baffling''.I pay very little heed to Dawkins.
that has proved to be the wise policy.
-
Since you have made two positive assertions, you know what you have to do.
I think you need to prove your assertion first. That is, I understand, the way these things work.
And yet I don't suppose that bafflement extends to , in the experience of ''coming out, denial of one's own sexuality, self denial of one's own sexuality, avoidance behaviour of
one's own sexuality are all accepted phenomena whereas any of these outside that sphere are impossible experiences.
There is absolute proof for homosexuality (if you need guidance I can point you towards various websites) in a way that I would suggest there is not for the existence of God.
-
God is definitionally as far as we and reality are concerned is, in anybodies book an ultimate reality, in the same order as an infinitely old and eternal universe or a universe that ops out of nothing. We will never know for sure which or either of these two universes is the real thing. God on the other hand is perfectly free to allow people to be aware and react to himself.
For you, it obviously is, but as God is of no personal significance to me, for me, it isn't.
And that is precisely what started happening the moment you just read this since your response would have either been mild ire or sweet agreement. Mild ire that I had introduced get outs from the two possible alternatives to God or mild ire against the agnostic position..........or mild ire at having to go to the ''unknown unknowns'' gambit.
What you feel or think is entirely up to you. From my position, I feel no particular emotion when reading your views. Is there any reason why I should? Do you feel 'mild ire or sweet agreement' when reading the views of the agnostic atheist position?
My encounter therefore stimulated within me in turns, a questioning of my moral status, reception of a temporary ability to complete focus on a single thing, God, I was faced with a decision to open or close myself to God in the knowledge that I could, whatever the choice not deny my encounter I am not ashamed of any feelings I had as a consequence although many I couldn't resist having and some I didn't want at all, your notion of a free floating feeling without stimulus being debateable, although I know christians and of christians who have no stand out feelings at the point I was at.
All that signifies is how you came to believe in your idea of God and what effect it had on you. Obviously that is significant for you and that's fine by me. I questioned(and still question) all sorts of things, but, from a personal point of view, the idea of the existence of your God has very low priority and very low significance. That's just the way it is.
I don't believe my arguments on here are based around feelings but more philosophical. Although I strongly council your examination of your own feelings e.g. do you find you draw comfort from any atheistic philosophy, do you, for instance, stop worrying when Richard Dawkins states there probably isn't a God ( Atheist Bus Campaign)
Maybe that is one major difference between us. I don't even wish to council you on these things. You are quite capable, I assume. of examining your own feelings, without someone else muddying the waters. I don't draw comfort or otherwise from my atheistic attitude, hence your introducing Richard Dawkins into your comments seems to say more about your own fixations than it does mine.
-
For you, it obviously is, but as God is of no personal significance to me, for me, it isn't.
But as I keep being told personal significance is irrelevant in the matter of whether God exists or not. Also unfortunately for your personal significance(head in the sand?) theory God had no personal significance for me. Now look at me.
-
I think you need to prove your assertion first. That is, I understand, the way these things work.
There is absolute proof for homosexuality (if you need guidance I can point you towards various websites) in a way that I would suggest there is not for the existence of God.
No, there is no queue in proving a positive assertion there is just onus and you made two today. All positive assertions require an onus.......... get on with yours.
Did I say homosexuality does not exist? There does however remain the possibility, since it is a feeling, that it does not exist(your theory Trent) and the behaviours demonstrating it are motivated by something else. We only have the behaviours to go on and it is certainly behaviours that atheists judge religion by.
There is also the question mark hanging over you....why you accept self denial and denial in the matter of ''coming out'' but fail to extend this acceptance to the ''issue of coming out'' as a sinner/convert.
-
God is definitionally as far as we and reality are concerned is, in anybodies book an ultimate reality, in the same order as an infinitely old and eternal universe or a universe that ops out of nothing. We will never know for sure which or either of these two universes is the real thing. God on the other hand is perfectly free to allow people to be aware and react to himself.
What would you say is your reaction to the origin of the universe? Because my reaction is that the origin hasn't been demonstrated so I am not aware of the origin of the universe so I live my life without taking into account the origin of the universe in my day to day decisions or having a reaction to the origin of the universe. How about you?
When you say God is free to allow people to be aware and react to himself, wouldn't someone first need to have a concept of an immaterial entity in order to be able to be aware of and react to it? Unless you mean bafflement is a reaction - similar to the bafflement one would feel if they heard a made-up language that did not follow any consistent rules. If there are no consistent rules relating to God what is the method to detect or measure or understand mathematically or conceptually to be aware of what God is in order to have a reaction? You and I have both been atheists apparently. I don't know about you but my recollection was that as an atheist I didn't think about God except when other people brought it up and I had a reaction to their descriptions, not to God, as I had no awareness of God.
We can't prove the origins of the universe or God. But we can't apply the same concept of reality to an immaterial God that we apply to the material things we can objectively detect and measure that are part of what we refer to as the universe. With the objectivity we are able to make accurate predictions about actions and reactions and forces in our environment that act on us. We can't objectively detect or measure anything in relation to God to make any consistent predictions about the effect of an immaterial God. There is no similar level of accuracy and predictability and consistency demonstrated in relation to God. With God we have conflicting predictions of reincarnation/ an after-life/ a Judgement Day/ good consequences if you believe Jesus is God/ bad consequences if you believe Jesus is God/ conflicting rules about diet, human relationships etc. And because we can't objectively measure anything related to God that's a pretty big difference between the universe and God.
And that is precisely what started happening the moment you just read this since your response would have either been mild ire or sweet agreement. Mild ire that I had introduced get outs from the two possible alternatives to God or mild ire against the agnostic position..........or mild ire at having to go to the ''unknown unknowns'' gambit.
You seem to be describing a reaction to your words about God rather than a reaction to God? If you posted different words it would cause a different reaction.
My encounter therefore stimulated within me in turns, a questioning of my moral status, reception of a temporary ability to complete focus on a single thing, God, I was faced with a decision to open or close myself to God in the knowledge that I could, whatever the choice not deny my encounter I am not ashamed of any feelings I had as a consequence although many I couldn't resist having and some I didn't want at all, your notion of a free floating feeling without stimulus being debateable, although I know christians and of christians who have no stand out feelings at the point I was at.
Ok you felt a reaction. How did you arrive at the conclusion you had encountered God rather than just encountered some words, thoughts, ideas about God?
I don't believe my arguments on here are based around feelings but more philosophical. Although I strongly council your examination of your own feelings e.g. do you find you draw comfort from any atheistic philosophy, do you, for instance, stop worrying when Richard Dawkins states there probably isn't a God ( Atheist Bus Campaign)
What are your philosophical arguments for God?
What feelings do you have when you think about your philosophical arguments for God?
I would like to know your philosophical arguments in order to try to identify any feelings I have when I read the words that make up your philosophical arguments.
-
Goddodgery is the conscious or subconscious avoidance of God/the truth of God and the manifest behaviours which ensue. Avoiding something doesn't then require an overt or conscious belief in it. Belief could also be masked by self delusion and the desire for whatever reason to overtly maintain the status quo of atheism. I do know a believer who, at his own admission, publicly continued to profess atheism even though he had encountered God.
I am bound to ask whether you think subconsciously you might have been although the new testament has a parable of a ploughworker suddenly uncovering a treasure the meaning of course is like your own experience So were religious ideas meaningless or irritating to you? I was actually told by my parents to avoid holy talk of any kind. I did have an uncle who was openly evangelical but I recall my mother, after his rare visits sweeping the house for religious tracts some of which he had authored, bibles, etc and my father treated him as a figure of fun. And here you are, a theist!
I am not sure what you mean when you say belief could be masked by self delusion. It's possible. But that then leads me to allow the possibility that everything we write on this forum might not be what we really think and our real thoughts could be masked by self delusion. For example it's possible that you and I could be self-deluded into thinking we are Christian and Muslim when in fact for both of us, our real beliefs are Hindu beliefs. How would we ever know if we are self-deluded about our Christian and Muslim beliefs?
We could be consciously/ sub-consciously avoiding the truth of Hinduism and reincarnation and the behaviours that would ensue because we have a reason for professing Christian and Muslim beliefs that don't subscribe to reincarnation. But how to have any discussion on that basis if we have to constantly think we are self-deluded and keep doubting our thoughts?
Yes I am a theist - because it works for me now. The words spoken by the religious up until then used to cause a negative reaction because they lacked any logical, consistent or definitive concepts - it was all belief, supposition, endless possibilities of what could be true, no objective evidence, so not surprisingly none of it was convincing enough to generate a belief in any of it. Without belief it all seemed like nothing more than silly rituals and baffling words that made no sense and I couldn't see the logic of accepting any particular conflicting unevidenced belief over another. Is that what you mean by avoiding? If it was avoidance it was based on a lack of time - so many thousands of conflicting beliefs so where do I start in trying to pick one to try to engage with it, and even if I did pick one I soon had someone babbling illogical nonsense about their particular version of that belief, which inevitably led to a negative reaction to their words and beliefs.
However, at some point I became aware that I actually had a positive reaction to some words I read about God - it happened to be in the Quran. I also had a positive reaction to the words I heard spoken by people who did not claim certainty of knowledge about anything related to gods or religious beliefs. Maybe that positive reaction was the start of belief and I certainly didn't choose or have any control over that reaction. It led to me reading more about religious philosophical beliefs that did not involve certainty of knowledge and it got to the point where I could see a point to belief in God but I could also see the point of being atheist. Each position brings its own costs and benefits and reactions so I can appreciate the positive aspects of atheism and theism and I can also appreciate the negative aspects of both.
When my theist thoughts, reactions and practices seemed to have a better outcome for me, not surprisingly I continued with those thoughts and practices and tried out a few additional ones. If they seem to feel beneficial I continue with them. I measure what is a better outcome based on the feelings those outcomes invoke in me. My religion often helps me regulate my reactions, especially my feelings and interactions with other people. It's an additional tool to the non-religious tools I used as an atheist. These are all emotional concepts and it could be a self-delusion masking my atheism but as I can neither prove or disprove this possible self-delusion, I figure why worry about it.
-
But as I keep being told personal significance is irrelevant in the matter of whether God exists or not.
I didn't say it was significant. You appear to think that it is however whereas as I made clear, I don't.
Also unfortunately for your personal significance(head in the sand?) theory God had no personal significance for me. Now look at me.
Haven't a clue as to why that is unfortunate for me? What you thought and felt or how you changed has little bearing on my own views. As you have never been able to give any sound arguments as to why your God does actually exist(as distinct from just the possibility that it exists) why on earth should I look at you?
-
No, there is no queue in proving a positive assertion there is just onus and you made two today. All positive assertions require an onus.......... get on with yours.
Did I say homosexuality does not exist? There does however remain the possibility, since it is a feeling, that it does not exist(your theory Trent) and the behaviours demonstrating it are motivated by something else. We only have the behaviours to go on and it is certainly behaviours that atheists judge religion by.
There is also the question mark hanging over you....why you accept self denial and denial in the matter of ''coming out'' but fail to extend this acceptance to the ''issue of coming out'' as a sinner/convert.
Still I'll wait for proof of your positive assertion that "God is an ultimate reality".
As I said before twisty turny. I really don't want to waste time explaining to you why fairies at the bottom of your garden are not the same as fairies in Heaven.
-
Still I'll wait for proof of your positive assertion that "God is an ultimate reality".
As I said before twisty turny. I really don't want to waste time explaining to you why fairies at the bottom of your garden are not the same as fairies in Heaven.
God is one of the ultimate realities postulated by philosophy Trent. I don't have to prove that it's in the books along with an eternal universe without God and a universe popped out of nothing(Hume).
I don't know your fairiology but your philosophy needs a bit of attention.
-
God is one of the ultimate realities postulated by philosophy Trent. I don't have to prove that it's in the books along with an eternal universe without God and a universe popped out of nothing(Hume).
I don't know your fairiology but your philosophy needs a bit of attention.
You are not correct, my philosophy needs a lot of attention. You are still comparing apples and dolphins though.
-
God is one of the ultimate realities postulated by philosophy Trent. I don't have to prove that it's in the books along with an eternal universe without God and a universe popped out of nothing(Hume).
I don't know your fairiology but your philosophy needs a bit of attention.
God being postulated by philosophy does not equate to it being correct. Philosophy has postulated many things over the years. As it happens, surveys reveal that most living philosophers are atheist.
-
God being postulated by philosophy does not equate to it being correct. Philosophy has postulated many things over the years. As it happens, surveys reveal that most living philosophers are atheist.
Oh no not again. We know this. But you are using it in a tricksy fashion. It doesn't mean it's correct.......end of story/message. The full message of course SHOULD be it doesn't mean it's correct and it doesn't mean it's incorrect. You just state the second part and angry atheists call NPF or whatever the fallacy of the day.
This is no trivial matter considering atheists are betting the house on it not being correct and pushing that aspect philosophically.
-
Oh no not again. We know this. But you are using it in a tricksy fashion. It doesn't mean it's correct.......end of story/message. The full message of course SHOULD be it doesn't mean it's correct and it doesn't mean it's incorrect. You just state the second part and angry atheists call NPF or whatever the fallacy of the day.
This is no trivial matter considering atheists are betting the house on it not being correct and pushing that aspect philosophically.
You're reading too much into it. There are lots of truth claims in the world, most will be incorrect, that is just statistics. As a good a-unicornist, are you betting the house on there being no unicorns ?
-
You're reading too much into it. There are lots of truth claims in the world, most will be incorrect, that is just statistics. As a good a-unicornist, are you betting the house on there being no unicorns ?
Comparing God and unicorns is IMV trivialising the philosophical definitions and philosophical implications. It starts a priori with the fairy story.
Given that, if unicorns exist, so what? When you have a god free eternal universe and a universe popped out of nothing why make recourse to unicorns.
-
Comparing God and unicorns is IMV trivialising the philosophical definitions and philosophical implications. It starts a priori with the fairy story.
Given that, if unicorns exist, so what? When you have a god free eternal universe and a universe popped out of nothing why make recourse to unicorns.
Trivialising something may sometimes be a useful way to get the point across.
-
God being postulated by philosophy does not equate to it being correct. Philosophy has postulated many things over the years. As it happens, surveys reveal that most living philosophers are atheist.
Most of philosophy has been established by deceased philosophers, the greatest of whom, who are still talked about today are probably theistic. New atheists philosophy and philosophers (largely a bit of a joke) certainly garner the most publicity and cultish following. I guess I'm talking Dennett.
-
Most of philosophy has been established by deceased philosophers, the greatest of whom, who are still talked about today are probably theistic. New atheists philosophy and philosophers (largely a bit of a joke) certainly garner the most publicity and cultish following. I guess I'm talking Dennett.
Looks rather like you are trivialising contemporary philosophers
-
Looks rather like you are trivialising contemporary philosophers
I haven't trivialised Dennett and am less likely to be seen trivialising Carroll who is an amateur in probably the most noblest sense.
Other than those two, which philosophersand how have I trivialised them?
-
I've been away for the weekend and I couldn't be bothered reading any of the other posts since Friday, so apologies for ignoring whatever it is that Vlad has been saying..
Anyway, I'm still an atheist.
This could only be true if the prayer to end atheism had failed, and that could only be the case if there is no God.
Given the irrefutable logic of the above, I assume all the posts by Vlad have been apologising for being wrong all these years and he and all the other theists have now renounced their faith.
You ex-theists must be a bit embarrassed about being wrong for all those years. But don't worry, we're just happy that you've finally seen the light.
-
I am not sure what you mean when you say belief could be masked by self delusion. It's possible. But that then leads me to allow the possibility that everything we write on this forum might not be what we really think and our real thoughts could be masked by self delusion.
But this is God we are talking about. There are only really likely to be two supreme beings in a life, God and oneself. The self delusion here is more likely to favour one's own role as one's own supreme being capable of For example it's possible that you and I could be self-deluded into thinking we are Christian and Muslim when in fact for both of us, our real beliefs are Hindu beliefs.
We could check our beliefs which incidentally we seem to have acquired some strange how How would we ever know if we are self-deluded about our Christian and Muslim beliefs?
We live in a belief supermarket and can compare what we have strangely acquired with what's on offer.
We could be consciously/ sub-consciously avoiding the truth of Hinduism and reincarnation and the behaviours that would ensue because we have a reason for professing Christian and Muslim beliefs that don't subscribe to reincarnation.
I am in conversation with a neighbour who professes both christianity and reincarnation. I think this may partly be fallout from an anglican christianity that is deeply imbued with hinduism due to it's imperial affiliation But how to have any discussion on that basis if we have to constantly think we are self-deluded and keep doubting our thoughts?
Doubts are inevitable imv. But that should not stop discussion.
Yes I am a theist - because it works for me now.
working in the sense that something external to you has given you a new heart or drive or working in the sense that it is presently useful to you? The words spoken by the religious up until then used to cause a negative reaction because they lacked any logical, consistent or definitive concepts - it was all belief, supposition, endless possibilities of what could be true, no objective evidence, so not surprisingly none of it was convincing enough to generate a belief in any of it. Without belief it all seemed like nothing more than silly rituals and baffling words that made no sense and I couldn't see the logic of accepting any particular conflicting unevidenced belief over another. Is that what you mean by avoiding? If it was avoidance it was based on a lack of time - so many thousands of conflicting beliefs so where do I start in trying to pick one to try to engage with it, and even if I did pick one I soon had someone babbling illogical nonsense about their particular version of that belief, which inevitably led to a negative reaction to their words and beliefs.
However, at some point I became aware that I actually had a positive reaction to some words I read about God - it happened to be in the Quran. I also had a positive reaction to the words I heard spoken by people who did not claim certainty of knowledge about anything related to gods or religious beliefs. Maybe that positive reaction was the start of belief and I certainly didn't choose or have any control over that reaction. It led to me reading more about religious philosophical beliefs that did not involve certainty of knowledge and it got to the point where I could see a point to belief in God but I could also see the point of being atheist. Each position brings its own costs and benefits and reactions so I can appreciate the positive aspects of atheism and theism and I can also appreciate the negative aspects of both.
When my theist thoughts, reactions and practices seemed to have a better outcome for me, not surprisingly I continued with those thoughts and practices and tried out a few additional ones. If they seem to feel beneficial I continue with them. I measure what is a better outcome based on the feelings those outcomes invoke in me. My religion often helps me regulate my reactions, especially my feelings and interactions with other people. It's an additional tool to the non-religious tools I used as an atheist. These are all emotional concepts and it could be a self-delusion masking my atheism but as I can neither prove or disprove this possible self-delusion, I figure why worry about it.
-
I've been away for the weekend and I couldn't be bothered reading any of the other posts since Friday,
That sounds like a perfectly healthy response to the forum. I absolve you from any feelings of guilt.
-
I've been away for the weekend and I couldn't be bothered reading any of the other posts since Friday, so apologies for ignoring whatever it is that Vlad has been saying..
Anyway, I'm still an atheist.
This could only be true if the prayer to end atheism had failed, and that could only be the case if there is no God.
Given the irrefutable logic of the above, I assume all the posts by Vlad have been apologising for being wrong all these years and he and all the other theists have now renounced their faith.
You ex-theists must be a bit embarrassed about being wrong for all those years. But don't worry, we're just happy that you've finally seen the light.
Just when I thought you had achieved some sanity of attitude you go and do this..........Have I missed something?
-
Today is the last day of Atheism.
The only way God will end atheism is at Jesus' return, when everyone will see him.
-
The only way God will end atheism is at Jesus' return, when everyone will see him.
So prayer doesn't work.
-
Just when I thought you had achieved some sanity of attitude you go and do this..........Have I missed something?
It's cast iron logic. The prayer to end atheism didn't work and therefore only a deluded insane person would continue to be a theist. Are you still a theist?
-
But this is God we are talking about. There are only really likely to be two supreme beings in a life, God and oneself. The self delusion here is more likely to favour one's own role as one's own supreme
Supreme in what way? If we look around different animals are supreme in relation to different traits and when it comes to people, there isn't one supreme person. Thousands of people are intelligent in different ways, have strength, agility and abilities in different ways and so my lived experience is that there is not one supreme being. What data are you using to calculate the likelihood of there being two supreme beings? I'd need to know how you define supremacy in this context to understand the point you are making.
We live in a belief supermarket and can compare what we have strangely acquired with what's on offer. I am in conversation with a neighbour who professes both christianity and reincarnation. I think this may partly be fallout from an anglican christianity that is deeply imbued with hinduism due to it's imperial affiliation Doubts are inevitable imv. But that should not stop discussion. Working in the sense that something external to you has given you a new heart or drive or working in the sense that it is presently useful to you?
Both I suppose. Working in the sense that it is presently useful to me. When you say something external to me giving me a new heart or drive - do you mean in the sense of the words in the Quran are something external to me?
I wasn't reading the words searching for spiritual enlightenment but because I was looking to denigrate the words as religious nonsense. So yes something external to me i.e. the passage I read in the Quran was interpreted by my brain to cause an unexpected positive reaction in me in a way that made me less dismissive of religion than I had been previously.
-
Supreme in what way? If we look around different animals are supreme in relation to different traits and when it comes to people, there isn't one supreme person. Thousands of people are intelligent in different ways, have strength, agility and abilities in different ways and so my lived experience is that there is not one supreme being. What data are you using to calculate the likelihood of there being two supreme beings? I'd need to know how you define supremacy in this context to understand the point you are making.Both I suppose. Working in the sense that it is presently useful to me. When you say something external to me giving me a new heart or drive - do you mean in the sense of the words in the Quran are something external to me?
I wasn't reading the words searching for spiritual enlightenment but because I was looking to denigrate the words as religious nonsense. So yes something external to me i.e. the passage I read in the Quran was interpreted by my brain to cause an unexpected positive reaction in me in a way that made me less dismissive of religion than I had been previously.
God can be supreme in all ways I would have thought being after all the supreme being. However one is one's own unique observer who has to be satisfied and that offers a sort of competing supremacy. They say we want to all be the hero of of our own story but God in his supremacy challenges that.
Not being conscious of searching for spiritual enlightenment and then having one's disinterest challenged is I would contend not an uncommon religious experience. experience
-
It's cast iron logic. The prayer to end atheism didn't work and therefore only a deluded insane person would continue to be a theist. Are you still a theist?
Again Jeremy it comes down to how you think prayer works and what it is effects the prayer. I think you muddied the waters a bit by inventing the catch line 'Atheism ends today'
Biblically I suppose atheism ends with the second coming of Christ.
-
Again Jeremy it comes down to how you think prayer works and what it is effects the prayer. I think you muddied the waters a bit by inventing the catch line 'Atheism ends today'
I didn't invent it. It's the natural consequence of the prayer to end atheism, if there is a god. Despite, thousands of Christians praying to end atheism, it didn't end and therefore, we must conclude that there is no god. Perfectly simple really.
Biblically I suppose atheism ends with the second coming of Christ.
He failed to turn up, so that's more cast iron evidence that there is no god. Only a lunatic would continue to believe in God after so much failure. Do you still believe in God?
-
I didn't invent it. It's the natural consequence of the prayer to end atheism, if there is a god. Despite, thousands of Christians praying to end atheism, it didn't end and therefore, we must conclude that there is no god. Perfectly simple really.
He failed to turn up, so that's more cast iron evidence that there is no god. Only a lunatic would continue to believe in God after so much failure. Do you still believe in God?
This has obviously been a moment for you but getting the answer you want by having oversights and errors convinces no one. Jesus stated in scripture that atheism will end at his second coming. So whose going to conclude that a no show means that God does not exist. May I remind you that there are 365 days in a year and probably a few more years to come. If anything it shows that you can't buck scripture.
-
This has obviously been a moment for you but getting the answer you want by having oversights and errors convinces no one. Jesus stated in scripture that atheism will end at his second coming. So whose going to conclude that a no show means that God does not exist. May I remind you that there are 365 days in a year and probably a few more years to come. If anything it shows that you can't buck scripture.
How hard can I beat my slaves?
-
God can be supreme in all ways I would have thought being after all the supreme being. However one is one's own unique observer who has to be satisfied and that offers a sort of competing supremacy. They say we want to all be the hero of of our own story but God in his supremacy challenges that.
I agree with the idea that we are our own unique observer. But what is it that makes you sure there is one supreme being, when we don't see evidence of one supreme being in the world around us? We see lots of people and animals and other species that excel at different things so we're used to the idea of different beings being supreme at different times or in different circumstances, and we're used to the idea that there is bound to be someone who can improve on ours or someone else's performance. I find just observing my own failings and other people's/ species' successes challenges the notion of my own individual supremacy. What led you to your belief that there is one supreme being?
Not being conscious of searching for spiritual enlightenment and then having one's disinterest challenged is I would contend not an uncommon religious experience. experience
True
-
How hard can I beat my slaves?
I would imagine a slave would have no trouble putting you flat on your back if you tried.
-
I agree with the idea that we are our own unique observer. But what is it that makes you sure there is one supreme being, when we don't see evidence of one supreme being in the world around us?
Philosophically and linguistically I suppose there can only be one supreme entity. There is if you like only room for one......That though has never stopped people thinking they are the supreme being and the hero of their own lives and that God is a bolt on accessory if of any concern at all. I guess i've just been convicted of the idea that man replaces God with himself.
-
I would imagine a slave would have no trouble putting you flat on your back if you tried.
How hard am I allowed to beat my slave according to scripture?
-
Philosophically and linguistically I suppose there can only be one supreme entity. There is if you like only room for one......That though has never stopped people thinking they are the supreme being and the hero of their own lives and that God is a bolt on accessory if of any concern at all. I guess i've just been convicted of the idea that man replaces God with himself.
That there could be only one supreme being is a truism, it is implied in the word 'supreme'. Deploying such truisms does nothing to further the case for a supreme being actually existing.
-
This has obviously been a moment for you but getting the answer you want by having oversights and errors convinces no one. Jesus stated in scripture that atheism will end at his second coming. So whose going to conclude that a no show means that God does not exist. May I remind you that there are 365 days in a year and probably a few more years to come. If anything it shows that you can't buck scripture.
It’s not just the no show of Jesus, it’s the failure of the prayer to end atheism. There’s clearly nobody to answer it.
-
Philosophically and linguistically I suppose there can only be one supreme entity. There is if you like only room for one......That though has never stopped people thinking they are the supreme being and the hero of their own lives and that God is a bolt on accessory if of any concern at all. I guess i've just been convicted of the idea that man replaces God with himself.
Even if you allow for a First Cause that led to the existence of the universe - which is presumably what you were referring to as the alternative to the idea that a universe could pop out of nothing - allowing for the possibility of a First Cause does not automatically lead to believing that the First Cause also has any moral capacity that would guide people rather than people guiding themselves.
Is a First Cause with moral authority your concept of a Supreme Being that you think people are avoiding? Or is just the moral authority alone sufficient for you to consider something a Supreme Being, even if it wasn't the First Cause?
-
How hard am I allowed to beat my slave according to scripture?
Are you a bronze age hebrew? No? Then what on earth are you doing with slaves?
-
That there could be only one supreme being is a truism, it is implied in the word 'supreme'. Deploying such truisms does nothing to further the case for a supreme being actually existing.
Nor not existing.
-
Even if you allow for a First Cause that led to the existence of the universe - which is presumably what you were referring to as the alternative to the idea that a universe could pop out of nothing - allowing for the possibility of a First Cause does not automatically lead to believing that the First Cause also has any moral capacity that would guide people rather than people guiding themselves.
Is a First Cause with moral authority your concept of a Supreme Being that you think people are avoiding? Or is just the moral authority alone sufficient for you to consider something a Supreme Being, even if it wasn't the First Cause?
A supreme moral being is singular. If the supreme moral being is created how can it be more moral than it's creator outwith nothing has existence?. In other words there can be no independent moral sphere outside the supreme being.
-
A supreme moral being is singular. If the supreme moral being is created how can it be more moral than it's creator outwith nothing has existence?. In other words there can be no independent moral sphere outside the supreme being.
If I understand you correctly, your belief is that a supreme moral being popped out of nothing - on the basis that it can't have been created and still be the supreme moral being?
And it is the moral sphere that you are focussing on in relation to gods? Objects and species that have no moral capacity are therefore not part of this sphere of creation/ influence for a supernatural entity?
-
If I understand you correctly, your belief is that a supreme moral being popped out of nothing - on the basis that it can't have been created and still be the supreme moral being?
And it is the moral sphere that you are focussing on in relation to gods? Objects and species that have no moral capacity are therefore not part of this sphere of creation/ influence for a supernatural entity?
Popping out of nothing is a bit too Humeian for me and suffers from the critique that whatever the popper out of nothing is it could have alternatively been beamed in from somewhere but yes since it itself is the creator then there can be no moral sphere without it. The moral sphere is dependent on the supreme being. I see no need for everything to be a partaker of it, just as not everything is a partaker of the connections recognised by intellect or consciousness.
-
A supreme moral being is singular. If the supreme moral being is created how can it be more moral than it's creator outwith nothing has existence?. In other words there can be no independent moral sphere outside the supreme being.
Since we now know there is no creator, this is all completely academic.
-
Since we now know there is no creator, this is all completely academic.
And how do we know there is no creator Jeremy?
-
And how do we know there is no creator Jeremy?
Have you already forgotten the earlier pages of the thread? You should review them to try to get up to speed.
-
Have you already forgotten the earlier pages of the thread? You should review them to try to get up to speed.
Can you write out your full proof?
-
So prayer doesn't work.
What if God doesn't want to end atheism yet?
-
What if God doesn't want to end atheism yet?
Then, presumably, it could have ensured that it's fan club didn't pray for something it didn't want to do.
-
Then, presumably, it could have ensured that it's fan club didn't pray for something it didn't want to do.
Could have, would have or should have Gordon? As a manager of something I know not but probably damn near the universe what would you have done in God's shoes?
-
Could have, would have or should have Gordon? As a manager of something I know not but probably damn near the universe what would you have done in God's shoes?
Been more concerned with making it clear that rape, genital cutting and slavery are bad, but that morally I couldn't give two rainbow coloured shits about haircuts or prawns?
O.
-
Could have, would have or should have Gordon? As a manager of something I know not but probably damn near the universe what would you have done in God's shoes?
Made sure that my existence was a clear and unequivocal fact, so that 'faith' could be dispensed with, along with the plethora of dogmas and rituals invented by humans. Crucially, I'd have stopped people over the the centuries causing suffering to other people under the guise of claims about my nature.
-
Made sure that my existence was a clear and unequivocal fact, so that 'faith' could be dispensed with, along with the plethora of dogmas and rituals invented by humans. Crucially, I'd have stopped people over the the centuries causing suffering to other people under the guise of claims about my nature.
I cannot give a time when atheism ends but we are told that all will be aware in the clearest terms that there will be no dodging it.
The hardest decision here is whether to effectively create puppets or to give people the freedom people complain God stifles. Maybe if it were me I would move atheists to realise they are not, in fact the good guys they think they are but are just authors of a new, acceptable bigotry against the religious communities. That seems the least assault against human freedom.
-
I cannot give a time when atheism ends but we are told that all will be aware in the clearest terms that there will be no dodging it.
The hardest decision here is whether to effectively create puppets or to give people the freedom people complain God stifles. Maybe if it were me I would move atheists to realise they are not, in fact the good guys they think they are but are just authors of a new, acceptable bigotry against the religious communities. That seems the least assault against human freedom.
Given what is happening elsewhere in the world right now, and of course throughout much of recorded history, it is laughable that you associate religion with 'human freedom'.
-
Given what is happening elsewhere in the world right now, and of course throughout much of recorded history, it is laughable that you associate religion with 'human freedom'.
what has happened in the world is the result of the human freedom to do it. And of course one should remember that where religion was put away.....sometimes forcibly, up to 30 millions ended up dying in a very short space of time after the Russian revolution.
-
what has happened in the world is the result of the human freedom to do it. And of course one should remember that where religion was put away.....sometimes forcibly, up to 30 millions ended up dying in a very short space of time after the Russian revolution.
Politics too can have negative effects: we know this already.
Anyhoo - what do you conclude about the apparent failure of this prayer initiative to end atheism?
-
https://www.wired.com/2007/04/old-testament-m/
Figures can be used to prove anything when religion is the context. I'd suggest we all stop using it.
People gonna kill.
-
what has happened in the world is the result of the human freedom to do it. And of course one should remember that where religion was put away.....sometimes forcibly, up to 30 millions ended up dying in a very short space of time after the Russian revolution.
And we should also remember the difference between events that happen after one another, and events that happen because of one another.
What is happening in Afghanistan is being done in the name of your god - either because your god wanted it, because your god doesn't care enough to stop it, or because your god can't stop it.
O.
-
And we should also remember the difference between events that happen after one another, and events that happen because of one another.
What is happening in Afghanistan is being done in the name of your god - either because your god wanted it, because your god doesn't care enough to stop it, or because your god can't stop it.
O.
And people are free to use the name God too, sadly.
But, turning to your own case too many public atheists have classified the bad things in life as down to God, religion and believers and attributed all the good in the world to antitheist enlightenment.........A naive position.
Most people do things in the name of being right. When it turns out as it invariably does to be wrong do we give up on righteousness? Of course not, but given the same chance to give up on God, phwooosh, straight in there.
-
And people are free to use the name God too, sadly.
Because, if your all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing god is there he's not bothered enough to stop it.
But, turning to your own case too many public atheists have classified the bad things in life as down to God, religion and believers and attributed all the good in the world to antitheist enlightenment.........A naive position.
No, they've pointed out that the 'problem of evil' is one of the more significant issues that arises if you start form the precept of the Abrahamic god and follow the theory through.
Most people do things in the name of being right.
No, most people do things in the name of being comfortable or happy; sometimes, if they're trained well, they do what's 'right' (within their cultural context) because it's what they've been trained to feel comfortable with or happy about.
When it turns out as it invariably does to be wrong do we give up on righteousness?
Oh, there's a huge step from being 'right' to being 'righteous'...
Of course not, but given the same chance to give up on God, phwooosh, straight in there.
When did you give up on Allah? Or Vishnu? Or Zeus? Or Ameratsu Omikami?
O.
-
Because, if your all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing god is there he's not bothered enough to stop it.
No, they've pointed out that the 'problem of evil' is one of the more significant issues that arises if you start form the precept of the Abrahamic god and follow the theory through.
No, most people do things in the name of being comfortable or happy; sometimes, if they're trained well, they do what's 'right' (within their cultural context) because it's what they've been trained to feel comfortable with or happy about.
Oh, there's a huge step from being 'right' to being 'righteous'...
When did you give up on Allah? Or Vishnu? Or Zeus? Or Ameratsu Omikami?
O.
I've never heard of Ameratsu Omikami but am prepared to accept these are names of the supreme being......who I haven't given up on.
-
I've never heard of Ameratsu Omikami but am prepared to accept these are names of the supreme being......who I haven't given up on.
Neither Vishnu or Omeratsu Omikami (from the Japanese traditional pantheon, a sun-goddess, I believe) are 'The' supreme being, given that they come from traditions with multiple deities; it's questionable whether Zeus or the Christian god are 'The' supreme being given they come from traditions with multiple divine beings, although they are depicted within those traditions as 'senior'.
It remains the case though that you've not rejected those depictions, they're just not ones you've adopted. I appreciate that some non-believers used to believe, but far from all of us.
O.
-
Neither Vishnu or Omeratsu Omikami (from the Japanese traditional pantheon, a sun-goddess, I believe) are 'The' supreme being, given that they come from traditions with multiple deities;
If you insist, that's probably why I have given up on them. it's questionable whether Zeus
Zeus comes from a dramatised effort at theology, a kind of cosmic JR Ewing or the Christian god are 'The' supreme being given they come from traditions with multiple divine beings, although they are depicted within those traditions as 'senior'.
Well Zeus is senior but his supremacy is in question since there seems to be a time when he didn't exist. Your argument that the abrahamic monotheistic God comes from people who once were pantheistic leaves me asking ''so what?''. That;s a bit like saying the Wright brother's originally built Bicycles so planes are just Bicycles.
[/quote]
-
Can you write out your full proof?
I already have. Read the first couple of pages of this thread.
You've got no answer. That much is obvious from your diversionary tactics.
-
I already have. Read the first couple of pages of this thread.
You mean your wrong assumption of an immediate result or the result you predicted within the limitations of your theological understanding?
I can't find any reference to this event at all.
-
If you insist, that's probably why I have given up on them.
So you used to believe in them? But now you don't?
Zeus comes from a dramatised effort at theology, a kind of cosmic JR Ewing
Uh-huh... As opposed to the serious theology of driving demon-possessed pigs over a cliff and sending bears to rend apart children for taunting a bald man...
Well Zeus is senior but his supremacy is in question since there seems to be a time when he didn't exist.
So you can't 'rise' to supremacy?
Your argument that the abrahamic monotheistic God comes from people who once were pantheistic leaves me asking ''so what?''.
Well, apart from the point that if your supreme being has always been so supreme, how come he was so bad at communicating early on, but more to the point I wasn't making the point that Yahweh was once just one god amongst a pantheon but rather the claim to monotheism from Christians and Muslims is at best questionable, what with Satan and various ranks of divine angelic beings.
That;s a bit like saying the Wright brother's originally built Bicycles so planes are just Bicycles.
No, it's a bit like saying the Emperor's new clothes weren't invisible, they just weren't there, so his claims of an invisible plane probably merit at least a little scepticism.
O.
-
Popping out of nothing is a bit too Humeian for me and suffers from the critique that whatever the popper out of nothing is it could have alternatively been beamed in from somewhere but yes since it itself is the creator then there can be no moral sphere without it. The moral sphere is dependent on the supreme being. I see no need for everything to be a partaker of it, just as not everything is a partaker of the connections recognised by intellect or consciousness.
Even if humans have adopted the concept of a moral sphere in the way they live their lives, there is such a wide variety of morals that people follow based on their perceptions, interpretations, nature and culture, it is impossible for anyone to demonstrate that any particular moral value is right. Even if there was a supreme moral being, that being has left the moral decisions to humans, hence people end up being, as you put it, the hero of their own story
As part of our evolutionary development we seem to keep re-evaluating our morals, and maybe the morals that help us survive are the ones that persist e.g the morals that benefit social cohesion and co-operation. The people who follow morals that don't give them a biological advantage presumably die out along with their morals. I am not aware of a method to measure and demonstrate that one moral is better than another or that a moral is objectively true or objectively good. It seems to be individual people deciding this even when they phrase it as this is what I think God wants me to do - in what way is this not people being heroes of their own story?
Have you looked into moral fictionalism in philosophy?
-
So you used to believe in them? But now you don't?
Uh-huh... As opposed to the serious theology of driving demon-possessed pigs over a cliff and sending bears to rend apart children for taunting a bald man...
There is a genre of writing I believe is called pious fiction and certainly big religious works and the various scriptures contain myths and legends. So to me a story concerning a pantheon of warring and shagging gods holds less attraction and indeed genuine divinity than the big narrative of a monotheism revealing itself and it's nature to humanity through and in unspectacular, history characters who have lonely encounters with demoniacs and less spectacular people with relatively mundane problems.
So you can't 'rise' to supremacy?
In the human experience the struggle for supremacy is certainly something that catches the imagination. I can certainly manage to view the story of the fall of man as part of the human struggle for supremacy for instance
Well, apart from the point that if your supreme being has always been so supreme, how come he was so bad at communicating early on,
Any problem has been on the recieving end but more to the point I wasn't making the point that Yahweh was once just one god amongst a pantheon
I think you are being sloppy with the term pantheon and the modern atheist view of God being one of many. If that really is a pantheon it has the singularity of being a pantheon invented by atheism. I think there is a more specific term called Henotheism but rather the claim to monotheism from Christians and Muslims is at best questionable, what with Satan and various ranks of divine angelic beings.
I wouldn't class angels as divine. I think you are stretching divinity too far.
-
Even if humans have adopted the concept of a moral sphere in the way they live their lives, there is such a wide variety of morals that people follow based on their perceptions, interpretations, nature and culture, it is impossible for anyone to demonstrate that any particular moral value is right. Even if there was a supreme moral being, that being has left the moral decisions to humans, hence people end up being, as you put it, the hero of their own story
As part of our evolutionary development we seem to keep re-evaluating our morals, and maybe the morals that help us survive are the ones that persist e.g the morals that benefit social cohesion and co-operation. The people who follow morals that don't give them a biological advantage presumably die out along with their morals. I am not aware of a method to measure and demonstrate that one moral is better than another or that a moral is objectively true or objectively good. It seems to be individual people deciding this even when they phrase it as this is what I think God wants me to do - in what way is this not people being heroes of their own story?
Have you looked into moral fictionalism in philosophy?
I'm happy that there is a moral sphere, a moral dimension that we cannot but help be sensitive to and partakers of. Our response seems to be homeostatic heck we even have a phrase based in homeostasis namely ''one's moral compass''. This in turn portrays human existence as being one of moral navigation and that then asks the question....''navigation to where?''.
Regarding moral fictionalism, I shall look into that, I may have come across it.
-
I think there is a more specific term called Henotheism I wouldn't class angels as divine. I think you are stretching divinity too far.
And I think you're creating artificial distinctions to try to make your story more special than the rest... Angels are considered divine in the psalms, apparently (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity#:~:text=The%20divinity%20in%20the%20Bible,spirit%20beings%2C%20in%20God's%20form. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity#:~:text=The%20divinity%20in%20the%20Bible,spirit%20beings%2C%20in%20God's%20form.). And then there's the trinity, of course. And Satan.
O.
-
And I think you're creating artificial distinctions to try to make your story more special than the rest... Angels are considered divine in the psalms, apparently (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity#:~:text=The%20divinity%20in%20the%20Bible,spirit%20beings%2C%20in%20God's%20form. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinity#:~:text=The%20divinity%20in%20the%20Bible,spirit%20beings%2C%20in%20God's%20form.). And then there's the trinity, of course. And Satan.
O.
Come of it, Plato's monotheism was far more sophisticated and philosophically satisfying than Zeus and the pantheon which frankly was more entertainment.
Satan is not God or even a god. That flies in the face of the narratives of the Good and evil God. Equals, opposed and fighting until Good wins.
Pious fiction even infiltrates pop science and the public understanding of science vis Cox's ''woonder of the universe'', Any title of a Dawkin's book, Ann Dreyers famous phrase, the kindness of chance being examples.
Are you not worried that your critique and understanding of monotheism and Christianity seems to start with an iffy view of foreigners of low socio economic and technical sophistication rather than the greats of philosophy?
-
Come of it, Plato's monotheism was far more sophisticated and philosophically satisfying than Zeus and the pantheon which frankly was more entertainment.
Sophisticated in what way? I'm not that familiar with Plato's monotheism, but Christian attempts at monotheism inevitably falter at trying to account for the variety of outcomes humanity undergoes with a single personality.
Satan is not God or even a god.
So how come your apparently all-powerful god can't stop it, then?
That flies in the face of the narratives of the Good and evil God. Equals, opposed and fighting until Good wins.
Weren't you the one telling me not long ago that presuming we're making progress and improving is an illusion, or does good win in heaven when we're all screwed down here?
Pious fiction even infiltrates pop science and the public understanding of science vis Cox's ''woonder of the universe'', Any title of a Dawkin's book, Ann Dreyers famous phrase, the kindness of chance being examples.
If you can't see wonder in the universe, I suppose it's no surprise you turned to fairy tales.
Are you not worried that your critique and understanding of monotheism and Christianity seems to start with an iffy view of foreigners of low socio economic and technical sophistication rather than the greats of philosophy?
No, I see no reason to get into an exhaustive study of Christian theology's post-hoc rationalisations of an over-attachment to one particular version of Clash of the Titans.
O.
-
Sophisticated in what way? I'm not that familiar with Plato's monotheism, but Christian attempts at monotheism inevitably falter at trying to account for the variety of outcomes humanity undergoes with a single personality.
So how come your apparently all-powerful god can't stop it, then?
Weren't you the one telling me not long ago that presuming we're making progress and improving is an illusion, or does good win in heaven when we're all screwed down here?
If you can't see wonder in the universe, I suppose it's no surprise you turned to fairy tales.
No, I see no reason to get into an exhaustive study of Christian theology's post-hoc rationalisations of an over-attachment to one particular version of Clash of the Titans.
O.
Hopeless. So much goes over your head.
-
Hopeless. So much goes over your head.
Is that, in your opinion, a worse thing than when it goes in one of your ears and straight out the other?
O.
-
So how come your apparently all-powerful god can't stop it, then?
O.
I don't know if this question is one of the key things that differentiate theists from atheists.
My experience of being an atheist is that I thought what's the point of a god if the god does not stop all the bad things that happen to people.
When I became a theist my outlook became more introspective and the struggles I saw in the world - many of them horrific - seemed to be a manifestation of the multiple smaller human internal struggles about morality we each face where we have to decide multiple times on a daily basis about what the "right" thing to do is or how far we put someone else's needs above our own, how much we are prepared to sacrifice for someone else or what the least "bad" thing to do is in trying to be a "good" citizen, friend, relation or a "good" human.
I know I feel I do nowhere near enough to help others - I could sacrifice far more of my wealth and time and my children's future outcomes to help improve other children's future outcomes; I could be far more patient and put up with far more physical and emotional discomforts in order to help others. I see examples of other people who do make these sacrifices that I am too selfish to do, and how this really makes a difference to the lives of other people.
I observe that as a theist I don't have that expectation that a god is there to solve all problems so god not solving all problems does not lessen my faith. The religious framing of these struggles suddenly interested me, which is presumably why I became a theist, but I can see why the religious framing would bore or irritate others. it used to bore and irritate me as an atheist.
To me, putting the burden on me to help others seems to be one of the aspects of being human - if I am attaching my understanding of a moral or spiritual meaning to the word "human". And I am fairly certain I felt the same way when I was an atheist.
I am still not sure what Vlad means by god-dodging. For example I am not dodging Marxism - I've looked into it and it have more of an affinity to capitalism. Not subscribing to a particular concept of a god or morality seems no different to not subscribing to any particular philosopher or political outlook that does not appeal. These concepts of morality and spirituality and political outlook are constructed by individual people based on their interpretations of ideas, their experiences and perceptions.
-
You mean your wrong assumption of an immediate result or the result you predicted within the limitations of your theological understanding?
Why wouldn't it be an immediate result? If God exists and he wants everybody to love and worship him, wouldn't he take immediate steps to end atheism? In fact, it's odd that anybody would have to pray for him to do that. Maybe he's getting old and it slipped his mind.
I can't find any reference to this event at all.
What? Not even on the Facebook page for the event that I linked in the first post on this thread?
-
Why wouldn't it be an immediate result? If God exists and he wants everybody to love and worship him, wouldn't he take immediate steps to end atheism? In fact, it's odd that anybody would have to pray for him to do that. Maybe he's getting old and it slipped his mind.What? Not even on the Facebook page for the event that I linked in the first post on this thread?
You seem to be equating wanting someone to love you with forcing someone to love you.
-
You seem to be equating wanting someone to love you with forcing someone to love you.
If you want somebody to love you, they need to know you exist.
-
If you want somebody to love you, they need to know you exist.
I think the world is split thus Jeremy those who know he exists but cannot prove it, Those who know he exists but cannot face it, those who don't know if he exists but cannot prove he doesn't, those who don't know he exists and wouldn't want to anyway, those who suspect he might but don't wish to pursue the issue......and you can probably add a few more categories in yourself.
-
I think the world is split thus Jeremy those who know he exists but cannot prove it
These people don't know he exists. They believe he exists, but knowing requires strong evidence.
Those who know he exists but cannot face it
So can these people prove God exists? Or do they not really know either.
those who don't know if he exists but cannot prove he doesn't, those who don't know he exists and wouldn't want to anyway, those who suspect he might but don't wish to pursue the issue......and you can probably add a few more categories in yourself.
Well, we already know God doesn't exist. The prayer to end atheism failed and that is conclusive.
-
These people don't know he exists. They believe he exists, but knowing requires strong evidence.
unfortunately such a statement is indistinguishable from an assertion of empiricism.So can these people prove God exists? Or do they not really know either.
They know through encounter. They have recourse to arguments far more convincing than ''The universe just is'' or indeed arguments for empiricism.
Well, we already know God doesn't exist. The prayer to end atheism failed and that is conclusive.
Not quite potty....more potesque.
-
unfortunately such a statement is indistinguishable from an assertion of empiricism.
So? How can you be sure anything is true unless you have evidence for it?
They know through encounter.
Do you have any evidence at all that anybody has ever encountered God?
They have recourse to arguments far more convincing than ''The universe just is''.
The argument (if we can call it an argument) "God just is" is no more convincing than "the Universe just is". At least we have evidence that the Universe is.
At the end of the day, Christians prayed for God to do something. Their prayer failed, so either God does not exist, or, if he does, he ignores his followers.
-
So? How can you be sure anything is true unless you have evidence for it?
Do you have any evidence at all that anybody has ever encountered God?
The argument (if we can call it an argument) "God just is" is no more convincing than "the Universe just is". At least we have evidence that the Universe is.
At the end of the day, Christians prayed for God to do something. Their prayer failed, so either God does not exist, or, if he does, he ignores his followers.
Surely it is the nature of the truth that determines the nature of the evidence.
-
Surely it is the nature of the truth that determines the nature of the evidence.
Wrong way round - you don't make the evidence fit the conclusion, you make the conclusion fit the evidence.
-
Wrong way round - you don't make the evidence fit the conclusion, you make the conclusion fit the evidence.
Very true.
-
Wrong way round - you don't make the evidence fit the conclusion, you make the conclusion fit the evidence.
Sometimes the evidence is the thing itself. Conclusion is another of your red herrings, a handwave if you like.
We know anyway Davey that an appeal for evidence in the hands of you guys really ends up as a manifesto for empiricism......that is why Jeremy moves from evidence to 'strong evidence.' Now, Davey................... I reckon you are at the point of upping the ante and trumping Jeremy with an appeal for 'extraordinary evidence'.
-
Sometimes the evidence is the thing itself. Conclusion is another of your red herrings, a handwave if you like.
We know anyway Davey that an appeal for evidence in the hands of you guys really ends up as a manifesto for empiricism......that is why Jeremy moves from evidence to 'strong evidence.' Now, Davey................... I reckon you are at the point of upping the ante and trumping Jeremy with an appeal for 'extraordinary evidence'.
If by "empiricism" you mean "no evidence for God means we don't have to pretend he exists", it doesn't sound too unreasonable to me. Can you explain why it is bad?
-
If by "empiricism" you mean "no evidence for God means we don't have to pretend he exists"
That equates Empiricism with atheism, Empiricism excludes a lot of things e.g. a sixth sense for instance. Of course the notion that the universe only comprises of things that can be empirically demonstrated cannot itself be empirically demonstrated and that is why it is so unreasonable.....that's just philosophy 101.
-
Sometimes the evidence is the thing itself.
But without evidence there can be no conclusion. A conclusion based on nothing is merely assertion and handwaving. Now that conclusion could be true, but we'd have no way of knowing that and no way to discriminate between that which is true and that which is not true except through evidence.
-
That equates Empiricism with atheism,
Nope - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - hence lack of evidence for god leads to agnosticism (not knowing whether or not god exists) rather than atheism (a lack of belief that god exists). Jeremy's point (I think) was that in the absence of evidence for god (agnosticism) we should not be required to prima face presume or believe that god exists (theism) - a more sensible default position in the absence of evidence (and one that can be applied consistently) is to take a starting point that the thing without any evidence for its existence does not exist, until or unless evidence arises for its existence. Vlad - you no doubt take this position for all sorts of purported entities for which there is no evidence of their existence, including leprechauns, flying spaghetti monsters, the majority of purported gods. You are expressing double standard in not applying the same default position to your purported god.
-
That equates Empiricism with atheism, Empiricism excludes a lot of things e.g. a sixth sense for instance. Of course the notion that the universe only comprises of things that can be empirically demonstrated cannot itself be empirically demonstrated and that is why it is so unreasonable.....that's just philosophy 101.
Not in my case. I simply use empiricism to help explain my atheistic viewpoint because, apart from a rational approach, I know of no other way which is as reliable. I also use empiricism to explain a myriad of other things(e.g. why I drive more carefully on an icy road, why I take an umbrella sometimes when I take the dog for a walk). I have had plenty of 'sixth sense' moments, most of which have resulted in nothing at all, so I don't set much store by their reliability.
Of course, one may employ personal feelings to "know" the truth about something but that is of little use to me, because I could just as easily "know" something entirely different using the same personal backup. Where does that lead us? In my opinion precisely nowhere because, in the absence of any objective(or at least intersubjective) approach, one is left with something which to all intents and purposes is simply pure assertion on both sides. So, if you consider that an empiricist approach to be unreasonable, then I would consider your alternative approach to be far more unreasonable.
-
Not in my case. I simply use empiricism to help explain my atheistic viewpoint because, apart from a rational approach, I know of no other way which is as reliable. I also use empiricism to explain a myriad of other things(e.g. why I drive more carefully on an icy road, why I take an umbrella sometimes when I take the dog for a walk). I have had plenty of 'sixth sense' moments, most of which have resulted in nothing at all, so I don't set much store by their reliability.
Of course, one may employ personal feelings to "know" the truth about something but that is of little use to me, because I could just as easily "know" something entirely different using the same personal backup. Where does that lead us? In my opinion precisely nowhere because, in the absence of any objective(or at least intersubjective) approach, one is left with something which to all intents and purposes is simply pure assertion on both sides. So, if you consider that an empiricist approach to be unreasonable, then I would consider your alternative approach to be far more unreasonable.
I think people use methodological empiricism where appropriate and not use it where it is likely to be unreliable vis making moral decisions, relationships etc, when considering the necessary rather than the contingent.
I don’t see anything special in your approach and certainly I don’t see how methodological empiricism is warrant for atheism.
-
I think people use methodological empiricism where appropriate and not use it where it is likely to be unreliable vis making moral decisions, relationships etc, when considering the necessary rather than the contingent.
So, Vlad, are you saying that this "necessary" isn't amenable to empirical investigation?
-
I think people use methodological empiricism where appropriate and not use it where it is likely to be unreliable vis making moral decisions, relationships etc, when considering the necessary rather than the contingent.
As I haven't laid any claim to methodological empiricism, I see no reason to comment. As regards my moral decisions, relationships etc. I don't see them as objective truths but rather related to feelings which are the result of such things as nature, environment, experience, upbringing, and a rational approach
I don’t see anything special in your approach
No, I don't see it as anything special either. To me it seems quite natural.
and certainly I don’t see how methodological empiricism is warrant for atheism.
Nor do I, as I certainly am not an advocate for methodological empiricism. However, as there is no empirical evidence that a God entity exists as an objective truth, that alone gives me justification not to believe in such an entity.
-
As regards my moral decisions, relationships etc. I don't see them as objective truths but rather related to feelings which are the result of such things as nature, environment, experience, upbringing, and a rational approach
Couldn't agree more.
The problem for Vlad is he seems constantly to want to blur the distinction between objective truths (true for everyone and therefore subject to objective evidence to be considered valid) and subjective truths (true for me), which require nothing further than a subjective opinion to be valid. But this is the hallmark of many theists who consider a subjective truth (god feels real to me) to equate to an objective truth (god actually exists for everyone), which is no more valid that claiming that I feel that Mozart is the greatest composer (a subjective truth) means that Mozart is objectively the greatest composer.
-
As I haven't laid any claim to methodological empiricism, I see no reason to comment. As regards my moral decisions, relationships etc. I don't see them as objective truths but rather related to feelings which are the result of such things as nature, environment, experience, upbringing, and a rational approach
No, I don't see it as anything special either. To me it seems quite natural.
Nor do I, as I certainly am not an advocate for methodological empiricism. However, as there is no empirical evidence that a God entity exists as an objective truth, that alone gives me justification not to believe in such an entity.
I'm afraid you have laid claim to it by your description of your use of, support and faith in empiricism.
How you come to moral decisions is not by empiricism which was exactly the point I was making but you have responded by making agreement look like disagreement, a common fault on this board.
-
So, Vlad, are you saying that this "necessary" isn't amenable to empirical investigation?
That may well be since the necessity of a universe that just is has not so far been amenable to empiricism which so far has just yielded more knowledge of things which are contingent.........and that's just without even considering God.
-
Couldn't agree more.
The problem for Vlad is he seems constantly to want to blur the distinction between objective truths (true for everyone and therefore subject to objective evidence to be considered valid) and subjective truths (true for me), which require nothing further than a subjective opinion to be valid. But this is the hallmark of many theists who consider a subjective truth (god feels real to me) to equate to an objective truth (god actually exists for everyone), which is no more valid that claiming that I feel that Mozart is the greatest composer (a subjective truth) means that Mozart is objectively the greatest composer.
If you think morality is just a question of taste I find the idea of you being your institute's ''go to man'' on ethics rather alarming.
I don't suppose the idea of God both existing and feeling real to a person does your blood pressure any good.
-
If you think morality is just a question of taste I find the idea of you being your institute's ''go to man'' on ethics rather alarming.
Firstly I have never said I am the ''go to man'' on ethics, rather I am one of the ''go to people'' on ethics, as I've been involved in research ethics for nigh on 25 years now, currently as chair of one of our ethics panels. I also have a masters qualification in the topic and teach medical ethics at undergraduate and postgraduate level. So yes I am a ''go to person'' amongst others and my expertise and experience in these matters is, I believe, highly valued by my institution.
I have also never said that ethics (or morality) is a matter of taste, but I would argue very strongly that ethics is not a matter of objective reality, rather it is a subjective matter and what is considered right and wrong in an ethical sense fluctuates over time (which wouldn't be the case if right and wrong were objective matters).
So a good example is the shift in the primacy of principles in medical ethics from 'doing good' on the part of the medical professional (beneficence), which would have been considered the key plank of medical ethics in the early 20thC, to patient decision-making (autonomy) as being the primary ethical consideration which trumps others in most cases. That reflects a subjective shift in thinking over the past 80 or so years - there is no fundamental objectivity in arguing in favour of one or the other.
-
Firstly I have never said I am the ''go to man'' on ethics, rather I am one of the ''go to people'' on ethics, as I've been involved in research ethics for nigh on 25 years now, currently as chair of one of our ethics panels. I also have a masters qualification in the topic and teach medical ethics at undergraduate and postgraduate level. So yes I am a ''go to person'' amongst others and my expertise and experience in these matters is, I believe, highly valued by my institution.
I have also never said that ethics (or morality) is a matter of taste, but I would argue very strongly that ethics is not a matter of objective reality, rather it is a subjective matter and what is considered right and wrong in an ethical sense fluctuates over time (which wouldn't be the case if right and wrong were objective matters).
So a good example is the shift in the primacy of principles in medical ethics from 'doing good' on the part of the medical professional (beneficence), which would have been considered the key plank of medical ethics in the early 20thC, to patient decision-making (autonomy) as being the primary ethical consideration which trumps others in most cases. That reflects a subjective shift in thinking over the past 80 or so years - there is no fundamental objectivity in arguing in favour of one or the other.
I would love to discuss the shift in focus you mention although I perfectly understand if you argue that I, as a patient am therefore not up to discuss patient decision making as opposed to the skill and motivation of the practitioner(although I'm beginning to sniff the seeds of the current theory's demise). That morality is subjective rather than real is not settled philosophically. Why are you pretending therefore that it is?
-
I'm afraid you have laid claim to it by your description of your use of, support and faith in empiricism.
Why should I be surprised that you give a total distortion of my position? :) Methodological empiricism encompasses the doctrine that all ideas and categories are derived from sense experience and that knowledge cannot extend beyond experience, including observation, experiment, and induction. This position is one which I do not hold. As the statement that God exists is assumed to be an objective fact then I simply choose to use empiricism and rationality as the most reliable approaches to the subject. For me, therefore, I find the statement that God exists to be not proved. Hence I have no reason to believe that God exists. If you can suggest more reliable methods or approaches then please tell me and if I find them worthwhile then I will happily consider them. Unfortunately your 'sixth sense' idea falls at the first hurdle. Any other ideas?
How you come to moral decisions is not by empiricism which was exactly the point I was making but you have responded by making agreement look like disagreement, a common fault on this board.
And it's exactly my point that morality is not something objective but rather a subjective experience dependent on people's attitudes. If there were no human beings I suggest there would be no such thing as morality(leaving aside the proto morality of certain animals). All you would have is the evolutionary potential for morality which can certainly be explored using empirical methods but is an entirely different scenario to the idea of God being some sort of objective entity.
-
I would love to discuss the shift in focus you mention although I perfectly understand if you argue that I, as a patient am therefore not up to discuss patient decision making as opposed to the skill and motivation of the practitioner(although I'm beginning to sniff the seeds of the current theory's demise).
Love to discuss this further. And it appears you able buy into the current view that autonomy typically trumps other ethical principles (as I do too). Had you been around in the 1920s I suspect you'd have bought into the previous ethical approach which was that decision making lay primarily with the medical practitioners 'doing good', as they were the experts. Ethics opinion shifts, it is subjective not objective. And whether or not it shifts is dependent on the subjective arguments put forward by advocates of a particular approach on the basis of their rational and logical consistency of that ethical position and its acceptability to societal opinion. Subjectivity on steroids.
That morality is subjective rather than real is not settled philosophically. Why are you pretending therefore that it is?
Then demonstrate that any element of ethics is objectively true Vlad. People have been trying, and failing to do that for millennia - and the reason they fail is that they cannot provide the objective evidence-base necessary to support a claim for something ethical to be objectively true. Even Kant (one of the people pushing furthest for rule based objective ethical principles) recognised that the furthest you could go was a 'universal rule' - still subjective but accepted in all cases, not an objective 'truth'. Of course Kant could never prove this theory in a manner consistent with an objective truth and, while an interesting read, Kantian ethics is full of holes and can actually be used to argue toward two diametrically opposed conclusion (e.g. in abortion) - hardly a feature of an objective truth, eh Vlad.
-
Why should I be surprised that you give a total distortion of my position? :) Methodological empiricism encompasses the doctrine that all ideas and categories are derived from sense experience and that knowledge cannot extend beyond experience, including observation, experiment, and induction.
That is philosophical empiricism not Methodological empiricism. Methodological empiricism may not be applicable for the detection of God and there are philosophical reasons for why that might likely be the case and it has certainly failed to establish philosophical empiricism
And it's exactly my point that morality is not something objective but rather a subjective experience dependent on people's attitudes.
the wonder then is how people have the audacity to change, prevent ,question or punish those with different attitudes. No one on the subjective side of the argument has managed why, say, a murderer should be incarcerated or at least stopped but the Scandinavians should be allowed to enjoy eating rotting fish, in anything near a satisfactory way.
So we are left with the alternatives of a science of morality as espoused by the likes of Harris or a morality grounded in the will of an existent and independent entity, God if you like. Both approaches I would move are objective.
-
Love to discuss this further. And it appears you able buy into the current view that autonomy typically trumps other ethical principles (as I do too).
Autonomy saves money, It sits well with a free market ethic and a market based health service, it certainly weakens the idea of a national health service based on wartime observation of National and mutual interest. It potentially wastes resources and favours those who are well off. It relies on patient's medical expertise gleaned from programmes like ER and Casualty. It renders patient's as the consumers. I will leave the resume of it's good points to you since we have ended up in tandem. Had you been around in the 1920s I suspect you'd have bought into the previous ethical approach which was that decision making lay primarily with the medical practitioners 'doing good', as they were the experts.
Since the NHS didn't exist in the 1920's I expect the situation with patient as autonomous consumer was very much like today unhindered by any National health sensibilities. Ethics opinion shifts,
Yes sometimes back to what it was it is subjective not objective.
It seems to me ethical shift is homeostatic, deflected this way and that by unchanging, opposing schools of thought. And whether or not it shifts is dependent on the subjective arguments put forward by advocates of a particular approach on the basis of their rational and logical consistency of that ethical position and its acceptability to societal opinion. Subjectivity on steroids.
It is all based around a kit of parts, ultimately the terms of an equation which it possible not to balance, evidence of a moral realism similar to mathematical realism. In other words a moral problem. You seem to be making a great case that any system is as good as any other......In which case how does ethics come into it? Your job, it seems is to explain ethics away.
-
That is philosophical empiricism not Methodological empiricism. Methodological empiricism may not be applicable for the detection of God and there are philosophical reasons for why that might likely be the case and it has certainly failed to establish philosophical empiricism
As I have already said, I only use empiricism as a tool because it is one of the approaches I find most reliable. If you are suggesting that it may not be applicable for the detection of God then you suggest something more reliable to put in its place. Meanwhile, until that moment arrives, I'll stick with such approaches as the empirical and rational.
the wonder then is how people have the audacity to change, prevent ,question or punish those with different attitudes. No one on the subjective side of the argument has managed why, say, a murderer should be incarcerated or at least stopped but the Scandinavians should be allowed to enjoy eating rotting fish, in anything near a satisfactory way.
There are plenty of examples of punishments being changed accordingly as people's moral values and attitudes change. A murderer being punished by being incarcerated reduces him/her being a danger to society whilst incarcerating a person choosing to eat rotting fish has no such effect as they are not considered a danger to society in the first place.
So we are left with the alternatives of a science of morality as espoused by the likes of Harris or a morality grounded in the will of an existent and independent entity, God if you like. Both approaches I would move are objective.
You already know my approach as I don't see morality as an objective thing at all but rather a human construct.
-
There are plenty of examples of punishments being changed accordingly as people's moral values and attitudes change. A murderer being punished by being incarcerated reduces him/her being a danger to society whilst incarcerating a person choosing to eat rotting fish has no such effect as they are not considered a danger to society in the first place.
In terms of punishment I did also mention just asking murderers to stop. Why did you sidestep that point?
I would suggest that eating rotting fish or hoping one doesn't have the lethal bit of the fish has potentially a similar effect to murder. What we seem to have retreated into here is the term ''effect''. Both are effects, By retreating into discussing effects we or you are sidestepping something crititcal to our discussion .i.e what we want to know is why one is morally bad or morally not good and the other is a morally neutral act.
-
In terms of punishment I did also mention just asking murderers to stop. Why did you sidestep that point?
No you didn't. here are your exact words: " why, say, a murderer should be incarcerated or at least stopped", no mentioned of them being asked at all. So I didn't sidestep it as being incarcerated is one way of stopping a murderer, another way might be(as in the case of a terrorist) to shoot them.
I would suggest that eating rotting fish or hoping one doesn't have the lethal bit of the fish has potentially a similar effect to murder
.
The effect might well be that the person dies, but it would surely be rather a case of ignorance or risk taking rather than murder.
What we seem to have retreated into here is the term ''effect''. Both are effects, By retreating into discussing effects we or you are sidestepping something crititcal to our discussion .i.e what we want to know is why one is morally bad or morally not good and the other is a morally neutral act.
Effects are important whether they are practical effects resulting from decisions made or emotional effects relating to some antisocial action. In reply to your question I can only respond in the most general terms as I suggest morality is affected greatly by such things as culture, environment, experience, upbringing, and therefore is always subject to change because these influences are subject to change. However, underlying these, I suggest, there are deep seated and natural emotions as well as general human evolutionary characteristics such as empathy and natural feelings of co-operation and responsibility towards others.
-
Effects are important whether they are practical effects resulting from decisions made or emotional effects relating to some antisocial action. In reply to your question I can only respond in the most general terms as I suggest morality is affected greatly by such things as culture, environment, experience, upbringing, and therefore is always subject to change because these influences are subject to change.
But I think we are in agreement with morality changing...even I said it is homeostatic. What is it though that makes your moral decision ''righter'' or ''more moral'' than mine or visa versa? And if you say neither, that effectively cancels out morality However, underlying these, I suggest, there are deep seated and natural emotions as well as general human evolutionary characteristics such as empathy and natural feelings of co-operation and responsibility towards others.
So you do accept there is an objective biological component to morality ?
-
But I think we are in agreement with morality changing...even I said it is homeostatic. What is it though that makes your moral decision ''righter'' or ''more moral'' than mine or visa versa? And if you say neither, that effectively cancels out morality.
I generally think and feel that I am correct in my moral thoughts and decisions, because that is the way in which I have evolved to think and feel. That is not to say that I can't make immoral decisions, but it would be odd, indeed, if I went around thinking that my moral thoughts and decisions were inherently wrong. However If it was demonstrated to me that some particular moral thought or action of mine was wrong, then I would try to analyse why it might be wrong, and if then I was convinced of this wrongness, I would try to adjust accordingly.
So you do accept there is an objective biological component to morality ?
I suggest the origin of our morality, as with all emotions and ideas, lies in the workings of the brain, which of course is a biological entity. That's why I say it is a human construct.
-
I generally think and feel that I am correct in my moral thoughts and decisions,
To be correct you will have had to have solved a moral problem hence my argument for a moral realism which works like, but isn't, mathematical realism. because that is the way in which I have evolved to think and feel.
But is that feeling morally right or wrong? I have evolved a feeling that an ingrowing toe is giving me gip. There is definitely something wrong going on in my socks That is not to say that I can't make immoral decisions, but it would be odd, indeed, if I went around thinking that my moral thoughts and decisions were inherently wrong.
Your thoughts might not be inherently right either.
I suggest the origin of our morality, as with all emotions and ideas, lies in the workings of the brain, which of course is a biological entity.
I'm sorry but by talking about your correctness you have allowed for a moral reality independent of the brain......as mathematical reality is independent from the brain That's why I say it is a human construct.
How can your brain be a human construct? I grant that the brain computes mathematical and moral problems but statements like these do not even begin to tell us what is right and what is wrong morally.
-
Autonomy saves money, It sits well with a free market ethic and a market based health service, it certainly weakens the idea of a national health service based on wartime observation of National and mutual interest. It potentially wastes resources and favours those who are well off. It relies on patient's medical expertise gleaned from programmes like ER and Casualty. It renders patient's as the consumers. I will leave the resume of it's good points to you since we have ended up in tandem. Since the NHS didn't exist in the 1920's I expect the situation with patient as autonomous consumer was very much like today unhindered by any National health sensibilities.
Weird that you see my discussion about fundamental principles of medical ethics as being driven by the NHS, an organisation that I never mentioned. The field of medical ethics and the discussion of primacy of principles is global and indeed the UK (and the NHS) had very little to do with the move from privacy of 'doctor knows best' to the primacy of 'patient consent' in the mid part of the 20thC. That shift was primarily driven by a recognition that what is in the best interests of the patient is best defined by, err, the patient, rather than a healthcare professional. And the reason for that shift was largely in response to non-consensual medical treatment foisted on people by medical professionals particularly in Nazi Germany, but also other countries. The view being that the best protection against such actions was to ensure the principle of patient consent.
Hence, certainly in terms of research ethics the key driving principles are enshrined in international declarations - most notably the Nuremberg Code (the key is in the place in the title) and the Declaration of Helsinki.
Yet in your narrow view (on this and so many other topics) this seems to be entirely driven by one healthcare system in one country.
-
That equates Empiricism with atheism,
That depends on what you mean by "atheism". The weak version - "I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for God" - is just an extension of the general notion of not assuming things exist if there is no evidence for them. That seems like a perfectly reasonable position to take.
Empiricism excludes a lot of things e.g. a sixth sense for instance.
In what Universe do you think that is a compelling argument? If there was any compelling evidence for such a thing as a sixth sense, empiricism wouldn't exclude it. In this Universe, where the evidence does not exist, we can safely assume that neither does the so called sixth sense.
Of course the notion that the universe only comprises of things that can be empirically demonstrated cannot itself be empirically demonstrated and that is why it is so unreasonable.....that's just philosophy 101.
You have just said that things that cannot be empirically demonstrated are "unreasonable". That would include your god and your alleged sixth sense.
Empiricism is just the observation that that things that have no effect on the Universe that we can detect can safely be ignored even if they do really exist. Why should we care about anything that can't even make its existence known to us?
-
Weird that you see my discussion about fundamental principles of medical ethics as being driven by the NHS,
Do I?, I thought it more evident that I see you harking back to the situation prior. an organisation that I never mentioned.
I put that down to you not thinking.The field of medical ethics and the discussion of primacy of principles is global and indeed the UK (and the NHS) had very little to do with the move from privacy of 'doctor knows best' to the primacy of 'patient consent' in the mid part of the 20thC. That shift was primarily driven by a recognition that what is in the best interests of the patient is best defined by, err, the patient, rather than a healthcare professional. And the reason for that shift was largely in response to non-consensual medical treatment foisted on people by medical professionals particularly in Nazi Germany,
Funny you wish to include Nazi medicine but not the working principles of the NHS IMV but also other countries. The view being that the best protection against such actions was to ensure the principle of patient consent.
Agreed. Patient decision and consent based on patient education by reliable agents should be a paramount condition.
Hence, certainly in terms of research ethics the key driving principles are enshrined in international declarations - most notably the Nuremberg Code (the key is in the place in the title)
I can't help wondering if this statement isn't just an interesting manifestation of Godwin's law and the Declaration of Helsinki.
Yet in your narrow view (on this and so many other topics) this seems to be entirely driven by one healthcare system in one country.
I did say I would leave you to outline the good points of your discussion and your response shouts''I don't like my approach to be criticised mim mim mim mim'' I also, actually, discussed several healthcare systems. The privatised 1920's, The NHS and a possible system where a patients rights as a consumer are paramount, the latter based on conversations with a friend who is now a professor of medicine who in hospital practice had had to argue with patients and relatives who insisted on treatment they had seen on casualty and ER rather than listen to professional advice.
-
That depends on what you mean by "atheism". The weak version - "I don't believe in God because there is no evidence for God" - is just an extension of the general notion of not assuming things exist if there is no evidence for them.
Yes Jeremy, but this is inevitably dependent on one's definition of evidence which for you people is inevitably philosophically empiricist with all the attendant problems that has.
Dismissing the above just screams ''Goddodgin''
-
Yes Jeremy, but this is inevitably dependent on one's definition of evidence which for you people is inevitably philosophically empiricist with all the attendant problems that has.
Then all you need do now, Vlad, is produce some non-empirical evidence (which sounds like an oxymoron) for 'God' that has no "attendant problems".
-
To be correct you will have had to have solved a moral problem hence my argument for a moral realism which works like, but isn't, mathematical realism.
Correct only according to my own thoughts and feelings. If my brain ceases to function then the whole notion of my correctness disappears, whereas if I believe I am correct in thinking that the moon is a satellite of the earth, then it will remain so whatever happens to me.
But is that feeling morally right or wrong? I have evolved a feeling that an ingrowing toe is giving me gip. There is definitely something wrong going on in my socks
As far as I am concerned my moral attitude relates to human attitudes and actions, not to ingrowing toe nails.
Your thoughts might not be inherently right either.
Indeed they might not. That is why I am always willing to listen to other points of view.
I'm sorry but by talking about your correctness you have allowed for a moral reality independent of the brain......as mathematical reality is independent from the brain
I disagree. It is my brain which decides what I regard as something having moral qualities or not. I see no evidence whatever for any outside agency involved.
How can your brain be a human construct? I grant that the brain computes mathematical and moral problems but statements like these do not even begin to tell us what is right and what is wrong morally.
I never said it was. I said that I see morality as a human construct. as I made clear in the last sentence of post 139.
-
Correct only according to my own thoughts and feelings. If my brain ceases to function then the whole notion of my correctness disappears, whereas if I believe I am correct in thinking that the moon is a satellite of the earth, then it will remain so whatever happens to me.
I'm afraid your explanation here tells us little about the basis and sense that you think you are correct. Moral problems don't cease just because you are not there, other people have them and people have them collectively and the same moral problem essentially.
-
I disagree. It is my brain which decides what I regard as something having moral qualities or not. I see no evidence whatever for any outside agency involved.
Naive. I am sure your morality was influenced by your upbringing and the law of the land which are external agencies.
Also it is your Brain that solves maths problems.
-
Naive. I am sure your morality was influenced by your upbringing and the law of the land which are external agencies.
Also it is your Brain that solves maths problems.
I have already mentioned such outside influences in the last paragraph of Post 141 so I (obviously wrongly) assumed that those would have been taken as read. So, is that what you meant by 'a moral reality independent of the brain', because that is what I was responding to?
-
I'm afraid your explanation here tells us little about the basis and sense that you think you are correct. Moral problems don't cease just because you are not there, other people have them and people have them collectively and the same moral problem essentially.
Except that, as I have already said, I suggest that if there were no human beings there would be no such thing as morality at all. I suggest that The fact that (in very general terms) people are confronted with similar moral problems can be explained in evolutionary terms(i.e. murder is a threat to the health of a society).
-
I have already mentioned such outside influences in the last paragraph of Post 141 so I (obviously wrongly) assumed that those would have been taken as read. So, is that what you meant by 'a moral reality independent of the brain', because that is what I was responding to?
Once again ''My evolved brain's making me do it'' is not a real answer to why you are morally right when you are and why your are morally wrong when you are. You are presenting moral correctness as brain fart IMV. In other words, if someone thinks the opposite are they not also correct?.....So in your system morality cancels itself. And if it cancels itself you and everyone else is just making it up as you go along.
The statement I am morally correct necessitates that a moral problem involving that which is external to your brain has been solved correctly. Which is why the only satisfactory solution to morality imv is moral realism along the lines of mathematical realism and a moral homeostasis.
These are insurmountable issues, If i'm wrong.....surmount them.
-
Then all you need do now, Vlad, is produce some non-empirical evidence (which sounds like an oxymoron) for 'God' that has no "attendant problems".
Since your approach is avowedly empiricist the only problem is convincing a hard boiled empiricist that he is making circular argument.
What you seem to be saying is that we can only rely on empirical evidence since non empirical evidence is an oxymoron apparently. ...Where Jeremy, is the empirical evidence for philosophical empiricism? That I would move is a far huger problem for your philosophy than any problems I might have. It is empirical evidence for philosophical empiricism which is contradictory here.
Your basis of criticism can only ever be a belief which immediately undercuts itself.
-
Since your approach is avowedly empiricist the only problem is convincing a hard boiled empiricist that he is making circular argument.
What you seem to be saying is that we can only rely on empirical evidence since non empirical evidence is an oxymoron apparently. ...Where Jeremy, is the empirical evidence for philosophical empiricism? That I would move is a far huger problem for your philosophy than any problems I might have. It is empirical evidence for philosophical empiricism which is contradictory here.
Your basis of criticism can only ever be a belief which immediately undercuts itself.
But I'm not making an argument, Vlad: do keep up.
I was simply asking you, given your disdain for empiricism, what non-empirical evidence is available for 'God' and what "attendant problems" such evidence might have.
-
I was simply asking you, given your disdain for empiricism,
Not sure it's disdain but even if I did, It's not relevent to the fact that the lack of empirical evidence for the philosophy of it means it undercuts itself. what non-empirical evidence is available for 'God' and what "attendant problems" such evidence might have.
I would say the ubiquity of a divine 'one' in many domains of study, the power of the arguments for God, the unsatisfactory nature of arguments against particularly the idea embodied by empiricism, and of course Goddodging which in my experience, the observation of which starts with self observation and realisation. The only attendant problem is how do you reach people who don't want to know.
I think you will see that the attendant problems of empiricism mean I can relax in my own philosophy. The Empiricist is not afforded that luxury. Indeed a lot of what he believes comes under the ambit of empiricism. Doesn't.
-
Yes Jeremy, but this is inevitably dependent on one's definition of evidence which for you people is inevitably philosophically empiricist with all the attendant problems that has.
Can you give an example of evidence that is not empirical?
-
Where Jeremy, is the empirical evidence for philosophical empiricism?
The evidence is that it works. Empiricism has led to an enormous increase in our understanding of the World.
-
Not sure it's disdain but even if I did, It's not relevent to the fact that the lack of empirical evidence for the philosophy of it means it undercuts itself.I would say the ubiquity of a divine 'one' in many domains of study, the power of the arguments for God, the unsatisfactory nature of arguments against particularly the idea embodied by empiricism, and of course Goddodging which in my experience, the observation of which starts with self observation and realisation. The only attendant problem is how do you reach people who don't want to know.
I think you will see that the attendant problems of empiricism mean I can relax in my own philosophy. The Empiricist is not afforded that luxury. Indeed a lot of what he believes comes under the ambit of empiricism. Doesn't.
I suspect you're kite-flying again, Vlad.
P.S. I sorted the quotes in your recent post (as quoted).
-
Can you give an example of evidence that is not empirical?
I already have done in my previous post.
-
The evidence is that it works. Empiricism has led to an enormous increase in our understanding of the World.
Methodological ''empiricism'' works......but not well enough to establish philosophical empiricism.
Empiricism should by your reckoning have produced an empirically measureable increase in empirical measureable understanding. I look forward to seeing this information.
The only explanation you cannot see or express the circularity of empiricism is......you don't want to.
-
I suspect you're kite-flying again, Vlad.
P.S. I sorted the quotes in your recent post (as quoted).
The more this phrase ''Kite flying'' is used the less I'm sure I understand what you mean by it.
-
The more this phrase ''Kite flying'' is used the less I'm sure I understand what you mean by it.
Put bluntly - the phrase, as used by me, describes the actions of someone who posts any old shite just to see what reaction they get (and in your case posts repetitions of previously posted old shite).
Hope that clears matters up for you.
-
Put bluntly - the phrase, as used by me, describes the actions of someone who posts any old shite just to see what reaction they get (and in your case posts repetitions of previously posted old shite).
Hope that clears matters up for you.
It clears up loads Gordon.
-
Once again ''My evolved brain's making me do it'' is not a real answer to why you are morally right when you are and why your are morally wrong when you are.
Yes, but it is an answer to why any moral position I might hold or any moral decision I might take feels right, and that, for me, is a starting point for analysing that position.
You are presenting moral correctness as brain fart IMV. In other words, if someone thinks the opposite are they not also correct?.....So in your system morality cancels itself. And if it cancels itself you and everyone else is just making it up as you go along.
The statement I am morally correct necessitates that a moral problem involving that which is external to your brain has been solved correctly. Which is why the only satisfactory solution to morality imv is moral realism along the lines of mathematical realism and a moral homeostasis.
These are insurmountable issues, If i'm wrong.....surmount them.
If I have to make a moral decision then I simply try to make the correct one for me. Another person might make a different decision which is nonetheless correct for them. So, 'morally right' is in the eye of the beholder, and whatever becomes the majority 'morally right' usually reflects itself in the laws of democratic societies, and these are subject to change as the majority's views of moral rightness changes of course.
As far as I know, no source for an objective morality has ever been found. If there is, I would be genuinely willing to listen to any methodology which might establish this. Our sense of morality(leaving aside for now the proto-morality of other species) seems to exist only in the human mind. And that suggests that morality is basically a subjective experience.
I don't find that insurmountable at all.
-
Yes, but it is an answer to why any moral position I might hold or any moral decision I might take feels right, and that, for me, is a starting point for analysing that position.
If I have to make a moral decision then I simply try to make the correct one for me. Another person might make a different decision which is nonetheless correct for them. So, 'morally right' is in the eye of the beholder, and whatever becomes the majority 'morally right' usually reflects itself in the laws of democratic societies, and these are subject to change as the majority's views of moral rightness changes of course.
As far as I know, no source for an objective morality has ever been found. If there is, I would be genuinely willing to listen to any methodology which might establish this. Our sense of morality(leaving aside for now the proto-morality of other species) seems to exist only in the human mind. And that suggests that morality is basically a subjective experience.
I don't find that insurmountable at all.
Well you would have to demonstrate that last statement at least to dispel what looks like you a)not being really interested about how you arrive at a decision that is, as you put it morally correct b) show that somebody who holds a separate point of view is invalid morally in that view.
No source of mathematical realism has been found. It just operates Moral irrealism doesn't work because there is no arbitration within it to say what is right and what isn't and with such a basic and obvious flaw surely one has to start looking elsewhere. Beyond that, if morality is just a question of opposing but equal values the value difference is zero and the value of morality is zero and when one criticises other's moral decisions one is play acting. That you're not playacting points, IMV, to a subconscious assent of moral realism.
-
Well you would have to demonstrate that last statement at least to dispel what looks like you a)not being really interested about how you arrive at a decision that is, as you put it morally correct b) show that somebody who holds a separate point of view is invalid morally in that view.
For myself, ideally, when I say something is wrong, my first reaction is of something which offends my nature. The wrongness I feel might take the form of disapproval, disgust, abhorrence, even fear, depending upon the situation. I then try to assess the wrongness of the situation according to my values,( which may well have their origin in my culture and my upbringing). in as rational a way as possible(e.g. by trying to ascertain as many facts regarding the situation as possible or by trying to consider in as level headed a way as possible the points of view of others.) The result of all this is something which I would call my moral opinion which I see as correct for me. Because I don't see morality as something written in stone, I see it as quite possible for a person to hold an alternative moral opinion which they regard as the correct one for them. If you take that as not being interested so be it, but I certainly don't see it that way.
No source of mathematical realism has been found. It just operates Moral irrealism doesn't work because there is no arbitration within it to say what is right and what isn't and with such a basic and obvious flaw surely one has to start looking elsewhere. Beyond that, if morality is just a question of opposing but equal values the value difference is zero and the value of morality is zero and when one criticises other's moral decisions one is play acting. That you're not playacting points, IMV, to a subconscious assent of moral realism.
I really don't see any pertinent linkage between morality and mathematics. One is very much dependent on and associated with feelings and opinions, the other on logic. One is ephemeral in that moral attitudes can change and disappear as people die, the other is based upon such things as equations and formulae which remain as intrinsic in their own right after people die.
The arbitration, as you call it, comes from the collective agreement of a society, which changes and shifts as that society changes, often as a result of one group trying to influence another group in order to change their moral stance. If this were not so then we would expect morality to remain the same thoughout history. This is not so.
I have an opinion that same sex marriage is as acceptable as heterosexual marriage. I would hope that this is a universal opinion.
I have an opinion that assisted suicide should be enshrined in law. I would hope that this is a universal opinion.
I have an opinion that stem cells from human embryos should be used in medical research. I would hope that this is a universal opinion.
The fact that I would wish my opinions to be universal is not some sort of evidence for saying either that they are universal or that they are objective. It is only evidence that they are my opinions.
-
I really don't see any pertinent linkage between morality and mathematics. One is very much dependent on and associated with feelings and opinions,
I put it to you that this is not as true as you think morality is about acting in a wider context than one's feelings in other words in an objective context e.g evolved biology, consequence of action, the feelings of others external, the wellbeing of others etc, alteration of the environment, moral realism, morality as a reaction to external factors the other on logic.
which is not dependent on empiricism but on abstraction One is ephemeral in that moral attitudes can change and disappear as people die, the other is based upon such things as equations and formulae which remain as intrinsic in their own right after people die.
Moral problems do not die with people and are not ephemeral. Moral equations exist.
Also just because moral behaviour persists or is common doesn't make it right or that moral behaviour that disappears is necessarily wrong behaviour or that it wont return.
-
Methodological ''empiricism'' works......but not well enough to establish philosophical empiricism.
Who gives a fuck?
Empiricism should by your reckoning have produced an empirically measureable increase in empirical measureable understanding. I look forward to seeing this information.
The only explanation you cannot see or express the circularity of empiricism is......you don't want to.
Empiricism works. What more do you need? Look at the computer on which you are reading this post: a product of empiricism. Look at the pandemic. See what empiricism has done compared to "other ways of knowing".
Empiricism: vaccines, other treatments, ventilators, tests, quarantining, genome mapping of variants
Prayer: fuck all.
And to top it off, Christians prayed for an end to atheism. Empirically, we can determine there are still atheists. Prayer doesn't work, which implies your god doesn't exist.
-
Who gives a fuck?
considering it is at the bottom of this argument you are involved in and that most of the assertions about it spring from yourself then er, you I suppose.
Empiricism works.
If you are rolling philosophical and methodological empiricism together, I would argue it very doesn't What more do you need?
I've told you.....a methodological empiricist basis for philosophical empiricism Look at the computer on which you are reading this post:a product of empiricism. Look at the pandemic. See what empiricism has done compared to "other ways of knowing".
Empiricism yields the numbers and the processes ''Other ways of knowing'' sanctions research and vaccine deployment. Morality based on the abstract for instance., political expediency etc,etc,etc
Empiricism: vaccines, other treatments, ventilators, tests, quarantining, genome mapping of variants
Prayer: fuck all.
Prayer is a way to greater things, to God without whom empiricism would not be possible.
And to top it off, Christians prayed for an end to atheism.
Oh, here we go again Empirically, we can determine there are still atheists. Prayer doesn't work, which implies your god doesn't exist.
Oh, down to ''implies'' now
-
considering it is at the bottom of this argument you are involved in and that most of the assertions about it spring from yourself then er, you I suppose.
No. I don't give a flying fuck about your pseudo philosophy drivel.
If you are rolling philosophical and methodological empiricism together
Empiricism works. Look at the sum of human knowledge about the World. It all comes from empirical methods. None of it coes from your metaphysical wankery.
''Other ways of knowing'' sanctions research and vaccine deployment.
Nope. We assess the efficacy of vaccines by empirical methods. We assess the dangers of vaccines by empirical methods.
If the benefits outweigh the dangers, we say "yes, let's give the vaccine to people".
Prayer is a way to greater things,
Like an end to atheism? That didn't work, did it.
to God without whom empiricism would not be possible.
We have empiricism but there's no evidence that this god of yours even exists. How can you even begin to justify your stupid assertion?
-
Prayer is a way to greater things, ...
What, like death, as the evangelicals who thought prayer would protect them from the virus might have said ... as they died.
-
No. I don't give a flying fuck about your pseudo philosophy drivel.
well let's take a look at the philosophical expertise of the person calling it pseudo philosophy drivel shall we.....ah yes he has conflated philosophical empiricism with methodological empiricism.
Empiricism works. Look at the sum of human knowledge about the World. It all comes from empirical methods. None of it coes from your metaphysical wankery.
Brobat shithouse cleaner works Jeremy and i'm sure it has many undiscovered uses but, like methodological empiricism, it is not fit for everything......as opposed to philosophical empiricism which is fit for fuck all.
And another thing. I have never said methodological empiricism doesn't work, or that i'm against it, or it's use or benefits so please, stop giving the impression I am.
-
What, like death, as the evangelicals who thought prayer would protect them from the virus might have said ... as they died.
Death can be great and it can be futile like the evangelicals who forgot that sometimes God answers prayer in the negative.
And let's face it Davey, a lot of irreligious british people found some way of thinking and acting they thought gave them protection against the virus either by covid denial or anti vaccination. Not to mention the swedish sense of exceptionalism that led to deaths in that most irreligious of nations.
-
Death can be great and it can be futile ...
And how exactly would you know Vlad?
Have you been dead and can tell us what it is like? Perhaps you've been able to chat to dead people who can tell you whether being dead is great or futile. Hmm, didn't think so.
-
And let's face it Davey, a lot of irreligious british people found some way of thinking and acting they thought gave them protection against the virus either by covid denial or anti vaccination. Not to mention the swedish sense of exceptionalism that led to deaths in that most irreligious of nations.
Vlad - we were discussing prayer. I doubt very much that the irreligious people in Britain, or the Swedish government were basing their approach to the virus on being protected by prayer.
But on a broader point - sure there are people who refuse to accept the objective evidence about the virus, obtained via empirical methods (whether due to religion or otherwise) but that hardly strengthens an argument that objective evidence, obtained via empirical methods fails. Quite the reverse.
-
Vlad - we were discussing prayer.
And I did point out that anybody who forgot God can answer prayer in the negative has the wrong end of the stick. The take away here is that we are all prone to that in someway or another. As I believe I said on another thread, I watched closely the recent spoiling of the churches witness by white american evangelicals over Trump and Covid. Expecting prayer to be answered automatically in the way some were expecting is akin to shamanism or worse, in some churches it looked as though the pastor was ordering God to do this that and the other That is not how prayer works, but that mythical modus operandii is so fixed in the public imagination that Jeremy P can point to it, tick the box for failure and somehow it disproves God's existence. The thing is that ''asking'' prayers should come sometime after one starts after one comes, through prayer into what is known as the presence of God. That was one of the first things I was told after informing the local minister of my encounter with Christ.
But on a broader point - sure there are people who refuse to accept the objective evidence about the virus, obtained via empirical methods (whether due to religion or otherwise) but that hardly strengthens an argument that objective evidence, obtained via empirical methods fails. Quite the reverse.
I never made that argument and it is appalling of you to misrepresent me in such a way.
-
I never made that argument and it is appalling of you to misrepresent me in such a way.
The starting point of the discussion was associated with Jeremy P's view (and your rejection of this) that empirical methods provide the best way to deal with the virus. It is therefore completely reasonable to point out to you that when you claim that irreligious people also sometimes reject evidence-based approaches to deal with the virus that they are rejecting an empirical approach.
My comment was completely appropriate to the discussion.
-
well let's take a look at the philosophical expertise of the person calling it pseudo philosophy drivel shall we.....ah yes he has conflated philosophical empiricism with methodological empiricism.
These distinctions you make are merely made to distract from the fact that empiricism works.
Brobat shithouse cleaner works
Yes, but I guarantee that just praying won't get your toilet clean. Empiricism wins again.
And another thing. I have never said methodological empiricism doesn't work, or that i'm against it, or it's use or benefits so please, stop giving the impression I am.
You just need to lose the word "methodological" and you'll be fine.
You've lost. Your god has been shown not to exist but Christians' own ill conceived prayer experiment.
-
And I did point out that anybody who forgot God can answer prayer in the negative has the wrong end of the stick. The take away here is that we are all prone to that in someway or another. As I believe I said on another thread, I watched closely the recent spoiling of the churches witness by white american evangelicals over Trump and Covid. Expecting prayer to be answered automatically in the way some were expecting is akin to shamanism or worse, in some churches it looked as though the pastor was ordering God to do this that and the other That is not how prayer works, but that mythical modus operandii is so fixed in the public imagination that Jeremy P can point to it, tick the box for failure and somehow it disproves God's existence. The thing is that ''asking'' prayers should come sometime after one starts after one comes, through prayer into what is known as the presence of God. That was one of the first things I was told after informing the local minister of my encounter with Christ. I never made that argument and it is appalling of you to misrepresent me in such a way.
All this is saying that the results of praying to your good are indistinguishable from the results of praying to an imaginary god.
-
All this is saying that the results of praying to your good are indistinguishable from the results of praying to an imaginary god.
Only if you insist on clinging to the myth that prayer would make God do something as if He were some kind of dispenser machine. You are reading your conclusion in therefore just like you managed to read in opposition to methological empiricism on my part.
-
Only if you insist on clinging to the myth that prayer would make God do something
I certainly agree it's a myth that prayer makes whatever god you pray to do anything. That's proven by Christians praying to their god to end atheism and atheism not ending.
as if He were some kind of dispenser machine.
If you ask a friend to do something and they comply with your request, does that make them a dispenser machine? Do all Christians who ask their god to do something view him as a dispenser machine?
You're just making excuses for the fact that praying to your god is indistinguishable from praying to a god that doesn't exist.
-
I certainly agree it's a myth that prayer makes whatever god you pray to do anything. That's proven by Christians praying to their god to end atheism and atheism not ending.
If you ask a friend to do something and they comply with your request, does that make them a dispenser machine? Do all Christians who ask their god to do something view him as a dispenser machine?
You're just making excuses for the fact that praying to your god is indistinguishable from praying to a god that doesn't exist.
You are doing it again. When I say you cannot make God do anything that doesn't then Guarantee that a prayer asking for something necessarily gets the answer no or God perversely does the opposite. The crux of prayer is as I have said to get into what I believe the young people would call 'a space' or 'God's space'.........one could do this in a club or pub although many prefer to be private. In prayer one is open to God....as I think CS Lewis said Prayer doesn't change God it changes us to be more in tune with Him.
Are you arguing therefore that God never answers a prayer in the affirmative or what?
-
You are doing it again.
Forcing you to confront an uncomfortable truth, yes.
When I say you cannot make God do anything that doesn't then Guarantee that a prayer asking for something necessarily gets the answer no or God perversely does the opposite.
In other words, what happens in response to your prayer is indistinguishable from your god not existing.
The crux of prayer is as I have said to get into what I believe the young people would call 'a space' or 'God's space'.........one could do this in a club or pub although many prefer to be private.
That would be fair enough if it were all the Christians claim for the power of prayer. Of course, it doesn't require your god to actually exist.
Are you arguing therefore that God never answers a prayer in the affirmative or what?
I don't think God ever answers a prayer because I don't think God exists. What I'm saying though, is that the response you get from God in answer to prayer is the same as the response you get from praying to something that doesn't really exist.
-
Forcing you to confront an uncomfortable truth, yes.
You can't even confront the unconfortable truth that methodological empiricism provides zero empirical support for philosophical empiricism.In other words, what happens in response to your prayer is indistinguishable from your god not existing.
That's not my experience at all but then I haven't redefined prayer to try to shoe horn prayer into empiricist definitions. When I pray I am closer to God(God of Course maintains the same close distance) silly ideas such as asking for millions of pounds or an immediate end to atheism are dispelled and I start bringing others to mind before myself.
I don't think God ever answers a prayer because I don't think God exists.
You failed to add your latest bit to that Jeremy so that should be ''I don't think God answers prayer because he doesn't exist because he doesn't answer prayer because he doesn't exist.''
I think you have prayer wrong Jeremy because you have redefined it to fit empirical goals hence the implicit assumption of prayer isn't prayer unless it is asking for something that can be empirically measured. You are thus trying to game the result.
-
Are you arguing therefore that God never answers a prayer in the affirmative or what?
Given that I do not believe that god exists then of course I do not think that god ever answers any prayers. Any perceived response to prayer is either simply random chance or is a psychological effect akin to the placebo or nocebo effect.
-
You can't even confront the unconfortable truth that methodological empiricism provides zero empirical support for philosophical empiricism.
But nobody cares whether it does or not, except you. If something cannot be detected empirically, it doesn't matter whether that means it really exists or just that we can work under the assumption that it doesn't exist because it can't affect us in any way.
That's not my experience at all but then I haven't redefined prayer to try to shoe horn prayer into empiricist definitions.
I haven't redefined prayer. You're the one who seems to be doing that so that you can pretend it works when it doesn't.
When I pray I am closer to God
How do you know?
silly ideas such as asking for millions of pounds or an immediate end to atheism are dispelled
Many of your fellow Christians don't think the idea of asking God to end atheism is silly. Every week in CodE services, there is a section called "the prayers of intercession". Look up what "intercede" means.
You failed to add your latest bit to that Jeremy so that should be ''I don't think God answers prayer because he doesn't exist because he doesn't answer prayer because he doesn't exist.''
But it would be a lie. I don't think prayer works because I don't believe God exists. My reason for nt believing in God is that there is no evidence of his/her/its existence. For me, the fact that prayer doesn't work is just an unsurprising consequence of the fact that the god you pray to is make believe. For you it's a different matter though: you believe God exists and you believe he answers prayer. Well here he is not answering prayer.
-
But nobody cares whether it does or not, except you.
Argumentum ad populum. It is obvious that you don't care because you trumped up a phony charge of being anti methodological empiricism. I see no apology for that.
If you want evidence for philosophies or beliefs other than your own you need to be sure that the philosophy you are demanding it from has evidence for it......Yours doesn't, but in the case of yours that undercuts the logic of your argument.
Now you have been corrected on prayer also I see no point in continuing with you until you have put at least one area of our debate straight.
-
Argumentum ad populum. It is obvious that you don't care because you trumped up a phony charge of being anti methodological empiricism. I see no apology for that.
Why should I apologise for your phoney cod philosophy?
If you want evidence for philosophies or beliefs other than your own you need to be sure that the philosophy you are demanding it from has evidence for it......Yours doesn't, but in the case of yours that undercuts the logic of your argument.
Empiricism has evidence in its favour. It works. You don't need anything else.
Now you have been corrected on prayer
You moving the goal posts isn't correction, it's dissembling. It's quite obvious that Christians pray to God that he might change things. For you to pretend otherwise is a lie.
-
Why should I apologise for your phoney cod philosophy?
Empiricism has evidence in its favour. It works. You don't need anything else.
You moving the goal posts isn't correction, it's dissembling. It's quite obvious that Christians pray to God that he might change things. For you to pretend otherwise is a lie.
Methodological empiricism appears in science. Again I am not against science or methodological empiricism andit continues to be most wrong of you to give the impression that I am.
Philosophical empiricism also includes arguments against religion and stands often as an argument against even though it cannot finally and logical stand as an argument itself. In terms of change let me quote CS Lewis again who said that prayer does not change God, it changes me.
I remember a discussion with two atheist friends both with degrees in mathematics although one did not think he deserved the title mathematician preferring the title maths student. Anyway putting oneself into a religious context like a charismatic meeting or seance came up. One of the friends said he would not put himself into a religious context and his friend looked at him and ventured that was because he would be scared of a manifestation rather than any principled atheist stance.
People shy from prayer, I move because they are afraid they actually might meet God or be changed by God. (I cannot recommend seance or ouija since change is for the worse there.)
As a Coda to all that when I last saw them one was globetrotting and the other friend had become a Catholic.
-
... and the other friend had become a Catholic.
Become a catholic or returned to being a catholic Vlad? In other words was that person brought up a catholic?
I ask, as although not unheard of, people having been brought up in a non religious household almost never become religious as adults. Religious adults were almost always brought up to be religious. The reverse isn't true, with countless atheists and non religious adults having been brought up to be religious.
-
Become a catholic or returned to being a catholic Vlad? In other words was that person brought up a catholic?
Well Davey, you seem to have steered yourself into a ''No true scotsman''fallacy only instead of scotsman, atheist. I don't know all I know he was an atheist mathematician in his late twenties. I always assumed he was the same as I was prior to conversion i.e. a not too bothered agnostic until adulthood. He was a big fan of Bertrand's and even looked a lot like him so he may have had an ''uncle'' who was famously atheist.
I ask, as although not unheard of, people having been brought up in a non religious household almost never become religious as adults. Religious adults were almost always brought up to be religious. The reverse isn't true, with countless atheists and non religious adults having been brought up to be religious.
I should imagine that most people in this country are second or third generation apatheist for whom neither religion nor your brand of forum contributing Godfree-ism holds any interest. What is ''important'' is people have their own position rather than a cultural one. Religious converts and atheists who find the apatheist position isn't really ''them''.
Countless atheists.........Did you mean to say that or is a literary flourish creeping into your posts?
-
Countless atheists.........Did you mean to say that or is a literary flourish creeping into your posts?
...maybe he just, literally, can't count them?
::)
-
Well Davey, you seem to have steered yourself into a ''No true scotsman''fallacy only instead of scotsman, atheist.
Nope Vlad - I never asked you whether he was really an atheist, I asked you whether he was brought up as a catholic. A completely different question.
-
Countless atheists.........Did you mean to say that or is a literary flourish creeping into your posts?
A turn of phrase, of course, Vlad.
But in a way true also. Not least because the numbers are so large, but also there is a painting the Forth bridge element. So as you are counting day by day there will be more people brought up as religious who decide that religion means nothing to them and settle into being non religious, plus others who might go that one step further and recognise that they don't believe that god exists at all. So you have a constantly moving number.
Of course the reverse isn't really the case, as the numbers of people brought up in a non religious household who suddenly decide, as adults, to become religious is, well, negligible.
-
Nope Vlad - I never asked you whether he was really an atheist, I asked you whether he was brought up as a catholic. A completely different question.
Then we have to ask why you asked the question and what is the hypothesis behind your question?
-
Then we have to ask why you asked the question and what is the hypothesis behind your question?
Is it ok to ask why you asked that question and what is the hypothesis behind it?
::)
-
Is it ok to ask why you asked that question and what is the hypothesis behind it?
::)
If I say this guy WAS an atheist and he asks Was he brought up as a catholic then of the bat that sounds like the prelude to a no true atheist (could stop being an atheist) fallacy on his part. The prof denies that though. So what does he have in mind, particularly as he accepts this guy was an atheist before he stopped being an atheist? What has a catholic upbringing got to do with this chap becoming a catholic in later life and switching from atheism?
-
If I say this guy WAS an atheist and he asks Was he brought up as a catholic then of the bat that sounds like the prelude to a no true atheist (could stop being an atheist) fallacy on his part. The prof denies that though. So what does he have in mind, particularly as he accepts this guy was an atheist before he stopped being an atheist? What has a catholic upbringing got to do with this chap becoming a catholic in later life and switching from atheism?
Might show nothing more than it was more likely that path taken than say , to Mormon or Muslim or Mysticism or Buddhism or......well you get the drift.
-
Might show nothing more than it was more likely that path taken than say , to Mormon or Muslim or Mysticism or Buddhism or......well you get the drift.
I don't know. But given that he accepts my friend was atheist , Davey sounded interested in this guys career potentially as a brought up catholic, then atheist, then a catholic on his own account. The question remains why is Davey interested in that path rather than the one where you are brought up as a half arsed agnostic, C of E sunday school (and not any other day of the week) attender then HARD ARSED ATHEIST then catholic believer?
Do you think there are many converts from ''atheist message board contributing atheism'' to ''couldn't give a shit if there is or isn't a god apatheism'' for instance?
-
So what does he have in mind, particularly as he accepts this guy was an atheist before he stopped being an atheist? What has a catholic upbringing got to do with this chap becoming a catholic in later life and switching from atheism?
It has everything to do with it.
There is a world of difference between, on the one hand, a person brought up as a catholic, for whom catholicism is a major part of their upbringing, their culture and their heritage, who might later in life move away from that belief system for a while and then revert back to it. And on the other a person who wasn't brought up in a particular belief system (e.g. catholicism), indeed perhaps in a non religious manner and later becomes an adherent of a particular belief (e.g. catholicism) without any upbringing, heritage or cultural engagement with that belief as a child.
They are chalk and cheese - realistically in the latter case the person converts to being a catholic, in the former they merely revert to being an active catholic. Indeed in the mind of the catholic church there would be no conversion in the former case, nor really reversion, as they'd consider this person to have been a catholic continually from childhood, albeit one that wasn't active for a while.
-
Do you think there are many converts from ''atheist message board contributing atheism'' to ''couldn't give a shit if there is or isn't a god apatheism'' for instance?
I have no idea.
However I do know (because there is highly credible research on the topic in the UK) that it is incredibly rare for a person not brought up in a religious household to convert to a religious belief (any religious belief) as an adult. Yet about half of children brought up within a religious household will have rejected that religion as adults.
-
It has everything to do with it.
There is a world of difference between, on the one hand, a person brought up as a catholic, for whom catholicism is a major part of their upbringing, their culture and their heritage, who might later in life move away from that belief system for a while and then revert back to it. And on the other a person who wasn't brought up in a particular belief system (e.g. catholicism), indeed perhaps in a non religious manner and later becomes an adherent of a particular belief (e.g. catholicism) without any upbringing, heritage or cultural engagement with that belief as a child.
They are chalk and cheese - realistically in the latter case the person converts to being a catholic, in the former they merely revert to being an active catholic. Indeed in the mind of the catholic church there would be no conversion in the former case, nor really reversion, as they'd consider this person to have been a catholic continually from childhood, albeit one that wasn't active for a while.
Since I don't have much interest in looking into the mind of the catholic church but every interest in the minds of forum contributing atheists. I have been commenting on your interest if not need for this guy to have been raised as a catholic. What you seem to be alluding to is that it is possible to consciously be a convinced atheist( you say this chap could have been a sincere atheist) yet there are undercurrents from a pre atheist catholic experience that have pulled him back to catholicism.
What do you suppose pulled this person back to catholicism or as is more likely IMV pulled him to catholicism for the first time? Alternatively, could it be that he was, as an atheist, a subconcious catholic?
-
I have been commenting on your interest if not need for this guy to have been raised as a catholic.
I certainly have an interest in the transmissibility of religion in the UK - as you well know as I post about it regularly. I have no need for this chap to have been raised as a catholic, however because I know that the statistics are I recognise this to be very likely.
So from the catholic churches own data - over 92% of people in the UK who currently affiliate as catholic are 'cradle' catholics (their term), in other words brought up catholic. Less than one in one hundred people in the UK who currently affiliate as catholic were brought up non religious. So the likelihood that your chap had not been brought up catholic is slim, the possibility that he was brought up in a non religious household is vanishingly small.
So I have no need for this chap to have been raised as a catholic but recognise that the statistics suggest it is very likely to have been the case.
-
What do you suppose pulled this person back to catholicism ...
Almost certainly the importance of his catholic upbringing.
... or as is more likely IMV pulled him to catholicism for the first time?
Almost certainly his parents raising him as a catholic in the first place.
Why are your appearing to assume he wasn't raised catholic when you earlier claimed you didn't know and the statistics suggest it is overwhelmingly likely, and even more overwhelmingly unlikely that he was brought up non religious.
-
The question remains why is Davey interested in that path rather than the one where you are brought up as a half arsed agnostic, C of E sunday school (and not any other day of the week) attender then HARD ARSED ATHEIST then catholic believer?
Well that would be a pretty rare thing too.
While less than 1% of current catholics were brought up non-religious, the proportion brought up Anglican, while a touch larger, is still very small at just a few %. And, of course, most of those will be direct converts and not on the basis of half arsed agnostic, C of E sunday school but on the basis that they felt the CofE was too liberal for their more conservative christianity.
-
Almost certainly the importance of his catholic upbringing.
If it were that important how do you explain the atheism? Doesn't an atheism which has been chosen after consideration have more importance?
Almost certainly his parents raising him as a catholic in the first place.
We don't know that's true. Remember we are just leaving it in to indulge your seeming need....Are you saying then that all ex catholics have to work on not being dragged back into catholicism? That certainly isn't the settling into non-belief you talked about earlier. You seem to be portraying life for the former catholic as some kind of tightrope with a side narrative of atheism fitting ex catholics like a comfy sock as a contradictory side narrative.
So what you leave us with is ex catholics as doubting atheists... or prone to turning. Why does atheism then fail returners to the faith? Alternatively and to come back to an issue I raised but you avoided. Do you think it possible to be a true atheist and a subconscious catholic?
-
If it were that important how do you explain the atheism? Doesn't an atheism which has been chosen after consideration have more importance?
Depends on the individual, I guess. Upbringing is incredibly important in terms of setting beliefs, outlook etc for life. And religions know this which is why most have a whole series of events, activities etc very clearly designed to ensure that a child is brought up in their religion. 'Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man', and all that.
It is actually pretty significant in terms of the 'believability' of religion in the UK that despite all the efforts that religions put into inculcating their religion into children that about half of those children reject that religion as an adult. And as we readily know if you don't bring up a child to be religious there is a vanishingly small chance they will decide to become religious as an adult.
-
Are you saying then that all ex catholics have to work on not being dragged back into catholicism? That certainly isn't the settling into non-belief you talked about earlier. You seem to be portraying life for the former catholic as some kind of tightrope with a side narrative of atheism fitting ex catholics like a comfy sock as a contradictory side narrative.
Depends on the individual, but of course there are plenty of 'cradle' catholics who have rejected the religion of their upbringing with absolutely no likelihood of returning to catholicism. There will be others, no doubt, for whom detaching themselves from the religion of their upbringing is just a phase and they will at some point later in life return to the fold.
We do know, however that the former seems more compelling than the latter as nearly 40% of cradle catholics no longer affiliate as catholics as adults and in terms of active participation the effect is even more noted, with nigh on 60% of cradle catholics never attend mass as adults.
-
Do you think it possible to be a true atheist and a subconscious catholic?
Actually yes - I think this is quite possible and not even subconscious.
Why? Because affiliating as catholic is often more of a cultural thing rather than a religious thing. So I suspect there may be plenty of cradle catholics who do not believe in god but culturally still see themselves as catholic.
-
Depends on the individual, but of course there are plenty of 'cradle' catholics who have rejected the religion of their upbringing with absolutely no likelihood of returning to catholicism. There will be others, no doubt, for whom detaching themselves from the religion of their upbringing is just a phase and they will at some point later in life return to the fold.
Atheism as ''a phase''. That's certainly an interesting point. What makes it ''a phase'' for them and not for any atheist I wonder?
-
Actually yes - I think this is quite possible and not even subconscious.
Why? Because affiliating as catholic is often more of a cultural thing rather than a religious thing. So I suspect there may be plenty of cradle catholics who do not believe in god but culturally still see themselves as catholic.
I feel you are being a bit disingenuous and devious here. The person under discussion may or may not be raised a catholic. I know that his atheism seemed very sincere and thought through and indeed grounded. He was a maths graduate after all And yet he puts that away to become a catholic. He certainly didn't view himself as a catholic or anglican or christian when I knew him. So your comment doesn't really apply.
I can draw parallels with him and you. My other atheist friend ventured that the person in question would not attend anything religious for fear of a manifestation. You treat your statistics on conversion/reversion whatever in a way that reflects your view of religion as pathology. You both then fear catching religion.
Putting the unmistakable whiff of argumentum ad populum aside, I think you draw comfort from anything which tells you of a slim chance of getting proper, rather than cultural religion.
You have still avoided the question. Can a true atheist become a true, rather than cultural believer?
-
Depends on the individual, I guess. Upbringing is incredibly important in terms of setting beliefs, outlook etc for life. And religions know this which is why most have a whole series of events, activities etc very clearly designed to ensure that a child is brought up in their religion. 'Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man', and all that.
Does that explain a true atheist becoming a true catholic though. What you keep avoiding is that in anybody's book this is an example of a failure of deeply and vehemently professed atheism, the type found on message boards.
It is actually pretty significant in terms of the 'believability' of religion in the UK that despite all the efforts that religions put into inculcating their religion into children that about half of those children reject that religion as an adult. And as we readily know if you don't bring up a child to be religious there is a vanishingly small chance they will decide to become religious as an adult.
There we go again Davey, vanishingly small chance, (your words), of catching religion.....Why are you approaching religion in this way? If not religion as pathology then certainly argumentum ad populum for atheism?
-
There we go again Davey, vanishingly small chance, (your words), of catching religion..... ...If not religion as pathology...
Where exactly did I talk about catching Vlad - oh, let me help you, I didn't, that phraseology is entirely from you. Here is what I actually said:
'if you don't bring up a child to be religious there is a vanishingly small chance they will decide to become religious as an adult.'
So no Vlad I didn't describe religion as akin to pathology at all, nope I described it as a choice.
-
Where exactly did I talk about catching Vlad - oh, let me help you, I didn't, that phraseology is entirely from you. Here is what I actually said:
'if you don't bring up a child to be religious there is a vanishingly small chance they will decide to become religious as an adult.'
So no Vlad I didn't describe religion as akin to pathology at all, nope I described it as a choice.
You actually said lots of things Davy and even the one here doesn't address a true atheist becoming a true catholic. Instead we have just heard what you want the narrative to be which is along the lines that the catholics brainwashed him when he was small.
What I would like you to address is the loss of atheism.
What the stats say I think is that most believe there is ''something there''. So not the full atheism.
-
You actually said lots of things Davy ...
But what I did not say was that people were catching religion akin to a pathology, as you implied I did.
Perhaps you'd like to retract that comment and apologise to me for implying a made such a claim.
-
What the stats say I think is that most believe there is ''something there''. So not the full atheism.
Now look you is pandering to argumentum ad populum.
Where have I ever claimed that atheists are in the majority in the UK - I never have. So yet again you are misrepresenting me.
-
What I would like you to address is the loss of atheism.
What is there to address - someone who at one point in their lives did not believe that god existed and then changed their view on the matter.
-
Now look you is pandering to argumentum ad populum.
Oops, yes I is
Where have I ever claimed that atheists are in the majority in the UK - I never have.
Right, and in fact when My friend became a catholic there was one less.
-
What is there to address - someone who at one point in their lives did not believe that god existed and then changed their view on the matter.
Refusing to even consider thinking about it smacks of Goddodging to me.
-
I feel you are being a bit disingenuous and devious here.
No I'm not.
The person under discussion may or may not be raised a catholic.
Which you don't know - what can be said (and the mathematician in your friend might approve, particularly if he was a statistician) is that nigh on 93% of people who affiliate as catholics in the UK were brought up as catholics. So in all likelihood if he ended up as a catholic then he was brought up as one, albeit with a period where he took a different view.
I know that his atheism seemed very sincere and thought through and indeed grounded.
I cannot comment as I don't know him - what I can say is that had he been brought up in a non religious manner and ultimately became a catholic then he is a very, very rare beast indeed - one in more than one hundred.
He was a maths graduate after all
You know it is possible to be a maths graduate and also a catholic - indeed my niece is just that - she was, of course, like 93% of catholics also brought up to be catholic.
And yet he puts that away to become a catholic.
There you go again become implying he never was previously, which you don't know. Much more likely (as the stats indicate) he was simply reverting back to catholicism.
He certainly didn't view himself as a catholic or anglican or christian when I knew him. So your comment doesn't really apply.
But you told us he was an atheist when you know him, so why would he say he was catholic or anglican or christian when he was an atheist. But you don't know about his upbringing though do you.
-
No I'm not.
Which you don't know - what can be said (and the mathematician in your friend might approve, particularly if he was a statistician) is that nigh on 93% of people who affiliate as catholics in the UK were brought up as catholics. So in all likelihood if he ended up as a catholic then he was brought up as one, albeit with a period where he took a different view.
I cannot comment as I don't know him - what I can say is that had he been brought up in a non religious manner and ultimately became a catholic then he is a very, very rare beast indeed - one in more than one hundred.
You know it is possible to be a maths graduate and also a catholic - indeed my niece is just that - she was, of course, like 93% of catholics also brought up to be catholic.
There you go again become implying he never was previously, which you don't know. Much more likely (as the stats indicate) he was simply reverting back to catholicism.
But you told us he was an atheist when you know him, so why would he say he was catholic or anglican or christian when he was an atheist. But you don't know about his upbringing though do you.
Were you brought up as a catholic, Davey? Have you put it behind you?
-
Right, and in fact when My friend became a catholic there was one less.
Poor thinking, because while there will be some people 'converting' (or more likely reverting) to catholicism from being non religious there will be others going in the other direction, in other words converting from being catholic to non religious. Only by know the proportions moving in the one direction and the other can you determine whether the 'net' movement is from non religious to catholic or from catholic to non religion.
If only there was an organisation that has looked into this. Well guess what ... there is ... the catholic church in the UK. From a recent report:
'[Looking at] the ratio of disaffiliates (i.e., those brought up as X who no longer identify as X) to converts (i.e., those who now identify as X, who were brought up as something other than X). Thus, for every one Catholic convert in England and Wales, ten cradle Catholics no longer identify as Catholics.
So for every person like your chap, there are 10 people who used to affiliate as catholic now no longer affiliating as such, mostly being non religious.
-
Were you brought up as a catholic, Davey? Have you put it behind you?
No I wasn't. But I know loads of catholics as my wife is. I'm struggling to think of anyone I know who currently affiliates as catholic who wasn't brought up as catholic. I know there were a block of disaffected anglicans who jumped ship over women priests and bishops, but I don't know any of those people. And my anecdotal experience seems to chime with reality, on the basis that if you meet someone who currently affiliates as catholic there is a 93% likelihood they were brought up as catholic.
-
.
I cannot comment as I don't know him - what I can say is that had he been brought up in a non religious manner and ultimately became a catholic then he is a very, very rare beast indeed - one in more than one
Yes a rare beast but a beast none the less. Now let's discuss that since it is more closely aligned to the data we have...which is a true story about the loss of atheism. To you, a story which you have moved heaven and earth to ameliorate. That typical response of the hard arsed atheist is what interests me considering it is so close as to be indistinguishable from god avoidance.
Having banged on about it so I would have expected a more transparent thesis about a persons catholicism becoming atheism becoming catholicism but you haven't failed to disappoint in the explanatory stakes. In other words if you don't know the process why are you claiming it's relevent.
-
No I wasn't. But I know loads of catholics as my wife is. I'm struggling to think of anyone I know who currently affiliates as catholic who wasn't brought up as catholic. I know there were a block of disaffected anglicans who jumped ship over women priests and bishops, but I don't know any of those people. And my anecdotal experience seems to chime with reality, on the basis that if you meet someone who currently affiliates as catholic there is a 93% likelihood they were brought up as catholic.
Reality is a bit too strong equation even for a 93% chance.
-
Refusing to even consider thinking about it smacks of Goddodging to me.
Not at all - and there you go again with your weird obsession with what you describe as (but cannot actually explain in a coherent manner) god-dodging.
I've already indicated the most likely explanation - person brought up as catholic, drifts away and has a crisis of faith to such an extent that he describes himself as atheist. And for reasons know to himself, either faith-driven or simply due to culture and heritage reverts back to being catholic. There could be all sorts of reasons for this (most likely) reversion rather than conversion. Perhaps he got married to a catholic who was keen for him to become more involved, maybe he had kids and wanted them raised as he had been, perhaps he was simply drifting back toward upbringing certainties (many of us do this), maybe (whisper it quietly) he wanted his kids to get into a well regarded catholic school. Maybe something happened in his life with made him feel that his (most likely) upbringing religion was more important than he'd previously thought.
Why is that such a difficult thing for you to understand.
-
Yes a rare beast but a beast none the less.
But you don't know whether your friend is indeed this rather rare beast because you don't know about his upbringing. Rather than assume he is a rare beast indeed (either one in ~18 is he wasn't brought up catholic, or one in >100 is he was brought up in a non religious household) surely rather better to assume he was brought up catholic if you are to make an assumption at all.
-
Having banged on about it so I would have expected a more transparent thesis about a persons catholicism becoming atheism becoming catholicism but you haven't failed to disappoint in the explanatory stakes. In other words if you don't know the process why are you claiming it's relevent.
Just given it - I think I described a whole range of reasons why this process might have occurred, including reconnecting with the importance of the faith this person would have been brought up in.
-
Not at all - and there you go again with your weird obsession with what you describe as (but cannot actually explain in a coherent manner) god-dodging.
I've already indicated the most likely explanation - person brought up as catholic, drifts away and has a crisis of faith to such an extent that he describes himself as atheist. And for reasons know to himself, either faith-driven or simply due to culture and heritage reverts back to being catholic. There could be all sorts of reasons for this (most likely) reversion rather than conversion. Perhaps he got married to a catholic who was keen for him to become more involved, maybe he had kids and wanted them raised as he had been, perhaps he was simply drifting back toward upbringing certainties (many of us do this), maybe (whisper it quietly) he wanted his kids to get into a well regarded catholic school. Maybe something happened in his life with made him feel that his (most likely) upbringing religion was more important than he'd previously thought.
You haven't mentioned the overt rejection of atheism prior to the adoption of catholicism.
Thanks anyway progress but it still strongly looks like you are trying to ameliorate the blow of Atheism rebuffed...on yourself.
-
You haven't mentioned the overt rejection of atheism prior to the adoption of catholicism.
Sure, if someone does not believe that god exists one moment and then the next believes in god you will have an overt rejection of atheism to use your phraseology. However that isn't a phrase I'd use myself as you tend to reject things that are positively asserted and atheism isn't positively asserting anything - it is a lack of belief not a belief.
But nonetheless if someone that does not believe that god exists one moment and then the next believes god does exist represents an overt rejection of atheism, then someone that believes that god exists one moment and then the next does not believe that god exists represents a similar overt rejection of theism.
-
Sure, if someone does not believe that god exists one moment and then the next believes in god you will have an overt rejection of atheism to use your phraseology.
It is a rejection of atheism as opposed to apatheism. I don't know if he was hard or soft atheist although one of his objections to religion was how on earth people could be devoted to an idea (so much for previous catholicism) However that isn't a phrase I'd use myself as you tend to reject things that are positively asserted and atheism isn't positively asserting anything - it is a lack of belief not a belief.
Atheism though from what I have learned on this board is the acting as if God does not exist, stopping acting as if God doesn't exist constitutes a rebuttal of the act and I am awfully sorry to break this to you but some people do positively assert that God does not exist and you cannot refuse those people atheism.
But nonetheless if someone that does not believe that god exists one moment and then the next believes god does exist represents an overt rejection of atheism, then someone that believes that god exists one moment and then the next does not believe that god exists represents a similar overt rejection of theism.
I think it is rather the case that people realise they have been living off the faith of others and they don't themselves actually have a faith which is authentic to them as it were.
-
I think it is rather the case that people realise they have been living off the faith of others and they don't themselves actually have a faith which is authentic to them as it were.
Disingenuous clap-trap Vlad.
If someone going from not believing in god to believing in god is a rejection of atheism (as you demand) then someone going from believing in god to not believing in god is a rejection of theism.
-
I don't know if he was hard or soft atheist although one of his objections to religion was how on earth people could be devoted to an idea (so much for previous catholicism)
Sounds entirely consistent - don't forget that 'converts' can be the most fervent and if he'd never been embedded in the world of catholicism then how would he know how devoted catholics were to their beliefs. Some of the people I know who are most vitriolic about catholicism are ... err ... ex catholics.
-
Disingenuous clap-trap Vlad.
If someone going from not believing in god to believing in god is a rejection of atheism (as you demand) then someone going from believing in god to not believing in god is a rejection of theism.
That's obvious and technical. If you are saying that people do not realise that they have been living of the faith of others then I have to disagree with you. Also viewing God merely as an idea in complete seeming ignorance of a personal God is redolent of somebody not exposed to religious communal life. I have conversed with many seeming and professed ex christians who's actual knowledge of the faith and the faith community has been commensurately appalling with those with no religious upbringing. Nowhere in personal God Christianity is the idea that God is just an idea.
This leads me to believe that this inculcation of which you speak is not nearly as effective as you make out.
-
That's obvious and technical.
Yet you seem to be highly reluctant to admit it.
Somehow you see someone going from not believing in god to believing in god as a huge rejection and a blow to atheism, yet seem reluctant to accept the therefore someone going from believing in god to not believing in god must therefore be a huge rejection and a blow to theism.
-
I have conversed with many seeming and professed ex christians who's actual knowledge of the faith and the faith community has been commensurately appalling with those with no religious upbringing.
Oh dear so now you seem to be implying that people rejecting their prior christian faith and becoming non religious only do so because they are ignorant. That seems a touch insulting.
-
This leads me to believe that this inculcation of which you speak is not nearly as effective as you make out.
Do you mean bringing up kids as religious as a means to ensure they are religious as adults. If so, yup you are right it is pretty ineffectual, with (in the UK) nigh on 50% of kids brought up as religious rejecting that religion when they are adults.
The issue isn't whether it is effective, the issue is that it is absolutely necessary as kids brought up in a non religious household almost never become religious as adults.
So a religious upbringing is necessary for someone to be religious as an adult, but not very effective (i.e. many will become non religious as adults).
A non religious upbringing is hugely effective at producing non religious adults (virtually all will be) but not even necessary as there are plenty of non religious adults that come from religious upbringing.
And of course most religious upbringings specifically use all sorts of approaches to inculcate religion. A non religious upbringing typically does nothing to inculcate non religiosity, it merely doesn't involve religion.
-
Oh dear so now you seem to be implying that people rejecting their prior christian faith and becoming non religious only do so because they are ignorant. That seems a touch insulting.
Not at all. My observation is that many who claim to have lost a deep christianity didn't have a deep one to begin with and certainly not one distinguishable with those ignorant of aspects of faith due to lack of effective and affective exposure to it.
You on the other hand have been unable to shake of the suspicion that you are slyly making a no true scotsman argument implying that Atheists who convert only do so to a 'cultural' affiliation or that they aren't proper atheists because as you said yourself if catholics inculcate children they have them for life. If i'm wrong rather than just naturally confused by your replies then that leaves us with the childhood catholic who genuinely turns to full and total atheist conviction and then turns to full and total catholic conviction. And that in turns leads us to ponder whether any atheist, no matter what their childhood background is vulnerable to conversion...and that I think, judging by the effort at amelioration carried out by your good self. Conversely if ex catholics do not make deep atheists does anything make a deep atheists and are there indeed such people.
-
Not at all. My observation is that many who claim to have lost a deep christianity didn't have a deep one to begin with and certainly not one distinguishable with those ignorant of aspects of faith due to lack of effective and affective exposure to it.
You on the other hand have been unable to shake of the suspicion that you are slyly making a no true scotsman argument ...
Oh dear - so your argument is that they didn't reject christianity because they weren't really christians. No true Scotsman argument on steroids - interesting that you accused me of this, when I didn't yet you are doing it in spades.
-
If i'm wrong rather than just naturally confused by your replies then that leaves us with the childhood catholic who genuinely turns to full and total atheist conviction and then turns to full and total catholic conviction.
I suspect that does happen, albeit I imagine it is fairly rare.
It is, however, extremely common for people to rebel against their upbringing in late childhood/early adulthood and then return to the fold so to speak. But, of course the thing 'rebelled' against needs to be significant in terms of upbringing. So a child brought up in a household where religion is a hugely significant part of life is very likely to rebel against that. Non-religion hasn't the same significance so while they may rebel against something else they'd be no more likely to rebel against non-religion as a child brought up catholic would rebel again non-judaism or non-atheism.
-
Do you mean bringing up kids as religious as a means to ensure they are religious as adults. If so, yup you are right it is pretty ineffectual, with (in the UK) nigh on 50% of kids brought up as religious rejecting that religion when they are adults.
A percentage of which will realise that were living in the faith of others rather than actually having a deep faith of their own in other words, monkey do etc.
Nominal religion isn't really a win or of interest to evangelicals like meself.
On the other hand you seem to be saying that those brought up as apatheists hardly ever leave or question their parents world view position. Is that particularly healthy I wonder or is it just evidence of neotenisation and infantilisation?
-
Oh dear - so your argument is that they didn't reject christianity because they weren't really christians. No true Scotsman argument on steroids - interesting that you accused me of this, when I didn't yet you are doing it in spades.
Not sure, your spiritual father Richard Dawkins thinks there are no such people as Christian children or moslem children or Jewish children etc, and I can imagine at hearing that you were among those who nodded sagely in agreement. I didn't say all were like that because apostasy is recorded in the letter to the Hebrews but many make a lasting commitment at an early age and many just slip into apatheism which only optimistic atheists might term actual atheism
However there are other Christianities that would argue that endurance is the mark of true christianity and I suspect you really want that to be so of atheism too eh, Davey.
-
A percentage of which will realise that were living in the faith of others rather than actually having a deep faith of their own in other words, monkey do etc.
Nominal religion isn't really a win or of interest to evangelicals like meself.
Oh dear - more 'no true Scotsman' nonsense.
I'm sure your many co-religionists of various flavours will be delighted to know that whether or not they are a true christian is determined by Vlad, and Vlad alone.
-
On the other hand you seem to be saying that those brought up as apatheists ...
I doubt very much that there are many children brought up as apatheists Vlad. There are plenty brought up in non-religious households, but that is an entirely different matter from being brought up as apatheists.
-
This is all well and good, but let's review where we are:
- The Christian god loves us and wants us all to get the gift of eternal life
- To get the gift of eternal life, you can't be an atheist because that would mean not worshipping Jesus as a god
- God would therefore prefer everybody not to be atheists
- If Christians ask God asked to end atheism, he would be only too delighted to grant their request because then all ex-atheists (whom God loves) would be saved
God did not end atheism when requested so we can only assume he does not exist, or if he does exist, he is not the Christian god.
-
Oh dear - more 'no true Scotsman' nonsense.
I'm sure your many co-religionists of various flavours will be delighted to know that whether or not they are a true christian is determined by Vlad, and Vlad alone.
You flatter me, Prof.
Concerning the No true Scotsman''thing''. Seems of limited use any way after all, nobody is going to against a statement like ''No true Ford Focus is going to win the ladies winter olympic figure state championship on style''.
-
I doubt very much that there are many children brought up as apatheists Vlad. There are plenty brought up in non-religious households, but that is an entirely different matter from being brought up as apatheists.
I disagree, If religion or the latest thoughts from Dawkins came on the TV the parents might be apt to say ''Let's turn this crap off'' then we would have a case of monkey see, monkey do. I think you are too optimistic concerning neutrality in religious matters.
-
This is all well and good, but let's review where we are:
- The Christian god loves us and wants us all to get the gift of eternal life
- To get the gift of eternal life, you can't be an atheist because that would mean not worshipping Jesus as a god
- God would therefore prefer everybody not to be atheists
- If Christians ask God asked to end atheism, he would be only too delighted to grant their request because then all ex-atheists (whom God loves) would be saved
God did not end atheism when requested so we can only assume he does not exist, or if he does exist, he is not the Christian god.
How are you conceiving ''eternal life''? How are you conceiving ''Love''? How are you conceiving worship? And how are you conceiving God?
God isn't going to force anybody to love him. Were he to give everybody eternal life that would mean that those who reject God are stuck forever with the very thing they have not wanted to be anywhere near.
Those Christians should have remembered all of this. Perhaps they did and you have misinterpreted their motives and ideals and perhaps most importantly there timeline or perhaps they didn't.
-
Not sure, your spiritual father
Really? 'Spiritual'? Is that the best you can manage?
Richard Dawkins thinks there are no such people as Christian children or moslem children or Jewish children etc, and I can imagine at hearing that you were among those who nodded sagely in agreement.
Christian or Muslim I suspect he'd agree with you - Jewish he'd likely ask you to clarify if that was an ethnic, national or religious designation; he's made that distinction before.
I didn't say all were like that because apostasy is recorded in the letter to the Hebrews but many make a lasting commitment at an early age and many just slip into apatheism which only optimistic atheists might term actual atheism
How can children, with insufficient maturity, context or comprehension, make an informed and valid commitment to anything? As to apatheism - if you genuinely believe in God, and the significant implications of such a being existing, I'm not sure you could be apathetic about it, could you?
However there are other Christianities that would argue that endurance is the mark of true christianity and I suspect you really want that to be so of atheism too eh, Davey.
There's a Christianity for everything, it seems; must be a consequence of the incredible precision and detail with which it's been communicated.
O.
-
Really? 'Spiritual'? Is that the best you can manage?
I think it rather apt for a ''stealth religion'' manifestation of atheism in which Dawkins holds a position of de facto leadership.
Christian or Muslim I suspect he'd agree with you - Jewish he'd likely ask you to clarify if that was an ethnic, national or religious designation; he's made that distinction before.
Who in a conversation about religion would think that jewish would mean anything other than the religious designation?
How can children, with insufficient maturity, context or comprehension, make an informed and valid commitment to anything?
My answer is that it depends on the whos and the whats of the matter. Professor Davey thinks it's possible for children to be genuine christians and to reject it as an adult so against two of the most brilliant minds on this thread, mine and Daveys, what do you think your mere thinkings are worth? As to apatheism - if you genuinely believe in God, and the significant implications of such a being existing, I'm not sure you could be apathetic about it, could you?
My point is that apatheists don't even make it as far as atheism which to them is an unecessary position to profess since for an atheist such as yourself religion is still an important topic.
There's a Christianity for everything, it seems; must be a consequence of the incredible precision and detail with which it's been communicated.
Have to disagree with that. There are aspects of christianity which christianities have a different view or emphasis on.
Namely The nature of Jesus Christ
Sin
Salvation
What happens after death
Eschatology
and that's about it.
-
Professor Davey thinks it's possible for children to be genuine christians and to reject it as an adult ...
I never said that - there will come a point in the development of a child where they have sufficient intellectual maturity to be able to make a conscious decision as to their beliefs. Up to that point a child saying they are a christian, praying to Jesus, having knowledge of bible stories told in picture-book fashion isn't real belief merely doing what you are told. I guess the point at which that happens is similar to the point at which we would recognise a child is genuinely able to consent (the key being having the capacity to consent). In ethical terms this is individual and circumstance dependent (i.e. Gillick competence), but as a rule of thumb we'd likely suggest that a intellectually mature 14 year old child may have capacity for a complex issue (eg. medical care or a religious belief), but a 6 year old child most certainly wouldn't.
But in a respect you are correct Vlad and that is why I never said that they were rejecting their religious belief, but rejecting the religion of their upbringing. Those are different matters. So an 18 year old who rejects their christian upbringing may have had a genuine belief at 14 (and then rejects it), or they may simply have been following their upbringing up to that point and when they reject that upbringing that may be the first time they have really addressed the matter seriously.
I also used the word 'rebel', and this is important too. We are well aware that many people in their teens/early 20s simply reject what they were taught as part of their upbringing in a rebel against parents/adults/authority manner. This is part of developing independence. So a 17 year old who rejects the christianity of their upbringing may be genuinely rejecting a belief they'd previously held, but they may simply be rejecting what their parents believe regardless of their own underlying belief. Hence the person who 'rebels' at 17-22 but is comfortably back with their parental belief at 25 - effectively always believed what their parent's believed (from the point at which they have capacity and belief becomes meaningful) but rejected to for a while as part of a more general 'rebel against my parents' common approach against young people. I suspect someone like that might make a non-sense comment about 'being an atheist' which demonstrates very, very clearly that they never were - perhaps a comment that no atheist would make such as 'being angry at god for not existing'.
So Vlad, it is complicated - one size does not fit all and you need to understand the belief journey of each individual. So for me I was brought up in a broadly non religious household although I did go to Sunday school for a while, but with actively religious grandparents and other relatives. I was also brought up in the UK in the 70s where there was a general mood music of the importance of religion (well christianity) and a kind of default orthodoxy and acceptance that god existed. Through my childhood (from when such matters made any kind of sense) I kind of default accepted that god existed (as that was what you did), in my later teens and early 20s I knew quite a lot of actively religious people, largely university friends and tried really hard and really thought I believed that god existed. However I was deluding myself. At the age of 22 something happened which made be come to realise that I did not believe that god exists and indeed it was crystal clear to me that I never actually believed that god existed. I was for a while, let's call it, an atheist in denial. That's my journey, others are different. What I don't think is correct is to assume that all people who profess or identify with a particular belief do so on the basis of a genuine belief, nor that it is correct for me (or you) to dictate to others what a 'true' atheist or a true 'christian' looks like, albeit sometimes individuals come out with comments that seems so implausible for someone professing to hold a particular belief that you have to question (see above).
so against two of the most brilliant minds on this thread, mine and Daveys,
Crikey Vlad, 50% correct - that's an amazingly good hit rate for you.
-
I never said that
Why did you accuse me then of a new true Scotsman fallacy when I suggested that children may not be rejecting their own faith? Caught Davey....Bang to rights - there will come a point in the development of a child where they have sufficient intellectual maturity to be able to make a conscious decision as to their beliefs. Up to that point a child saying they are a christian, praying to Jesus, having knowledge of bible stories told in picture-book fashion isn't real belief merely doing what you are told. I guess the point at which that happens is similar to the point at which we would recognise a child is genuinely able to consent (the key being having the capacity to consent). In ethical terms this is individual and circumstance dependent (i.e. Gillick competence), but as a rule of thumb we'd likely suggest that a intellectually mature 14 year old child may have capacity for a complex issue (eg. medical care or a religious belief), but a 6 year old child most certainly wouldn't.
That is you hedging.....again why did you accuse me of a No True Scotsman fallacy when I said children may not be rejecting their own faith?
But in a respect you are correct Vlad
I was right , you are hedging and that is why I never said that they were rejecting their religious belief, but rejecting the religion of their upbringing.
You accused me of a no true scotsman fallacy when I suggested this.
I think it all depends on what the nature of the commitment is and the individual making it.
-
That is you hedging.....again why did you accuse me of a No True Scotsman fallacy when I said children may not be rejecting their own faith?
I was right , you are hedging you accused me of a no true scotsman fallacy when I suggested this.
My accusation at you of no true scotsman was one of double standards - you threw this accusation at me in an attempt to discredit me, but then came up with the most achingly 'no true scotsman' argument yourself.
But you seem unable to understand what this argument actually represents - a no true scotsman argument is about a person dictating to others what characteristics are required to be a 'true' scotsman, usually to dismiss people from that category whose views or actions they don't want to accept. That is not the same as recognising that not all people are scotsmen and that might include some people who profess to be scottish (albeit it isn't for me to dictate the terms that define scotsmen).
I haven't made a no true scotsman argument, albeit I have recognised that the complexity of belief journeys may need that there will be cases where professed or identified belief and actual belief do not concur. On the other hand you made an achingly no true scotsman argument:
...many who claim to have lost a deep christianity didn't have a deep one to begin with and certainly not one distinguishable with those ignorant of aspects of faith due to lack of effective and affective exposure to it.
-
I never said that - there will come a point in the development of a child where they have sufficient intellectual maturity to be able to make a conscious decision as to their beliefs. Up to that point a child saying they are a christian, praying to Jesus, having knowledge of bible stories told in picture-book fashion isn't real belief merely doing what you are told. I guess the point at which that happens is similar to the point at which we would recognise a child is genuinely able to consent (the key being having the capacity to consent). In ethical terms this is individual and circumstance dependent (i.e. Gillick competence), but as a rule of thumb we'd likely suggest that a intellectually mature 14 year old child may have capacity for a complex issue (eg. medical care or a religious belief), but a 6 year old child most certainly wouldn't. That is if we are discussing some issue which is merely an intellectual issue since mere intellectual assent maketh not a committed Christian. The question then moves onto... are children natural atheists or do they have a more unhindered apprehension of Divinity?
But in a respect you are correct Vlad and that is why I never said that they were rejecting their religious belief, but rejecting the religion of their upbringing.
I have spoken to many people who have experienced this[quote} Those are different matters. So an 18 year old who rejects their christian upbringing may have had a genuine belief at 14 (and then rejects it), or they may simply have been following their upbringing up to that point and when they reject that upbringing that may be the first time they have really addressed the matter seriously.
And that can be true of an avowed atheist upbringing, the extremist of examples i've heard is atheist parents wanting psychiatry for there religious questioning offspring or an apatheist upbringing where religion and antireligion talked is shunned.
I also used the word 'rebel', and this is important too. We are well aware that many people in their teens/early 20s simply reject what they were taught as part of their upbringing in a rebel against parents/adults/authority manner. This is part of developing independence. So a 17 year old who rejects the christianity of their upbringing may be genuinely rejecting a belief they'd previously held, but they may simply be rejecting what their parents believe regardless of their own underlying belief. Hence the person who 'rebels' at 17-22 but is comfortably back with their parental belief at 25 - effectively always believed what their parent's believed (from the point at which they have capacity and belief becomes meaningful) but rejected to for a while as part of a more general 'rebel against my parents' common approach against young people. I suspect someone like that might make a non-sense comment about 'being an atheist' which demonstrates very, very clearly that they never were - perhaps a comment that no atheist would make such as 'being angry at god for not existing'.
No true Scotsman fallacy again.
So Vlad, it is complicated - one size does not fit all and you need to understand the belief journey of each individual. So for me I was brought up in a broadly non religious household although I did go to Sunday school for a while, but with actively religious grandparents and other relatives. I was also brought up in the UK in the 70s where there was a general mood music of the importance of religion (well christianity) and a kind of default orthodoxy and acceptance that god existed. Through my childhood (from when such matters made any kind of sense) I kind of default accepted that god existed (as that was what you did), in my later teens and early 20s I knew quite a lot of actively religious people, largely university friends and tried really hard and really thought I believed that god existed. However I was deluding myself. At the age of 22 something happened which made be come to realise that I did not believe that god exists and indeed it was crystal clear to me that I never actually believed that god existed. I was for a while, let's call it, an atheist in denial. That's my journey, others are different. What I don't think is correct is to assume that all people who profess or identify with a particular belief do so on the basis of a genuine belief, nor that it is correct for me (or you) to dictate to others what a 'true' atheist or a true 'christian' looks like, albeit sometimes individuals come out with comments that seems so implausible for someone professing to hold a particular belief that you have to question (see above).
Crikey Vlad, 50% correct - that's an amazingly good hit rate for you.
-
I think it rather apt for a ''stealth religion'' manifestation of atheism in which Dawkins holds a position of de facto leadership.
So a made up notion for your made up scenario - there is a symmetry there, I guess.
Who in a conversation about religion would think that jewish would mean anything other than the religious designation?
In a conversation that's taking in the notion of cultural claimants of religious status, probably everyone with a semblance of nuance.
My answer is that it depends on the whos and the whats of the matter. Professor Davey thinks it's possible for children to be genuine christians and to reject it as an adult so against two of the most brilliant minds on this thread, mine and Daveys, what do you think your mere thinkings are worth?
I think, as I've always thought, that arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not on the self-aggrandisement of their adherents - so, again, given the immaturity of children, can their probably quite genuine commitment be thought to necessarily be any indication of anything significant? Kids are irretrievably devoted to pokemon, power rangers and paw patrol, until suddenly they aren't, it's the nature of children.
My point is that apatheists don't even make it as far as atheism which to them is an unecessary position to profess since for an atheist such as yourself religion is still an important topic.
Religion can be an important topic regardless of your particular stance on it. When religions are actively campaigning to restrict gay rights and women's rights around the world, it doesn't matter where you stand on the individual issues, it's an important topic. Yes, you can be apathetic about that, as well, but I fail to see (and, as an atheist, I appreciate I might lack insight here) how you could genuinely believe in a god and be apathetic about it.
Have to disagree with that. There are aspects of christianity which christianities have a different view or emphasis on.
Namely The nature of Jesus Christ
Sin
Salvation
What happens after death
Eschatology
and that's about it.
So it's been so well communicated by an allegedly all-knowing, all-powerful deity (over, if I'm interpreting your position fairly, at least two iterations) that there are fundamental disagreements about whether the pivotal figure is actually an avatar of god or not, what the purpose of us being here is, and if/how we might get anywhere else... Not the most coherent policy statement, I'd say.
O.
-
And that can be true of an avowed atheist upbringing,
If you mean children rejecting a non religious or even atheist upbringing, then indeed it can. I've no doubt that this does occur, however once adult views become settled it is exceptionally unlikely that the rebelling teen will settle on a religious path as an adult. Many studies have demonstrated that children brought up in a non religious household almost never become religious as adults. Of course the reverse happens all the time - with nigh on half of children brought up in a religious household choosing to be non religious as an adult.
But I would argue that it is much less likely to happen on the basis of rebellion - kids rebel against things (views, behaviours, actions) actively imposed on them as kids. In most cases a non religious household simply represents a lack of religion in the life of that family, there is no active element to it. So it would be somewhat odd to rebel against something that is a lack of imposition. While kids might rebel against parents bringing up their children to love curling, opera or fishing, how many kids rebel against their parental lack of exposure to curling, or opera, or fishing having been brought up in a non-curling, non-opera-living or non-fishing household - very few I'd suspect.
-
... the extremist of examples i've heard is atheist parents wanting psychiatry for there religious questioning offspring ...
Really - evidence please, not just some token anecdote, but statistical evidence of prevalence please.
And of course no such thing occurs in reverse - no evidence of religious families looking for psychiatric 'conversion' therapies if their children do not adhere to what their religion dictates in terms of, for example, sexuality. No need for legislation to prevent such 'conversion' therapies is there.
-
So a made up notion for your made up scenario - there is a symmetry there, I guess.
I didn't make up the notion. See the Wikipedia entry for New Atheism. It was the atheist biologist David Watson who, in this matter , I wholeheartedly agree with and who should be made Simonyi Professor of the public understanding of Clinton Richard Dawkins
In a conversation that's taking in the notion of cultural claimants of religious status, probably everyone with a semblance of nuance.
Only if they thought they were speaking to an audience to which some explanation were owed and whom you considered naturally thick. A fine description of Dawkins perhaps?....
[/quote]
-
or an apatheist upbringing where religion and antireligion talked is shunned.
An apatheist is someone who is disinterested in whether god exists or not, they simply don't care. Why would they take active steps to close down arguments - they'd simply not be interested. If they are taking such active steps then that indicates that they do case, they are not disinterested and de facto cannot be apatheist. Your argument simply makes no sense. You seem to confuse disinterest with negative interest.
To use an analogy - if I was an aparappist (someone disinterested in rap music) and my kids liked rap music, it would be (by definition) of no interest to me (as a aparappist). If I dissuaded them from listening to rap music that would demonstrated that rather than not caring, I did care, was not disinterested and considered rap music to be wrong in some manner perhaps because of the lyrics or just didn't like listening to it when played by the kids. That would mean I was an anti-rappist, not an apa-rappist.
-
Really - evidence please, not just some token anecdote, but statistical evidence of prevalence please.
you aren't building up to another no true Scotsman fallacy again are you?
And of course no such thing occurs in reverse - no evidence of religious families looking for psychiatric 'conversion' therapies if their children do not adhere to what their religion dictates in terms of, for example, sexuality. No need for legislation to prevent such 'conversion' therapies is there.
Monstrous whataboutery perhaps?
-
you aren't building up to another no true Scotsman fallacy again are you?
No - I am asking you for evidence of the prevalence of what you claim and its significance as an issue.
Monstrous whataboutery perhaps?
Not at all - this is entirely relevant - it involves religious organisations using psychiatric approaches to 'convert' people who it perceives have strayed from what it considers to the appropriate path according to their religion. And it such an important issue the the UK government is bringing forward legislation to deal with it. And yes there are statistics on its prevalence, and they aren't pretty.
-
How are you conceiving ''eternal life''?
You tell me. It's your religion.
How are you conceiving ''Love''?
You want me to explain what the words "love" and "worship" mean? Are you not a native speaker of English?
God isn't going to force anybody to love him.
Is showing up forcing people? If anybody can end atheism without forcing people, it's God.
Were he to give everybody eternal life that would mean that those who reject God are stuck forever with the very thing they have not wanted to be anywhere near.
If God ended atheism, there would be nobody who rejects God.
Those Christians should have remembered all of this. Perhaps they did and you have misinterpreted their motives and ideals and perhaps most importantly there timeline or perhaps they didn't.
It seems to me that your post was just dissembling because you don't have any real arguments. Asking people to define common English words is not an honest tactic.
-
I disagree, If religion or the latest thoughts from Dawkins came on the TV the parents might be apt to say ''Let's turn this crap off'' ...
Then they wouldn't be apatheistic, would they as they would not be disinterested and simply not care, they would be openly antagonistic meaning they do care and don't like. An apatheistic response wouldn't be ''Let's turn this crap off'' ..., but "I wonder if there is anything more interesting on the other side". Quite likely they simply do a bit of channel hopping, without comment.
-
... then we would have a case of monkey see, monkey do.
But when we talk about parents 'bring up their children' in a particular belief we aren't talking about some passive observation, we are talking about a conscious decision on the part of the parents followed up by active, direct and directed promulgation of that view within the child.
So parents 'bringing up their children' don't simply rely on passive observation by the child of the parent perhaps going off to church (while the child remains at home) or perhaps praying. If that was all that happened the catholic church would be horrified. Nope it involved all sorts of direct and active engagement of the child in the religion, with the specific purpose of ensuring that the child understands the religion and accepts it. So let's have a look at the kind of things:
1. Expectation that the child is baptised, during which the parents and godparents promise to bring up the child 'in the faith'
2. Expectation that the child attends church regularly along with the parent
3. Expectation that the parents will teach the child about the religion at home and likely teach them to pray, and expectation that the child will also engage in prayer
4. Expectation that the child attends church-based liturgy studies
5. Expectation that the child attends a catholic school
6. Expectation that at the tender age of 7, that the child will have their first communion and will have instruction leading up to this over the previous year.
7. Expectation that the child will, at the still pretty tender age of 14, that the child will be confirmed and again will need to attend instruction leading up to this.
That's what bringing up a child in a particular religion looks like (some of the elements may be softened by the basic concept that is an active direct process remains).
You don't bring up a child to be musical by simply know that dad likes music and seeing that he sometimes plays the violin - you bring up a child to be musical by actively involving them in music, by starting lessons on an instrument at an early age and insisting they practice and don't give up, by expecting them to take exams, by expecting them to be involved in extracurricular music groups at school and outside etc etc.
'Bringing up' is an active and directed approach not a passive observational one.
-
You tell me. It's your religion.
You want me to explain what the words "love" and "worship" mean? Are you not a native speaker of English?
Is showing up forcing people? If anybody can end atheism without forcing people, it's God.
If God ended atheism, there would be nobody who rejects God.
It seems to me that your post was just dissembling because you don't have any real arguments. Asking people to define common English words is not an honest tactic.
I know you don't have any arguments. The universe ''just is'' isn't an argument.
I recognised God... eventually...after God dodging. It may be that years of resistance blinds the person to God. Philosophical empiricism slavishly and fetishly adhered to? I don't know. I am not you.
He has turned up in the person of Christ.
-
You tell me. It's your religion.
You want me to explain what the words "love" and "worship" mean? Are you not a native speaker of English?
Is showing up forcing people? If anybody can end atheism without forcing people, it's God.
If God ended atheism, there would be nobody who rejects God.
It seems to me that your post was just dissembling because you don't have any real arguments. Asking people to define common English words is not an honest tactic.
I think you are second guessing God's agenda here. What does God want more. People who love him properly by not being forced or the extinction of those who don't intellectually assent to theism??
You are merely expressing what you would do if you were God. What a mind boggling manifestation of self assessment.
-
Then they wouldn't be apatheistic, would they as they would not be disinterested and simply not care, they would be openly antagonistic meaning they do care and don't like. An apatheistic response wouldn't be ''Let's turn this crap off'' ..., but "I wonder if there is anything more interesting on the other side". Quite likely they simply do a bit of channel hopping, without comment.
When somebody turns the JW's from their doors they do it because they are not interested. Then after they do it repeatedly so even the kids have got the hang of it then the Kids won't be interested. They will turn out and turn off anything to do with religion and let's face it no one has banged on about religion more that Clinton Richard Dawkins.
-
But when we talk about parents 'bring up their children' in a particular belief we aren't talking about some passive observation, we are talking about a conscious decision on the part of the parents followed up by active, direct and directed promulgation of that view within the child.
So parents 'bringing up their children' don't simply rely on passive observation by the child of the parent perhaps going off to church (while the child remains at home) or perhaps praying. If that was all that happened the catholic church would be horrified. Nope it involved all sorts of direct and active engagement of the child in the religion, with the specific purpose of ensuring that the child understands the religion and accepts it. So let's have a look at the kind of things:
1. Expectation that the child is baptised, during which the parents and godparents promise to bring up the child 'in the faith'
2. Expectation that the child attends church regularly along with the parent
3. Expectation that the parents will teach the child about the religion at home and likely teach them to pray, and expectation that the child will also engage in prayer
4. Expectation that the child attends church-based liturgy studies
5. Expectation that the child attends a catholic school
6. Expectation that at the tender age of 7, that the child will have their first communion and will have instruction leading up to this over the previous year.
7. Expectation that the child will, at the still pretty tender age of 14, that the child will be confirmed and again will need to attend instruction leading up to this.
That's what bringing up a child in a particular religion looks like (some of the elements may be softened by the basic concept that is an active direct process remains).
You don't bring up a child to be musical by simply know that dad likes music and seeing that he sometimes plays the violin - you bring up a child to be musical by actively involving them in music, by starting lessons on an instrument at an early age and insisting they practice and don't give up, by expecting them to take exams, by expecting them to be involved in extracurricular music groups at school and outside etc etc.
'Bringing up' is an active and directed approach not a passive observational one.
Matter of opinion. Parents are bringing up their children to the time they go to school and the time school finishes and during that time the teacher is in loco parentis.
Nobody in education believes they are not teaching by example when they are not teaching by other methods. When school finishes and dad is repeatedly late picking the kid up a lesson is still being taught to that child by the fathers absence. The message is we aren't interested in religion or antireligion in this house. Goodbye.
-
When somebody turns the JW's from their doors they do it because they are not interested. Then after they do it repeatedly so even the kids have got the hang of it then the Kids won't be interested. They will turn out and turn off anything to do with religion and let's face it no one has banged on about religion more that Clinton Richard Dawkins.
The kind of people who give short shrift to JW at the door will likely do the same to political canvassers, door to door salespeople etc etc. I suspect their kids (if they even notice, I doubt mine would ever notice that I'd even answered the door) would probably conclude that their parent doesn't like to be disturbed unannounced and uninvited by people wanting something at the door. I doubt they'd conclude that they are being brought up non-JW and therefore decide to shun religion.
When they rebel they might end up with a lot of double glazing though (if that is even sold door to door any more).
-
Matter of opinion. Parents are bringing up their children to the time they go to school and the time school finishes and during that time the teacher is in loco parentis.
Do you have kids Vlad - the notion that parents only bring up their children until they go to school at the age of 4 is bonkers. I think many parents still think they are bringing up their children well into their 20s and beyond.
Nobody in education believes they are not teaching by example when they are not teaching by other methods. When school finishes and dad is repeatedly late picking the kid up a lesson is still being taught to that child by the fathers absence. The message is we aren't interested in religion or antireligion in this house. Goodbye.
But there is a difference between teaching directly, teaching by example and teaching by lack of interest. Of those three the last is by far the weakest. So if I think it is important that my child plays the piano, which do you think would be the most effective:
1. Actively encourage them to learn the piano, pay for lessons, encourage them to practice etc (the equivalent of how most religious people bring up their child in a particular religion)
2. Regularly play the piano and hope they will become interested one day but don't actively push them until or unless they express an interest (not how most religious people bring up their child in a particular religion but potentially a little effective).
3. Deliberately ignore/show no interest in playing the flute in the hope that my offspring will interpret my anti-flutism or apa-flutism as a subtle message that they should play the piano.
-
I know you don't have any arguments. The universe ''just is'' isn't an argument.
I am not arguing about the Universe on this thread, I am arguing about God: your god in particular.
I recognised God... eventually...after God dodging.
Since we have clearly established that the Christian god doesn't exist, what god do you suppose it was that you "recognised"? In fact, how do you know it was a god at all?
-
I think you are second guessing God's agenda here.
And you're not?
What does God want more. People who love him properly by not being forced or the extinction of those who don't intellectually assent to theism??
The trouble is that the rules (that presumably God created) say that people who don't love God properly (whatever that means) get cast into the pit of Hell for eternity or some metaphorical equivalent.
It's like being on a sinking ship and the lifeboat comes along but the captain refuses to rescue you unless you love him. That's not love, it's obsession and it's the mark of a warped mind. You are a fool to think this god of yours really loves you.
-
And you're not?
Not like you.
The trouble is that the rules (that presumably God created) say that people who don't love God properly (whatever that means) get cast into the pit of Hell for eternity or some metaphorical equivalent.
But that would be preferable than spending an eternity with God for someone who rejects God wouldn't it?
It's like being on a sinking ship and the lifeboat comes along but the captain refuses to rescue you unless you love him.
He is the lifebelt, something someone who rejects God would want to divest himself of as soon as possible. That's not love, it's obsession and it's the mark of a warped mind. You are a fool to think this god of yours really loves you.
You are a fool to reject him. He loves us but is prepared for you not to love him. If you finally reject him then there is nothing he can offer you since you refuse it.
What you want is heaven but without God. There is no heaven without God. What is hell like...going to one's own place is I believe the biblical euphemism.
Nobody though loves God properly so I believe that part of your argumentation is wrong by dint of that.
-
I didn't make up the notion.
I didn't give you credit for it, don't worry. The made up notion I was referring to was 'spiritual'...
Only if they thought they were speaking to an audience to which some explanation were owed and whom you considered naturally thick.
Intelligence is a multi-facetted trait - you can, for instance, be logically proficient but still prone to lecturing people about your imaginary friend...
A fine description of Dawkins perhaps?....
If, by 'fine', you mean 'inaccurate'?
O.
-
I didn't give you credit for it, don't worry. The made up notion I was referring to was 'spiritual'...
Intelligence is a multi-facetted trait - you can, for instance, be logically proficient but still prone to lecturing people about your imaginary friend...
If, by 'fine', you mean 'inaccurate'?
O.
I'm sure that in all that is the positive but unjustified
Assertion that God is imaginary.
The atheist Community seems to be turning against Dawkinsanyway vis PZ Myers and Matt Dillahunty now that Dawkins has slipped into Alf Garnett mode.
-
I'm sure that in all that is the positive but unjustified Assertion that God is imaginary.
I've looked for evidence of a god, I've not found any. If you've got something, offer it, but until then it remains a technically provisional conclusion from the lack of available evidence. It's not proof, but it'll hold until the situation changes.
The atheist Community seems to be turning against Dawkins anyway vis PZ Myers and Matt Dillahunty now that Dawkins has slipped into Alf Garnett mode.
Professor Dawkins, and those of his generation, are increasingly marginalised as they fail to adapt their upbringing to modern sensibilities - it doesn't undermine his arguments regarding gods and religion, particularly, but it does limit his ability to influence the modern discourse on the implications of that argument.
That's as it should be - he's not owed a place in the public discourse, and he remains there so long as his arguments have relevance and suitability.
O.
-
Not like you. But that would be preferable than spending an eternity with God for someone who rejects God wouldn't it?
you seem to have forgotten that, if God ended atheism, there would be nobody who rejects God.
He is the lifebelt, something someone who rejects God would want to divest himself of as soon as possible.
No he isn't. It's my metaphor.
Your god, you allege, loves us, yet, if we don't love him back, we die. That's not love, it's obsession.
He loves us but is prepared for you not to love him.
Yes he prepared himself by making a rule that everybody who fails to "love him back" must die or be cast into the pit ofd hell or whatever, depending on your denomination. Your god is a monster.
-
you seem to have forgotten that, if God ended atheism, there would be nobody who rejects God.
No he isn't. It's my metaphor.
Since there is such thing as a free floating atheism It is a lack of belief in people. Since you have thrown love in the mix and love is never impersonal we move from atheism as a thing and back to where it only exists namely people. God does not want to force people to love him, that is not love. Letting someone go is love.
Your god, you allege, loves us, yet, if we don't love him back, we die. That's not love, it's obsession.
Obsession would be God stalking someone who has rejected him through eternity. Non obsession would provide nothing....as requested and wished for by the person rejecting GodYes he prepared himself by making a rule that everybody who fails to "love him back" must die or be cast into the pit ofd hell or whatever, depending on your denomination. Your god is a monster.
NO, If you reject God then you don’t want the things of god and are left with yourself.
-
Obsession would be God stalking someone who has rejected him through eternity.
Obsession and stalking are not the same thing. Although, of course, according to some Christians, God is everywhere and watching our every move, so he is a stalker.
NO, If you reject God then you don’t want the things of god and are left with yourself.
He didn't have to make the rule that casts non believers into the fiery pit of hell though. Your god is a monster. You should be afraid of him. If he can do such unpleasant things to people just for not loving him, even when he refuses to prove his existence, he could turn on you at any instant for the most trivial of reasons.
-
I've looked for evidence of a god, I've not found any. If you've got something, offer it, but until then it remains a technically provisional conclusion from the lack of available evidence. It's not proof, but it'll hold until the situation changes.
I’ve been looking for evidence of a universe that is God free. The trouble is God keeps jumping out in the question of morality, in the question of why something rather than nothing, in the question of contingency, in the question of why the universe is so deeply susceptible to reason and why people who put so much store in science are prepared in an act of utter and shear faith willing to settle without apparent question that the universe “just is”. I’ve also been looking for empirical evidence for materialism etc.
Professor Dawkins, and those of his generation, are increasingly marginalised as they fail to adapt their upbringing to modern sensibilities - it doesn't undermine his arguments regarding gods and religion, particularly, but it does limit his ability to influence the modern discourse on the implications of that argument.
His new atheist arguments have been widely slated as philosophically inept. Your respect for them is I would say “Cultic ”.
That's as it should be - he's not owed a place in the public discourse, and he remains there so long as his arguments have relevance and suitability.
O.
The response of his cult to philosophical criticism has been to rubbish philosophy as a field of study.
-
Obsession and stalking are not the same thing. Although, of course, according to some Christians, God is everywhere and watching our every move, so he is a stalker.
He didn't have to make the rule that casts non believers into the fiery pit of hell though. Your god is a monster. You should be afraid of him. If he can do such unpleasant things to people just for not loving him, even when he refuses to prove his existence, he could turn on you at any instant for the most trivial of reasons.
Obsession and stalking are not the same thing. Although, of course, according to some Christians, God is everywhere and watching our every move, so he is a stalker.
He didn't have to make the rule that casts non believers into the fiery pit of hell though. Your god is a monster. You should be afraid of him. If he can do such unpleasant things to people just for not loving him, even when he refuses to prove his existence, he could turn on you at any instant for the most trivial of reasons.
The fiery pit of hell, dying in one’s own sins, Going to one’s own place, outer darkness, God’s presence...have all been used in Christian context to describe the fate of the unbeliever. Now the question is Jeremy is your analysis of these descriptions apart from fiery pit of hell. We have your analysis on that. If you don’t answer then i’m Afraid that’s more atheist evasion.
-
I’ve been looking for evidence of a universe that is God free. The trouble is God keeps jumping out in the question of morality, in the question of why something rather than nothing, in the question of contingency, in the question of why the universe is so deeply susceptible to reason and why people who put so much store in science are prepared in an act of utter and shear faith willing to settle without apparent question that the universe “just is”.
Wow, it's the straw giant!
Trying to lever gods into morality doesn't solve anything, it just adds a layer of complexity for no discernible purpose.
Why something rather than nothing - what makes you think there is a 'why'?
The question of why the universe is susceptible to reason is simply that if there were not some degree of stability there would not be a basis for life to examine the stability. Unstable realities may have come and gone innumerable times.
People of science, as well as other people, consider the universe 'just is' because relying on a god that 'just is' falls foul of Ockham's razor - positing a god as the source of reality just pushes the question back from something we can demonstrate (and therefore investigate) onto something we can't demonstrate or investigate.
I’ve also been looking for empirical evidence for materialism etc.
Because it works?
His new atheist arguments have been widely slated as philosophically inept.
No, theologically inept, but then that's only a problem if you consider theology to have validity in the first instance.
Your respect for them is I would say “Cultic ”.
Would you... I'll take that under advisement.
The response of his cult to philosophical criticism has been to rubbish philosophy as a field of study.
I don't doubt that some have. Their arguments will have to stand or fall on their own merits, just as his do.
O.
-
The fiery pit of hell, dying in one’s own sins, Going to one’s own place, outer darkness, God’s presence...have all been used in Christian context to describe the fate of the unbeliever. Now the question is Jeremy is your analysis of these descriptions apart from fiery pit of hell. We have your analysis on that. If you don’t answer then i’m Afraid that’s more atheist evasion.
No the question is why do you still follow the evil obsessive stalker god for which you can find no evidence?
-
No the question is why do you still follow the evil obsessive stalker god for which you can find no evidence?
Once again a caricature, strawman god of yours has provided me with any reason not to follow God.
-
Once again a caricature, strawman god of yours has provided me with any reason not to follow God.
The only problem with the caricature is that it is so close to what you actually believe in. You only deny it because it would force you to re-evaluate your worldview to see your god as he really is.
-
The only problem with the caricature is that it is so close to what you actually believe in. You only deny it because it would force you to re-evaluate your worldview to see your god as he really is.
No it isn't lets analyse what I believe for instance is the fate of the unbeliever and what you believe.
First of all there is the unbeliever. Your view is that this is some morally pure and innocent lilywhite who's only crime is to reject a beastly God trussed up and cruelly deprived of his wellearned reward of a paradise.
That is not the view of christianity. All have fallen short and all are alienated against God sin affects the soul and rejection of God means rejection of the repair the God man relationship, won by Christ can bring. Paradise is God, Christ is the lifebelt cast off by the finally unbelieving because, they feel they don't need it...fine as I am thank you. But wait a minute the christian isn't talking about an afterlife, She is talking about the possibility of the relationship here and now.
The Orthodox church has no place called hell for all come intoGod's presence. For the final rejector that is where he doesn't want to be for eternity thus for them God's presence is hell,
Outer darkness? sounds like the opposite of hell but the feelings of it may be tormenting but if you've rejected God.?
Finally dying in one's sins. Not God's sins nor anyone else's sins but one's own sins because we cherish them more than God. In other words the torment will come from and derive from ourselves.
And even many Calvinists agree with this and maintain that the condemned are not tortured by anything other than the presence of God but are not saved.
-
No it isn't lets analyse what I believe for instance is the fate of the unbeliever and what you believe.
First of all there is the unbeliever. Your view is that this is some morally pure and innocent lilywhite who's only crime is to reject a beastly God trussed up and cruelly deprived of his wellearned reward of a paradise.
Wrong.
That is not the view of christianity. All have fallen short and all are alienated against God sin affects the soul and rejection of God means rejection of the repair the God man relationship, won by Christ can bring. Paradise is God, Christ is the lifebelt cast off by the finally unbelieving because, they feel they don't need it...fine as I am thank you. But wait a minute the christian isn't talking about an afterlife, She is talking about the possibility of the relationship here and now.
Who decided that Jesus Christ is the "lifebelt"? God did. If God was genuinely concerned about us unbelievers, he'd take steps to show us that the lifebelt is not just a figment of Christians' imagination.
The Orthodox church has no place called hell for all come intoGod's presence. For the final rejector that is where he doesn't want to be for eternity thus for them God's presence is hell,
You Christians really need to get together and present a consistent message. All this bickering and disagreeing you have just makes it look like you are making it up as you go along.
And even many Calvinists agree with this
Do you think this is convincing? You've found an obscure sect, some of whose adherents agree with some parts of your view.
-
Wrong.
Who decided that Jesus Christ is the "lifebelt"? God did. If God was genuinely concerned about us unbelievers, he'd take steps to show us that the lifebelt is not just a figment of Christians' imagination.You Christians really need to get together and present a consistent message. All this bickering and disagreeing you have just makes it look like you are making it up as you go along. Do you think this is convincing? You've found an obscure sect, some of whose adherents agree with some parts of your view.
I feel the central message is clear. In fact Christianity has a greater sense of that than say, non Christians.
-
I feel the central message is clear.
The trouble is that many other Christians feel the central message is clear but they have a different variation compared to you.
In fact Christianity has a greater sense of that than say, non Christians.
What? Clarity? That's really funny.
-
The trouble is that many other Christians feel the central message is clear but they have a different variation compared to you.
What? Clarity? That's really funny.
Example?
-
Example?
There are many christians who believe in a literal hell with eternal torture, for example.
-
There are many christians who believe in a literal hell with eternal torture, for example.
And, of course, you take your cue from them, real fire, bodies that are renewed and burnt over, and reject considering other explanations. I don't think non literalists are much use to you are they.
Then again what if they are right?
-
Then again what if they are right?
...then you would be wrong?
-
And, of course, you take your cue from them,
No I don't take my cue from any Christians because it seems you can't agree about pretty much anything. Is there literal hellfire or not? You say no. Other Christians and Arthur Brown say yes.
I think, if there is a god that created the Universe, it would not invent a religion as half arsed as Christianity.
-
There are many christians who believe in a literal hell with eternal torture, for example.
I would imagine that includes people who believe that demons and the Devil will be doing the tormenting and those who go there chose to fall in with such a bad lot, That God will be the active tormentor, the torments being just payment for sins committed, that God is passive and because of the nature those who have not repented find his presence tormenting but not those who believe that God torments the innocent.
-
No I don't take my cue from any Christians because it seems you can't agree about pretty much anything. Is there literal hellfire or not? You say no. Other Christians and Arthur Brown say yes.
I think, if there is a god that created the Universe, it would not invent a religion as half arsed as Christianity.
John 17:3 says, "Now this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent."
So the thing to do is to let the Bible interpret itself. As Waltzing said, "But wait a minute the christian isn't talking about an afterlife, She is talking about the possibility of the relationship here and now."
John 17:3 would imply that 'hell' is not knowing God, which would be a sufficient understanding.
-
So the thing to do is to let the Bible interpret itself.
How on earth can a book interpret itself - it is just a book. Interpretation requires a reader or the author to do the interpreting. And this is why there are so many varying interpretations of the bible, because any reader can lay their interpretation on what they read and we don't have the authors around to tell us what they actually meant. In fact it goes further than that - in many cases, particularly the Gospels, we don't even know who the authors were and we certainly do know that there were numerous alterations, changes etc to the texts that occurred in the earliest centuries leading to what we might consider to be the established or orthodox text. Add in translations to that mix.
-
How on earth can a book interpret itself - it is just a book. Interpretation requires a reader or the author to do the interpreting. And this is why there are so many varying interpretations of the bible, because any reader can lay their interpretation on what they read and we don't have the authors around to tell us what they actually meant. In fact it goes further than that - in many cases, particularly the Gospels, we don't even know who the authors were and we certainly do know that there were numerous alterations, changes etc to the texts that occurred in the earliest centuries leading to what we might consider to be the established or orthodox text. Add in translations to that mix.
I think the argument goes like this: '"All scripture is inspired by God", and when believers apply themselves to understanding scripture, the Holy Spirit again appears and leads them to the correct interpretation'.
Odd though, isn't it, that the Holy Spirit should have led sincere believers to such different interpretations?
-
I think the argument goes like this: '"All scripture is inspired by God", and when believers apply themselves to understanding scripture, the Holy Spirit again appears and leads them to the correct interpretation'.
Odd though, isn't it, that the Holy Spirit should have led sincere believers to such different interpretations?
Yup - weird isn't it ;)
-
Most stuff has multiple, often inconsistent, interpretations. There's no reason to believe that only a single interpretation is correct or even that any interpretation must be correct.
-
I think the argument goes like this: '"All scripture is inspired by God", and when believers apply themselves to understanding scripture, the Holy Spirit again appears and leads them to the correct interpretation'.
Odd though, isn't it, that the Holy Spirit should have led sincere believers to such different interpretations?
I don't think it's odd at all. On any reasonable interpretation of scripture, God is some sort of psychopathic nut job who killed himself temporarily to subvert his own rules. Clearly, he won't give a gnats testicle to be sure that the Holy Spirit keeps things consistent.
-
How on earth can a book interpret itself - it is just a book.
They are 66 books - biblia, as they were originally called. They interpret each other.
-
They are 66 books - biblia, as they were originally called. They interpret each other.
How self-referential: seems like a recipe for compounding errors.
-
They are 66 books - biblia, as they were originally called.
Only if you are a protestant. Catholics have 73 and the Orthodox Church has 81.
They interpret each other.
Which of the books in the Bible tell us which other ones should be in the Bible?
-
They interpret each other.
Missing my point Spud.
My point was that a book cannot interpret itself - or even another part of a curated collection (which is what the bible is). No it is an author or a reader that does the interpretation, not the book itself. So to reiterate:
'Interpretation requires a reader or the author to do the interpreting. And this is why there are so many varying interpretations of the bible, because any reader can lay their interpretation on what they read and we don't have the authors around to tell us what they actually meant. In fact it goes further than that - in many cases, particularly the Gospels, we don't even know who the authors were and we certainly do know that there were numerous alterations, changes etc to the texts that occurred in the earliest centuries leading to what we might consider to be the established or orthodox text. Add in translations to that mix.'
My point is that the interpretations are inconsistent and also opaque as we have very little understanding of what the original author of sections of the bible actually intended as the bible has been re-written, selectively curated, translated etc so much that it is pretty well impossible to determine what the original authors might have intended.
-
They are 66 books - biblia, as they were originally called. They interpret each other.
And often they contradict each other. Sometimes a prophet knowingly contradicts another, concerning some important religious practice which is taken for granted as being in accordance with God's will. Take Jeremiah 7:22 on sacrifice, for instance:
"For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices."
This of course has implications for Pauline Christianity, where Christ himself becomes the sacrifice offered up.
-
Only if you are a protestant. Catholics have 73 and the Orthodox Church has 81.
Which of the books in the Bible tell us which other ones should be in the Bible?
Hi Jeremy,
I don't know much about that but I can give you an example. As I understand it, the books of Maccabees tend to over-glorify the Maccabees. Although the latter overthrew Antiochus 4th. they didn't re-instate the family of Zadok to the high-priesthood. Ezekiel stated that the priests in the re-built temple had to be descended from Zadok (Numbers 25:10-13, Ezekiel 43:19, 44:15-16). So the offerings on the day of Atonement during the time of the Hasmoneans weren't the real thing. The books of the Apocrypha are useful as historical documents but are not inspired scripture.
-
I don't think it's odd at all. On any reasonable interpretation of scripture, God is some sort of psychopathic nut job who killed himself temporarily to subvert his own rules. Clearly, he won't give a gnats testicle to be sure that the Holy Spirit keeps things consistent.
I think God maintained his own rules through an act of mercy. That's the reasonable interpretation. The weak link is humanity itself and that is a scandalous suggestion to those sympathetic with secular Humanism or whatever it's called these days
-
I think God maintained his own rules through an act of mercy. That's the reasonable interpretation.
Given that there isn't any evidence that god even exists I'd suggest this isn't a reasonable interpretation but a baseless assertion.
You are entitled to your opinion Vlad but you aren't entitled to aggrandise it by claiming it to be a reasonable interpretation when the very starting point of your assertion is a completely unevidenced assumption, i.e. that god exists. You then layer further unevidenced assertions onto unevidenced assertion, i.e. that you know how this god (not proven to exist) actually acts.
Non-sense.
-
I don't think it's odd at all. On any reasonable interpretation of scripture, God is some sort of psychopathic nut job who killed himself temporarily to subvert his own rules. Clearly, he won't give a gnats testicle to be sure that the Holy Spirit keeps things consistent.
I think God maintained his own rules through an act of mercy.
Then they are rules made by a sadomasochistic, unjust, unfair, psychopathic nut job. In no way was it an act of mercy, it's literally insane to torture oneself to temporary death in order to 'forgive' humans for being humans (i.e. the way this insane god created us).
The weak link is humanity itself...
Then this god of yours did a shoddy job in creating us.
-
Hi Jeremy,
I don't know much about that but I can give you an example. As I understand it, the books of Maccabees tend to over-glorify the Maccabees. Although the latter overthrew Antiochus 4th. they didn't re-instate the family of Zadok to the high-priesthood. Ezekiel stated that the priests in the re-built temple had to be descended from Zadok (Numbers 25:10-13, Ezekiel 43:19, 44:15-16). So the offerings on the day of Atonement during the time of the Hasmoneans weren't the real thing.
The book of Joshua tends to over glorify Joshua. Archaeology tells us it is mostly fiction. Maccabees does, at least, describe events that actually happened.
The books of the Apocrypha are useful as historical documents but are not inspired scripture.
You say Apocrypha, Catholics say Bible. How was it determined that the books of the Apocrypha were not inspired scripture. Bear in mind that more than half of all Christians disagree with your classification.
-
I think God maintained his own rules through an act of mercy.
Incorrect. God's rule is "if you sin, you die (or suffer eternal torment in some interpretations)". According to Christians, we are all sinners but by turning to Christ, you can escape the punishment. This is not maintaining the rule, it is subverting it.
-
Given that there isn't any evidence that god even exists
In the context of this thread, we can go further. Christians asked God to end atheism. Atheism did not end. This is positive evidence that God (or, at least the Christian god) does not exist.
-
In the context of this thread, we can go further. Christians asked God to end atheism. Atheism did not end.
True.
This is positive evidence that God (or, at least the Christian god) does not exist.
I think you and I know that not to be a justifiable conclusion. It could be that god doesn't answer prayers, perhaps he gets irritated at christians making demands of him. Given that he has apparently been around for a very, very long time perhaps he's taken a short break for the last 1990 years and put his prayer-phone onto the voicemail and out of office reply. Maybe he rather likes atheists and recognises that by choosing not to provide any evidence for his existence that it is the atheists who have the most logical approach to the question, rather than the blind and unevidenced faith.
Or then again god might just not exist ;)
-
True.
I think you and I know that not to be a justifiable conclusion.
I think it is a justifiable conclusion in respect of the Christian god.
It could be that god doesn't answer prayers, perhaps he gets irritated at christians making demands of him. Given that he has apparently been around for a very, very long time perhaps he's taken a short break for the last 1990 years and put his prayer-phone onto the voicemail and out of office reply. Maybe he rather likes atheists and recognises that by choosing not to provide any evidence for his existence that it is the atheists who have the most logical approach to the question, rather than the blind and unevidenced faith.
Or then again god might just not exist ;)
Hmm, that is a good point. It's well known that omnipotent God needs to rest at the weekend.
-
Incorrect. God's rule is "if you sin, you die (or suffer eternal torment in some interpretations)". According to Christians, we are all sinners but by turning to Christ, you can escape the punishment. This is not maintaining the rule, it is subverting it.
Nobody escapes the punishment, as everybody dies.
I think old testament times were different as regards the possibility of eternal punishment. This is because they had no proof of a general resurrection except clues from Enoch and Elijah who didn't die but were taken 'up". The teaching of the prophets was that repentance had real consequences in this life, rather than that if we repent we will have eternal life.
Jesus taught the latter, and that there will be a resurrection of everyone, knowing that he would rise from the dead as evidence.
This doesn't subvert any rules, does it?
-
Nobody escapes the punishment, as everybody dies.
Dying is not punishment. It's what happens to all living things in the end.
I think old testament times were different as regards the possibility of eternal punishment. This is because they had no proof of a general resurrection except clues from Enoch and Elijah who didn't die but were taken 'up".
There's still no proof of resurrection.
The teaching of the prophets was that repentance had real consequences in this life, rather than that if we repent we will have eternal life.
Jesus taught the latter, and that there will be a resurrection of everyone, knowing that he would rise from the dead as evidence.
This doesn't subvert any rules, does it?
Yes it does. If the rule is that we are to be punished for our sins and there is a way to get around the punishment, the rule is subverted.
-
Incorrect. God's rule is "if you sin, you die (or suffer eternal torment in some interpretations)". According to Christians, we are all sinners but by turning to Christ, you can escape the punishment. This is not maintaining the rule, it is subverting it.
I think you have discarded two of God's decrees here 1) His intent is to rescue humans from ''the wages(effects accrued) of sin'' by 2) Taking the effects on himself in the person of Jesus.
-
I think you have discarded two of God's decrees here 1) His intent is to rescue humans from ''the wages(effects accrued) of sin'' by 2) Taking the effects on himself in the person of Jesus.
Did he not create the "wages of sin" rule himself?
And let's be honest, he didn't take the effects on himself. People who sin are dead forever. Jesus was dead a couple of days. It's just one massive loophole after another.
-
Did he not create the "wages of sin" rule himself?
And let's be honest, he didn't take the effects on himself. People who sin are dead forever. Jesus was dead a couple of days. It's just one massive loophole after another.
Everybody is raised to judgment, some will go to the second death and some to eternal life. What you suggest is a strange mash up of bible and the secular view.
-
Vlad,
Everybody is raised to judgment, some will go to the second death and some to eternal life.
He who fails to bow down before Colin, the Great Nabob of the leprechauns shall have a camel forever spit in his eye.
OK, your turn for the next utterly unqualified faith clam drivel...
-
and some to eternal life.
I'm curious, just what do you do for eternity?
Can you even imagine what that would be like?
-
I'm curious, just what do you do for eternity?
Oh, that's easy. You set up a topic "Searching for God"
-
Oh, that's easy. You set up a topic "Searching for God"
LOL.
-
Nobody escapes the punishment, as everybody dies.
I think old testament times were different as regards the possibility of eternal punishment. This is because they had no proof of a general resurrection except clues from Enoch and Elijah who didn't die but were taken 'up". The teaching of the prophets was that repentance had real consequences in this life, rather than that if we repent we will have eternal life.
Jesus taught the latter, and that there will be a resurrection of everyone, knowing that he would rise from the dead as evidence.
This doesn't subvert any rules, does it?
Odd that God didn't let the ancient Hebrews know unequivocally whether there was an afterlife which involved judgment and eternal pain or bliss. Apart from the two hints you mention, there is only the vague reference in the very late Book of Daniel, which points to a conscious afterlife. And of course, Ecclesiastes say definitely that "the dead are conscious of nothing at all".