is Atheism a form of belief
Gonnagle.
Dear Jeremyp,I don't think theism is in itself a religious position. It's a position on one belief. Religion is a wider more complex phenomenon
Is Atheism a religious position?
Gonnagle.
Dear Nearly ( aye right!)You provides a definition of theism that I don't disagree with but that definition doesn't say it is a religious position. There are many theists who don't have a religion, and many atheists who do. Neither atheism nor theism is a necessary or sufficient condition of being religious.
Theism as explained in my previous post is a religious position, stop messing with my head you messer of heads ( it's a word ).
Now you have me thinking, is there something missing in a Atheists life, try religion it will keep you occupied for hours, but then! ah ha! you have religion, it is called Atheism, it is your belief and countless others, I did try it once but it was so dead, so final, so meaningless :-[
Anyway onward and upwards, this forum is great, lots of Atheists and Theists to have fun with ;D
Gonnagle.
So my simple question which I posed in the den of ill repute is, is Atheism a form of belief
Dear Jeremyp,If you mean "is it a position that is religious" then the answer is no.
Is Atheism a religious position?
Gonnagle.
Dear Sane,I don't really see that calling it that helps. I think it ends up reducing religion to a tautology. Religion seems to me to need more than a belief or a lack of belief in a god. Indeed the problem is compounded by the question of what dies 'god' mean?
I will play but only if you play fair ;) a religious position not a specific religion but a religious position, like Atheism.
Dear fellow Posters,
Well here we are again happy as can be all good friends and jolly good company :o :o
Our story starts in a faraway galaxy, a beautiful place, some say the very centre of the known universe, picture the scene, three very wise but aged gentlemen sitting in a den of ill repute which sells ( quite legally ) substances of mind altering qualities. Now one of these gentlemen mentions a quote from a book he had read regarding atheism ( need to mention that this particular gentleman was rather handsome in a rugged weather beaten sort of way ) ::) anyway this book was written by a atheist, sorry Cheerful atheist ( the writers description not mine ) and below is the quote from the said book.
“No it's not!" said Constable Visit. "Atheism is a denial of a god."
"Therefore It Is A Religious Position," said Dorfl. "Indeed, A True Atheist Thinks Of The Gods Constantly, Albeit In Terms of Denial. Therefore, Atheism Is A Form Of Belief. If The Atheist Truly Did Not Believe, He Or She Would Not Bother To Deny.”
― Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay
So my simple question which I posed in the den of ill repute is, is Atheism a form of belief
Gonnagle.
You seem to be asking two different questionsEchoing others - good to see you back Gonners
1) Is atheism a form of belief
2) Is atheism a religious position
Is Atheism a religious position?
Bloody Atheists you can't even agree amongst yourselves ;)
Atheism is a position on religion, not a religious position ...Nope atheism is a position on god (specifically a lack of belief in god or gods), not a position on religion, let alone a religious position.
Dear Gentlemen, ( I think you are all of the male variety )Mr Gonnagle, Sir.
Thank you all for your replies and your welcome backs, and I am, and yes I have to say although it hurts and I can't quite believe it, Sir Terry is wrong, no no and trice no :-[ Atheism is a position on religion, not a religious position, my God that was sore ;)
Bloody Atheists you can't even agree amongst yourselves ;)
Gonnagle.
Mr Gonnagle, Sir.But gonnagle doesn't mention 'New Atheism' (whatever that may be). Nope he is talking about atheism, which is a lack of belief in god or gods - nothing more, nothing less. So it represents a position on god or gods, it is not even a position on religion (as people can be both atheist and religious) and certainly not a religion.
The evolutionary biologist and atheist David Sloan Wilson described the “New Atheism” as a stealth religion, seeing its own position as truthful, spreading that message in the hope of conversions or revival and identifying an evil opposition. I would add discipleship, apostles and scripture to that list of religious characteristics.
He lays it out in Huffpost here
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/atheism-as-a-stealth-reli_b_76901
But gonnagle doesn't mention 'New Atheism' (whatever that may be). Nope he is talking about atheism, which is a lack of belief in god or gods - nothing more, nothing less. So it represents a position on god or gods, it is not even a position on religion (as people can be both atheist and religious) and certainly not a religion.I see you as talking about atheism as merely the lack of belief in God or gods.
But gonnagle doesn't mention 'New Atheism' (whatever that may be).https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_AtheismAnd why is this relevant to a discussion about atheism (specifically a lack of belief in god or gods) rather than New Atheism which seems to be a highly selective term used to denote the work of a very tiny number of atheists, who cannot claim to somehow speak for, nor be representative of the millions of atheists just in the UK alone.
And why is this relevant to a discussion about atheism (specifically a lack of belief in god or gods) rather than New Atheism which seems to be a highly selective term used to denote the work of a very tiny number of atheists, who cannot claim to somehow speak for, nor be representative of the millions of atheists just in the UK alone.Are you trying to dissociate Atheism from New Atheism?
Indeed, unlike religion which typically has hierarchical structures involving 'leaders' the notion that atheists are led by some nominal leader is non-sensical as atheism is a lack of belief. Are people who don't play golf somehow beholden to the leadership of some high profile person who also doesn't play golf. Complete non-sense.
Are you trying to dissociate Atheism from New Atheism?As ever you seem to misunderstand (or deliberately misrepresent) the distinctions between atheism, anti-theism and secularism. They are not the same thing and while there will be some people who hold all three positions they are not synonymous.
Here is a more general criticism of atheism, and for those of a nervous disposition, it does question the very definition “Atheism is merely the lack of belief in God or gods.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism
As ever you seem to misunderstand (or deliberately misrepresent) the distinctions between atheism, anti-theism and secularism. They are not the same thing and while there will be some people who hold all three positions they are not synonymous.How can you get more antitheist than declaring that “God is nought in my sight”. I mean sight as a metaphor for thinking.
How can you get more antitheist than declaring that “God is nought in my sight”. I mean sight as a metaphor for thinking.Well first you will have to help me out with that quote - I've no idea who said that.
Well first you will have to help me out with that quote - I've no idea who said that.I go with Sloan Wilson, that new Atheism IS a stealth religion and that people like yourself tend to fit the profile.
And by the way I said anti-theism, not anti-theist - again they are not the same, the former is against the concept and actions of theism in society the second is against people who are theist.
But we are drifting away from the topic, which is atheism - remember a lack of belief in the existence of god or gods (nothing more, nothing less). Being atheist does not mean that someone is necessarily a proponent of antitheism and/or secularism.
And I'd go further - in fact plenty of people who are actually religious and theist are selectively proponents of antitheism (believing their religion is preferable to other religions) and selectively secular as they tend to support the interactions of state and religion only if that religion happens to be their religion, but are against if the state religion receiving special privileges is another religion.
I go with Sloan Wilson, that new Atheism IS a stealth religion and that people like yourself tend to fit the profile.So what?
So what?Which type though? In what way is New atheism NOT atheism to whit are you talking about strong atheism, weak atheism, positive atheism or negative atheism.. or even christian atheism?
This is a discussion about atheism, not New Atheism.
Which type though? In what way is New atheism NOT atheism to whit are you talking about strong atheism, weak atheism, positive atheism or negative atheism.. or even christian atheism?
Good grief Vlad, the nature of atheism has been explained to you endless times. I simply don't believe you can be stupid enough to be genuinely confused and yet still be able to post on a forum.Stop talking rubbish.
Grow up.
Which type though? In what way is New atheism NOT atheism to whit are you talking about strong atheism, weak atheism, positive atheism or negative atheism.. or even christian atheism?The op talks about atheism in its entirety. The sole requirement to be an atheist is a lack of a belief in god(s). So the divisions in that sense are immaterial to the question.
Stop talking rubbish.And there you illustrate the problem. Atheism the state of the lack of belief in god (s) isn't a claim.
Is atheism just true for you or everyone?
Stop talking rubbish.(https://media.tenor.com/X0Gp-pqN2N4AAAAC/irony.gif)
Is atheism just true for you or everyone?
Is atheism just true for you or everyone?
Gnosticism is about whether god-claims are truth-claims, atheism (and theism) are about belief, which is individual.You can make claims about what you believe to be try that aren't claims to knowledge but are still subject to the burden of proof.
Atheism's open to everyone, I guess, by implication, but I suspect not everyone's ready for it as is evidenced by the "swivel-eyed" lunacy behind the rallying cry of 'but what about the New Atheists'....
O.
You can make claims about what you believe to be try that aren't claims to knowledge but are still subject to the burden of proof.
The statement "I don't believe in God" is a truth claim. It's a true statement about me, or at least, so I claim. How would I go about proving it?Subjective claims about the subject's position are essentially irrelevant as a truth claim. And thinking they are elevant as truth claims in the context of the thread is at best tedious.
Subjective claims about the subject's position are essentially irrelevant as a truth claim. And thinking they are elevant as truth claims in the context of the thread is at best tedious.
You can make claims about what you believe to be [true] that aren't claims to knowledge but are still subject to the burden of proof.
So what are some examples of:
And why did you bring it up?
Dear Atheists,
Deja vu, I have been here before, trying to prise out of Atheists WHY the stock answer is "there is no evidence" and I walk away bemused, the simple answer for me is that human beings/mankind are more.
My evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9al6HNOgSo
The human voice to me is a beautiful musical instrument WHY
https://morganmarine.com/news-events/the-fighting-temeraire-a-brief-history/
It is just some old oil on canvas, but its not, it is beautiful, it is haunting WHY
Old Darwin with his wonderful theory/fact/hypothesis call it want you like tells me I am just some kind of evolved ape/monkey, but I am not, modern science now tells me I am unique, every poster on this forum is unique, I would go further and say special WHY
Atheism WHY
Gonnagle.
You can say i believe there is no God, and it's a claim about what can be an objective truth.The statement "I believe there is no God" is a statement about my beliefs. I can't prove that in any objective way - you just have to take my word for it.
This is different from that being a true statement about you believe. As to why I brought it up, precisely because of what appears to be the mistake you are making - that there is no difference.
The statement "I believe there is no God" is a statement about my beliefs. I can't prove that in any objective way - you just have to take my word for it.If I say that I believe Dinakd Trump is a great president, it is reasonable to ask for evidence and argument. The same is I say I believe in a god. That it is true I do believe those things is separate from any of the arguments.
The statement "there is no God" is an objective statement about the World that requires justification.
It seems you are the one making a mistake.
Dear Atheists,
Deja vu, I have been here before, trying to prise out of Atheists WHY the stock answer is "there is no evidence" and I walk away bemused, the simple answer for me is that human beings/mankind are more.
My evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9al6HNOgSo
The human voice to me is a beautiful musical instrument WHY
https://morganmarine.com/news-events/the-fighting-temeraire-a-brief-history/
It is just some old oil on canvas, but its not, it is beautiful, it is haunting WHY
Old Darwin with his wonderful theory/fact/hypothesis call it want you like tells me I am just some kind of evolved ape/monkey, but I am not, modern science now tells me I am unique, every poster on this forum is unique, I would go further and say special WHY
Atheism WHY
Gonnagle.
My particular version?
Dear Atheists,I don't understand why you think that I need more justification than "there is no evidence".
Deja vu, I have been here before, trying to prise out of Atheists WHY the stock answer is "there is no evidence" and I walk away bemused, the simple answer for me is that human beings/mankind are more.
My evidence.My human voice isn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9al6HNOgSo
The human voice to me is a beautiful musical instrument WHY
https://morganmarine.com/news-events/the-fighting-temeraire-a-brief-history/I don't see anything about the process of evolution that precludes human art. In fact, we can observe that different human cultures have different artistic aesthetics. That would seem to deny the idea that it is god-imbued.
It is just some old oil on canvas, but its not, it is beautiful, it is haunting WHY
Old Darwin with his wonderful theory/fact/hypothesis call it want you like tells me I am just some kind of evolved ape/monkey, but I am not, modern science now tells me I am unique, every poster on this forum is unique, I would go further and say special WHY
If I say that I believe Dinakd Trump is a great president, it is reasonable to ask for evidence and argument.I would accept that statement about your beliefs but I would argue that the statement you believe ("Donald Trump is a great president") is false.
You're not going to pretend that theists agree about God, are you?
No, I am asking what is my particular version.
Dear Aruntraveller,
Who are you :) you have the title administrator >:(your posts seem familiar ;)
Gonnagle.
Oh I will never stop asking why, never :o
Dear Atheists,
Deja vu, I have been here before, trying to prise out of Atheists WHY the stock answer is "there is no evidence" and I walk away bemused, the simple answer for me is that human beings/mankind are more.
My evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9al6HNOgSo
The human voice to me is a beautiful musical instrument WHY
https://morganmarine.com/news-events/the-fighting-temeraire-a-brief-history/
It is just some old oil on canvas, but its not, it is beautiful, it is haunting WHY
Old Darwin with his wonderful theory/fact/hypothesis call it want you like tells me I am just some kind of evolved ape/monkey, but I am not, modern science now tells me I am unique, every poster on this forum is unique, I would go further and say special WHY
Atheism WHY
Gonnagle.
I used to be Trentvoyager - we relocated to the South Coast just before Covid and I changed my name to reflect the locality.
I would accept that statement about your beliefs but I would argue that the statement you believe ("Donald Trump is a great president") is false.You appear not to understand hypotheticals.
It's the "I believe..." at the start that is tripping you up.
Avoiding the question ;)
..okay my version, I am a Christian type person but I will take my wisdom where I find it, Mohammed, Socrates, Our Lord Jesus, Buddha, but I do not have a version of God, who/what is God is a question we have been asking since we stepped out of the caves, no one and I mean no one can answer that question.
Dear Stranger,If no one can answer what a god is then it's a meaningless answer. You could just as well say you believe in floaters, and ask me why I don't.
Avoiding the question ;) okay my version, I am a Christian type person but I will take my wisdom where I find it, Mohammed, Socrates, Our Lord Jesus, Buddha, but I do not have a version of God, who/what is God is a question we have been asking since we stepped out of the caves, no one and I mean no one can answer that question.
Gonnagle.
Dear Atheists,
Deja vu, I have been here before, trying to prise out of Atheists WHY the stock answer is "there is no evidence" and I walk away bemused, the simple answer for me is that human beings/mankind are more.
My evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9al6HNOgSo
The human voice to me is a beautiful musical instrument WHY
https://morganmarine.com/news-events/the-fighting-temeraire-a-brief-history/
It is just some old oil on canvas, but its not, it is beautiful, it is haunting WHY
Old Darwin with his wonderful theory/fact/hypothesis call it want you like tells me I am just some kind of evolved ape/monkey, but I am not, modern science now tells me I am unique, every poster on this forum is unique, I would go further and say special WHY
Atheism WHY
Gonnagle.
Dear Atheists,Gonners - I think you are sliding down the same anthropocentric rabbit hole that Vlad constantly descends into.
Deja vu, I have been here before, trying to prise out of Atheists WHY the stock answer is "there is no evidence" and I walk away bemused, the simple answer for me is that human beings/mankind are more.
My evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9al6HNOgSo
The human voice to me is a beautiful musical instrument WHY
https://morganmarine.com/news-events/the-fighting-temeraire-a-brief-history/
It is just some old oil on canvas, but its not, it is beautiful, it is haunting WHY
Old Darwin with his wonderful theory/fact/hypothesis call it want you like tells me I am just some kind of evolved ape/monkey, but I am not, modern science now tells me I am unique, every poster on this forum is unique, I would go further and say special WHY
Atheism WHY
Gonnagle.
Dear fellow Posters,Good grief Gonners... I've spent years praying that the really isn't a god. And now you've turned up.
Well here we are again happy as can be all good friends and jolly good company :o :o
...
So my simple question which I posed in the den of ill repute is, is Atheism a form of belief
Gonnagle.
You appear not to understand hypotheticals.You appear not to understand.
The post I replied to from Outider implied that in order to need to provide evidence for a claim you need to be claiming knowledge not belief. This is incorrect.No it isn't. It is correct. There is a huge difference between the statements "I believe there is no god" and "there is no god". One is a claim about my thought processes, the other is a claim about the real world. You can ask me why I believe there is no god or you can ask me to justify my belief but you just have to take my word for it that I do believe there is no god rather than believe there is a god.
who/what is God is a question we have been asking since we stepped out of the caves, no one and I mean no one can answer that question.
You appear not to understand.You seem ti be confused. I have clearly stated that it is correct to take your word for what you believe. That it is a stated as being a belief as opposed to a statement of knowledge does not mean that you do not have a burden of proof to justify your belief.
No it isn't. It is correct. There is a huge difference between the statements "I believe there is no god" and "there is no god". One is a claim about my thought processes, the other is a claim about the real world. You can ask me why I believe there is no god or you can ask me to justify my belief but you just have to take my word for it that I do believe there is no god rather than believe there is a god.
You seem ti be confused. I have clearly stated that it is correct to take your word for what you believe.Well why were you arguing against me?
Well then, it seems odd to me that many religionists seem so certain about what God wants.
Well why were you arguing against me?I think in the immortal words of the playground, you started it.
Dear Jeremy,
Yes and I am one, the Golden rule, Our Lord Jesus was very specific about this, Mathew 22 verses 37 to 39, but most religions have there own version, but I have had this discussion before, the Golden rule does belong just to theists it is universal.
Gonnagle.
Dear Prof,There are two typical definitions of anthropocentric - one (as you suggest) is considering humans to be special and the most significant entity of the universe. The second is interpreting or regarding the universe in terms of human values and experiences. It is the second definition I am referring to, although the two are often linked.
Anthropocentric, nice word, in its simplest form "are we special" am I right, this is what anthropocentric means, I have had a wee google and this is basically what the word means to me, help me out I am a empty book waiting to have my pages filled with wisdom.
Gonnagle.
All the laws hang on the first two Greatest Commandments, you my fine fellow are a Atheist so forget the first, you cannot take the Golden rule in isolation, you need to take all the other scriptures into consideration, for instance, whilst contemplating the Golden rule you also need to look at, "let he who is without sin" or " take the beam out of your own eye before you take the speck out of your brothers"
All the laws hang on the first two Greatest Commandments, you my fine fellow are a Atheist so forget the first, you cannot take the Golden rule in isolation, you need to take all the other scriptures into consideration, for instance, whilst contemplating the Golden rule you also need to look at, "let he who is without sin" or " take the beam out of your own eye before you take the speck out of your brothers"
Hum, cherry-picking. You seem to have 'forgotten' about all the other stuff in the bible, you know, the slavery, the genocide, the nasty, vengeful, unjust, basically psychopathic God that is portrayed in much of it....
I get that these phrases mean a great deal to Christians but I don't think that they are necessarily profound.
'Sin' is no more that a loaded label for subjective views that some (or many) may disapprove of, and subjective opinions aren't fixed and are not necessarily grounded in religious doctrines (ancient or modern). The 'beam in the eye' thing is no more than a recognition that a degree of self-awareness is usually a good thing before acting, and I don't think Christianity is required in order to come to that conclusion.
Dear Jeremy,
Yes and I am one, the Golden rule, Our Lord Jesus was very specific about this, Mathew 22 verses 37 to 39, but most religions have there own version, but I have had this discussion before, the Golden rule does belong just to theists it is universal.
Gonnagle.
I think in the immortal words of the playground, you started it.
Dear fellow Posters,Atheism is a religion in the same way that not stamp collecting is a hobby.
Well here we are again happy as can be all good friends and jolly good company :o :o
Our story starts in a faraway galaxy, a beautiful place, some say the very centre of the known universe, picture the scene, three very wise but aged gentlemen sitting in a den of ill repute which sells ( quite legally ) substances of mind altering qualities. Now one of these gentlemen mentions a quote from a book he had read regarding atheism ( need to mention that this particular gentleman was rather handsome in a rugged weather beaten sort of way ) ::) anyway this book was written by a atheist, sorry Cheerful atheist ( the writers description not mine ) and below is the quote from the said book.
“No it's not!" said Constable Visit. "Atheism is a denial of a god."
"Therefore It Is A Religious Position," said Dorfl. "Indeed, A True Atheist Thinks Of The Gods Constantly, Albeit In Terms of Denial. Therefore, Atheism Is A Form Of Belief. If The Atheist Truly Did Not Believe, He Or She Would Not Bother To Deny.”
― Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay
So my simple question which I posed in the den of ill repute is, is Atheism a form of belief
Gonnagle.
Atheism is a religion in the same way that not stamp collecting is a hobby.The "Atheism is merely the lack of belief etc" seems to be only about fifty years old as a prevailing definition. You can't research this definition without rapidlycoming across the name of Anthony Flew who wrote about it.
Dear Atheists,
Deja vu, I have been here before, trying to prise out of Atheists WHY the stock answer is "there is no evidence" and I walk away bemused, the simple answer for me is that human beings/mankind are more.
My evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9al6HNOgSo
The human voice to me is a beautiful musical instrument WHY
https://morganmarine.com/news-events/the-fighting-temeraire-a-brief-history/
It is just some old oil on canvas, but its not, it is beautiful, it is haunting WHY
Old Darwin with his wonderful theory/fact/hypothesis call it want you like tells me I am just some kind of evolved ape/monkey, but I am not, modern science now tells me I am unique, every poster on this forum is unique, I would go further and say special WHY
Atheism WHY
Gonnagle.
The "Atheism is merely the lack of belief etc" seems to be only about fifty years old as a prevailing definition. You can't research this definition without rapidlycoming across the name of Anthony Flew who wrote about it.Oh dear - there you go again with your 'appeal to tradition' - if it is older it must be better.
Now, I'm pretty sure there were atheists prior to this becoming the prevalent definition of atheism who would have defined it in other ways.
Contemporary atheists in some sense are New Atheists.
Atheism on this board is undeniably a hobby to those who have religiously spent over a decade on this forum
Oh dear - there you go again with your 'appeal to tradition' - if it is older it must be better.Were I suggesting that atheism wasn’t a lack of belief your post might elevate above error but I don’t.
Frankly atheism mere being a lack of belief in the existence of god or gods is the only definition which makes any kind of sense, as it takes as its core element theism which is a belief in the existence of god. The prefix 'a' in this context means not or without - so the word atheist literally means not-theist or without theism. In others words a lack what theism is - i.e. a lack of belief in god.
But also there is the further, and rather obvious point - which is what the term means to those who actually describe themselves as such. And I (and I think most atheists here) consider myself to be atheist because I do not believe in god or gods.
Were I suggesting that atheism wasn’t a lack of belief your post might elevate above error but I don’t.
What is objectionable is the claim that it is merely the lack of belief. Many who claim that then start talking about reason...for some reason, and of course then get into the practice of assuming the default position.
The "Atheism is merely the lack of belief etc" seems to be only about fifty years old as a prevailing definition. You can't research this definition without rapidlycoming across the name of Anthony Flew who wrote about it.
What is objectionable is the claim that it is merely the lack of belief. Many who claim that then start talking about reason...for some reason, and of course then get into the practice of assuming the default position.
If no one can answer what a god is then it's a meaningless answer. You could just as well say you believe in floaters, and ask me why I don't.
So yes meaningless question, meaningless answer, but I don't think it is beyond our evolved ape brains to ask what does God want ( evolved ape, ProfDaveys fault, he has me all a tizzy about the word Anthropocentric ).
Were I suggesting that atheism wasn’t a lack of belief your post might elevate above error but I don’t.Well let's wait until someone joins this MB who is atheist and considers this to be more than being merely a lack of belief in god or gods and you can have that conversation with them.
What is objectionable is the claim that it is merely the lack of belief. Many who claim that then start talking about reason...for some reason, and of course then get into the practice of assuming the default position.
Well let's wait until someone joins this MB who is atheist and considers this to be more than being merely a lack of belief in god or gods and you can have that conversation with them.I think what Vkad is doing is conflating the fact that no atheist is simply that, a person who lacks belief in gods, with the erroneous idea that being an atheist requires anything more than being capable of believing in gids but not doing so.
But as far as I am aware all the atheists on this MB define their atheism as not believing in the existence of god or gods, nothing more, nothing less (I certainly do).
Of course there is discussion about why we don't believe in god or gods and we may have other views, for example about religion. But none of that changes the point that the atheists here (I think) see their atheism as merely a lack of belief in god or gods.
So rather than continually muddying the waters by implying that our atheism is something other than what we consider it to be Vlad - let's stick to defining atheism as a lack of belief in god or gods.
Yeah, we can make up nonsense questions, but what's the point? What does sapgitgul want? If you can't say what God (or sapgitgul) is, or how it communicates, then it all meaningless.
Dear Prof,But agnosticism and atheist refer to different things - the former is about knowledge, the latter about belief. So I (and many others) consider myself to be an agnostic atheist and that isn't a contradiction. I am agnostic because I do not know that god exists or does not exist, however I do not believe that god exists due to the lack of credible evidence to support the existence of god, hence I am also atheist.
So rather than continually muddying the waters by implying that our atheism is something other than what we consider it to be Vlad - let's stick to defining atheism as a lack of belief in god or gods.
I get it, I really do, it is the why I am stuck on, I honestly think the honest stance is Agnostic, Atheist is so final, Atheist screams at me I have all the answers, but then as I think ::) ::) how can a evolved ape/monkey have all the answers✝️
Gonnagle.
Dear Prof,Bollocks. Prof D's stance as he has explained clearly is an agnostic atheist. Further thinking you might be right on one thing doesn't mean you are certain you are right on everything
So rather than continually muddying the waters by implying that our atheism is something other than what we consider it to be Vlad - let's stick to defining atheism as a lack of belief in god or gods.
I get it, I really do, it is the why I am stuck on, I honestly think the honest stance is Agnostic, Atheist is so final, Atheist screams at me I have all the answers, but then as I think ::) ::) how can a evolved ape/monkey have all the answers✝️
Gonnagle.
You are getting there, one small step for man one giant leap for mankind.
Dear Prof,dear dog, bollocks isn't even something I have to be slightly peeved to use
Sorry old chap, I think I upset old Sane, oh dear❤️
Gonnagle.
I think what Vkad is doing is conflating the fact that no atheist is simply that, a person who lacks belief in gods, with the erroneous idea that being an atheist requires anything more than being capable of believing in gids but not doing so.I have said that people who merely lack belief in God are atheists, I have said that those who are sure there is no God are atheists too, as are people who say there are no reasons to think there is a god, as are those who wanted to put don't worry, there isn't a God on a bus and those who under duress did but added probably to the message. All atheists pal and that's before we get onto John Gray's seven types.
He's had this pointed out to him many times but continually ignores it because he lies.
Nice word ( this board is a education ) self evident to me...
...but most definitely open to being questioned.
I have said that people who merely lack belief in God are atheists, I have said that those who are sure there is no God are atheists too, as are people who say there are no reasons to think there is a god, as are those who wanted to put don't worry, there isn't a God on a bus and those who under duress did but added probably to the message. All atheists pal and that's before we get onto John Gray's seven types.
I have said that people who merely lack belief in God are atheists,And that is it - period.
I have said that those who are sure there is no God are atheists too,Not sure you'll find any of that ilk here. But nonetheless that person would not be an agnostic atheist, as they would claim surety about the non-existence of god, unlike me who is an agnostic atheist as I do not know as to whether god exists or not. So the distinction here is on agnosticism, not atheism.
as are people who say there are no reasons to think there is a godBut that is about why someone is atheist not whether they are atheist, so again their atheism is the same as me or the person who is distinct from me on agnosticism.
as are those who wanted to put don't worry, there isn't a God on a bus and those who under duress did but added probably to the message.Irrelevant as that was an advertising campaign.
I have said that people who merely lack belief in God are atheists, I have said that those who are sure there is no God are atheists too, as are people who say there are no reasons to think there is a god, as are those who wanted to put don't worry, there isn't a God on a bus and those who under duress did but added probably to the message. All atheists pal and that's before we get onto John Gray's seven types.The point, which you ignored as you continue to lie, is that all that is necessary for being an atheist is the capability to believe yet lack a belief in god. That's it. There are as many types of atheist as there are atheists, and as many types of theists as there are theists.
Your scurrying behind Antony Flew when the heat is on is imo played out.
And that is it - period.Yes, one wonders how, if an atheist of a different kind pitched up or came out on this forum how they would be treated by ther"Atheists are merely people who lack a belief in God, by their "Atheists are merely people who lack a belief in God" would be treated.
Not sure you'll find any of that ilk here.
Dear Prof and old Sane not to sure about the Stranger :)If you want to go down the labels route, I'd probably br classified in that grouping as an ignostic atheist
So just for the guys in the cheap seats (me) you are not only just Atheists but you are all Agnostic Atheists yes/no?
Gonnagle.
Dear Sane,See my reply as regards ignosticism. If ignosticism is classified as a subset of agnosticism then the answer would be yes, but I'd suggest it is better seen as a separate but related category. The problem with the labels is they get in the way of actually asking what the individual thinks. See my comment to Vlad about there being as many types of atheists/theists as there are atheists/theists
oh you can bet your sweet fanny adams that I want to go down the label route, for me Agnostic Atheist opens up the debate, so once again, Agnostic Atheist yes/no.
Gonnagle.
Dear Prof and old Sane not to sure about the Stranger :)Yes - I would consider myself to be an agnostic atheist, as I pointed out in an earlier post.
So just for the guys in the cheap seats (me) you are not only just Atheists but you are all Agnostic Atheists yes/no?
Gonnagle.
Dear Prof,
So rather than continually muddying the waters by implying that our atheism is something other than what we consider it to be Vlad - let's stick to defining atheism as a lack of belief in god or gods.
I get it, I really do, it is the why I am stuck on, I honestly think the honest stance is Agnostic, Atheist is so final,
Atheist screams at me I have all the answers, but then as I think ::) ::) how can a evolved ape/monkey have all the answers✝️
Now! oh now! and I am very wary of the quick google but I just asked a simple question.
Yes, "agnostic atheist" is generally considered an oxymoron because an atheist explicitly states they do not believe in a god, while an agnostic maintains that the existence of a god is unknown or unknowable, essentially leaving the question open; therefore, combining the two contradicts the core meaning of each term.
.
True so true, my opinion, the internet, 80% shit 20% hidden gems, you have to use that God given thing between your ears to workout and find the hidden gems✝️
Yes, "agnostic atheist" is generally considered an oxymoron because an atheist explicitly states they do not believe in a god, while an agnostic maintains that the existence of a god is unknown or unknowable, essentially leaving the question open; therefore, combining the two contradicts the core meaning of each term.
So where does that leave you or me?
Gonnagle.
Dear Stranger,
In trying to explain my position on my faith who better than my old friend wee Albert.
“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”
To know what is impenetrable to us really exists
Gonnagle,
You can find all sorts of bollocks with google. Agnostic atheism is a widely acknowledged, and entirely self-consistent position.It's atheism that has no sound reasoning since it is merely the lack of belief in God or gods.
Agnostic atheism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism)
Agnostic Atheist Defined (https://www.learnreligions.com/agnostic-atheist-dictionary-definition-247755)
Agnostic Atheist (https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/agnostic-atheist-faq.htm)
Given the total lack of evidence or sound reasoning for any God or gods, but also the fact that many god claims are unfalsifiable, it also seems to be the only fully rational position to take.
It's atheism that has no sound reasoning since it is merely the lack of belief in God or gods.
Are you saying you reasoned your way to atheism
I think you might be assuming the default position here.
Yep, it is right back at me and I will go out on a very shaky branch and say yes I am a Agnostic theist, but ( always a but ) I am unsure where Sane is coming from, I think these particular labels help.
But then!! who am I trying to convince, myself, I am pretty much convinced there is a God so I would have to scratch the Agnostic but trying to convince you would put me back on the shaky branch.
Of course. Not accepting a proposition (any proposition, this is not specific to theism) that has no supporting evidence or sound reasoning is the only rational response. Atheism is not a proposition, it's not accepting the theist propositions.You keep claiming no supporting evidence or sound reasoning for the existence of God, but this is a very subjective claim. There is evidence and reasoning in abundance, but you appear to personally choose to seek reasons to dismiss, ignore or ridicule such evidence. You do not seem to realise that your ability to do this is evidence of God's miraculous gift of freedom which nature alone could never give you.
You can be intellectually honest and say that you're functionally a 100% believer, that you have no doubts whatsoever, but you accept that it's not something you can rationally demonstrate - the counterpart to, for instance, Professor Dawkins who admits to being completely convinced that there are no gods, but he can't prove it to you.
You keep claiming no supporting evidence or sound reasoning for the existence of God, but this is a very subjective claim. There is evidence and reasoning in abundance, but you appear to personally choose to seek reasons to dismiss, ignore or ridicule such evidence.
You do not seem to realise that your ability to do this is evidence of God's miraculous gift of freedom which nature alone could never give you.
Actually RD does not put himself in the 100% certain group (7 on his scale), but in the "De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero." group.Given the claims about what a god is from most, it's not amenable to evidence, as there is no methodology for assessing it.
Spectrum of theistic probability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability)
Personally, I'm not sure how useful this sort of scale is. New evidence can always change things.
Now I know this won't help but God is a feeling, a knowing, a realisation, a ekstasis actually that is a good word to explain it.
Given the claims about what a god is from most, it's not amenable to evidence, as there is no methodology for assessing it.By methodology, do you mean science? Or do you not find anything in claims such as 'seek and ye shall find'.
I need my brain to have feelings, most probably ;)
Have you ever heard of Sufi heart Meditation, but then that is bit to woo woo for your common or gardenAgnossorry Atheist.
Science, yes you all love science❤️
https://www.the-scientist.com/the-heart-can-directly-influence-our-emotions-70995
https://www.heartmath.org/science/
Marvellous creatures us evolved monkey/apes, I have a sudden urge for a ripe banana🙊🙉🙈
A question, I am quite at home in both worlds, science and religion do Atheists feel the same?
By methodology, do you mean science? Or do you not find anything in claims such as 'seek and ye shall find'.
My contention is that many do not seek because they might find.
Of course it takes a big man or woman to admit that. Many start saying they can't seek because they don't believe although where that puts there agnostic atheism, I know not.
"Seek a ye shall find" is a stupid thing to say unless there is an associated methodology. Seek how, exactly?Many have succeeded by experimentally and without prejudice saying verbally or mentally saying "God, if you are there let yourself be known to me'. Many have found God by joining congregations, by reading, scripture and self.
By methodology, do you mean science? Or do you not find anything in claims such as 'seek and ye shall find'.
My contention is that many do not seek because they might find.
Of course it takes a big man or woman to admit that.
Many start saying they can't seek because they don't believe although where that puts there agnostic atheism, I know not.
Many have succeeded by experimentally and without prejudice saying verbally or mentally saying "God, if you are there let yourself be known to me'. Many have found God by joining congregations, by reading, scripture and self.
Many have succeeded by experimentally and without prejudice saying verbally or mentally saying "God, if you are there let yourself be known to me'. Many have found God by joining congregations, by reading, scripture and self.
I rather think it is the Internet warrior that lives in their own fantasy world, not those who congregate.
Instructions eh!!
Well there is one at the bottom of my Gonnagle thingy, Be a Lamp unto Yourself, good start, pretty wise guy that Buddha fellow.
Take the Beam out of your own eye, thats a bloody good one.
Let he who is without sin, another corker.
Wee Albert, oh how I love a wee Albert, There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.
Instructions eh!!
Well there is one at the bottom of my Gonnagle thingy, Be a Lamp unto Yourself, good start, pretty wise guy that Buddha fellow.
Take the Beam out of your own eye, thats a bloody good one.
Let he who is without sin, another corker.
Wee Albert, oh how I love a wee Albert, There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.
The famous physicist also stated that he doubts the reality of an anthropomorphic god. He described Abrahamic religions such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism as “naive” and “childlike.” He expressed these ideas in a letter he wrote in 1947, where he says that he cannot take seriously the concept of a personal God. He affirmed this view in a letter he wrote in 1952, where he said that the concept of a personal god was a strange idea to him.
I think Gordon old chum you may have given me a new mission. ;)
Gonnagle.
Aye yer right! you can't put them in a petri dish or under a microscope or fire them along the Hydron colander, what was I thinking✝️
Gordon did ask for instructions ;)
Deary me,
Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile.
Yes the one the only AE himself.
Gordon did ask for instructions ;)
Gonnagle.
Dear Gordon,
Acts 20:35
King James Version
35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.
Cheers, altruism, instructions and helping with my Bible study✝️
Further, the part of the brain which lights up when we have that warm cosy feeling when we have done a good turn is completely separate from the part when we feel compassion and empathy, I will try to find the research and post it, fascinating subject this evolved monkey/ape brain of ours.
Gonnagle.
You have never posted even the tiniest hint of any evidence and you seem to be completely incapable of using reasoning at all. You just descend into an endless stream of stupid fallacies.Q.E.D.
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) No, it is not. Obviously.
Q.E.D.F.F.S.
Q.E.D.
Acts 20:35
King James Version
35 I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.
Cheers, altruism, instructions and helping with my Bible study✝️
Further, the part of the brain which lights up when we have that warm cosy feeling when we have done a good turn is completely separate from the part when we feel compassion and empathy, I will try to find the research and post it, fascinating subject this evolved monkey/ape brain of ours.
Aye old friend It's just biology :(
Dear Stranger,
Sorry but I have :-X
Gonnagle.
Many have tried and not found anything. Many have thought they'd found something, then later realised it was all self-deception.But that immediately raises the question of why you accept their testimony rather than those who tried and did. How sincere were these people?, do they want there to be God or not? In other words are they neutral and or ready to commit, since God may not want to foist himself on the unwilling. Nagel admitted to himself that beyond intellectual argument he basically didn’t want God. Krauss hates that God judges. Having said that, Non believers are either pushing God away, neutral or curious and interested to various levels and really we shouldn’t be relying on others to believe or disbelieve on our behalf, rather facing the issue ourselves since this is between God and ourselves
those who think they've found something and stick with it, don't actually agree with each other about what it actually is.In some religions it is a given that God cannot be approached, so imo how can they really not be in your boat?
Dear Gordon,
It's just biology doing what it does in humans.
Aye old friend It's just biology :(
Gonnagle.
But that immediately raises the question of why you accept their testimony rather than those who tried and did.
How sincere were these people?, do they want there to be God or not?
In some religions it is a given that God cannot be approached, so imo how can they really not be in your boat?
Your point makes me think of the western discovery of Australia. Different explorers had different perspectives and it was thought that Australia was a lot of different islands when all along, same place.
Disagreements over what something is happen over lots of things and has no relevance to the thing itself.
Must I do all the heavy lifting...
...it doesn't really matter what I think but when arguably the Greatest mind the world has ever known speaks...
...please take a moment to reflect...
It's not a question of accepting anybody's testimony, it's a question of the reliability of your proposed procedure.People kill each other for all sorts of reasons. I think you are being distracted by believers and non believers and not putting yourself in line, as you, yourself.
It really shouldn't matter if it's a reliable and objective approach. And clearly those people who thought they'd found something but later realised their error can't have been dead set against it, can they?
Eh?
Laughable. People have actually killed each other over these disagreements. These are not trivial details, people believe in totally different versions of God.
Dear Stranger,
Must I do all the heavy lifting ( no you don't Gonnagle ) it doesn't really matter what I think but when arguably the Greatest mind the world has ever known speaks, please take a moment to reflect ❤️
morning Gordon hows yer bum for midgy bites ;D
People kill each other for all sorts of reasons. I think you are being distracted by believers and non believers and not putting yourself in line, as you, yourself.
I think the reliability and objectivity you have been talking about refers to science. Science doesn’t do God or morality, or aesthetics or a lot of things.
Don’t get me wrong, I love science, possible more than you. What I don’t love is scientism.
In the case of relationships though, they do not allow the related or the relatee to merely take the observer role as is essential in science.
Have you developed a reliable and objective equation for getting a girlfriend or boyfriend? Or do you think you might just have to put yourself out their
Einstein, though undoubtedly a great scientist in his day, isn't really an authority on everything else, such as philosophy. To quote Richard Feynman (no slouch of a scientist himself) "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy -- and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he will sound as naive as anyone untrained in the matter."And yet when I said that about the Blessed Richard Dawkins I was vilified on this forum and given a Chinese burn(well, maybe they didn’t go that far).
And yet when I said that about the Blessed Richard Dawkins I was vilified on this forum and given a Chinese burn(well, maybe they didn’t go that far).
You seem to use "scientism" to mean "science I don't like".
Don’t get me wrong, I love science, possible more than you. What I don’t love is scientism.
You're begging the question again. This is not about a relationship, it's about whether there is anything real to have a relationship with, or if it's all in people's imagination.But how can one establish it’s existentially real or relevant when, as you are doing, already concluded without being involved that there is nothing there and showing bias to those who claim not to have not found God.
So far, you have provided no evidence and no reasoning to suggest a real God, and your proposal of 'seeking' is mired in subjectivity and is clearly, at the very best, very, very unreliable.
You seem to use "scientism" to mean "science I don't like".What scientific theory have I disrespected? What sacred cow on this mishmash of science and antitheism of a forum have I supposedly not bent the knee to, Steve?
What are you talking about now? You seem to be the only person on this forum who thinks RD is some sort of atheist icon.No I think he was an atheist icon and now the same atheists are going Richard Dawkins?Richard Dawkins and Richard Dawkins? Never supported him...ha ha.
You have never posted even the tiniest hint of any evidence and you seem to be completely incapable of using reasoning at all. You just descend into an endless stream of stupid fallacies.Obviously?
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) No, it is not. Obviously.
But how can one establish it’s existentially real or relevant when, as you are doing, already concluded without being involved that there is nothing there and showing bias to those who claim not to have not found God.
No I think he was an atheist icon and now the same atheists are going Richard Dawkins?Richard Dawkins and Richard Dawkins? Never supported him...ha ha.
But how can one establish it’s existentially real or relevant when, as you are doing, already concluded without being involved that there is nothing there and showing bias to those who claim not to have not found God.And in English...?
Obviously?
Please I invite you to expand on what you deem to be obvious and why.
What is obvious to me is that you have utilised your conscious freedom to guide your thoughts to reach a conclusion which you consciously deem to be obvious. But what puzzles me is that you continue to claim that conscious control of your thoughts is a logical impossibility and that all our thoughts must be pre determined by past events beyond our conscious control before they enter our conscious awareness. So I once more ask how you can give any credence to the conclusions you draw without the ability to consciously verify and validate how you arrived at your conclusions.
You keep claiming no supporting evidence or sound reasoning for the existence of God, but this is a very subjective claim. There is evidence and reasoning in abundance, but you appear to personally choose to seek reasons to dismiss, ignore or ridicule such evidence. You do not seem to realise that your ability to do this is evidence of God's miraculous gift of freedom which nature alone could never give you.
Dear Stranger,
What are you talking about now? You seem to be the only person on this forum who thinks RD is some sort of atheist icon.
Away!! come on ::)
Gonnagle.
Dear Stranger,
Well just had a quiet walk down memory lane, 13 pages full that mentions Dawkins, ah the good old days ::) for a certain type of atheist he was the golden boy, for other foam at the mouth type of atheist we had Hitchin, for the laid back, hey can you see the pretty pictures kind of atheist we had Harris, and last but definitely least we had Dennett, he was for the erm! ahem! intellectual type atheist :D and yes ten years ago wee Albert was back then my go to, love that man❤️
Gonnagle.
More lies and misrepresentation. Great advert for your faith.You keep claiming that the role of consciousness does not matter in your arguments.
You're not at all puzzled, it's been explained to you endless times.
"Conscious control of our thoughts" is still idiotic without further explanation because it implies that we can consciously decide what our next conscious thought will be. You have consistently refused to clarify this.
The extent to which consciousness might be in control of our actions or the overall direction of our contemplation is irrelevant to my argument, and I have not stated a position on it (apart from the obvious point above).
I have also said nothing about the role of consciousness in verification. Again, it doesn't matter to my point.
My argument is against the 'free will' you say we have, i.e. the idea that we could have done differently in exactly the same situation. It is not about consciousness. It is you who constantly conflates 'conscious control' with the self-contradictory idiocy of that sort of 'free will'
ETA: Of course what was obvious, was simply that no human ability can possibly be evidence for a God. To the extent we don't understand everything about how human minds work, that is just an unknown. Trying to use an unknown to argue for God-magic is an argument from ignorance fallacy (stupid mistake in reasoning that you could easily learn to avoid if you weren't so afraid/complacent/bone idle).
You keep claiming that the role of consciousness does not matter in your arguments.
In all this you have still failed to give any feasible explanation for how validated logical conclusions can be reached without any form of conscious control.
The point I am making is simply the impossibility of reaching validated conclusions without conscious control of the thought processes involved. You can't just dismiss this impossibility with a "don't know" claim or a "personal incredulity" claim.
If you have no conscious control of the thought processes needed to reach valid conclusions then what does invoke the control needed?
Actually RD does not put himself in the 100% certain group (7 on his scale), but in the "De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero." group.
Spectrum of theistic probability (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_theistic_probability)
Personally, I'm not sure how useful this sort of scale is. New evidence can always change things.
Well, you don't say where you found all these pages, who was talking about these people, or what they were saying, so it's hard to comment. For me Dennett was the most interesting but then again, much like Dawkins, his other books were far more interesting than his contribution to 'new atheism'.
And yes, you've always seemed to like to quote Einstein, although why is more of a mystery.
Top right, search button.
Dear Vlad,Also known nowadays as 'Confirmation bias'.
'seek and ye shall find'.
They have to ask first, its in the manual, rules dear boy rules✝️...but you end up with...ner, ner, ner ner-ner.
Manners Maketh the Man.....
And in English...?OK I’ll try and break in down. The bible suggests that the way to find God is to ‘seek’ him.
The bible suggests that the way to find God is to ‘seek’ him.
That suggests setting out to meet God himself rather just have God down as another fact that you know.
Sorry, I think I suffer from that strange disease Einsteinitis, there is no cure, I am doomed❤️
OK I’ll try and break in down. The bible suggests that the way to find God is to ‘seek’ him.
That suggests setting out to meet God himself rather just have God down as another fact that you know.
The Bible also suggests (St Paul) that God's elect are predestined. The Parable of the Lost Sheep suggests God seeks us.Predestination has the benefits of making more logical sense than its alternatives on Christian theologies. Though it is still riddled with problems.
Not forgetting Paul quoting Isaiah:
"And Isaiah is very bold, and says
'I was found of them that sought me not; I became manifest unto them that asked not of me'"
Romans 10:20
Predestination has the benefits of making more logical sense than its alternatives on Christian theologies. Though it is still riddled with problems.Too right, mate!
OK I’ll try and break in down. The bible suggests that the way to find God is to ‘seek’ him.
And why should we take an old book, riddled with contradictions and morally obnoxious nonsense, at all seriously?Actually, it’s a collection of books from different points of view, You are of course committing the fallacy of modernity. As for moral obnoxiousness, not nearly as obnoxious as the Greek and Roman morality. Have you, by the way, converted to an absolute morality and moral realism? If not, what right have you got to go on about moral obnoxiousness.
Meet which God? Set out, how? To be objective, you wouldn't start with the assumption that there is a God to find. Speculating that there is a God is a blind guess, but one that actually wants to interact with humans, is even more of a leap in the dark.Which God? Well not knowing the existence of the gods plural, I was more keen to meet the ultimate God. Penultimate Gods don’t seem to grab me even though I’m agnostic about them.
The Bible also suggests that slavery is acceptable, that misogyny should be the norm, that homophobia is divinely mandated and that there are unholy haircuts - but I'm supposed to take that one little nugget as somehow different?Though I’ve never had any interest or religious compulsion to keep slaves, becoming a Christian did I believe help sort out my misogyny. Becoming celebrity atheists did not apparently save Krauss or Dawkins from accusations of misogyny.
O.
Though I’ve never had any interest or religious compulsion to keep slaves, becoming a Christian did I believe help sort out my misogyny. Becoming celebrity atheists did not apparently save Krauss or Dawkins from accusations of misogyny.
That's a pretty useless point given that Trump is a Christian.Interesting. I have seen more compelling arguments that he is, in fact the antichrist and that he has never repented.
I would have thought that grabbing pussy qualifies as misogyny.Can’t argue with that. Not sure Christ or the apostles preached it though.
Interesting. I have seen more compelling arguments that he is, in fact the antichrist and that he has never repented.Can’t argue with that. Not sure Christ or the apostles preached it though.What compelling arguments have you seen that Trump is 'in fact the antichrist'?
What compelling arguments have you seen that Trump is 'in fact the antichrist'?I did say more convincing evidence....more convincing than Arunttravellers claim he is a christian.
I did say more convincing evidence....more convincing than Arunttravellers claim he is a christian.
Basically there is Trump's historic potential for havoc and his unprecedented influence on people.
Only God and Trump know if he is really a Christian or not.
I did say more convincing evidence....more convincing than Arunttravellers claim he is a christian.You said compelling arguments
Basically there is Trump's historic potential for havoc and his unprecedented influence on people.
Only God and Trump know if he is really a Christian or not.
Interesting. I have seen more compelling arguments that he is, in fact the antichrist and that he has never repented.Can’t argue with that. Not sure Christ or the apostles preached it though.
So there's an infinite number of things I don't believe in. Gods are just a very small subset. Does this mean I have an infinite number of beliefs and you do too as you only believe in one more thing than me ?
So my simple question which I posed in the den of ill repute is, is Atheism a form of belief
Gonnagle.
Dear Arun,
God's not returning my call.
Yeah that one is a real bitch, probably your WIFI connection, but then you are probably like me I never check the manual or just give it a quick perusal.
Mines is a KJV, but then I am old school.
Oh and other manuals are available.
I think that's what old Vlad is trying to do, set your connection up, awfully nice chap don't you think❤️✝️
Gonnagle.
Actually, it’s a collection of books from different points of view...
You are of course committing the fallacy of modernity.
As for moral obnoxiousness, not nearly as obnoxious as the Greek and Roman morality. Have you, by the way, converted to an absolute morality and moral realism? If not, what right have you got to go on about moral obnoxiousness.
Which God? Well not knowing the existence of the gods plural, I was more keen to meet the ultimate God. Penultimate Gods don’t seem to grab me even though I’m agnostic about them.(https://media.tenor.com/images/263713fe77bb126ad55dc8408e262cf2/tenor.gif)
How would you go about seeking God?
Don’t you think yourself that you are showing the hallmarks of running in the other direction?
Though I’ve never had any interest or religious compulsion to keep slaves, becoming a Christian did I believe help sort out my misogyny. Becoming celebrity atheists did not apparently save Krauss or Dawkins from accusations of misogyny.
There can only be one ultimate God. Only one ultimate source of all that exists.
Which version of the 'ultimate God'? There are an awful lot of them.
I didn't claim he was a Christian. Trump has claimed that.OK my response still covers his claim, though.
Now you tell me how I discern a true Christian, given that there are so many variations?Their teaching, will be Christ centred about what Christ has done for them and means to them. Some may not approach you, but if you ask them it will be apparent that Christ is central
, I mean surely people don't lie about being Christian, do they?If there are votes or money in it then, yes, I'm afraid. In a majority agnostic country or atheist country, there is no financial or political mileage in lying about being a Christian.
I can't ask Trump and God's not returning my call. So please enlighten me.What makes you sure you would get the truth, he has already stated he doesn't need to repent.
So you shouldn't follow those bits of the Bible, you're saying, but we should totally believe it when it says we should risk confirmation bias when we go looking for a god...We should follow Christ first and foremost. The important, primary, “Get this right”, parts of the bible are precisely the bits YOU don’t seem to be interested in.
O.
There can only be one ultimate God. Only one ultimate source of all that exists.
Yes, there have been many man made attempts to find God, but these failed attempts cannot be used to deny the existence of the one ultimate God.
But ultimately we do not need to seek God, because God has made Himself known to us by becoming one of us in the form of Jesus Christ.
We should follow Christ first and foremost.
The important, primary, “Get this right”, parts of the bible are precisely the bits YOU don’t seem to be interested in.
Doesn't change the fact that it's riddled with blatant contradictions.Hyperbole
How so? You are trying to get people to take part of this old collection of books seriously in the modern world but don't seem to care that the source is clearly unreliable due to the contradictions. It's already been pointed out that even the idea that we should do the seeking is contradicted in other passages (#201 (https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=22532.msg903076#msg903076)).Again you are making the fallacy of modernity and you need to attend to that. Also you need to ask yourself if any of the contradictions undermine the central theme, message or purpose of the collection and the answer to that is no
Same right as everybody else. There is a pretty good consensus that (for example) slavery and genocide are morally wrong, but are approved and even commanded by the God character in the bible.I’m afraid after the Fall it all becomes a case of the lesser evil, as far as humanity is concerned.
Hyperbole
Again you are making the fallacy of modernity and you need to attend to that.
Also you need to ask yourself if any of the contradictions undermine the central theme, message or purpose of the collection and the answer to that is no
I’m afraid after the Fall it all becomes a case of the lesser evil, as far as humanity is concerned.
There can only be one ultimate God. Only one ultimate source of all that exists.
Yes, there have been many man made attempts to find God, but these failed attempts cannot be used to deny the existence of the one ultimate God.
But ultimately we do not need to seek God, because God has made Himself known to us by becoming one of us in the form of Jesus Christ.
Drivel. The bible is riddled with contradictions. It's an objective fact.I just had a look at the American Atheist list of contradictions.
More drivel. I'm not criticising the bible for being old or promoting something newer.
Drivel overload. The entire nature of the God character is contradictory. Its actions contradict it being just and good. The message is contradictory, as has just been pointed out. Do we have to do the seeking, does God seek us out? Are the elect predestined? Depends which passages you take more seriously...
The fall is a prime example of God throwing a hissy fit and being vindictive and unjust. As for the "the lesser evil", why? Especially for a supposedly omnipotent and perfectly just and good God. Doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.
I just had a look at the American Atheist list of contradictions.
It seems very short for a claim of "Riddled with contradictions"
It's premise is that it is written by God directly rather than by men inspired by God.
Given it's a short list, one would have thought their pick would be choice. Striking at the heart of the message and purpose of the books or the faith, it doesn't.
Some of the contradictions are contentious.
How about you post a link to the specific list you are referring to - then we can critique it with you?I have critiqued it Gordon, and that should be good enough for you, my lad.
I just had a look at the American Atheist list of contradictions.
It seems very short for a claim of "Riddled with contradictions"
It's premise is that it is written by God directly rather than by men inspired by God.
Given it's a short list, one would have thought their pick would be choice. Striking at the heart of the message and purpose of the books or the faith, it doesn't.
Some of the contradictions are contentious.
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/
There can only be one ultimate God.As Stranger points out, it is kind of self-evident that there cannot be more than one 'ultimate' god AB. But that doesn't mean there has to be an ultimate god - zero ultimate gods is perfectly consistent with there not being more than one ultimate god.
That's a fairly limited list. There are many, many more contradictions than that. We've encountered two massive ones in this discussion already. You say we should be seeking, but Alan disagrees, as do other passages from the bible. That's kind of important, don't you think?You will, therefore be able to produce those passages, in the meantime here are the passages telling us to seek God courtesy of AI,
As Stranger points out, it is kind of self-evident that there cannot be more than one 'ultimate' god AB. But that doesn't mean there has to be an ultimate god - zero ultimate gods is perfectly consistent with there not being more than one ultimate god.But wasn’t it Stranger who asked which ultimate God?
And zero ultimate gods could mean either - there is no god at all, or there is one or more than one god none of which are 'ultimate'.
You will, therefore be able to produce those passages, in the meantime here are the passages telling us to seek God courtesy of AI,
I can’t comment on what Alan said and what he meant but I think we might agree that whether we are truly seeking the true God or whether he presents himself without apparent searching, running away from Christ is still a possible state to be in.
But wasn’t it Stranger who asked which ultimate God?
When he asks which ultimate God he is talking in the context of many Gods not Zero gods.
I think basically you are saying there doesn’t have to be an ultimate or maximal anything. I’m looking forward to your thesis on that.
But wasn’t it Stranger who asked which ultimate God?It is a perfectly reasonable possibility to conclude that there is no ultimate god - either that there are no gods or that there are gods but not ultimate ones. I note your presumption that something that is an 'ultimate or maximal anything' must be god. Why should that be the case - surely there could plausibly be something that is 'ultimate or maximal' but doesn't fit your prejudged notion that it has to be god. People have, of course, posited the universe to be such an 'ultimate or maximal' thing.
When he asks which ultimate God he is talking in the context of many Gods not Zero gods.
I think basically you are saying there doesn’t have to be an ultimate or maximal anything. I’m looking forward to your thesis on that.
But God could be "everything" or, or :o "nothing" no-thing.
It is a perfectly reasonable possibility to conclude that there is no ultimate god - either that there are no gods or that there are gods but not ultimate ones. I note your presumption that something that is an 'ultimate or maximal anything' must be god. Why should that be the case - surely there could plausibly be something that is 'ultimate or maximal' but doesn't fit your prejudged notion that it has to be god. People have, of course, posited the universe to be such an 'ultimate or maximal' thing.We were talking about Ultimate gods.
But I also challenge your notion that there must be one thing that is 'ultimate or maximal' (regardless of whether that is an ultimate god or not). As I've pointed out on many occasions your notion of the necessary entity crumbles to dust when you consider the real possibilities of interdependent networks and you remove the presumption that time is constant and unilinear.
But I'm not claiming there definitely isn't a thing which is 'ultimate or maximal' - merely pointing out that we mustn't assume this as other possibilities are plausible. So there is no burden of proof to 'prove' there is no 'ultimate or maximal' thing. You on the other hand regularly assert that there must be an 'ultimate or maximal' thing (that you call the necessary entity or being) and that this is an ultimate god. So burden of proof on you matey - good luck with that as you have completely failed to back up you assertion with anything other than gobbledygook over many months and years.
We were talking about Ultimate gods.Neither bhs or jeremyp said the universe was 'and ultimately unitary entity'. Stop lying.
If there is a pantheon in the universe, Which God decides on the course of the cosmos? How do they come to a common policy rather than devolving into their own universes?There seems to be lots there to demand final adjudication by a singular authority.
Recently everybody here was arguing that the universe was an ultimate unitary entity. I don’t recall you admonishing Bluehillside or JeremyP.
I think you will argue anything to suit at whatever time.
VladWith all due respect to you Gordon (And If I think of some i’ll let you know),
2. That it contains contradictions make it largely unreliable.
Neither bhs or jeremyp said the universe was 'and ultimately unitary entity'. Stop lying.No they suggested it was though. I forgive you though because I take it you were confused about what was being said.
We were talking about Ultimate gods.Initially - and in that context I pointed out that there may less than one ultimate god, either because there are no gods or there are gods but they aren't ultimate ones.
If there is a pantheon in the universe, Which God decides on the course of the cosmos? How do they come to a common policy rather than devolving into their own universes?There seems to be lots there to demand final adjudication by a singular authority.I don't think I, or others here, have argued that the universe is an ultimate entity, merely that it is a possibility that we should not ignore. The point being that your (illogical in itself) claim that there must be an ultimate entity/necessary being, even if accepted (it isn't by the way) doesn't not allow you to go 'hey, tara, god'. Other possibilities are available.
Recently everybody here was arguing that the universe was an ultimate unitary entity. I don’t recall you admonishing Bluehillside or JeremyP.
I think you will argue anything to suit at whatever time.
With all due respect to you Gordon (And If I think of some i’ll let you know),
Unreliable as what and for what?
No they suggested it was though. I forgive you though because I take it you were confused about what was being said.Fuck off. They didn't say it was the case as your post stated. Shove your faux forgiveness up your lying arse
What's the matter with the Christians here? You can't all be as thick as this kind of comment (and Vlad's before) imply, can you? Of course, if there is an "ultimate God" (which nobody seems able to provide any good reason to think there is) then there can only be one, but what we actually see is endless different religions, denominations, cults, and sects, all describing it differently.This is all evidence of mankind trying to satisfy their instinctive need for God.
What we have in practice is multiple descriptions of what it is, what it wants, and what it likes.
This is all evidence of mankind trying to satisfy their instinctive need for God.
There is only one God, and we only have one lifetime to discover God and find the true purpose and meaning behind our existence.
You will, therefore be able to produce those passages, in the meantime here are the passages telling us to seek God courtesy of AI,You mention Isaiah there. Unfortunately, ten chapters later he contradicted himself in 65:1 - the text St Paul cited in Romans, which I pointed out.
Jeremiah 29:13
Isaiah 55:6
Psalm 105:4
Deuteronomy 4:29
1 Chronicles 16:11
2 Chronicles15:12
proverbs 8:17
Matthew 7:7
Matthew 6:33
1Chronicles 28:9
Acts 17:27
Psalm 27:8
Dear Thread,I fear that neither is going to cry out "Sufficient" - which I believe is the Yorkshire term of surrender in these circumstances.
Fuck off. They didn't say it was the case as your post stated. Shove your faux forgiveness up your lying arse
Oh the game has come to life⚽ the Ref seems to be telling someone the are a rectangular object, no no my mistake he is taking it to the VAR, old Sane and Vlad ( two old tired pugilists of this competition ) sorry wrong sport, two old tired shin kickers ⚽ is it a yellow or red or from where I am sitting just handbags at fifty paces😀
Gonnagle.
... and then there is Apophatic theology or Via Negativa .....
But God could be "everything" or, or :o "nothing" no-thing.
We should follow Christ first and foremost. The important, primary, “Get this right”, parts of the bible are precisely the bits YOU don’t seem to be interested in.
This is all evidence of mankind trying to satisfy their instinctive need for God.
There is only one God, and we only have one lifetime to discover God and find the true purpose and meaning behind our existence.
Dear Thread,I thought there was something in your book saying lying was wrong?
Fuck off. They didn't say it was the case as your post stated. Shove your faux forgiveness up your lying arse
Oh the game has come to life⚽ the Ref seems to be telling someone the are a rectangular object, no no my mistake he is taking it to the VAR, old Sane and Vlad ( two old tired pugilists of this competition ) sorry wrong sport, two old tired shin kickers ⚽ is it a yellow or red or from where I am sitting just handbags at fifty paces😀
Gonnagle.
... and then there is Apophatic theology or Via Negativa .....
St Thomas Aquinas [13th C Italian philosopher] We cannot know what God is but rather what he is not.
Meister Eckhart [13th C German Dominican Theologian] There is no knowing what God is. Something we do know, namely, what God is not.
St. Augustine [4th C Bishop] For when we aspire from this depth to that height, it is a part of no small knowledge if, before we can know what God is, we can know what he is not.
Dear Sane,And Vkad has deliberately and blatantly mistmrepresebted the positions of bhs and jeremyp. So if you are opposed to lying then it's a problem.
I thought there was something in your book saying lying was wrong?
And ::)
You are the most handsomest man I have ever laid eyes on, I want to have your babies ⚡⚡past master at dodging them 8)
Gonnagle.
Because it tells us to do that in the book that advocates slavery acceptance, misogyny and homophobia... you're really not addressing the issue here. I know which bits you want people to focus on - the 'nice' bits - but why should I accept those bits and overlook the other bits, other than by making my own moral judgements which I can do without the mythology and superstition?There is alas for your argument, things which don't apply to me.
O.
And Vkad has deliberately and blatantly mistmrepresebted the positions of bhs and jeremyp. So if you are opposed to lying then it's a problem.No, They wish for the purposes of their view that the universe could be the necessary entity for the universe to be considered a single entity since it was pointed out to them that composites cannot be necessary..
There is alas for your argument, things which don't apply to me.
There is an instance of God showing who laws apply to and who they don't in the vision of St Peter.
You sound then if you need reminding about the division of the Bible into the Law, the prophets, poetry and proverb and that's the Old testament, and then there is the new testament.
Collectively the OT and New Testament is information needed for Salvation since the laws themselves do not save.
So I am not compelled to hate those who hate me, I am not compelled to settle for slavery or misogyny or to hate those who hate me, in fact the opposite. I think I have said before the least we need,imho to remain of the Bible is the part that says we need salvation and Jesus provides it and at the end of the day it's that, that really offends people.
... and then there is Apophatic theology or Via Negativa .....
St Thomas Aquinas [13th C Italian philosopher] We cannot know what God is but rather what he is not.
Meister Eckhart [13th C German Dominican Theologian] There is no knowing what God is. Something we do know, namely, what God is not.
St. Augustine [4th C Bishop] For when we aspire from this depth to that height, it is a part of no small knowledge if, before we can know what God is, we can know what he is not.
No, They wish for the purposes of their view that the universe could be the necessary entity for the universe to be considered a single entity since it was pointed out to them that composites cannot be necessary..
Dear Ekim,
Apophatic (of knowledge of God) obtained through negating concepts that might be applied to him.
But that uses the word him.
I found this, never heard of it before but I like it.
In Prayer:
Apophatic prayer means emptying the mind of words and ideas, simply resting in the presence of God, and it can be understood as a form of centering prayer.
I am not the Ref but for me top left hand corner beautifully taken old son⚽ but I am claiming an assist ::)
Gonnagle.
No, They wish for the purposes of their view that the universe could be the necessary entity for the universe to be considered a single entity since it was pointed out to them that composites cannot be necessary..
I don't actually recall anybody accepting that there was a necessary entity, or that, if there was, your assertion that it couldn't be a composite had any validity.
You didn't seem able to grasp that the whole 'argument from contingency' is bollocks.
Vlad,Oh look an instance where Bluehillside treats the universe as a single entity. UNIVERSE ITSELF.
No idea. Not my problem. It’s not something I’ve said, and it’s not my job to find an answer to that.
You on the other hand have asserted that the universe is necessarily contingent on something other than itself, and your only attempt so far to justify that claim is the fallacy of composition.
If that’s all you have, we’ll leave it where that dumps you: dead in the water.
You will find that the Buddha used similar words about Nirvana, except that he didn't refer to Nirvana as a 'him'.
Oh look an instance where Bluehillside treats the universe as a single entity. UNIVERSE ITSELF.
No, They wish for the purposes of their view that the universe could be the necessary entity for the universe to be considered a single entity since it was pointed out to them that composites cannot be necessary..No, and they argued against that assertion, and challenged your view. Lying is your base programming
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) FFS grow up!Anyone can see from bluehillsides quote, that, er, he talks about the universe as an "Itself" in other words a unitary entity.
Not only did he not actually use that phrase, it wouldn't mean a non-composite anyway. You never managed to come up with a coherent and logical explanation of a 'necessary entity' or why it couldn't be composite or any of the other things you made up about it.
As I said, the whole argument is bollocks.
No, and they argued against that assertion, and challenged your view. Lying is your base programmingWhen they are next here I shall put it to them if they think the universe is a unitary entity or not.
When they are next here I shall put it to them if they think the universe is a unitary entity or not.what is a unitary entity?
Anyone can see from bluehillsides quote, that, er, he talks about the universe as an "Itself" in other words a unitary entity.
Also he says I am making the fallacy of composition. I. E I am saying that because the parts of the universe are contingent, the universe is contingent.
I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is the universe is a composite...and that on it's own is why it is contingent.In other words even a universe made of necessary entities would be a composite and contingent.
There is alas for your argument, things which don't apply to me.
There is an instance of God showing who laws apply to and who they don't in the vision of St Peter.
You sound then if you need reminding about the division of the Bible into the Law, the prophets, poetry and proverb and that's the Old testament, and then there is the new testament.
Collectively the OT and New Testament is information needed for Salvation since the laws themselves do not save.
So I am not compelled to hate those who hate me, I am not compelled to settle for slavery or misogyny or to hate those who hate me, in fact the opposite. I think I have said before the least we need,imho to remain of the Bible is the part that says we need salvation and Jesus provides it and at the end of the day it's that, that really offends people.
what is a unitary entity?
Nottingham City Council.Argument from unitary authority.
what is a unitary entity?A single, indivisible, non composite entity.
Because? You've apparently got some sort of insider knowledge as to which pieces you think apply and which don't - are they just your own moral judgements, in which case my moral judgement to ignore the whole thing as a bad fairy tale is equally valid - or you think there's some sort of authority to refer to on which bits are true and which bits aren't.It seems to me I’m being lectured to about cherry picking from the bible from someone who has deduced from a few proof texts that Slavery and misogyny are his central planks of Christianit’s and that we need, on the strength of that to “burn down the whole library”.
Which is also in the book that you've not explained how I should select from to identify truth and nonsense.
You sound like you need reminding that I don't accept any of it, you're the one that's trying to justify using parts of it, but only parts of it. You can lay claim to bits that are law and bits that are poetry, but given that those decisions seem to be based on whether you like a particular piece of content or not I find that questionable.
That sounds like an extortion racket - do this or you'll need saving...
Do the slavers need salvation if the only bad things they did were the sanctioned slavery? How can I trust this to be work of moral value when it endorses slavery? When it advocates homophobia? When it calls openly for misogyny? Even if those bits are 'poetry', even if those bits are 'law' and not the requirements of salvation, how is that emblematic of lessons from some perfect morality that deserves to be listened to?
O.
Moronic idiocy. I could refer to the "UK itself", that wouldn't mean that I think it doesn't have parts.A composite is dependent on it’s parts. We are entitled logically to ask “Why those parts?”and “Why that number of parts? and “What is it then that decided that?”
Which directly contradicts your idiocy above. You can't have the fallacy of composition for something that doesn't have parts.
Yes, we know that's what you're saying, the problem is that is just your own made up fantasy with no justification for any of it.
Please try to get this into your head: I don't accept that there can be such a thing as a necessary entity because you have totally failed to make a case for it. Hence, anything you claim about such an entity is irrelevant.
It seems to me I’m being lectured to about cherry picking from the bible from someone who has deduced from a few proof texts that Slavery and misogyny are his central planks of Christianit’s...
The bible isn’t telling me to own slaves or to hate women or homosexuals but to love my neighbour.
A composite is dependent on it’s parts. We are entitled logically to ask “Why those parts?”and “Why that number of parts? and “What is it then that decided that?”
And.....?God is a single, indivisible, non composite, spiritual entity.
Have you still not got it into your head that I don't accept that a "necessary entity" makes any logical sense at all, so it's utterly pointless trying to argue that the universe can't be one?
And there are always questions we can ask about anything you claim to be necessary. Why is your God the way it is? Why a trinity?
A single, indivisible, non composite entity.You need to define entity here as well.
Argument from unitary authority.Applaud. But the problem you have is you used a personal definition for the term unitary entity which when slept out exactly shows you were lying about what bhs and jetemyp said.
God is a single, indivisible, non composite, spiritual entity.
The universe is the name given to a composite multiple entities which are independent and can and have failed to exist.
So given we have existence what is it that hasn’t failed to exist?
God is a single, indivisible, non composite, spiritual entity.Really - I thought you folks considered god to be three separate elements, one of which was human and therefore (presumably) also composed of the same molecules, atoms etc as other humans.
More lies. Nobody has claimed that slavery and misogyny are central to Christianity. They are, however, present in the bible that you are trying to tell us we should take seriously in other respects.That is an opinion, certainly, not exclusively religious though is it?
Really? On homosexuality:
"Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." -- Leviticus 18:22
"If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." -- Leviticus 20:13Lust and shameful acts.Certainly sexual depravity, castrations etc for sexual pleasure in Rome as well as sexual exploitation.
"26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God,This is the nub and the nexus of it
so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.[/i]" -- Romans 1:26-28That seems to be pretty much everybody
"9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." -- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
"8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9 We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." -- 1 Timothy 1:8-11Hang on......did he say Slave traders?
You need to define entity here as well.Look it up.
Look it up.It has different meanings as did unitary. Your choice of meaning is important in making yourself clear.
Really - I thought you folks considered god to be three separate elements, one of which was human and therefore (presumably) also composed of the same molecules, atoms etc as other humans.Elements? Humanity is not divinity, Jesus is fully human and fully divine. God is indivisible spirit.
Elements? Humanity is not divinity, Jesus is fully human and fully divine. God is indivisible spirit.Oh no he isn't
It has different meanings as did unitary. Your choice of meaning is important in making yourself clear.I often argue with Hillside in the matter of the necessary being over Occam’s razor over which one of us is multiplying entities beyond necessity. He says I am because his final necessary entity is the universe and so it isn’t necessary to add God. I say his final entity is actually many entities.
I often argue with Hillside in the matter of the necessary being over Occam’s razor over which one of us is multiplying entities beyond necessity. He says I am because his final necessary entity is the universe and so it isn’t necessary to add God. I say his final entity is actually many entities.None of that makes clear what the definition of entity is that you are using, and contains a lot of begging the question and assertions.
A composite can therefore be a type of entity or thing or reason but it cannot be a singular indivisible necessity.
Good grief, why does this seem like trying to teach an earthworm calculus?When we ask questions about Jesus we are asking questions about his humanity and his divinity when we ask questions about God The father and the Holy Spirit we are asking questions about God.
With three 'persons' and with endless characteristics we can ask 'why' questions about. ::)
How do you know they could have failed to exist? Are you claiming omniscience?
Clearly the universe didn't fail to exist.
And you still don't seem to have got it into your head that I don't accept the concept of 'necessary entity'. You have totally failed to explain it in any way that makes logical sense.
It seems to me I’m being lectured to about cherry picking from the bible from someone who has deduced from a few proof texts that Slavery and misogyny are his central planks of Christianit’s and that we need, on the strength of that to “burn down the whole library”.
The bible isn’t telling me to own slaves or to hate women or homosexuals but to love my neighbour.]
Unfortunately for the antitheist, the suspicion that they are keener on weaponising these issues for the sake of antitheism is always going to be there.
None of that makes clear what the definition of entity is that you are using, and contains a lot of begging the question and assertions.Aye, more “You haven’t answered the question and that answer you haven’t given is wrong” nonsense.
Elements? Humanity is not divinity, Jesus is fully human and fully divine. God is indivisible spirit.
But not a physical composite eh, Gordon.
Then Jesus must be a composite then (albeit an incoherent one by your definition), and since one bit of 'God' went a-wandering around the middle-east some time ago then 'God' must be divisible.
Unfortunately, The origin of the word 'prayer' means 'to ask' which causes the mind to create a vague and anthropic objective 'God' which triggers off many more thoughts, ideas and questions. There is a word used in the New Testament - 'metanoia' - which I believe means 'beyond mind' but has unfortunately been translated as 'repent' and associated with multiple 'sins'. No rest for the wicked, eh!
In Prayer:
Apophatic prayer means emptying the mind of words and ideas, simply resting in the presence of God, and it can be understood as a form of centering prayer.
But not a physical composite eh, Gordon.
Unfortunately, The origin of the word 'prayer' means 'to ask' which causes the mind to create a vague and anthropic objective 'God' which triggers off many more thoughts, ideas and questions. There is a word used in the New Testament - 'metanoia' - which I believe means 'beyond mind' but has unfortunately been translated as 'repent' and associated with multiple 'sins'. No rest for the wicked, eh!I think the problem with a lot of meta words is thar they are deepities where the user has given up trying to be coherent.
Dear thread,When you find out can you let us know.
Well it is certainly a education, so far this morning I have looked up, non composite, entity and meta, just to try and grasp what the fuck you are all chuntering on about ::)
Dear thread,Dear Gonners
Well it is certainly a education, so far this morning I have looked up, non composite, entity and meta, just to try and grasp what the fuck you are all chuntering on about ::)
Albert Einstein famously said, "If I had an hour to solve a problem, I'd spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about solutions," emphasizing the importance of thoroughly understanding a problem before attempting to solve it.
Here's a breakdown of why this quote is significant:
Prioritize Understanding:
Einstein's quote highlights the crucial step of deeply understanding the problem's root causes, context, and implications before even considering solutions.
Avoid Premature Solutions:
Jumping to solutions without a firm grasp of the problem can lead to ineffective or even counterproductive outcomes.
Preparation is Key:
The quote underscores the value of preparation and thorough analysis in problem-solving.
Deep Dive:
"Deeply understanding a problem" involves knowing its root causes, implications, context, and repercussions, which is more than just recognizing the problem's existence.
It's a mindset:
The quote encourages a mindset of careful analysis and reflection, rather than rushing into action.
I am going to need more than 55 minute Albert, a lot bloody more.
Gonnagle.
When you find out can you let us know.You could bring back The Chunstinator
Dear Gonners
"Avoid premature solutions"
You will note that Leonardo anticipated that - see quote I gave earlier.
A sub-heading would be "try to exclude confirmation bias as much as possible".
Dear GonnersGonzo is right about this being more than a 55 minute problem, ir even a three pipe problem. I think in a lot of the thread people talk past each other because they have completely different views of what the problem is, and indeed in some cases, like me, are not sure there is a problem.
"Avoid premature solutions"
You will note that Leonardo anticipated that - see quote I gave earlier.
A sub-heading would be "try to exclude confirmation bias as much as possible".
That is an opinion, certainly, not exclusively religious though is it?
Hang on......did he say Slave traders?
So much for God approving of slavery.
When we ask questions about Jesus we are asking questions about his humanity and his divinity when we ask questions about God The father and the Holy Spirit we are asking questions about God.
Again, what is it about the universe that hasn’t failed to exist I.e. always existed?
Unfortunately, The origin of the word 'prayer' means 'to ask' which causes the mind to create a vague and anthropic objective 'God' which triggers off many more thoughts, ideas and questions. There is a word used in the New Testament - 'metanoia' - which I believe means 'beyond mind' but has unfortunately been translated as 'repent' and associated with multiple 'sins'. No rest for the wicked, eh!
Elements? Humanity is not divinity, Jesus is fully human and fully divine. God is indivisible spirit.Word salad. If Jesus was human or part of him was human he is by definition not fully divine.
Elements? Humanity is not divinity, Jesus is fully human and fully divine. God is indivisible spirit.You can say whatever you like Vlad but that doesn't make it so, nor coherent in any way.
And......?I ‘m afraid it does. When you and I die we fail to exist, when uranium decays, that entity fails to exist. The universe we observe is a collection of things that have failed to exist, which is why I ask you “What is it about or in the universe that does not fail to exist?”
Not failing to exist is not the same as always existing.
You can say whatever you like Vlad but that doesn't make it so, nor coherent in any way.Yes a human body is divisible but Jesus’ humanity is not his divinity, which is indivisible.
If Jesus (note one third of the three-part god you claim) was human then he is divisible into the constituent parts of a human - e.g. cells, molecules, atoms etc. If you are claiming god is indivisible then if he were human (and therefore divisible) then he couldn't have been god. And if he were god (and therefore indivisible) he couldn't have been human.
And that's before we get into the notion that you folks consider god to have three parts - so divisible, and therefore by your very argument cannot be god.
I ‘m afraid it does. When you and I die we fail to exist, when uranium decays, that entity fails to exist. The universe we observe is a collection of things that have failed to exist, which is why I ask you “What is it about or in the universe that does not fail to exist?”
And......?I ‘m afraid it does.
Not failing to exist is not the same as always existing.
When you and I die we fail to exist, when uranium decays, that entity fails to exist.
The universe we observe is a collection of things that have failed to exist...
...which is why I ask you “What is it about or in the universe that does not fail to exist?”
Nope - that something ceases to exist at some point is not the same as something that failed to exist in the first place: the latter makes no sense anyway, for how could you ever know anything about things that failed to exist.There is failing to exist in the sense of not existing and then there is the ability to fail to exist. We will spend most of the life of the universe not existing and had things been different the universe would have gone on without us.
Your language is clunky - I think your are trying to say that some things that do exist must have existed by default, and you think that this state applies to your 'God' - but assuming this and asserting it is not the same thing as providing a supportive argument for it.
I ‘m afraid it does.Poor Stranger. Trying to show that the universe which is the sum of many things is in fact, just the one. Wooooooooo
Back to mindless idiocy. ::)
Also noted the editing out of most of what I said, presumably because you have no answers to it.
Drivel. We fail to continue to exist beyond a certain time. Having a boundary in time is no different from having one in space. None of this changes the fact that we haven't failed to exist
It's a collection of things that manifestly haven't failed to exist but most of them to not extend through all of space-time. The actual space-time manifold, of course, is the background against which you are trying make silly claims about failing to exist. You are using a physical part of the universe as a yardstick to measure existence, which is actually quite funny considering you're trying to argue for something beyond the physical universe....
The whole thing and every single part of it.
At the end of the day this is a rather pointless argument about semantics. It doesn't matter one iota to the foolish nonsense that is the argument from contingency and the illogical, incoherent fantasy of a 'necessary entity'.
Poor Stranger. Trying to show that the universe which is the sum of many things is in fact, just the one. Wooooooooo
There is failing to exist in the sense of not existing and then there is the ability to fail to exist. We will spend most of the life of the universe not existing and had things been different the universe would have gone on without us.
I think that is how philosophers use the term.
So we are looking for the thing that has not failed to exist.
It cannot be something that has changed because that constitutes failure to exist.
There is failing to exist in the sense of not existing and then there is the ability to fail to exist. We will spend most of the life of the universe not existing and had things been different the universe would have gone on without us.
I think that is how philosophers use the term.
So we are looking for the thing that has not failed to exist.
I think you're talking bollocks.If people are suggesting that the universe has always existed, While being surrounded by things which haven't then they have a duty and burden to try and find what it is about the universe that exists infinitely, eternally, necessarily or whatever.
No WE aren't. This is your baseless fantasy quest.
You seem to be living in the delusion that everybody else is signed up to the idiocy of looking for something that meets your baseless criteria for the nonsensical foolishness of a 'necessary entity'.
As far as I can tell nobody else accepts your insistence on a necessary entity, let alone your arbitrary criteria for it.
If people are suggesting that the universe has always existed, While being surrounded by things which haven't then they have a duty and burden to try and find what it is about the universe that exists infinitely, eternally, necessarily or whatever.
If people are suggesting that the universe has always existed, While being surrounded by things which haven't then they have a duty and burden to try and find what it is about the universe that exists infinitely, eternally, necessarily or whatever.
Nobody, as far as I can see, is saying that about the universe. You seem unable to grasp what people actually say.You appear to be gaslighting.
Perhaps you should take a dose of your own medicine and explain why you think 'God' fits your bill - as opposed to you just asserting it.
Did you actually read and understand my point that NOBODY BUT YOU, CARES about your arbitrary criteria for a nonsensical 'necessary entity'?You said the universe hadn't failed to exist. Given that what we observe apparently didn't, won't in future exist what then is it about the universe that hasn't failed to exist? It's quite straightforward. It's what you are implying.
Having said that, the space-time manifold has always existed by definition. That is true even if it is finite in past timelike directions, because there can never have been a time at which (space-)time didn't exist.
You appear to be gaslighting.
You said the universe hadn't failed to exist. Given that what we observe apparently didn't, won't in future exist what then is it about the universe that hasn't failed to exist? It's quite straightforward. It's what you are implying.
If people are suggesting that the universe has always existed, While being surrounded by things which haven't then they have a duty and burden to try and find what it is about the universe that exists infinitely, eternally, necessarily or whatever.There you go again Vlad - 'alway existed' etc implies that time is constant and unilinear. It doesn't have to be and there is strong evidence that it isn't. In which case the very notion that you assertion (incorrectly) that we are claiming this, is logically non-sense. If time isn't unilinear and constant then there is no 'always existed', as that is a comment on the presence of something over a period of time.
You said the universe hadn't failed to exist. Given that what we observe apparently didn't, won't in future exist what then is it about the universe that hasn't failed to exist? It's quite straightforward. It's what you are implying.
Yes a human body is divisible but Jesus’ humanity is not his divinity, which is indivisible.You really are tying yourself up in knots.
You're talking gibberish. Nothing that exists, has existed, or will exist, regardless of its extent in space-time, has failed to exist. You need to stop using your idiotic definition of 'failing to exist'.In 1901, You didn't exist, agreed?
And yet again:
NOBODY IS TRYING TO MAKE THE UNIVERSE MEET YOUR SILLY CRITERIA FOR A NONSENSICAL 'NECESSARY ENTITY'.
You tie yourself in knots: if failing to exist is an 'ability' then you are implying that something had the potential to exist but didn't make it as far as actually existing - how could you ever know this?It seems to me Gordon that something has the potential to exist or doesn't. What is the difference between potentially existing and not existing.a
Whom, and how did the express the idea you attribute to them?
That covers everything that once did exist and currently does exist!
I've changed - I didn't always look like Santa, so have I failed to exist?
And yet you say the universe is not subject to the same constraints as we are.
Given that apparently all that we observe are under the same constraints as us. WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE UNIVERSE THAT IS NOT UNDER THOSE CONSTRAINTS?
You really are tying yourself up in knots.I think you are forgetting that there are composed entities.
So we have three possibilities:
1. Jesus was not made up of human cells, tissues, molecules etc - in which case he wasn't human as humans are made up of human cells, tissues, molecules etc.
2. Jesus was made up of human cells, tissues, molecules etc - in which case he was divisible and therefore (by your definition) not god.
3. The human and the god are completely separate things and therefore both divisible and one is not the other - in which case god did not become human.
There are the logical conclusions from your assertions - none seem to support your (completely unevidenced) faith position.
And then let's return to the notion that you folk seems to consider god to be three elements - hmm divisible, so by your own argument the trinity cannot be god, although (by your argument) if one element is in itself indivisible, then this could be god.
Not, of course, that I buy into your concepts of 'indivisibility', 'divinity' or the need for a necessary entity/being. Just shooting your illogical fish in a barrel.
I think you are forgetting that there are composed entities.
I think you are forgetting that there are composed entities.Nope - as I am allowing your argument that god isn't a composed entity (not that I agree with it but allowing it for the sake of arguments). But humans are composed entities (i.e. made of cells, tissues, molecules etc etc). So if Jesus (on earth) isn't a composed entity then he wasn't human. And if human he would be a composed entity, which accordingly to your argument means he couldn't be god. The final possibility is that the human and the god are separate entities (one composed and the other not), in which case these entities are both divisible (there are two entities) so the whole cannot be god (by your argument), but also this would mean that god never became human, albeit seemed to hang out with some human bloke for 30 years or so.
Nope - as I am allowing your argument that god isn't a composed entity (not that I agree with it but allowing it for the sake of arguments). But humans are composed entities (i.e. made of cells, tissues, molecules etc etc). So if Jesus (on earth) isn't a composed entity then he wasn't human. And if human he would be a composed entity, which accordingly to your argument means he couldn't be god. The final possibility is that the human and the god are separate entities (one composed and the other not), in which case these entities are both divisible (there are two entities) so the whole cannot be god (by your argument), but also this would mean that god never became human, albeit seemed to hang out with some human bloke for 30 years or so.We're a scientist or merely anyone observing Jesus empirically. They would have seen a human being.
Your logic is woefully inadequate and that is even allowing your starting point assertions, which are of course completely unevidenced.
It seems to me Gordon that something has the potential to exist or doesn't. What is the difference between potentially existing and not existing.a
It might help in some circumstances to clarify the language of the discussion. The language of mythos in religions tries to convey inner experiences of those who claim to have had them to those who haven't and can be quite vague, but perhaps quite enticing if it deals with the desires and fears of living. Unfortunately, in the hands of the wrong shepherd it can be used as a controlling factor over the sheep, just as language can in politics and business.
And I do think it would aid debate if we stopped thinking in modern meaning and delved into the history of words like belief and myth and prayer.
We're a scientist or merely anyone observing Jesus empirically. They would have seen a human being.
Particularly evidenced at his partial dissection at crucifixion. Science though does not do God. Those observing Jesus spiritually would have detected God. Both the divine and the human then are in the one person, Jesus of Nazareth. Full divinity and full humanity.
This might help
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union
It might help in some circumstances to clarify the language of the discussion. The language of mythos in religions tries to convey inner experiences of those who claim to have had them to those who haven't and can be quite vague, but perhaps quite enticing if it deals with the desires and fears of living. Unfortunately, in the hands of the wrong shepherd it can be used as a controlling factor over the sheep, just as language can in politics and business.I don't think it's just opting for modern meaning it's that some here opt for any meaning that suits their
I got as far as 'begotten before time' which is nonsensical.Before time though is hotly debated in science since apparently people are no longer satisfied that the universe had a start.
We're a scientist or merely anyone observing Jesus empirically. They would have seen a human being.In which case composed of cells, tissues etc etc - so divisible and therefore by your own definition not god. You aren't helping yourself.
Particularly evidenced at his partial dissection at crucifixion. Science though does not do God. Those observing Jesus spiritually would have detected God. Both the divine and the human then are in the one person, Jesus of Nazareth. Full divinity and full humanity.Total non-sense as if this is one entity then it is composed of cells, tissues etc (as you have indicated above) and therefore not god. Perhaps (allowing your arguments) when assessed miraculously this 'person' wasn't composed of anything and therefore indivisible in which case could be god (by your definition) but definitely not human (as humans are composed of cells, tissues etc). Were this the case the god would not have become human.
This might help
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union
Before time though is hotly debated in science...
...since apparently people are no longer satisfied that the universe had a start.
Before time though is hotly debated in science since apparently people are no longer satisfied that the universe had a start.Complete non-sense. 'Before' is something inextricably linked to time, so there cannot be something before time - it is oxymoronic.
No, it isn't. 'Before time' is a contradiction in terms. The word 'before' has no meaning without time.I think they are talking about before the big bang and infinite time. I confess to not seeing a lot of pushback on those two ideas on this forum.
Which would mean time extending further back, not a 'before time', which is gibberish.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-myth-of-the-beginning-of-time-2006-02/
Which would mean time extending further back, not a 'before time', which is gibberish.
Old news, that I've already addressed. ::)I think it was St Augustine who said the universe was created with time rather than in time.
I think it was St Augustine who said the universe was created with time rather than in time.
I think it was St Augustine who said the universe was created with time rather than in time.And what on earth would he have known about either time or the universe from his position of 4thC ignorance. He almost certainly thought that the sun went around the earth and that the universe was a few thousand years old.
No, it isn't. 'Before time' is a contradiction in terms. The word 'before' has no meaning without time.A better concept would be "outside time", referring to what may exist outside our known universe in which time is a dimension.
Which would mean time extending further back, not a 'before time', which is gibberish.
A better concept would be "outside time", referring to what may exist outside our known universe in which time is a dimension.Are you suggesting that things exists outside time? Because that has its own issues since existence is a time based concept. 'Outside time' isn't a concept, it's two words stuck together with no meaning.
And what on earth would he have known about either time or the universe from his position of 4thC ignorance. He almost certainly thought that the sun went around the earth and that the universe was a few thousand years old.It was a physicist who pointed it out to me, You I take are a biologist which I suppose is some sort of scientist. Mind you, he also referred to Dawkins as a “ mechanistic dinosaur.
Not his fault of course, he lived at a time when our knowledge of time and space was incredibly limited and often based on faith rather than actual knowledge and evidence. But nonetheless that would have been his perspective so as an arbiter of truth on time and the universe I think he can comfortably be ignored.
Are you suggesting that things exists outside time? Because that has its own issues since existence is a time based concept. 'Outside time' isn't a concept, it's two words stuck together with no meaning.Existence is a time based concept? Where were you when people were proposing an infinite universe?
A better concept would be "outside time", referring to what may exist outside our known universe in which time is a dimension.
Existence is a time based concept? Where were you when people were proposing an infinite universe?
Existence is a time based concept? Where were you when people were proposing an infinite universe?No idea what the infinite universe has to do with it.
Anyway. Can you justify that assertion?
No idea what the infinite universe has to do with it.I was thinking in terms of a citation, Sane.
We measure existence in time. A thing is measured as exiting or not existing.
What the fuck are you on about? What the hell has an infinite universe got to do with existence being a concept that involves time?How can an infinite universe exist since infinite things aren't time dependent?
I was thinking in terms of a citation, Sane.All dictionaries.
...infinite things aren't time dependent?
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) I know I'm going to regret asking this, but what bizarre contortions of illogic have led you to that conclusion?His arse
It might help in some circumstances to clarify the language of the discussion. The language of mythos in religions tries to convey inner experiences of those who claim to have had them to those who haven't and can be quite vague, but perhaps quite enticing if it deals with the desires and fears of living. Unfortunately, in the hands of the wrong shepherd it can be used as a controlling factor over the sheep, just as language can in politics and business.
The problem with that is that anything outside time cannot actually do anything. It can't think, or act, or do any 'begetting' (which is where this started)...You are trying to define what the limitations of "outside time" are by looking at them from within the time dependent space of our universe. Try to imagine this scenario the other way round - from a timeless state it may be possible to be aware of every event which has ever occurred from the big bang to the death of the universe itself.
You are trying to define what the limitations of "outside time" are by looking at them from within the time dependent space of our universe. Try to imagine this scenario the other way round - from a timeless state it may be possible to be aware of every event which has ever occurred from the big bang to the death of the universe itself.
truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am! John 8:58
You are trying to define what the limitations of "outside time" are by looking at them from within the time dependent space of our universe. Try to imagine this scenario the other way round - from a timeless state it may be possible to be aware of every event which has ever occurred from the big bang to the death of the universe itself.
truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am! John 8:58
You are trying to define what the limitations of "outside time" are by looking at them from within the time dependent space of our universe. Try to imagine this scenario the other way round - from a timeless state it may be possible to be aware of every event which has ever occurred from the big bang to the death of the universe itself.
truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am! John 8:58
Abraham wasn't the Big Bang so how is that quote relevant?the phrase "I am" indicates the present tense, signifying that God exists in the present throughout history - "before Abraham was born".
the phrase "I am" indicates the present tense, signifying that God exists in the present throughout history - "before Abraham was born".
Dear Mr Burns,
Sir, Atheists eh ::) you need to take them everywhere twice, the second time to apologise ;D God truly does move in mysterious ways✝️
Gonnagle.
the phrase "I am" indicates the present tense, signifying that God exists in the present throughout history - "before Abraham was born".
the phrase "I am" indicates the present tense, signifying that God exists in the present throughout history - "before Abraham was born".
.... a mind cannot operate in 'the present'.So you keep asserting.
That's an interpretation but still nothing to do with the Big Bang.The big bang indicates the beginning of time as we know it, but not the beginning of "that which exists" - the ever present God.
So you keep asserting.
An assertion which restricts the mind to be an inevitable consequence of past events.
An assertion which takes away any possibility of the free will we all employ and enjoy in posting this forum.
It was a physicist who pointed it out to me,And ... why is this relevant. Just because some person (whether a physicist or not) notes a comment purportedly made by a historical figure doesn't mean that they considered that comment to be correct.
You I take are a biologist which I suppose is some sort of scientist.Yup that's right, my original training was in cell biology, although my research is very multidisciplinary. And yes, biologists are scientists.
Mind you, he also referred to Dawkins as a “ mechanistic dinosaur.Your obsession with Dawkins borders on the pathological - it really is very odd.
Apparently, even these people back then were particularly gifted in maths and philosophy.True, there have always been people who are polymaths. But I don't really see the relevance. I'm actually not commenting on whether or not St Augustine was considered to be a great mind in his time. He may well have been incredibly impressive as a thinker. But that is totally irrelevant as his thinking would necessarily be limited by the level of knowledge at the time. Someone whose background knowledge tells them that the sun goes around the earth and that the universe is perhaps a few thousand years old has nothing to tell us about time and space regardless of how great a thinker they were. They (and their thinking) are a product of the time in which they existed.
It could also be said that this is your assertion based upon the desire to reply to Stranger's post and therefore your will is not free but is attached to or driven by the desire to do so.
An assertion which takes away any possibility of the free will we all employ and enjoy in posting this forum.
It's not an assertion Alan, it's bleedin' obvious because any chain of thought ends some time after it starts. Any choice, requires a before and an after.You do not seem to be able to contemplate the possibility, - or even probability, that our conscious mind can interact (not just react) within the time dimension we exist in. We are consciously aware of past events which can influence the choices we make and the thoughts we invoke, but the reality is that we are not entirely driven by past events - we are free to act upon them as we wish. You claim that every moment of our lives is entirely defined by past events and we cannot possibly have done anything differently. I totally agree with you that this is the only feasible scenario if we are bound by the time dependent chains of "cause and effect" we observe in material entities - but in reaching this conclusion you continue to ignore the God given power of our human soul.
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) It's truly fucking incredible that somebody who's supposed to have a PhD and be a member of Mensa, can post such unadulterated idiocy.
You can't have any will at all—free or otherwise—without time. A choice requires a time before you've made it, where you contemplate the options, a transition to having made a choice, and a time after the choice, to implement it.
This is all totally impossible without time.
You do not seem to be able to contemplate the possibility, - or even probability, that our conscious mind can interact (not just react) within the time dimension we exist in.
We are consciously aware of past events which can influence the choices we make and the thoughts we invoke, but the reality is that we are not entirely driven by past events - we are free to act upon them as we wish.
...but in reaching this conclusion you continue to ignore the God given power of our human soul.
You do not seem to be able to contemplate the possibility, - or even probability, that our conscious mind can interact (not just react) within the time dimension we exist in. We are consciously aware of past events which can influence the choices we make and the thoughts we invoke, but the reality is that we are not entirely driven by past events - we are free to act upon them as we wish. You claim that every moment of our lives is entirely defined by past events and we cannot possibly have done anything differently. I totally agree with you that this is the only feasible scenario if we are bound by the time dependent chains of "cause and effect" we observe in material entities - but in reaching this conclusion you continue to ignore the God given power of our human soul.
You are trying to define what the limitations of "outside time" are by looking at them from within the time dependent space of our universe. Try to imagine this scenario the other way round - from a timeless state it may be possible to be aware of every event which has ever occurred from the big bang to the death of the universe itself.
- we are free to act upon them as we wish..... which illustrates what I put in my previous post i.e. you are not free from the wish or desire to act or not act.
What I was postulating was that God, from His ever present existence outside our time dimension, can be aware of what we do with our gift of free will without taking away our freedom to use it as we wish within our time dimension.
In which case it follows that we could not do anything differently then. ;D
.... which illustrates what I put in my previous post i.e. you are not free from the wish or desire to act or not act.All I am saying is that the implementation of our wishes and desires are not entirely dictated by past events, but by the God given power of our human soul.
It's not a possibility, let alone a probability, it's a totally meaningless form of words that you've concocted to try and pretend that you have a way out of the basic logic that you don't like. It doesn't actually have any meaning at all. If you analysis it, there's literally nothing there. It's empty gibberish.It simply means that we are free to choose our own destiny.
All I am saying is that the implementation of our wishes and desires are not entirely dictated by past events, but by the God given power of our human soul.And in years talking about this you have never even given a basic idea of what that means, or how it avoids the logical problem of something neither been caused or random.
It simply means that we are free to choose our own destiny.on what basis is the choice made?
...ever present existence outside our time dimension...
...by the God given power of our human soul.
All I am saying is that the implementation of our wishes and desires are not entirely dictated by past events, but by the God given power of our human soul.If your actions result from your wishes and desires you will need to show how those desires are not based upon past events. You also need to describe what you mean by 'soul' especially as this word is a translation of the Greek word 'psyche' in the Gospels.
It simply means that we are free to choose our own destiny.
The big bang indicates the beginning of time as we know it, but not the beginning of "that which exists" - the ever present God.
All I am saying is that the implementation of our wishes and desires are not entirely dictated by past events, but by the God given power of our human soul.
What I was postulating was that God, from His ever present existence outside our time dimension, can be aware of what we do with our gift of free will without taking away our freedom to use it as we wish within our time dimension.
The big bang indicates the beginning of time as we know it, but not the beginning of "that which exists" - the ever present God.
You are trying to define what the limitations of "outside time" are by looking at them from within the time dependent space of our universe. Try to imagine this scenario the other way round - from a timeless state it may be possible to be aware of every event which has ever occurred from the big bang to the death of the universe itself.
truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am! John 8:58
Yes, we are, but we do so according to who we are, and who we are is the direct result of our nature, nurture, and experience. If our basic nature, and every experience we have ever had in our lives does not fully determine who we are and hence what we choose, then there is literally nothing else left that can influence our choices, so any further variation must be for no reason, i.e. random.Yes, there are reasons for our choices. The reasons exist in our conscious awareness, and we can think of many different reasons for what we may do in our lives. I have never suggested that our conscious choices could be random. My contention is the ultimate source of our conscious choices. Your logic would dictate that from the moment we are born, every event in our lives would be predetermined by past events over which we can have no conscious control. So following your postulated logic, we are not free to choose our own destiny - it would be predetermined from the moment we are born. I cannot choose what to believe in. I can only believe in what I perceive to be true. But in perceiving the truth I need the freedom to consciously contemplate whatever is needed to lead me to the truth. And having found the truth I have used my gift of free will to consciously accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. This would have been impossible if my mind was entirely determined by physically determined material reactions which are beyond conscious control.
Yes, there are reasons for our choices. The reasons exist in our conscious awareness, and we can think of many different reasons for what we may do in our lives. I have never suggested that our conscious choices could be random. My contention is the ultimate source of our conscious choices. Your logic would dictate that from the moment we are born, every event in our lives would be predetermined by past events over which we can have no conscious control. So following your postulated logic, we are not free to choose our own destiny - it would be predetermined from the moment we are born. I cannot choose what to believe in. I can only believe in what I perceive to be true. But in perceiving the truth I need the freedom to consciously contemplate whatever is needed to lead me to the truth. And having found the truth I have used my gift of free will to consciously accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. This would have been impossible if my mind was entirely determined by physically determined material reactions which are beyond conscious control.
Are you suggesting that things exists outside time? Because that has its own issues since existence is a time based concept. 'Outside time' isn't a concept, it's two words stuck together with no meaning.Is existence dependent on time, or is it the other way round.
All dictionaries.Not the ones, I've looked at Pal.
And what on earth would he have known about either time or the universe from his position of 4thC ignorance. He almost certainly thought that the sun went around the earth and that the universe was a few thousand years old.That the earth goes around the sun is a fact and the questions of time, whether the universe had a beginning, existence etc are still matters of debate and speculation means that you are on the Crap analogies.
Not his fault of course, he lived at a time when our knowledge of time and space was incredibly limited and often based on faith rather than actual knowledge and evidence. But nonetheless that would have been his perspective so as an arbiter of truth on time and the universe I think he can comfortably be ignored.
Yes, there are reasons for our choices. The reasons exist in our conscious awareness, and we can think of many different reasons for what we may do in our lives. I have never suggested that our conscious choices could be random. My contention is the ultimate source of our conscious choices. Your logic would dictate that from the moment we are born, every event in our lives would be predetermined by past events over which we can have no conscious control. So following your postulated logic, we are not free to choose our own destiny - it would be predetermined from the moment we are born. I cannot choose what to believe in. I can only believe in what I perceive to be true. But in perceiving the truth I need the freedom to consciously contemplate whatever is needed to lead me to the truth. And having found the truth I have used my gift of free will to consciously accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. This would have been impossible if my mind was entirely determined by physically determined material reactions which are beyond conscious control.
Yes, there are reasons for our choices. The reasons exist in our conscious awareness, and we can think of many different reasons for what we may do in our lives. I have never suggested that our conscious choices could be random. My contention is the ultimate source of our conscious choices. Your logic would dictate that from the moment we are born, every event in our lives would be predetermined by past events over which we can have no conscious control. So following your postulated logic, we are not free to choose our own destiny - it would be predetermined from the moment we are born. I cannot choose what to believe in. I can only believe in what I perceive to be true. But in perceiving the truth I need the freedom to consciously contemplate whatever is needed to lead me to the truth. And having found the truth I have used my gift of free will to consciously accept Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour. This would have been impossible if my mind was entirely determined by physically determined material reactions which are beyond conscious control.
If the universe has a starting point and evolved, when did time become a thing, in other words, when did it appear?
Whereas had you been born in Karachi or Jakarta you would have used your 'gift of free will' to consciously choose the path of Islam and would now be prostrating yourself to Mecca five times daily.Or if born in the UK you'd be an agnostic atheist
Not the ones, I've looked at Pal.I didn't give a definition. So you appear not to understand what definition means.
I will be reviewing the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on existence though to see if your definition is front and centre or even there.
(https://thecustomizewindows.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/lol.gif)There would have to have a moment when time started I.e Time zero. If there was time at the beginning I suppose.
I suggest having a bit of a think about that question.
I didn't give a definition. So you appear not to understand what definition means.I think one can implicitly give a definition. Your donation being that existence is time related.
I think one can implicitly give a definition. Your donation being that existence is time related.Thar's not a definition. Thanks for illustrating that you have no grasp of the word definition.
What I was postulating was that God, from His ever present existence outside our time dimension, can be aware of what we do with our gift of free will without taking away our freedom to use it as we wish within our time dimension.
You are in control of your destiny. It is you yourself that is the result of the past. Nothing is being imposed on you from outside. There is no other you that is being pushed around by the past against its will.So please explain what precisely is the ultimate source of this control.
So please explain what precisely is the ultimate source of this control.What would lead to a different choice?
You claim that in every event in our lives we cannot possibly have chosen to have done anything different - which to me is the scenario for a pre programmed robot with no will of its own.
So please explain what precisely is the ultimate source of this control.
You claim that in every event in our lives we cannot possibly have chosen to have done anything different - which to me is the scenario for a pre programmed robot with no will of its own.
So please explain what precisely is the ultimate source of this control.(https://i.gifer.com/origin/08/0885b05bb311d9855111c2366d5633c4_w200.gif)
You claim that in every event in our lives we cannot possibly have chosen to have done anything different - which to me is the scenario for a pre programmed robot with no will of its own.
(https://i.gifer.com/origin/08/0885b05bb311d9855111c2366d5633c4_w200.gif)Randomness has nothing to do with it.
Sorry, I really can't be arsed to explain this to you yet again
FALLACY: Appeal to consequences.
There can be no concept of will without a mind to will something. You cannot have a mind if it is not the product of a nature and a life of experiences. You are you for reasons. Randomness cannot make you any more 'free' and no randomness means fully determined by initial conditions and subsequent inputs.
Randomness has nothing to do with it.
Please answer -
In your version of determinism, is our "will" determined by past events beyond our conscious control?
If so, we have no control over our destiny. It will be pre determined from birth.
We don't know if that is true as we cannot be certain whether true randomness exists or not. Nonetheless it is evident that your 'free' choice to follow the christian path was for reasons, and likewise the Pakistani 'freely' choosing to follow the path of Islam was also born of reasons. We cannot be 'free' of the reasons that underpin our choices, to claim so is to claim that our choices are indeed random.You seem to be banking on someone having the same reasons for being Islamic as for being a Christian. What warrant do you have for these?
You seem to be banking on someone having the same reasons for being Islamic as for being a Christian. What warrant do you have for these?
That's not what I wrote. Go back and read again.Sorry, it’s the impression I got. Even if the elements of the choice are from previous experience, the choice itself could be an emergent.
Sorry, it’s the impression I got. Even if the elements of the choice are from previous experience, the choice itself could be an emergent.
Whether temporarily phenomenon can influence a choice for something like the divine I don’t know? What would prepare you for the divine?
We don’t act as if totally determined.
Perhaps if you think you are determined, You should try some kind of meditation to eliminate the noise from your programming.
Randomness has nothing to do with it.
Please answer -
In your version of determinism, is our "will" determined by past events beyond our conscious control?
If so, we have no control over our destiny. It will be pre determined from birth.
For Nearly Sane and Stranger with Love.Can you indicate the bits you think the idea that existence isn't time based?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence
Can you indicate the bits you think the idea that existence isn't time based?Existence being time based is out of the physicalist playbook Sane. There isn't 100% concensus of time among physicists and philosophers. Given there are screeds and screeds on existence puts a question mark on you being able to put it to bed in a sentence.
All choices that people make 'emerge' from the biology in their skulls - they just aren't aware of the pre-conscious elements of the process.That just reads like a crappy version of stimulus and response where the stimulus bit has been left out. Tells us virtually nothing.
That just reads like a crappy version of stimulus and response where the stimulus bit has been left out. Tells us virtually nothing.
Existence being time based is out of the physicalist playbook Sane. There isn't 100% concensus of time among physicists...
If time slows down to zero at the speed of light then photons are unaffected by it and yet, as Stranger tells us, they haven't always been around. How does one get their heads around that?
That's self-contradictory.I think you will have to justify that last statement. How do you know you can’t have something mind like which is not physical given that physicalism is a philosophy?
Did I? I don't recall posting on this, at least at all recently. It's true that the space-time interval (the space-time 'distance') along the path of light travelling in a vacuum is zero, but I'm not entirely sure how this relates to the question at hand. Null or light-like intervals can only exist within space-time.
Also, this 'existence is time based' is Nearly Sane's argument. I have not directly commented on it because I think it somewhat debatable. What you definitely can't have without time is anything remotely like a mind.
I think you will have to justify that last statement. How do you know you can’t have something mind like which is not physical given that physicalism is a philosophy?
Which confirms my earlier observation that your flawed logic implies that we are the equivalent of pre programmed robots with no need for conscious control.
And the addition of 'conscious' to 'control' is an idiotic and foolish distraction that only goes to show that you don't understand the logic. The role consciousness plays in control is totally irrelevant.
Which confirms my earlier observation that your flawed logic implies that we are the equivalent of pre programmed robots with no need for conscious control.
Which confirms my earlier observation that your flawed logic...
...implies that we are the equivalent of pre programmed robots with no need for conscious control.
You can't have anything like a mind without time because every function of a mind needs time. Thinking needs time, choosing needs time, acting needs time...Citation please.
Citation please.
I'm wondering if that is true since something like mathematical realism is not dependent on time or entropic process.
Which confirms my earlier observation that your flawed logic implies that we are the equivalent of pre programmed robots with no need for conscious control.
I think you will have to justify that last statement. How do you know you can’t have something mind like which is not physical given that physicalism is a philosophy?
No. Robots whose programming can be changed but in reaction to things that have happened. You don't understand what determinism means.I am fully aware that learnt experiences can be incorporated within a robot's pre programmed algorithms to improve on their objective function - for example in computerised chess playing. The enhanced control is achieved without any need for conscious self awareness because the ultimate controller is the one who wrote the program. But the presumption that the programmer could actually write his program without the need for conscious control of his own thought processes truly beggars belief.
Dear Torridon,
Having a mind without a body would be pointless.
::)
I need more power scotty, ah cannae gie ye more power captain the engines willnae take it captain.
Instead of calling this the Religion and Ethics forum maybe we should just call it the Ethics forum, dangerous territory Gonnagle, one of those pesky theists is bound to mention God, we are after all Homo Religious creatures.
"Homo religiosus," meaning "religious man" or "human being with a religious nature," is a concept that suggests humans possess an inherent, natural inclination towards religious or spiritual experiences and beliefs.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Core Idea:
The concept of homo religiosus, popularized by Mircea Eliade, asserts that religion is not just a cultural phenomenon but a fundamental aspect of human existence, a natural drive towards the sacred and the transcendent.
Inherent Religiosity:
It posits that humans have an innate capacity for religious experience, a search for meaning, purpose, and connection to something beyond the everyday world.
Not About Specific Religions:
Homo religiosus doesn't imply that all humans are necessarily religious in a specific institutional or denominational way, but rather that they are inclined to seek meaning and purpose, which can manifest in various ways, including religious practices, spiritual beliefs, or even a sense of awe and wonder.
Examples:
Scholars like Mircea Eliade, Rudolf Otto, and others have explored this idea, arguing that humans are naturally drawn to the sacred, whether through rituals, myths, or other forms of religious expression.
Contrasting with Homo Sapiens:
While "homo sapiens" refers to humans as a species, "homo religiosus" highlights the religious or spiritual dimension of human nature, suggesting that humans are not only rational and thinking beings but also beings with a deep-seated need for meaning and connection.
Gonnagle.
Dear Torridon,I've had frequent enough discussions with some fellow arrests in here about the idea of removing the propensity for the type of thought that gives rise to religion is about the removal of what it means to be human, that it would be obvious that I agree with this idea. None of that means any specific belief, or even the general concept are validated in any way by it.
Having a mind without a body would be pointless.
::)
I need more power scotty, ah cannae gie ye more power captain the engines willnae take it captain.
Instead of calling this the Religion and Ethics forum maybe we should just call it the Ethics forum, dangerous territory Gonnagle, one of those pesky theists is bound to mention God, we are after all Homo Religious creatures.
"Homo religiosus," meaning "religious man" or "human being with a religious nature," is a concept that suggests humans possess an inherent, natural inclination towards religious or spiritual experiences and beliefs.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Core Idea:
The concept of homo religiosus, popularized by Mircea Eliade, asserts that religion is not just a cultural phenomenon but a fundamental aspect of human existence, a natural drive towards the sacred and the transcendent.
Inherent Religiosity:
It posits that humans have an innate capacity for religious experience, a search for meaning, purpose, and connection to something beyond the everyday world.
Not About Specific Religions:
Homo religiosus doesn't imply that all humans are necessarily religious in a specific institutional or denominational way, but rather that they are inclined to seek meaning and purpose, which can manifest in various ways, including religious practices, spiritual beliefs, or even a sense of awe and wonder.
Examples:
Scholars like Mircea Eliade, Rudolf Otto, and others have explored this idea, arguing that humans are naturally drawn to the sacred, whether through rituals, myths, or other forms of religious expression.
Contrasting with Homo Sapiens:
While "homo sapiens" refers to humans as a species, "homo religiosus" highlights the religious or spiritual dimension of human nature, suggesting that humans are not only rational and thinking beings but also beings with a deep-seated need for meaning and connection.
Gonnagle.
Dear Sane,Are we? Can we? Surely what we see just now is all too human. Despite everything we are not in some new dark age. To quote Hans Rosling
Can't remember who said it "we are becoming more intelligent but less human" I would debate the more intelligent bit :-[ but are we becoming less human.
Gonnagle.
For the bleedin' obvious? Try thinking, choosing, or acting in no time.So, you can’t reference your point of view here.
Mathematical truths are not minds. Jeez.
Minds evolved to enhance the survival rates of the bodies from which they emerge. Having a mind without a body would be pointless.Minds can arise as you say but is that exhaustive? Dualism seems to have a problem with separating body and mind and Christianity seems to have an added issue by talking about spirit as well in an apparent trichotomy. However, concerning the fate of humans and the evolution of the individual 1 Corinthians 15.44 states that we are sown in a natural body but raised in a spiritual BODY,
Dear Sane,I noticed 2006, A great time. A period Andrew Marr and others described as the End of History.
Touché monsieur pussycat :)
https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen?language=en
Just watched it ( again :) ) the man is a bit of a prophet, and maybe this new AI thingy is our salvation, all the information is out there just waiting for us to access it with empathy and compassion for our fellow man, instead of greed, jealousy and envy, so just off to join the other dinosaur exhibits at our wonderful Kelvingrove museum :(
Gonnagle.
I noticed 2006, A great time. A period Andrew Marr and others described as the End of History.Did Andrew Marr use the phrase in that way at the time? It's surely much more associated with Francis Fukuyama
How wrong we turned out to be but as they might say at Atheist HQ “Today is just a blip”.
Did Andrew Marr use the phrase in that way at the time? It's surely much more associated with Francis FukuyamaYes you are right, It was a time of far greater optimism and we obviously got complacent forgetting ancestral warnings about what individuals were capable of.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man
Dear Vlad,What, not even to lead prayers at the start of the session?
Atheist HQ Now that brought a smile to my face😀, old Sane and Gordon never invite me to these gatherings, spoilsports :P
Gonnagle.
We could question also whether there isn’t also a mental body which is also not dependent on physics.
But the presumption that the programmer could actually write his program without the need for conscious control of his own thought processes truly beggars belief.(https://media.tenor.com/3EjjFblWiNIAAAAM/facepalm-chair.gif)
So, you can’t reference your point of view here.
I believe I suggested mathematical realism, but mathematical truth will do as an analogy of something independent of physics.
My reasoning is simple.
The phrase "conscious control of his own thought processes" is still impossible gibberish. Nobody can consciously decide what conscious thoughts will occur to them.
You keep repeating this idiocy, and you never explain what you think it means. What is the matter with you?
And, yet again: consciousness and its role makes no difference to the logic that your version of free will is impossible. The entire contents of your consciousness are just as determined by the past as anything unconscious, so no matter what your silly mantra means, it's totally irrelevant.
...the presumption that the programmer could actually write his program without the need for conscious control of his own thought processes truly beggars belief.
My reasoning is simple.How is the goal determined? Why choose a particular goal?
Without conscious guidance you will have no personal control over where your thought processes will end up.
You start with a consciously perceived intention to reach a specific goal.
My reasoning is simple.
Without conscious guidance you will have no personal control over where your thought processes will end up.
You start with a consciously perceived intention to reach a specific goal.
You then consciously guide your conscious mind to reach that goal by consciously invoking thought, words and deeds.
You then consciously verify whether or not you have succeeded in reaching your consciously intended goal.
Such guidance and verification can only be achieved within your present state of mind.
You appear to infer that it can all be achieved by past events reacting within your sub conscious brain activity ???
My reasoning issimplesimplistic.
Without conscious guidance you will have no personal control over where your thought processes will end up.
Such guidance and verification can only be achieved within your present state of mind.
You appear to infer that it can all be achieved by past events reacting within your sub conscious brain activity ???
Minds can arise as you say but is that exhaustive? Dualism seems to have a problem with separating body and mind and Christianity seems to have an added issue by talking about spirit as well in an apparent trichotomy. However, concerning the fate of humans and the evolution of the individual 1 Corinthians 15.44 states that we are sown in a natural body but raised in a spiritual BODY,
suggesting that embodiment is not just a feature of the physical
IMO We could question also whether there isn’t also a mental body which is also not dependent on physics.
But the point is that the conscious mind is just as determined by nature, nurture, and experience as any other part of your mind, so it doesn't matter to impossibility of 'free will' what the conscious mind does or doesn't do and what, if anything, it controls.So you must presume that we can have no control over our destiny since everything will be pre determined by the past events within nature, nurture and experiences.
Hi all. I haven’t abandoned ship - just been out of the UK a lot recently.Blimey, Captain Jack has only been back onshore for five minutes and he’s already spoiling for a fight.
In no particular order though:
1. A very warm welcome back from to Gonnagle from me too. Great to see you here again compadre.
2. I see that Vlad has essayed a string of lies misrepresenting pretty much everything I’ve said on this subject. There’s little point in correcting them one-by-one only for him to do it again though. As a rule of thumb however, whenever Vlad begins a sentence with “so what you’re saying is…” you can be pretty much certain that what follows isn’t what the other person said at all. See also efforts like “as P Z Myers said” with no citation, meaning that P Z Myers et al almost certainly never said what Vlad claims them to have said at all.
3. Poor AB still seems to be lost in a world of shifting the burden of proof, oblivious to the fact that his claim that a naturalistic explanation for consciousness is “totally impossible” is his to justify regardless of whether or not he likes the explanations he’s actually given. Ah well, plus ça change eh?
Cheers all.
So you must presume that we can have no control over our destiny since everything will be pre determined by the past events within nature, nurture and experiences.
Dear Thread,Blessed are the peacemakers, Gonnagle.
WoooHooo :o Old Blue is back in town, good to see yer still alive and kickin, now do me a massive favour and go get those God bothererers :P they are daein ma heid in, God did it, naw he didnae, aye he did naw he didnae, aye he fuckin did, naw he fuckin didnae >:(
Here's a wee list and guidance to help you on your way, no particular order ( aye right )
Gordon ( nice guy, Christian type, well he certainly acts like one :o )
Nearlysane ( whit is his problem ;) )
Profdavey ( swallowed a dictionary, well every word beginning with Anthropo )
Stranger ( now watch that boy needs to watch his blood pressure )
Vlad ( serious whit is that guy on )
Alan burns ( definitely Christian, but well he just does not seem to get what that Jesus guy is all about )
The above list is not exhaustive I will try to update and keep you posted :P
Oh and me, don't worry about me, I know God did it, just waiting for science to tell me how 8)
Gonnagle.
Blimey, Captain Jack has only been back onshore for five minutes and he’s already spoiling for a fight.
PZ Myers popularised the Courtiers reply fallacy which suggests you don’t have to know about a topic in order to dismiss it and to say that you do is a fallacy, as you well know Captain.
Then of course there was this.
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/26/we-have-a-term-for-that-neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design/
Vlad,I think we have to look at PZ Myers use of the term Courtiers reply in Regards to Dawkin’s slapdown of his theological critics, the famous “Leprochology “ comment about not having to know about leprochologyto dismiss it. Horses laugh fallacy aside you probably cannot dismiss theology more vehemently as that. Also, Hillside we all know the tale of the Courtier and subsequent attempts to reframe Myer’s argument and turdpolish it into something a bit more reasonable don’t fit the courtier’s story.
Inevitably given your history, the Courtier's Reply says no such thing.
Then of course there was this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-tqYFI4e_8
I think we have to look at PZ Myers use of the term Courtiers reply in Regards to Dawkin’s slapdown of his theological critics, the famous “Leprochology “ comment about not having to know about leprochologyto dismiss it. Horses laugh fallacy aside you probably cannot dismiss theology more vehemently as that. Also, Hillside we all know the tale of the Courtier and subsequent attempts to reframe Myer’s argument and turdpolish it into something a bit more reasonable don’t fit the courtier’s story.
As I say Dawkins managed to get to the “Lep” part of Leprochology and then the whole thing was dismissible as “Horse’s Laugh fallacy”.
Vlad,I’ve said all I want to about PZ Myers and his connection with it.
Did you have anything to say about your screw up/deliberate misrepresentation regarding what the Courtier's Reply actually says?
I’ve said all I want to about PZ Myers and his connection with it.
Do I want to hear your 2025 version of it after it’s been road tested, refined, rebooted, rejigged, refitted by Atheist HQ?
You know you want to tell me.
Vlad,I think you are supposed to say “I think you are wrong and here’s why”, Hillside.
So you want to leave your misunderstanding about/misrepresentation of the Courtier's Reply as it is then?
Why in that case are you here, other than for trolling purposes?
I think you are supposed to say “I think you are wrong and here’s why”, Hillside.
Dear Thread,
And here we are fans, Madison square Gardens, two old ( very old ) Pugilists once again toe to toe, old Blue wearing, well nice pair of six inch ( each to their own :) ) and old Vlad wearing a lovely see through ( put it away put it away :P ) what do you think John, will any of these two tired old pugilists bring anything new, well I don't know Jack there has been flashes of brilliance from both contestants just checking the Marquis of Canterbury rules about turdpolishing ( we threw out the queensbury rules ages ago ) but yes this should be the battle of the century ( feels like a bloody century ) whether we see anything new remains to be seen, ding ding round Googleplex🥳
Vlad,I think we need to look at it in the context of Dawkins statement.
You said (Reply 471) “…PZ Myers popularised the Courtiers reply fallacy which suggests you don’t have to know about a topic in order to dismiss it.”
The Courtier’s Reply doesn’t suggest that at all. It’s your claim though, so it’s your burden of proof to demonstrate that it does and not mine to show that it doesn't.
I think we need to look at it in the context of Dawkins statement.
In any case I think my original comment where I first brought up PZ was somebody said more people were getting Bibles PZ might not like it because people might get to know the bible rather than the charicature version described by some atheists...or ignorance of it.
Dawkins view of Theology is well known and his put down of Alex O’Connors theological combined degree and his censure of Alex for wasting his time is a classic.
If you refuse to correct me on this matter, something usually done by saying what is wrong with it or by giving what you take to be the correct definition, I shall consider the matter closed.
You ought to know though that Wikipedia only gives the Courtiers reply the status of an alleged fallacy.
n any case I think my original comment where I first brought up PZ was somebody said more people were getting Bibles PZ might not like it because people might get to know the bible rather than the charicature version described by some atheists...or ignorance of it.This was on another thread - where you have failed to respond to my points.
Would knowing that leprechauns always keep their gold coins in their left pocket...
In any case I think my original comment where I first brought up PZ was somebody said more people were getting Bibles PZ might not like it because people might get to know the bible rather than the charicature version described by some atheists...or ignorance of it.
Difficult to unravel this garbled mess of a sentence, but I'm all in favour of people getting to know the bible because it's generally believers who have a distorted view of it. If you read it with a genuine desire to see what it says (instead of to confirm what you already 'know'), you see that it's an incoherent, self-contradictory mess with no clear message at all.
Reading the bible was one of the first reasons I ended up rejecting the absurdity of the Christianity my family were into.
Dear Stranger,Well firstly we have no idea whether Jesus said this or not.
Well for me I give this round to old Vlad, for me ( me ) this Christianity stuff is not rocket science, I care not a jot if you are Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, Rastafarians or Atheist, Jesus Christ that guy in the Bible simply states
In the King James Version of the Bible, the second greatest commandment, as stated in Matthew 22:39, is "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself".
Here's a more detailed explanation:
The Context:
Jesus is asked which is the greatest commandment in the law, and he responds by stating the first commandment is to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind.
The Second Commandment:
Jesus then states that the second commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself.
Matthew 22:39:
The verse in the King James Version reads: "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
The Significance:
Jesus emphasizes that these two commandments are the foundation of all the law and the prophets.
Is like unto it
You don't have to agree with the first, and I honestly think that God give a flying hallelujah whether you follow the first or not, Cherry picking, you bet yer sweet ass I am Cherry picking.
Ding ding, round sorry lost count✝️
Gonnagle.
Dear Prof,No idea what point you are trying to make.
And your point is, actually I think you made my point, normal service will be resumed shortly, no it won't Gonnagle, why do you do it, well sometimes its fun, just sometimes.
Gonnagle.
This was on another thread - where you have failed to respond to my points.For starters we need as I have said to start where Dawkins was and why Myers and yourself might be defending him.
Now I've not read the PZ Myers piece - typically seems only you who is obsessed with Dawkins, Myers etc.
However, I don't see your argument. That you can oppose something without knowing its intricacies doesn't mean that as soon as you do know the intricacies that you will accept it.
So if there is no evidence to support the existence of god or gods, nothing further is required not to believe in them. No amount of describing precise attributes of a claimed god, nor whether that god has a beard, nor wants you to rest on Sundays etc etc will change that. They are all completely irrelevant until or unless the first base is passed - i.e. evidence of existence. So you can reject christianity without knowing the details in the bible on the basis that there is no evidence that god even exists so the rest is moot. Reading all the details in the bible won't change that one iota if there is still no evidence that god exists in the first place.
Would knowing that leprechauns always keep their gold coins in their left pocket and dance anticlockwise make the existence of leprechauns more credible. Hmm, nope - so it is rather irrelevant whether you know these claimed but unevidenced details.
For starters we need as I have said to start where Dawkins was and why Myers and yourself might be defending him.
Firstly Dawkins is saying there is no evidence for God or God so he might as well be talking about Leprochology, or as he fails to tell us, philosophical physicalism, or reductionism etc or as he would like to “anything philosophical”. But then he cannot get a horses laugh out of that.
He has a limited tolerance for philosophical and has many have pointed out he isn’t very good at it.
And so he represents scientism. Where only “science” can say what is real and philosophical argument gets no look in.
For starters we need as I have said to start where Dawkins was and why Myers and yourself might be defending him.Given that I've never read anything by either Dawkins (except The Blind Watchmaker) or Myers, I have no idea why you are considering that I am defending them or otherwise. I (and I image plenty of other posters here) are perfectly capable of thinking for ourselves. It is you, not us, that seem obsessed with the views of the likes of Dawkins and Myers.
Dear Stranger,
Well for me I give this round to old Vlad, for me ( me ) this Christianity stuff is not rocket science, I care not a jot if you are Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Sikh, Rastafarians or Atheist, Jesus Christ that guy in the Bible simply states
In the King James Version of the Bible, the second greatest commandment, as stated in Matthew 22:39, is "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself".
Here's a more detailed explanation:
The Context:
Jesus is asked which is the greatest commandment in the law, and he responds by stating the first commandment is to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind.
The Second Commandment:
Jesus then states that the second commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself.
Matthew 22:39:
The verse in the King James Version reads: "And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
The Significance:
Jesus emphasizes that these two commandments are the foundation of all the law and the prophets.
Is like unto it
You don't have to agree with the first, and I honestly think that God give a flying hallelujah whether you follow the first or not, Cherry picking, you bet yer sweet ass I am Cherry picking.
Ding ding, round sorry lost count✝️
Gonnagle.
Vlad,Dawkins completely and famously misunderstood Aquinas as saying that absolutely everything has a cause, which is not what Aquinas was saying at all.
None of which is true, but in any case do you intend to keep running away from your misunderstanding about/misrepresentation of the CR?
Let me help you with it. Here's the CR in full:
“I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply
Now show me the part that justifies your assertion in Reply 471 that “…PZ Myers popularised the Courtiers reply fallacy which suggests you don’t have to know about a topic in order to dismiss it.”
Put up or shut up.
Vlad,Myers wasted that time and effort giving a shit analogy.
None of which is true, but in any case do you intend to keep running away from your misunderstanding about/misrepresentation of the CR?
Let me help you with it. Here's the CR in full:
“I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply
Now show me the part that justifies your assertion in Reply 471 that “…PZ Myers popularised the Courtiers reply fallacy which suggests you don’t have to know about a topic in order to dismiss it.”
Put up or shut up.
For starters we need as I have said to start where Dawkins was and why Myers and yourself might be defending him.
Firstly Dawkins is saying there is no evidence for God or God so he might as well be talking about Leprochology, or as he fails to tell us, philosophical physicalism, or reductionism etc or as he would like to “anything philosophical”. But then he cannot get a horses laugh out of that.
He has a limited tolerance for philosophical and has many have pointed out he isn’t very good at it.
And so he represents scientism. Where only “science” can say what is real and philosophical argument gets no look in.
Dawkins completely and famously misunderstood Aquinas as saying that absolutely everything has a cause, which is not what Aquinas was saying at all.
If dDawkins can be pinned down to a philosophy, and many people in his circles don’t it would be Smolin’s darwinianian cosmology which itself shows no attempt to eliminate an infinite recession of causes.
Let’s not forget either that Dawkins and Myers don’t like physicists that much either.
Myers wasted that time and effort giving a shit analogy.
Vlad,I have put up my position on this already, so I shan’t indulge your request for a courtroom drama.
True or not (and it isn't) that doesn't give you licence to flat out lie about it though.
Put up or shut up. Your call.
I have put up my position on this already, so I shan’t indulge your request for a courtroom drama.
No idea what point you are trying to make.
My point is that the golden rule seems to be pretty well universal (articulated of course in different wording) across human cultures and societies for as far back as we have records and as widely geographically as humans have inhabited. And it exists in cultures that see it in both a religious and a non religious context. Almost as if there is some kind of evolutionary imperative in people in human societies having empathy with each other and acting in a cooperative and reciprocal manner with each other.
Almost as if human's evolutionary advantage comes from societal cooperation based on mutual reciprocity and empathy.
Note too that in most ancient contexts the golden rule was only really applied to others in their 'tribe' - all bets were off in terms of how you treated the other 'tribe' down the road, or in the next valley, not of your class/religion etc. Again completely explainably in evolutionary terms.
Which is basically the golden rule, which pre-dates the incoherent and contradictory bible. And of course, there is plenty in the bible that contradicts that rule too. No idea at all what you think Vlad has said that makes any sense. If people read the bible with an open mind, sure they'll find the nice bits, but they'll also find all the contradictions and the nasty bits about a psychopathic, jealous, vindictive, capricious, petty, vengeful, and patently unjust God who approves of stuff like slavery and genocide.
It's a great advert for atheism.
...but the central message throughout the old testament was go and have a cuppa with that wee tribe in the next valley, sit down like grown ups...
Vlad,The Courtiers reply is fallacious only because the only knowledge needed is that there are no clothes.
Always lift your Dahlias in autumn.
So now we've both wandered down entirely irrelevant sidetracks, back to the question you keep avoiding:
Here again is the CR in full:
“I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor's boots, nor does he give a moment's consideration to Bellini's masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor's Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor's raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_reply
Now show me the part that justifies your assertion in Reply 471 that “…PZ Myers popularised the Courtiers reply fallacy which suggests you don’t have to know about a topic in order to dismiss it.”
Put up or shut up.
The Courtiers reply is fallacious only because the only knowledge needed is that there are no clothes.
In the context of Dawkins then the only knowledge needed is that there is no Go' oh wait a minute.
Here's another one, Evolution is plainly stupid. To which the reply is , you haven't read Darwin.
You put a lot of faith in what the past events of nature, nurture and experience can achieve.
Nature, nurture, and experiences has made you the person you are and the person you are is in control. There is no different 'you' that would make the statement "we can have no control over our destiny" make any sense at all. You can't, however, change the person you are. You can't want what you don't want.
And there really is no escaping the logic that there is nothing else that can possibly be a reason for any choice you make, so if any variation is possible it must be for no reason (random). Of course, it's a very complicated, quite possibly chaotic (mathematical sense), and indirect process. All the influences throughout your life change who you are (if only by a tiny amount) and it's who you have become at a moment of choice that determines what you choose.
Vlad,I don't know what youre on today , this isn't about knowing and dismissing the arguments, this is about not having to know them!!! You are mistaken about Dawkins showing philosophical and theological deftness.The point is, you don't need to because to Dawkins and Myers it's obvious there isn't a God, that the King has no clothes.
No it isn’t. It merely illustrates that all that’s necessary to dismiss a faith belief is the falsification of the justifying arguments for its foundational claims, not of the minutiae and arcana of the subsidiary details attached to those foundational claims. Hence your assertion in Reply 471 that “…PZ Myers popularised the Courtiers reply fallacy which suggests you don’t have to know about a topic in order to dismiss it…” was a mistake or a lie.
No it isn’t. The only knowledge needed is the knowledge that the arguments attempted by the theist for his foundational beliefs are wrong, or not even wrong – a simple thing to do in your case (for example, your assertion that the universe cannot itself be necessary that you then run away from every time you’re asked to justify it).
Wrong again. The Theory of Evolution (not “Evolution”) rests of relatively few foundational arguments. It’s not necessary to know the life cycle of dung beetles specifically to be able to examine the validity of those foundational arguments.
Yet again, in Reply 471 either you fucked up or you lied about what the CR actually entails. Take your pick.
I don't know what youre on today , this isn't about knowing and dismissing the arguments, this is about not having to know them!!!
I don't know what youre on today , this isn't about knowing and dismissing the arguments, this is about not having to know them!!! You are mistaken about Dawkins showing philosophical and theological deftness.The point is, you don't need to because to Dawkins and Myers it's obvious there isn't a God, that the King has no clothes.Nope - you are completely missing the point.
This erudite intellect who has demolished arguments though.
That is you....isn't it Hillside.
The Courtiers reply is fallacious only because the only knowledge needed is that there are no clothes.Wrong.
In the context of Dawkins then the only knowledge needed is that there is no Go' oh wait a minute.No. The claim is that there probably is no god. The only thing you need to refute the claim is evidence that there is a god. Treatises on the nature of the said god are irrelevant to the claim of whether the god exists in the first place.
Here's another one, Evolution is plainly stupid. To which the reply is , you haven't read Darwin.That's not the reply. The reply is to present the evidence that evolution does happen.
You put a lot of faith in what the past events of nature, nurture and experience can achieve.
You seem to be unable to differentiate the difference between reaction and control.
We can have no control over past events, so your perceived logic must mean that any form of conscious control...
Can you not see that you are in control?
Whatever comprises "you" can consciously interact rather than just react in order to achieve your consciously perceived intentions and goals.
How this interaction can occur cannot be explained by our limited knowledge of reality, but that does not mean that it does not exist.
In order to dismiss an argument you need to know something about it (in order to formulate a rebuttal), and if you can rebut it on first principles then any peripheral details become irrelevant.
You clearly don't understand the Courtier's Reply
I don't know what youre on today , this isn't about knowing and dismissing the arguments, this is about not having to know them!!! You are mistaken about Dawkins showing philosophical and theological deftness.The point is, you don't need to because to Dawkins and Myers it's obvious there isn't a God, that the King has no clothes.
This erudite intellect who has demolished arguments though.
That is you....isn't it Hillside.
So anyway, this debate ( I am calling it a debate ) I do think that to argue for or against you really need to know your subject.
Wrong.Bad analogy
The claim is that the emperor is not wearing any clothes. The fallacy is that, in order to prove the claim, you need a detailed understanding of the clothes that the emperor is not wearing. The reality is that the only evidence you need is that the emperor is naked and anybody can see that.
No. The claim is that there probably is no god. The only thing you need to refute the claim is evidence that there is a god. Treatises on the nature of the said god are irrelevant to the claim of whether the god exists in the first place.
That's not the reply. The reply is to present the evidence that evolution does happen.
Demonstrate that there probably isn't a God rather than asserting it.
Nope - you are completely missing the point.Out of the dross and rebuttals which really back up what I am saying I have chosen this oasis of reason to comment on. But later.
The point being that if a claim cannot be substantiated on first principles then any amount of detail predicated on those first principles becomes irrelevant. And it doesn't need any knowledge of those subsequent claims dependent on that first principle to rebut the claim.
So another example. Imagine there is a claim that the edge of the earth has a chamfer and is coloured blue. This can be rebutted on the overarching first principle (the earth is flat) by either providing evidence that the earth is round or that there is no evidence that the earth is flat. Knowledge or otherwise of the claimed shape/colour of that flat edge is irrelevant. Without the first principle claim being proved or substantiated knowledge of sub-claims isn't necessary.
So until or unless you can substantiate a first principle claim that god exists the notion/requirement for knowledge of any sub-claims (what god looks like, what god does, how god communicates with us etc etc) is simple moot.
Vlad,No probability requires calculation. How probable is it?
Easy. In the absence of sound justifying reasons for "God is real", epistemically the claim is classified as a guess. Axiomatically, guesses are more likely to be wrong than to be right. Same goes for leprechauns.
QED
No probability requires calculation. How probable is it?
Calculator out.
Hi Gonners,Why do you disbelieve in Leprechauns and is the same reason as me.
Depends what you mean by "your subject". Let's say that I contend that leprechauns are real because lots of people believe in them. You could quickly falsify that as a justifying argument right?
OK, now let's say that I reply with: "ah, but your ignorance of the dress sense of leprechauns, of their musical states and of what they like for breakfast means you're insufficiently equipped to make that judgment".
Would you see anything wrong with that?
That's the point of the CR that Vlad keeps screwing up.
Vlad,Rubbish. That there is no God is itself a guess in your logic
Wrong again. Calculating what the probability is may require a calculator, but the axiomatic principle that guesses are less likely to be correct than non-guesses does not.
QED. Again.
Rubbish. That there is no God is itself a guess in your logic
Control is a reaction.No
No
We cannot control reactions.
control implies a controller.
No
We cannot control reactions.
control implies a controller.
Dear Vlad and Blue,
I am trying to bring something to this debate ( I really am ) …
but Leprechaunism, I have never understood this argument, it seems to me a hoodwink, keep your eye on the right hand don't look at what the left hand is doing.
Wee green men, I see wee green men every match day here in Glasgow, so that bit is true.
But it is the magical wee green men we are talking about, the wee guy with the pot of gold that sits at the end of the rainbow wee guy, in Cornwall he is a Pixie, I don't believe or disbelieve in any of those two guys, they are a Myth " ah you have been touched by the Leprechaun" which could mean good or bad luck.
Scientifically tested, you can't do that with a myth, a myth is to make you think, to pause, to bring you out of yourself, are Leprechauns a good Myth, try arguing that with millions of Irishmen throughout the world, you will get yer shamrock stuck where the sunshine's not.
So sorry Gentlemen, carry on, just the Havering's of a old Theist.
Hi Gonners,"I'm not taking the Piss" said Hillside pisstakingly.
Your boyish charm is more than enough for me…
No – it’s a reductio ad absurdum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
It tells you that if an argument for one proposition (eg, God) works equally for another proposition that’s plainly absurd (eg leprechauns) then the argument is probably wrong. If for example someone said, “god is real because believing that gives my life meaning” then someone else could equally say that of their belief in leprechauns. This tells you that the former has a bad argument for his objective claim “God”.
Vlad by the way routinely gets this wrong by misdescribing an argumentum ad absurdum (which is a legitimate rhetorical device) with what he calls “the horse’s laugh fallacy" (which isn’t).
You’re looking at the wrong thing here. The point is not the properties of gods/leprechauns, it’s the justifying argument made for them that’s comparable. Consider for example the statement “a good man is as hard to find as a needle in a haystack”. You would not then say, “but a needles and good men are completely different types of entity, so the analogy fails” because it’s irrelevant. The point here is that the two have the same justifying argument - ie, being hard to find.
This is something Vlad has never understood either by the way.
Hope that helps.
"I'm not taking the Piss" said Hillside pisstakingly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
Vlad,Sorry son'you're nicked.
Yet again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Sorry son'you're nicked.
Sorry son'you're nicked.
"I'm not taking the Piss" said Hillside pisstakingly.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule
Hi Gonners,
Your boyish charm is more than enough for me…
No – it’s a reductio ad absurdum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
It tells you that if an argument for one proposition (eg, God) works equally for another proposition that’s plainly absurd (eg leprechauns) then the argument is probably wrong. If for example someone said, “god is real because believing that gives my life meaning” then someone else could equally say that of their belief in leprechauns. This tells you that the former has a bad argument for his objective claim “God”.
Vlad by the way routinely gets this wrong by misdescribing an argumentum ad absurdum (which is a legitimate rhetorical device) with what he calls “the horse’s laugh fallacy" (which isn’t).
You’re looking at the wrong thing here. The point is not the properties of gods/leprechauns, it’s the justifying argument made for them that’s comparable. Consider for example the statement “a good man is as hard to find as a needle in a haystack”. You would not then say, “but a needles and good men are completely different types of entity, so the analogy fails” because it’s irrelevant. The point here is that the two have the same justifying argument - ie, being hard to find.
This is something Vlad has never understood either by the way.
Hope that helps.
Hard to find, I see God everywhere, even in your posts.
You do point out comparisons, man and needle, but God and Leprechauns, pleeeaase!!
God is universally accepted, Leprechauns, awaaay!
Sorry but reductio ad absurdum, in this case I will only accept the absurd part, as in absurd to use God and Leprechauns.
Further! there are thousands of Myths surrounding God and we have been arguing about them since we stepped out of the caves, Leprechauns? over to you Blue.
Dear Blue,
Boyish charm, I will take that all day Matthew 18:3
The point here is that the two have the same justifying argument - ie, being hard to find.
Hard to find, I see God everywhere, even in your posts.
You do point out comparisons, man and needle, but God and Leprechauns, pleeeaase!!
God is universally accepted, Leprechauns, awaaay!
Sorry but reductio ad absurdum, in this case I will only accept the absurd part, as in absurd to use God and Leprechauns.
Further! there are thousands of Myths surrounding God and we have been arguing about them since we stepped out of the caves, Leprechauns? over to you Blue.
You do point out comparisons, man and needle, but God and Leprechauns, pleeeaase!!I know, needles are inanimate metallic objects while people are living organisms - so I see your problem with comparing them. But god and leprechauns, well the comparisons are easy - both mythical entities claimed to exist by (some) people.
God is universally accepted,Wrong - if god were universally accepted then you wouldn't be discussing this with people who ... err ... don't accept that god exists.
Dear Stranger and Prof,Oh dear - there you go again with your anthropocentric blinkers on again gonners. What you seem to be saying is that god is universally accepted by humans. Well even then, that isn't true. But why should something claimed to be err ... universal, restrict acceptance to just humans.
God is not "universally accepted" by a very, very long way,
Unless you are willing to accept that you are in a very, very small minority ( not saying you are wrong ) then the conversation is over.
Did you have no control over this reaction to my post?Of course I had control - over how I chose to react to your post.
God is not "universally accepted" by a very, very long way,
Unless you are willing to accept that you are in a very, very small minority ( not saying you are wrong ) then the conversation is over.
Wiki, I did scan it, but wiki is wiki, I am very wary of wiki as I am of the whole internet experience, I suppose I am talking about agendas, not saying your link has one, just wary, I prefer to fish around and try and make sense using my own built in computer, my God given brain✝️ ( just for Stranger )
The same justifying arguments, I think I did argue quite eloquently against that argument but keep your hair on, Rome was not built in a day, I am not averse to returning and saying, sorry got you, see beginning of this very thread.
The divine revelations of scripture indicate that we are god-like humans.
But I guess when people make up human-like gods they are already most of the way down their anthropocentric rabbit-holes.
God is not "universally accepted" by a very, very long way,
Unless you are willing to accept that you are in a very, very small minority ( not saying you are wrong ) then the conversation is over.
The divine revelations of scripture indicate that we are god-like humans.
Of course I had control - over how I chose to react to your post.
My reply involved conscious control, which enabled me to consciously contemplate your post and consciously compose my reply.
I also had the option to consciously choose to have ignored it if I so wished.
I am not driven by reactions alone, over which I can have no conscious control.
Unavoidable reactions to past events do not indicate control.
The divine revelations of scripture indicate that we are god-like humans.
I am not driven by reactions alone, over which I can have no conscious control.
The divine revelations of scripture indicate that we are god-like humans.Ahh - the next phase of anthropocentricity.
AB,But your version of determinism indicates that we are just a consequence of unavoidable material reactions driven by the laws of physics - over which we have no personal control.
No. The experience of "control" does not invalidate the underlying reality of determinism for the reasons that have been explained to you countless times now but that you will not or cannot address.
Oh dear - there you go again with your anthropocentric blinkers on again gonners. What you seem to be saying is that god is universally accepted by humans. Well even then, that isn't true. But why should something claimed to be err ... universal, restrict acceptance to just humans.Dear Prof,
Why not all other species on earth now and from the start of life. And what about any living thing that may exist elsewhere in the universe.
And if god is cosmically supreme then why should we restrict ourselves to living things (in of itself a rather arbitrary and athropocentric definition) why not anything and everything in the universe. Now then that would actually be universally accepted - but firstly there is no evidence that god is universally accepted by a rock on a small planet orbiting a random star in another galaxy. Indeed the very concept of acceptance by something inanimate makes no sense at all.
But I guess when people make up human-like gods they are already most of the way down their anthropocentric rabbit-holes.
But your version of determinism indicates that we are just a consequence of unavoidable material reactions driven by the laws of physics - over which we have no personal control.
In reality we are all driven by the God given power of our human soul which sets us free from uncontrollable material reactions to allow us to choose our own destiny.
You will no doubt once again try to accuse me of personal incredulity,...
...but you have yet to explain how personal incredulity can emerge from uncontrollable material reactions.
Not all that small. And remember, whatever God or gods, you believe in, most people in the world think you are wrong.
(https://worldstatistics.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/The-Largest-Religions-in-the-World-2025.jpg)
But your version of determinism indicates that we are just a consequence of unavoidable material reactions driven by the laws of physics - over which we have no personal control.
In reality we are all driven by the God given power of our human soul which sets us free from uncontrollable material reactions to allow us to choose our own destiny.
You will no doubt once again try to accuse me of personal incredulity, but you have yet to explain how personal incredulity can emerge from uncontrollable material reactions.
Dear Prof,So let's summarise.
Oh how I love you, shall I compare you to a summer ( old Sane will be along in a minute to complete that, he loves Shakespeare )
There's no evidence to suggest that monkeys, or any non-human animals, believe in God or engage in religious practices as humans do, though some have observed ritual-like behaviors.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Lack of Evidence:
While some chimpanzee behaviors, like stone accumulation at certain trees, have been observed and interpreted by some as potential ritualistic or even "sacred" behaviors, there's no concrete evidence to support the idea that they have a concept of a deity or engage in religious belief.
Ritual-like Behaviors:
Chimpanzees have been observed performing repetitive behaviors, such as drumming on root buttresses or throwing stones at trees, that some scientists have speculated might be related to communication, symbolic actions, or even early forms of ritual.
Human vs. Animal Religion:
The typical dictionary definition of religion often includes belief in a deity, which has not been observed in non-human animals.
Examples of Chimpanzee Behaviors:
Stone Accumulation: Chimpanzees in West Africa have been observed gathering stones and throwing them against trees, sometimes leading to piles of rocks.
Drumming: Some chimpanzees drum on root buttresses, likely for communication, as the noise travels further than a standard chimp cry.
Other Interpretations:
Some scientists have interpreted these behaviors as potentially stemming from feelings of awe or wonder for natural features or events, rather than religious belief.
Further Research Needed:
More observation and experiments are needed to determine if chimpanzees are using these behaviors as anything like a ritual.
The jury is out and probably will be for a long time with our evolved monkey/ape like brain, and we have been described as Homo Religious, I tell you this evolution stuff is fascinating, no telling where it will lead us.
But I guess when people make up human-like gods they are already most of the way down their anthropocentric rabbit-holes.
Guilty your honour, even Atheists do it when describing our God who doesn't exist, Mr Burns has just stated that very thing, made in his own image man and woman :o but I think I do agree with him that mankind ( this is my anthropocentric coming out ) we are more than the sum of our parts, we are little demi Gods, like the Gods of ancient Greece, fucking it up at every turn.
Gonnagle.
Glad to see your link includes nothing in particular.
17% identify as atheists
20% identify as agnostics
63% describe themselves as “nothing in particular”
Hard to find, I see God everywhere, even in your posts.
So let's summarise.
First when you say god is universally accepted you need to state which god. So for the sake of arguments we will assume the christian god.
So actually your argument that god is universally accepted really boils down to:
There is evidence that a sizeable minority of current humans accept this god AND
There is evidence that a sizeable minority of humans around over the past two thousand years (a short period in human existence) accept this god BUT
There is no evidence that any human from the first ~298,000 years of the species existence accepts this god
There is no evidence that any non-human species on earth accepts this god (throughout the existence of life on earth)
There is no evidence that any life in another part of the universe accepts this god (throughout existence)
There is no evidence that any non living element of the universe accepts this god (throughout existence)
So effectively your argument is that some of one species on one planet for the most recent 1% of that species existence ... err ... accepts your god.
Weird definition of universal, would you not agree gonners.
No they all accept my God, one God, different names.
Not sure what your point is. Your claim was that that God was 'universally accepted'. This is clearly untrue, no matter what the breakdown of the non-religious is, and hides the fact that the 'God' people believe is not one concept. Presumably every member of the Taliban and ISIS "accept God" but it's hardly the God you believe in, is it? How about the Westboro Baptist Church of "God hates fags" and "Thank God for dead soldiers" fame, same God as you believe in?
I am not driven by reactions alone, over which I can have no conscious control.
See this is like Blue with his Leprechauns, lets pick the most outlandish or most horrible parts and run with them, confirmation bias, leave it, just leave it😀 I love you Atheists, Agnostics, ignostics can I just run with non believers :P
The divine revelations of scripture indicate that we are god-like humans.
No they all accept my God, one God, different names.
See this is like Blue with his Leprechauns, lets pick the most outlandish or most horrible parts and run with them, confirmation bias, leave it, just leave it😀 I love youAtheists, Agnostics, ignosticscan I just run with non believers :P
No they all accept my God, one God, different names.Blimey - that's rather arrogant of you. Effectively telling Hindus, Sikhs etc that they might consider that might consider they believe in Hindu or Sikh etc gods, but they are wrong they actually believe in your god.
Sorry but this is just silly. The God that is "really all the different versions of God but by other names", is just another version of God that is different from the ones that "definitely aren't the God of those heretics over there". You're just adding to the list of God-concepts, not going beyond it.
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) You still don't grasp the point about leprechauns.
Leaving your inability to grasp reductio ad absurdum aside, these are real people who believe in 'God' but the God they believe in is nothing at all like the one you believe in. You seem to be simply running away from that fact.
Blimey - that's rather arrogant of you. Effectively telling Hindus, Sikhs etc that they might consider that might consider they believe in Hindu or Sikh etc gods, but they are wrong they actually believe in your god.
I think they may rather robustly beg to differ and if you are able to make that argument, then so with equal justification can they.
But I see you are still embedded firmly in your anthropocentically parochial world-view where everything revolves around humans and everything is seen through human values and experiences.
Ho hum.
Can't remember if it was you, maybe it was the Prof, giving Vlad a hard time about his old buddy, but you are sounding very Reverend Dawkins like to me, or is it Harris, Hitchin the very men who made their millions attacking the fundies and the crazies of religion and started their own foaming at the mouth cult of atheism.
Sorry it was those heretics over there comment, anyway not my God, the God, how's that.
Doesn't help with the fact that what people believe in and call "God" is fundamentally different. It's easiest to see with the extremes but it extends to what is mainstream in many religions, denominations, cults, and sects. There aren't many people here, let alone theists, but in other online discussions the differences are very visible and stark. There are Christians who think all Muslims will go to hell, there are Jehovah's Witnesses who think you can't be a believer if you accept evolution. Hell, there's somebody on another forum who thinks he is God incarnate and that the world began with his birth and will end anpd start all over again when he dies. There are people who are seriously anti-trinity and somebody else who thinks Mary, 'the Holy Mother', is a part of it. I can find you people who think that actual physical objects should be worshipped as gods, I could go on, and all of this is just my own personal experience...I'm guessing that Gonzo will see this as the rich tapestry of humanity trying to interpret something beyond them. Gonzo sees the fact that they are trying to interpret something as meaning something exists.
Doesn't help with the fact that what people believe in and call "God" is fundamentally different. It's easiest to see with the extremes but it extends to what is mainstream in many religions, denominations, cults, and sects. There aren't many people here, let alone theists, but in other online discussions the differences are very visible and stark. There are Christians who think all Muslims will go to hell, there are Jehovah's Witnesses who think you can't be a believer if you accept evolution. Hell, there's somebody on another forum who thinks he is God incarnate and that the world began with his birth and will end and start all over again when he dies. There are people who are seriously anti-trinity and somebody else who thinks Mary, 'the Holy Mother', is a part of it. I can find you people who think that actual physical objects should be worshipped as gods, I could go on, and all of this is just my own personal experience...
I recall the Austin atheists saying that the reason the Church appeared more charitable than atheists that was because the Church had 2000 years start on them.
And BTW atheism doesn't do cults, foaming at the mouth or otherwise. Even Dawkins (why are theists so obsessed with him, I've literally never seen an atheist as convinced he's some atheist icon in the way theists seem to think he is!?) said that organising atheists is like herding cats.
I recall the Austin atheists...
Well reading your post I would ask, what is mainstream, it is certainly not mainstream that all Christian think Muslims are going to hell or vicky verky...
...I personally think Islam is a beautiful religion, from my reading it is based mostly on the word "Charity" in fact this is their Holy month, a time to reflect, how lucky they are and that others are not so fortunate, and if you read my favourite part of the New Testament Corinthians book 1 Chapter 13 KJV, it is the word "Charity" not love that is used.
Jehovah witnesses not mainstream....
...but with all the big religions one overarching sense, I call it God, Muslims call it Allah, Hindu's call it Brahmin, Buddhists call it Nirvana, Tao call it the way, the path.
A sense that there is more to us than just evolved monkey/ape brains, and as the theory of evolution grows I think it will prove just that.
To end, if you would like to read more, this thing I call a sense, a feeling, a gut instinct...
...Karen Armstrong, but it comes with a Gonnagle warning, may fry the most ardent of atheist minds.
Vlad,No, the Courtiers reply is an ill conceived thing which has been subject to revision and reinterpretation to try to make it serviceable the story has the boy knowing nothing of what the crooked taylors are talking about and merely says what he sees, the absence of any clothes.
So anyway, back to your mis-statement or misrepresentation of the CR in Reply 471. What's your plan – your standard "never apologise, never explain" play book or will you surprise us all by conceding that your statement "...PZ Myers popularised the Courtiers reply fallacy which suggests you don’t have to know about a topic in order to dismiss it and to say that you do is a fallacy..." isn't true at all?
Karen Armstrong makes fascinating reading, I'll grant Gonners that. I've read just about everything she's written (including the TWO extremely different versions of her autobiography). I started reading her when I still had a few "theistic" leanings. However, she was unable to prevent my moving in the other direction, where I remain - an ignostic atheist.
Does she have any objective reason (solid objective evidence and/or sound reasoning) to take the idea of God at all seriously? If so, do share. If not, why would I care what she has to say about God or religion?
Again, the boy who [shouts] that the King is naked has NO knowledge of what the Tailors are talking about.He doesn't need it, and that is the take away.
No, the Courtiers reply is an ill conceived thing which has been subject to revision and reinterpretation to try to make it serviceable the story has the boy knowing nothing of what the crooked taylors are talking about and merely says what he sees, the absence of any clothes.
Given this question mark over what it is Myers is trying to say and the fact it is only an alleged fallacy I decine to correct myself. Should it even be called the Courtiers reply?
Does it actually derive from an existent fallacy and Myers stiffed himself and you by trying to be too clever with it.
Again, the boy who shoots that the King is naked has NO knowledge of what the Tailors are talking about.He doesn't need it, and that is the take away.
Likewise, the person who says there is no evidence for your god doesn't know what the theologists are talking about. He doesn't need it and that is the take away.Glad someone agrees with me that that is what it’s all about.
Glad someone agrees with me that that is what it’s all about.
Vlad,Oh, really Hillside and what was the boys sufficient knowledge?
But the boy did have sufficient knowledge rather than no knowledge as you wrongly asserted, and that's the actual "take away".
Vlad,So there is your takeaway and then there's Jeremy's take away. Hmmmmmm what a decision.
But the boy did have sufficient knowledge rather than no knowledge as you wrongly asserted, and that's the actual "take away".
Oh, really Hillside and what was the boys sufficient knowledge?
He had evidence of the absence of clothes and evidence of nakedness. A luxury you can only dream of.
So there is your takeaway and then there's Jeremy's take away. Hmmmmmm what a decision.
You really do struggle with the simplest of concepts, don't you?Hardly a difficult concept, but Vlad does seem to struggle, doesn't he. Although I'd actually change your comparisons a touch:
Seeing the emperor is naked ⟺ Seeing there is no evidence or reasoning for a God.
The courtiers going on about the tailoring ⟺ Theologians going on about the characteristics of God.
So you were wrong and both Jeremy and Blue are right.
It's not rocket surgery. ::)
Glad someone agrees with me that that is what it’s all about.
Oh, really Hillside and what was the boys sufficient knowledge?
He had evidence of the absence of clothes and evidence of nakedness. A luxury you can only dream of.
So there is your takeaway and then there's Jeremy's take away. Hmmmmmm what a decision.
I'm guessing that Gonzo will see this as the rich tapestry of humanity trying to interpret something beyond them. Gonzo sees the fact that they are trying to interpret something as meaning something exists.
Evidence, they all cry where's yer Evidence, they must have missed old Strangers nice wee graph...
Karen Armstrong makes fascinating reading, I'll grant Gonners that. I've read just about everything she's written (including the TWO extremely different versions of her autobiography). I started reading her when I still had a few "theistic" leanings. However, she was unable to prevent my moving in the other direction, where I remain - an ignostic atheist.
We want evidence of God, not evidence that lots of people believe in lots of totally different things that they call 'God'. That's one step worse than an ad populum fallacy. ::)Same question back at you.
It's fascinating what posts you decide to address directly, what you avoid and how you choose to 'answer'. It looks like you have a belief that literally nothing can touch. If no contrary evidence could possibly change your mind, then your belief is irrational. Give me evidence of a God and I'll become a theist. What would change your mind?
Same question back at you.
Try reading what I said.i did. Maybe you didn't. What would change your mind about a god existing?
We want evidence of God, not evidence that lots of people believe in lots of totally different things that they call 'God'. That's one step worse than an ad populum fallacy. ::)
It's fascinating what posts you decide to address directly, what you avoid and how you choose to 'answer'. It looks like you have a belief that literally nothing can touch. If no contrary evidence could possibly change your mind, then your belief is irrational. Give me evidence of a God and I'll become a theist. What would change your mind?
Dear Stranger,This is called reversing the burden of truth. Your claim, your burden.
Its fascinating or I am fascinating ::) but I thought my post addressed everyone on here, never mind, what would change my mind, good question, evidence concrete evidence of the God I believe in does not exist, and please, please be very careful, the God I believe in, not the God you think I believe in.
Gonnagle.
i did. Maybe you didn't. What would change your mind about a god existing?
Dear Stranger,As a gentleman, you would still owe Stranger an answer to his question which he asked of you before I asked him the follow up.
Sorry, I am a Gentleman, old Sanes post first please.
Gonnagle.
As I said: evidence. Actually a sound argument would too but that seems even less likely. Also, anything at all that even hints that any of the many, varied, and mutually contradictory versions of 'God' should be taken seriously would be a step in that direction. Something that even hints that any of them is any different from any other superstition.Evidence of the supernatural? Given we only have a naturalistic methodology?
...what would change my mind, good question, evidence concrete evidence of the God I believe in does not exist, and please, please be very careful, the God I believe in, not the God you think I believe in.
As a gentleman, you would still owe Stranger an answer to his question which he asked of you before I asked him the follow up.
So what is the God that you believe in? What I perhaps didn't explain very well, is that your responses led me to suspect that whatever it is, is unfalsifiable, i.e. there is literally nothing that could happen, nothing you could experience, and nothing that you could discover about the world that would change your belief.And again right back at you
Dear Sane,Mwah
Yeah all right >:(you know that's sometimes why I hate God, nobody likes a know it all, gies a kiss❤️
Gonnagle.
So what is the God that you believe in? What I perhaps didn't explain very well, is that your responses led me to suspect that whatever it is, is unfalsifiable, i.e. there is literally nothing that could happen, nothing you could experience, and nothing that you could discover about the world that would change your belief.
Evidence of the supernatural? Given we only have a naturalistic methodology?
Argument? How would that work?
I think both you and gonzo believe what you do.
Thinking you know what woukd change that is indulgent, and in your case logically contradicts your position
And again right back at you
Sorry that probably doesn't help...
That's of course a problem, but various versions of God have supposedly interacted with the material world, so I cannot totally rule it out. But all you're really doing is saying that many god-concepts are unfalsifiable, which is why it's irrational to accept them.Perhaps you need reminding of the basic logic of your position, which is that you don't choose your beliefs so thinking you can tell what would change them is a contradiction.
No idea, but many theists have attempted them.
No Gonnagle (and many others) believe in various god-concepts and I see no reason to accept any of them, or even take them seriously.
If somehow, I was given a reason to take any of the god-concepts seriously, I would. You have just pointed out that that seems unlikely - tell me something I don't know.
(https://i.imgur.com/POlXATR.jpeg) Perhaps you need reminding what agnostic atheism means? I am not saying that no version of god exists, I'm just not accepting the propositions that they do, due to lack of any supporting evidence or reasoning.
Too right. ::)
Perhaps you need reminding of the basic logic of your position, which is that you don't choose your beliefs so thinking you can tell what would change them is a contradiction.
This isn't about a belief but a lack of one. However, you're right that we don't choose what we believe, but we can take note of the ways in which our beliefs have been changed in the past. We can also cultivate a critical attitude and be open to questioning our beliefs when we have new information.
Ah well, back to the old drawing board, but just to end, I know a couple of Atheists who sometimes show me that they have more Christianity in their little finger than I do in my whole body, there I also see God.
This isn't about a belief but a lack of one. However, you're right that we don't choose what we believe, but we can take note of the ways in which our beliefs have been changed in the past. We can also cultivate a critical attitude and be open to questioning our beliefs when we have new information.Yeah, that's indulgent bollocks. The idea that your position on anything is somehow different because it is a lack of belief when you accept that you don't choose what your position is laughable. You have a desperate need to claim a superiority that logically makes no sense.
Dear Stranger,
Ah well, back to the old drawing board, but just to end, I know a couple of Atheists who sometimes show me that they have more Christianity in their little finger than I do in my whole body, there I also see God.
Gonnagle.
They can't show Christianity unless they show they believe Jesus was the Son of God, et, etc.I don't think Gonzo is saying they are doing that.
I don't think Gonzo is saying they are doing that.
No, that's the point.The point is that he's not saying something that you portrayed him as doing? Odd point.
:o You mean they hate their family, put witches to death, keep slaves, and approve of genocide?
Seriously, you seem to think that everything you perceive as good is 'seeing God'. Sorry, but that just seems a little silly to me. (https://i.imgur.com/htw8DF1.gif)
The point is that he's not saying something that you portrayed him as doing? Odd point.
Dear Maeght,
We are all Sons of God.
Anyway, off to work, spreading the Gospel, the Gospel according to Gonnagle ✝️
Gonnagle.
Dear Stranger,
Hey I can do that, my religion has changed over the years, so has religion, you should read about it, it is fascinating ;)
Gonnagle.
But your version of determinism indicates that we are just a consequence of unavoidable material reactions driven by the laws of physics - over which we have no personal control.
In reality we are all driven by the God given power of our human soul which sets us free from uncontrollable material reactions to allow us to choose our own destiny.
..
I didn't portray him as saying that.Not for Gonzo, he sees the behaviour as not restricted to Christians, and as being Christ-like. I think thar's a perfectly understandable position.
Gonnagle was surely presenting certain behaviours by atheists as being Christian - presumably referring to so called Christian values. These values are not restricted to Christians therefore should not be referred to as being Christian. To be showing Christian behaviour they would need to believe Jesus was the Son of God.
Yeah, that's indulgent bollocks. The idea that your position on anything is somehow different because it is a lack of belief when you accept that you don't choose what your position is laughable. You have a desperate need to claim a superiority that logically makes no sense.
You do appear to have developed a tendency to just have a rant for the sake of it, every so often. ::)Your smugness is overwhelming, and your inability to carry out consistent logical thinking is underlined by your post. All your beliefs are not chosen. You are creating the idea that there is a real choice in the above which goes beyond the 'word jugglery' of compatibilism.
Critical thinking is a skill that people can learn. Nobody's perfect at it but you can try to have an attitude of questioning what you believe and the reasons you do so, as well as taking note of any new information and how it might change your reasoning. Perhaps you should try it? :)
Your smugness is overwhelming, and your inability to carry out consistent logical thinking is underlined by your post. All your beliefs are not chosen. You are creating the idea that there is a real choice in the above which goes beyond the 'word jugglery' of compatibilism.
Not for Gonzo, he sees the behaviour as not restricted to Christians, and as being Christ-like. I think thar's a perfectly understandable position.
I can see why Gonnagle may think that way but that doesn't make it an accurate way of thinking.
Just to clarify, I am a Christian, someone who follows the teaching of Jesus Christ…
Dear Thread,
Good Morning you Wonderful people :)
Just to clarify, I am a Christian, someone who follows the teaching of Jesus Christ, that's it end of, I do not follow the teachings of some old guy in Rome, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, or any other high heid yin in Religion, I don't follow the teachings of Mark, or Luke or John or Mathew, the true and accurate teachings of Christ.
I shall return but right now I need to go out into the real world.
May the Blessings of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all, aye JP even you Godless Atheists❤️✝️
Gonnagle.
Dear Thread,Dear Gonners
Good Morning you Wonderful people :)
Just to clarify, I am a Christian, someone who follows the teaching of Jesus Christ, that's it end of, I do not follow the teachings of some old guy in Rome, or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, or any other high heid yin in Religion, I don't follow the teachings of Mark, or Luke or John or Mathew, the true and accurate teachings of Christ.
I shall return but right now I need to go out into the real world.
May the Blessings of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all, aye JP even you Godless Atheists❤️✝️
Gonnagle.
Morning Gonners,
Just out of interest, does it also matter to you much whether you must believe too that Jesus was a man-god, or even whether he existed at all? I ask because I might equally say that, for example, I follow the teachings of Aristotle or Plato but I really don’t care at all whether those people really existed, or indeed whether the ideas attributed to them were actually theirs. The work stands alone on its merits in other words regardless of its provenance. My experience of “followers" of Jesus Christ on the other hand is that it matters to them – really, really matters in fact – not only that Jesus was real and that the words recorded in biblical texts were his, but also that he really was the son of God.
This approach seems to me to be epistemically different from the “ideas stand alone” approach, and to carry certain dangers - the inability to develop and adapt the ideas expressed for example because, after all, if a “god of the omnis” or his son said them they must be inerrantly and eternally correct right?
Short version – do you “follow the teachings” just because you find them morally useful, or do you need the religiosity part too to give them force?
do you “follow the teachings” just because you find them morally useful, or do you need the religiosity part too to give them force?You do not see the big picture.
You do not see the big picture.Perhaps you could discuss this matter with Gonnagle. Could be an interesting exchange.
We do not use religious faith in order to perceive and follow moral teachings. That is not the main objective.
Jesus did not suffer torture and crucifixion just to teach us morality.
He suffered on our behalf to save us from our sins and bring us eternal life. See Isiah 53.
Perhaps you could discuss this matter with Gonnagle. Could be an interesting exchange.
You do not see the big picture.
We do not use religious faith in order to perceive and follow moral teachings. That is not the main objective.
Jesus did not suffer torture and crucifixion just to teach us morality.
He suffered on our behalf to save us from our sins and bring us eternal life.
See Isiah 53.
You do not see the big picture.
We do not use religious faith in order to perceive and follow moral teachings. That is not the main objective.
Jesus did not suffer torture and crucifixion just to teach us morality.
He suffered on our behalf to save us from our sins and bring us eternal life. See Isiah 53.
AB,
A blind faith claim isn’t “the" big picture – it's just your big picture (apparently).
That wasn’t the question though. I was asking Gonners whether it was important to him to think the (supposed) author of the ideas he “follows” was also divine. I think the answer may be “no”, but I’m not sure about that.
Gonners?
Ok.
That is the blind faith claim, yes.
Why?
PS: Jesus was real person, a historical figure, how do I know, Albert Einstein told me ;)
Which makes Christianity utterly absurd and the Christian God an unjust, bloodthirsty, vindictive monster.But since Christ was/is God, he was just torturing himself. His logic for doing this, and indeed insisting that humans must accept that this is the way to restore 'oneness' with Himself - this has always baffled me. Can't think why.
It's mad. God has decided that we all need punishing for being the way it made us, but we can get let off because it cosplayed a human and got itself tortured to a temporary three-day death, but only if we believe this insanity. A clearly unjust fake substitute blood sacrifice for the 'crime' of being human, and one that only applies to the overly credulous.
Yet people take it seriously! You gotta laugh.
I like the other religion bit, but I much prefer the last description.
But since Christ was/is God, he was just torturing himself. His logic for doing this, and indeed insisting that humans must accept that this is the way to restore 'oneness' with Himself - this has always baffled me. Can't think why.Not sure which is worse Stranger's victim blaming "Got itself tortured" or yours "tortured himself".
Maybe a physicist isn't the best person to consult about this sort of thing. A historian might be a better idea...
I'm not a historian my a long way, but I believe there is a consensus that the Jesus of the gospels was based on a real person, though they were written well after his death and can't be taken as....err......gospel. :D
Mornin' Gonners,
OK, so is it fair to say that the teachings of Jesus would be just as important to you if he was just mortal? Indeed, presumably too then they'd be just as important to you if they'd been misattributed and Jesus didn't author them at all? That puts you a long way from the AB type of Christian I think, but OK.
Maybe a physicist isn't the best person to consult about this sort of thing. A historian might be a better idea...Among the many 'messiahs' mentioned by Josephus, there were probably quite a few called Yeshua, and maybe many of the sayings attributed to one of these was the one we know as 'Jesus'.
I'm not a historian my a long way, but I believe there is a consensus that the Jesus of the gospels was based on a real person, though they were written well after his death and can't be taken as....err......gospel. :D
Not sure which is worse Stranger's victim blaming "Got itself tortured" ot yours "tortured himself".
Why is it you seem to be actually exonerating torture and torturers?
Not sure which is worse Stranger's victim blaming "Got itself tortured" ot yours "tortured himself".I'm not exonerating anything or anyone. I'm simply adding my bit to point out the mind-boggling, fatuous, meaningless, pointless absurdity of it all.
Why is it you seem to be actually exonerating torture and torturers?
Dear Blue,
Sorry, yes good Morning, as for your post👍👍👍
I'm not exonerating anything or anyone. I'm simply adding my bit to point out the mind-boggling, fatuous, meaningless, pointless absurdity of it all.It's not absurd, If I am not able to put the wrong I have done right the alienated party has to take what I've dished out on themselves. For me to find his forgiveness offensive is churlish and ridiculous but moreover"On me".
Vlad,I don't think so since the gospel would talk about the kind of possession we tend to find in Star Trek, Where as several figures act or don't act through weakness, out of spite, political motivation.
Surely it's your faith that "exonerates" torture and torturers isn't it? After all, didn't your god engineer the whole (supposed) episode?
Not sure which is worse Stranger's victim blaming "Got itself tortured" or yours "tortured himself".
Why is it you seem to be actually exonerating torture and torturers?
Hi Gonners,Horses laugh?
OK - thanks for clarifying. That makes a lot more sense to me than AB's "Jesus wants me for a sunbeam" assertions.
It's not absurd, If I am not able to put the wrong I have done right the alienated party has to take what I've dished out on themselves.
I don't think so since the gospel would talk about the kind of possession we tend to find in Star Trek, Where as several figures act or don't act through weakness, out of spite, political motivation.
I think it was more like a sacrificial operation with no chance of survival,
The pointless twisted self-torturing and fake death is not taking it on itself, and God's absurd and unjust rules that made the mess in the first place. It's insanity.Sorry, You either condemn or take what is wrongly dished out to you and forgive and there is more we need to know. We may think we are harming those we wrong but we are harming ourselves. And that is what Jesus took on.
Vlad,
Did this mean something in your head when you typed it?
According to your religion, your god engineered a torturer/tortured scenario. As this supposed god is also supposedly a god of the omnis too, that's exoneration.
Sorry, You either condemn or take what is wrongly dished out to you and forgive and there is more we need to know. We may think we are harming those we wrong but we are harming ourselves. And that is what Jesus took on.
Sorry, You either condemn or take what is wrongly dished out to you and forgive and there is more we need to know. We may think we are harming those we wrong but we are harming ourselves. And that is what Jesus took on.
Jesus self harmed? We don't normally think of that as healthy.No We self harmed, Jeremy, we think doing wrong and getting away with it is advantages but as the book tells us the wages of sin is death of ourselves, we harm our selves. Only Jesus can take that from us. He doesn't die because of his own wrongdoing.
Sorry, You either condemn or take what is wrongly dished out to you and forgive and there is more we need to know. We may think we are harming those we wrong but we are harming ourselves. And that is what Jesus took on.
...we think doing wrong and getting away with it is advantages...
...but as the book tells us the wages of sin is death of ourselves, we harm our selves. Only Jesus can take that from us. He doesn't die because of his own wrongdoing.
Speak for yourself.But it is Jesus who is both God and Man who bears it on behalf of others. Any bloodlust at the crucifixion was from other people but it is the sins of the world he takes on.
Which is still an insane system that could only have been made by an unjust, vindictive, bloodthirsty God, for the reasons already explained.
No We self harmed,Speak for yourself. I haven't self harmed.
we think doing wrong and getting away with it is advantagesIt frequently does have advantages. I'm sure we can all tink of instances where people have done wrong but got away with it. These people,e do harm, but not necessarily self harm.
but as the book tells us the wages of sin is death of ourselvesWe all die. This is like telling an animal that has no legs it will have to slither around on its belly for ever more.
, we harm our selves. Only Jesus can take that from us. He doesn't die because of his own wrongdoing.
But it is Jesus who is both God and Man who bears it on behalf of others. Any bloodlust at the crucifixion was from other people but it is the sins of the world he takes on.
But it is Jesus who is both God and Man who bears it on behalf of others. Any bloodlust at the crucifixion was from other people but it is the sins of the world he takes on.
Vlad,I think you misunderstand. Jesus didn't just pay for the sins of those involved in the crucifixion he pays for the sins of the world, and it's not just a parking ticket, it's what corrodes and eventually destroys us. Can you explain not just being ungrateful but resentful with it, not just to me but to yourself?
If I was told that, unasked, someone had paid a parking fine my great-grandad had supposedly incurred, and that in return I should engage in organised grovelling to this person with the promise of unverifiable claims of rewards in a supposed afterlife thrown in to sweeten the deal I’d tell them to fuck off.
Wouldn’t you?
Repeating the idiotic 'justification' will not make it make any sense. And those people at the crucifixion were carrying out God's plan.It's funny, they seem to be acting out of self interest.
I think you misunderstand. Jesus didn't just pay for the sins of those involved in the crucifixion he pays for the sins of the world, and it's not just a parking ticket, it's what corrodes and eventually destroys us. I don't understand not just being ungrateful but resentful with it.
The way is now open to God if that is what we choose.
I think you misunderstand.
Jesus didn't just pay for the sins of those involved in the crucifixion he pays for the sins of the world, and it's not just a parking ticket, it's what corrodes and eventually destroys us.
I think you misunderstand.A lot of assertions in there, care to justify?
Again, repeating the same old insane non-justification is not magically going to make it make sense. It's twisted, perverse, and devoid of anything remotely like justice or goodness.
A lot of assertions in there, care to justify?
It's funny, they seem to be acting out of self interest.
I think it was Socrates years before in another country who suggested that a perfect human being were they to appear would be set upon and killed as a dead certainty.
One of Socrates' sillier statements. No one has any idea what a 'perfect human being' is, for a start. And people are daily being set upon and killed for all kinds of reasons, very often when they are completely innocent victims of other people's murderously deluded behaviour.The perfect human being is all human beings put together, it is a collective, it is all of us together that make perfection.
How would anyone recognise a 'perfect human being'? I suppose you wish to attribute such characteristics to Jesus, but if we are to believe the gospel testimony in certain verses (e.g. the walk to Emmaus in Luke) Jesus is referred to as no more than 'a great prophet', and most likely not thought to be 'perfect', Doubting Thomas from dubious John's testimony notwithstanding.
Which makes Christianity utterly absurd and the Christian God an unjust, bloodthirsty, vindictive monster.But Stranger, this isn't what Christianity says since it misses out the foundational story of Genesis where mankind is made in Harmony and the likeness of God and maintains for a while a relationship with God and others. There was no programme for Mankind for wrong doing. Wrong doing is not a physically determined thing, heck, physics has no position on right or wrong. Christianity says that that choice to do wrong became part of humanity's heritage"
It's mad. God has decided that we all need punishing for being the way it made us,
but we can get let off because it cosplayed a humanAgain, that's your own take
and got itself torturedVictim blaming and also Jesus could have easily Courted a quicker death at those times
to a temporary three-day death,In a sense all human deaths will be temporary since we will be raised to judgment
but only if we believe this insanity. A clearly unjust fake substitute blood sacrificeAs mentioned before JESUS was put to death by human authorities in an unjust way. But he also bore the sins of the world and good, unintended by those authorities came out of that act which is God's plan for a fallen humanity, but He will not force that on us.
for the 'crime' of being human,Wrong doing was a human innovation. Because of Christ the way back to God is open.
The perfect human being is all human beings put together, it is a collective, it is all of us together that make perfection.Perhaps that why we have a tendency to set upon and kill each other?
Socrates
But Stranger, this isn't what Christianity says since it misses out the foundational story of Genesis where mankind is made in Harmony and the likeness of God and maintains for a while a relationship with God and others. There was no programme for Mankind for wrong doing. Wrong doing is not a physically determined thing, heck, physics has no position on right or wrong. Christianity says that that choice to do wrong became part of humanity's heritage"
Again, that's your own take
Victim blaming and also Jesus could have easily Courted a quicker death at those times
In a sense all human deaths will be temporary since we will be raised to judgment
As mentioned before JESUS was put to death by human authorities in an unjust way. But he also bore the sins of the world and good, unintended by those authorities came out of that act which is God's plan for a fallen humanity, but He will not force that on us.
Wrong doing was a human innovation. Because of Christ the way back to God is open.
Speak for yourself. I haven't self harmed.Have you seen the quality of your posts lately?
But Stranger, this isn't what Christianity says since it misses out the foundational story of Genesis where mankind is made in Harmony and the likeness of God and maintains for a while a relationship with God and others. There was no programme for Mankind for wrong doing. Wrong doing is not a physically determined thing, heck, physics has no position on right or wrong. Christianity says that that choice to do wrong became part of humanity's heritage"
Victim blaming and also Jesus could have easily Courted a quicker death at those times
As mentioned before JESUS was put to death by human authorities in an unjust way. But he also bore the sins of the world and good, unintended by those authorities came out of that act which is God's plan for a fallen humanity...
Wrong doing was a human innovation.
Have you seen the quality of your posts lately?It's clearly pretty high given that you can do nothing in response except write petty insults.
Dear Stranger,
Not in your story book, it isn't. Who put the tree in the garden and made the rule not to eat it?
Its a Myth, Ekim will be along in a minute to explain, better still read Karen Armstrong's "A brief history of myth".
Sometimes old chap you are more fundier than the fundies.
Its a Myth, Ekim will be along in a minute to explain, better still read Karen Armstrong's "A brief history of myth".
Sometimes old chap you are more fundier than the fundies.
I know it's a myth. Jeez. ::)
I've been putting "or whatever you think it represents" in most of my posts but you found one I didn't. Vlad appeared to be taking 'original sin' seriously, so presumably he thinks the myth represents something.
Whether or not you believe in 'original sin' the whole 'Jesus died for our sins' madness indicates an unjust God that condemns us for being how it made us.
Dear Stranger,Dear Gonners
Not in your story book, it isn't. Who put the tree in the garden and made the rule not to eat it?
Its a Myth, Ekim will be along in a minute to explain, better still read Karen Armstrong's "A brief history of myth".
Sometimes old chap you are more fundier than the fundies.
Gonnagle.
Dear Stranger,
My apologies, original sin, St Augustine, nope, carry on beating old Vlad over the head, last time I heard about that was someone suggesting babies are born sinful, never liked that, and I never heard Jesus mention it.
Gonnagle.
PS: Don't blaspheme, baby Jesus does not like it✝️
Well, at last you've put your cards on the table, Gonners. It is nice to be straight with people.Has Gonzo ever not been straight with people,
Has Gonzo ever not been straight with people,He was beating about the bush on the question of Original Sin and the vicarious atonement and deflecting direct questions from Stranger, and indeed from myself
He was beating about the bush on the question of Original Sin and the vicarious atonement and deflecting direct questions from Stranger, and indeed from myselfDon't read it like that, i think he has a differerent approach to writing
Dear Gonners
Karen Armstrong does have some interesting things to say about the difference between Mythos and Logos, and implies that the ancients knew full well how to distinguish between them. I'm not so sure. Maybe they took Genesis 2 as pure myth, and were encouraged to do so by their priests (interestingly there is no further mention of Genesis 2 in the whole OT, apart from a genealogy or two).
But what about Genesis 1? This is shakier ground. We know that the identified author (known as the Priestly Author) was obsessed with accurate time details from his other writings. This would indicate he believed creation occurred within 6 literal days. Well, no doubt we can take that as myth, from a modern point of view, and since this story makes no mention of Original Sin, maybe we can ignore chapter 2.
However, Vlad and Alan like to weave in and out of myth and literal as the mood takes them, in order to shore up a faith position which they have previously based their lives on. Suffering and evil require a good deal of explaining, but I'm afraid the biblical (especially Pauline) myths don't cut the mustard for me.
Your mention of compatibilism suggests that you're making the same mistake that our Alan so frequently makes, in thinking determinism means fatalism and it's therefore pointless to try to persuade or argue a point. Obviously this is not the case because everything we experience changes us to some degree, so it's perfectly possible to persuade and be persuaded. Every word either of us posts will affect everybody who reads them in some way and to some degree.Well,yes because I see the obvious conclusion that free will doesn't exist as uninteresting because on a daily basis because we act as if it does, whereas you desperatly need to deny that, rather like AB, using an argumentum ad consequentiam that fatalism which I don't argue for is wrong, because that's the caricature you need to make.
Critical thinking is a learnable skill that people can choose or reject. Even just learning that it's better to challenge what you believe rather than just look for confirmation all the time, is useful.
Obviously you don't actually believe that it's pointless to argue a point of view and that people can't change because "all your beliefs are not chosen", otherwise you would never post a point of view at all, let alone have these sorts of argument. And you criticise my ability to be logically consistent... ::)
I can see why Gonnagle may think that way but that doesn't make it an accurate way of thinking.It's his way of thinking. He's telling you that. Why is your way of thinking accurate, and his not? You both seem to be exprssing subjective ideas
Dear Dicky,Don't understand that at all. First you say it is not a point of distinguishing, then you say that they are two totally different ways of thinking.
As I read it it is not a point of distinguishing, logos is 2+2=4, Mythos is 🎶 whats it all about alfie 🎵 two totally different ways of thinking, as in old Achilles or Samson, what is your Achilles heal Dicky, Mythos and Logos, two totally different ways of teaching.
Gonnagle.
Dear Stranger,St Augustine's theory of Original sin, differs from that of many of his Eastern peers, but that aside there is a secular version of it including "Society is to blame","We are all flawed individuals" " only human etc" plus an acknowledgement of the problems bequeathed to us from previous generations due to morally bad choices.
My apologies, original sin, St Augustine, nope, carry on beating old Vlad over the head, last time I heard about that was someone suggesting babies are born sinful, never liked that, and I never heard Jesus mention it.
Gonnagle.
PS: Don't blaspheme, baby Jesus does not like it✝️
St Augustine's theory of Original sin, differs from that of many of his Eastern peers, but that aside there is a secular version of it including "Society is to blame","We are all flawed individuals" " only human etc" plus an acknowledgement of the problems bequeathed to us from previous generations due to morally bad choices.
But if those troubles are rooted in history, then the buck has to stop somewhere in a much reduced historical population.
It's his way of thinking. He's telling you that. Why is your way of thinking accurate, and his not? You both seem to be exprssing subjective ideas
Is not 'people can do bad things' a totally different thing though from the Christian notion that at the point of our birth we are already 'sinful'?And as I've pointed out some of the Eastern early church fathers would have been with you on that. Not all Christians go to the ends that St Augustine reached.
My youngest grandchild is only 3 months old, and seems bizarre to consider that wee Kirsty is, in any sense, already a 'sinner'.
Don't understand that at all. First you say it is not a point of distinguishing, then you say that they are two totally different ways of thinking.
I'm saying it's not always possible to be sure which way the ancients intended a text to be read. We can of course read all sorts of things into an ancient text, and we may be right or completely wrong to do so.
For example, when Paul wrote "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive", most modern non-fundamentalists would interpret 'Adam' as meaning the typical flawed human animal who had not seen the possibility of a more deeply fulfilled life which Christ's life had made possible. It's just as likely that Paul believed in a literal original Adam, who sinned and caused all subsequent generations to sin. And "who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Why Jesus of course...
Or maybe not.
I'm really not sure what it is you think I am saying, so will summarise again (It isn't deep or complicated). Basically Gonnagle said 'I know a couple of Atheists who sometimes show me that they have more Christianity in their little finger than I do in my whole body'
My point was that atheists cannot do that as being A Christian means you believe in God/Jesus etc and atheists don't. They may show behaviours Gonnagle associates with Christians but since such behaviours are not limited to Christians then it is inaccurate to descibe atheists in the way Gonnagle did - they don't have Christianity but may have compassion, empathy etc etc.
And as I've pointed out some of the Eastern early church fathers would have been with you on that. Not all Christians go to the ends that St Augustine reached.
However there are moral decisions and moral environments that have been handed down to us and we in turn hand our own contribution on. A contribution we tend to look at through Rose tinted spectacles.
Dear Maeght,
Jeez Louise ( don't blaspheme Gonnagle, weeelll!! ) okay they were better men than me, will that do, I simply say Christian because I happen to be one, fuck me, fuck me side ways, my cue for a shower and shave, I have the real world to deal with :o
Gonnagle.
Well,yes because I see the obvious conclusion that free will doesn't exist as uninteresting because on a daily basis because we act as if it does...
...whereas you desperatly need to deny that, rather like AB, using an argumentum ad consequentiam that fatalism which I don't argue for is wrong, because that's the caricature you need to make.
We may have to clear up the mess our predecessors left behind, and even if their actions could later be described as 'sinful' (in Christian terms), we may have inherited the mess they left behind but we don't inherit their 'sin' at the point of our birth.And yert atheists and Humanists have often an extremely simplistic take on the matter usually ending in trite and unexamined platitudes like 'people do bad things' and 'We can be good without God" stuff with not much thought but a lot of rose tinted thinking.
It seems incredibly contrived: we are born 'sinful' so by default we need a 'saviour' and hey presto Jesus pops up - it's nonsense on stilts of course.
I agree. The argument with Alan is because he needs to believe the impossible type of 'free will' because he thinks it demonstrates that his God exists and he needs free will to make sense with respect to an omniscient and omnipotent creator.Yes, and your self regard is getting in the way of your thinking, else you wouldn't have come up with the nonsense about fatalism
What are you on about and have you even been paying attention to what has been said?
Yes, and your self regard is getting in the way of your thinking, else you wouldn't have come up with the nonsense about fatalism
You seem to have forgotten what you were arguing about. You were criticising me for the heinous crime of suggesting people could have their minds changed, because we don't choose our beliefs.Well yiu are fairly adept at insults yourself jysr add hypocrite to the list.
Why not just post a stream of insults, get it all off your chest....?
Jeez Louise ( don't blaspheme Gonnagle, weeelll!! ) okay they were better men than me, will that do, I simply say Christian because I happen to be one, fuck me, fuck me side ways, my cue for a shower and shave, I have the real world to deal with :o
And yert atheists and Humanists have often an extremely simplistic take on the matter usually ending in trite and unexamined platitudes like 'people do bad things' and 'We can be good without God" stuff with not much thought but a lot of rose tinted thinking.
The atheist rejoinder that we must face the purposeless bleakness of the universe doesn't it seems, stretch to the bleak darkness of the moral universe.
In other words it's not that Jesus is too optimistic a notion it's that the Atheist and humanist take on wrong doing isn't nearly dark or comprehensive enough.
I'm really not sure what it is you think I am saying, so will summarise again (It isn't deep or complicated). Basically Gonnagle said 'I know a couple of Atheists who sometimes show me that they have more Christianity in their little finger than I do in my whole body'You are using your definition of what amounts to a Christian, he is using his. They are both just opinions.
My point was that atheists cannot do that as being A Christian means you believe in God/Jesus etc and atheists don't. They may show behaviours Gonnagle associates with Christians but since such behaviours are not limited to Christians then it is inaccurate to descibe atheists in the way Gonnagle did - they don't have Christianity but may have compassion, empathy etc etc.
Gonners,Surely though there is no absolute defibition of Chritian, and therefore both Gonzo and Maeght aee exoressing their opinion.
Possibly the confusion here is your use of "Christian" (upper case, proper noun) rather than "christian" (lower case, adjective). The former implies a subscriber to the faith; the latter implies behaviours that some people – eg, (upper case) Christians – think to be desirable.
As ti peopke havung their minds changed, of course, I think people's minds change, your lack of thinking has lead you to a lot of straw.
You do appear to have developed a tendency to just have a rant for the sake of it, every so often. ::)Your smugness is overwhelming, and your inability to carry out consistent logical thinking is underlined by your post. All your beliefs are not chosen. You are creating the idea that there is a real choice in the above which goes beyond the 'word jugglery' of compatibilism.
Critical thinking is a skill that people can learn. Nobody's perfect at it but you can try to have an attitude of questioning what you believe and the reasons you do so, as well as taking note of any new information and how it might change your reasoning. Perhaps you should try it? :)
Your smugness is overwhelming, and your inability to carry out consistent logical thinking is underlined by your post. All your beliefs are not chosen. You are creating the idea that there is a real choice in the above which goes beyond the 'word jugglery' of compatibilism.Saying that people don't chose their beliefs doesn't mean that those beliefs can't change
(https://i.imgur.com/htw8DF1.gif)
And yert atheists and Humanists have often an extremely simplistic take on the matter usually ending in trite and unexamined platitudes like 'people do bad things' and 'We can be good without God" stuff with not much thought but a lot of rose tinted thinking.
The atheist rejoinder that we must face the purposeless bleakness of the universe doesn't it seems, stretch to the bleak darkness of the moral universe.
In other words it's not that Jesus is too optimistic a notion it's that the Atheist and humanist take on wrong doing isn't nearly dark or comprehensive enough.
Surely though there is no absolute defibition of Chritian, and therefore both Gonzo and Maeght aee exoressing their opinion.
Sassy doesn't believe thet Jesus was the son of god, for example. Does that make her a Christian or not? I think we take self definition as an easier approach and ask people what they mean by it.
NS,If it's self deginung and Gonzo decides he doesn't see the need to believe as part pf it. It's just a matter of opinion .
Yes of course, but that doesn't take away from the point. An (upper case) Christian may be anywhere on the spectrum of degrees of belief but is still on that spectrum; (lower case) christian behaviour on the other may just be helping little old ladies across the road while while simultaneously rejecting everything about the Christian faith.
If it's self deginung and Gonzo decides he doesn't see the need to believe as part pf it. It's just a matter of opinion .
Saying that people don't chose their beliefs doesn't mean that those beliefs can't change
NS,But he already has answered, quite fully.
But my point was simply that Gonners' use of (upper case) "Christian" set hares running that likely would have stayed in their hutches (do hares have hutches?) had he used (lower case) "christian" instead. Not meant to be a big deal, and doubtless he'll answer for himself if he's so minded.
Indeed, but then why respond as you did to my post pointing out that critical thinking was a skill people can learn?You can't really be this dumb? Wanting to learn critical thinking is a belief. You didn't chose that and yet here you are desperately patting yourself on the back for just being you.
What was I to make of "All your beliefs are not chosen. You are creating the idea that there is a real choice in the above which goes beyond the 'word jugglery' of compatibilism.", if not that you thought suggesting that people could learn critical thinking was pointless because people's beliefs are not chosen, so cannot be changed to study something which might change their other beliefs.
What were you trying to say?
But he already has answered, quite fully.
NS,He's covered fully what he means by it. You are merely putting an alternative opionion. I don't see hiw that's relevant to what he thinks amounts to someone being C/christian
Not the point I was making he hasn't. I know this because I only just made it.
He's covered fully what he means by it. You are merely putting an alternative opionion. I don't see hiw that's relevant to what he thinks amounts to someone being C/christian
NS,The simoke pount woukd only maje sebse if yiu suggest that Gonzo's opunion is somehiw wring. From the first point he made on this, it's clear that he doesn't make the distinction that others like Maeght are making. He's tgerfore not being inaccurate. .
I merely suggested that the use of "Christian" instead of "christian" in an earlier post had likely led to questions and challenges that would not otherwise have arisen. It's a simple point, and not a particularly profound one either. You seem to be in full "pick a fight in an empty room" mode this morning – why not instead let Gonners himself tell us whether he thinks he covered it already?
I doubt many of us on the atheist side of the fence are relaxed on the subject of how bleak 'bad things' can be: after all, there is no shortage of current or historical examples.Many atheist don't view this as their concern but that of religion. If we were only all atheist I think the thinking goes.
I don't see how you can be guilty of someone else's sin.
Anyway, do you subscribe to the Christian doctrine that implies that babies are born in a 'sinful' state?
The simoke pount woukd only maje sebse if yiu suggest that Gonzo's opunion is somehiw wring. From the first point he made on this, it's clear that he doesn't make the distinction that others like Maeght are making. He's tgerfore not being inaccurate. .
I don't see how you can be guilty of someone else's sin.
You can't really be this dumb? Wanting to learn critical thinking is a belief.
You didn't chose that and yet here you are desperately patting yourself on the back for just being you.
As already covered, that free will makes no sense isn't at all imporatant, abd when you make it so as you are doung it means your self congratulation is contradictory in that light.
Many atheist don't view this as their concern but that of religion. If we were only all atheist I think the thinking goes.
I don't see how you can be guilty of someone else's sin.
That prime sin though has undoubtedly left a legacy even atheists subscribe to. Whatever the taint it gets to us all like the common cold.
You can of course be guilty of the same sin as someone else.
More of a desire, really. The belief is that it will help you to think more rationally. You have just acknowledged that beliefs can change.Sunce you don't choose youd desires, thar's an irrelevant distintion. And sincw I have always accepted tgsr beliefs can change you are reusing your straw man. Given that's 2 mistakes in your first 2 sentences, it really is tedious. Compatibilusm os just an attept to make you feel good.
I wasn't patting myself on the back at all, and I did choose to study it in response to the aforementioned belief. A deterministic choice is still a choice, or are you going to deny that too, like Alan so often does?
The purpose of my post was the hope that what I said might at least nudge people towards a change by pointing out that it was an option, and I as explained before, things people read change the people who read them. As you have said, acting as if free will was real is what people do. That actually makes sense because people are changed by what is said to them.
Have you really not been following at all? I agree that the impossibility of free will is not important for ordinary day-to-day life and for how we conduct discussions. It is important to Alan's position, which is why there has been so much discussion about it.
Anyway, this is getting tedious. You don't seem to be following what's being said or are determined to 'misunderstand' it.
NS,I've explained why I don't think he has anything to answer, because it's already covered
Are you using a Chinese keyboard or something?
Anyway, as we still seem to be at cross-purposes here let's do as I suggested and let Gonners answer for himself shall we?
You are using your definition of what amounts to a Christian, he is using his. They are both just opinions.
Christians believe in God/Jesus don't they? Atheists don't do they?By your definition, not Gonzo's
By your definition, not Gonzo's
Sunce you don't choose youd desires, thar's an irrelevant distintion. And sincw I have always accepted tgsr beliefs can change you are reusing your straw man. Given that's 2 mistakes in your first 2 sentences, it really is tedious. Compatibilusm os just an attept to make you feel good.
By your definition, not Gonzo's
Gonners,
Possibly the confusion here is your use of "Christian" (upper case, proper noun) rather than "christian" (lower case, adjective). The former implies a subscriber to the faith; the latter implies behaviours that some people – eg, (upper case) Christians – think to be desirable.
Is not 'people can do bad things' a totally different thing though from the Christian notion that at the point of our birth we are already 'sinful'?....... and it seems to conflict with the Jesus quote in Luke 18:17
My youngest grandchild is only 3 months old, and seems bizarre to consider that wee Kirsty is, in any sense, already a 'sinner'.
....... and it seems to conflict with the Jesus quote in Luke 18:17
"Whoever should not be receiving the kingdom of God as a little child, may under no circumstances be entering into it."
Hi ekim,
Well, that's the "born again" folks screwed I guess...
I guess my goose is cooked too - no religion at all for me as a child: I'm not even baptised/christened (unusual for a child born in 1952) - not that I'm bothered.
Dear Gordon,
Oh no!! The fires of damnation await you :o well unless you buy the first round then fires of damnation can be negotiated ;)
Gonnagle.
We want evidence of God, not evidence that lots of people believe in lots of totally different things that they call 'God'. That's one step worse than an ad populum fallacy. ::)Not sure I understand what you mean by 'evidence' that would make you a theist.
It's fascinating what posts you decide to address directly, what you avoid and how you choose to 'answer'. It looks like you have a belief that literally nothing can touch. If no contrary evidence could possibly change your mind, then your belief is irrational. Give me evidence of a God and I'll become a theist. What would change your mind?
Not sure I understand what you mean by 'evidence' that would make you a theist.
I always thought that being a theist is a faith position - so not based on objective evidence but based on subjective introspection e.g. you hear / read something that could be classified by society as 'of religion' or 'spiritual' - and you react to those abstract ideas, thoughts or concepts - e.g. they might resonate with values that you have an emotional and intellectual attachment to. And part of being a theist is that you attach value to faith.
If you have a reaction that includes exploring these abstract concepts further both philosophically and emotionally - you might find yourself attracted to or landing on a particular position for a while.
For example, I started reading bits of the Quran as an atheist to find holes and absurdities in it - I found value in being an atheist because the religious ideas I had been exposed to sounded so absurd to me. I was sure of my ability to find stuff to ridicule in the Quran. I went straight to the verses about women, as that seemed an obvious place to find ideas I would disagree with, but I surprised myself by not disagreeing with what I read. I ended up becoming a Muslim - which is a faith position. Of course, I could still find stuff to ridicule in the Quran if I read it literally, but if I don't take it literally I find a lot that triggers introspection that I value, and apparently I also value faith.
I must have found something that must be giving me some kind of add-value or must be meeting some kind of human need, otherwise I would not seek out or repeat the experience. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-control/201808/why-do-we-do-things-we-dont-want-to-do?msockid=37424fc5d3706b4a14025ab3d2bb6a0a
Are you suggesting that critical thinking could remove the desire for the add-value that someone experiences from faith? How do you think that works? Surely that would only work if a person perceives the results of critical thinking to be of more personal value to them than the personal value they derive from the results of their faith position? What a person derives more value from isn't an objective position - it's aesthetics / personal taste.
So what would turn me back to being an atheist would be if there was a result I valued from being an atheist that appealed to me more than the value I get from being a theist.
I always thought that being a theist is a faith position - so not based on objective evidence but based on subjective introspection e.g. you hear / read something that could be classified by society as 'of religion' or 'spiritual' - and you react to those abstract ideas, thoughts or concepts - e.g. they might resonate with values that you have an emotional and intellectual attachment to. And part of being a theist is that you attach value to faith.
Are you suggesting that critical thinking could remove the desire for the add-value that someone experiences from faith?
There seems to be quite a lot of theists for which this is true, and that's all fine if it makes you happy. I can't imagine why they would want to do that, but each to their own. The only problem is if people think they have uncovered an objective truth by subjective means such as faith. Even that can be benign in most cases, just somewhat irrational (and nobody can be rational about everything). In other cases it can be dangerous because it can lead to prejudice or even violence.Universal realist? Universal physicalist or naturalist surely.
Of course there are a lot of theists (like Alan and Vlad) who think there is either objective evidence, sound reasoning, or both. I'm not sure about Gonnagle but he seemed to be implying that all the believers in the world were evidence, which was what I was talking about, but some of what he's said since makes me unsure what he really believes and whether he really thinks there's objective evidence.
Only if you think you've uncovered an objective truth and you care that your beliefs are as accurate as possible. In other words, if you aspire to be what Pinker calls a "universal realist", see the passage I quoted for you before >here< (https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg865245#msg865245).
Universal realist? Universal physicalist or naturalist surely.
(https://media.tenor.com/VFtxv4iH02kAAAAM/po-facepalm.gif)'The Enlightenment now revival was an attempt to revive a progress touted as natural yet had , according to Pinker, or was in danger of stalling.
'The Enlightenment now revival was an attempt to revive a progress touted as natural yet had , according to Pinker, or was in danger of stalling.
You need to add John Gray "Seven types of Atheism" to your Religionethics booklist.
I quoted one passage from one of his books in order to explain a particular point. Why the fuck are you going on about another book about something else, let alone some other book by somebody else? Do you have a relevant point to make?I was commenting on you using Pinker as some kind of authority and giving my take on yours and Pinkers category 'Universal realist'.
I was commenting on you using Pinker as some kind of authority and giving my take on yours and Pinkers category 'Universal realist'.
This strikes me as being mostly about finding cultural values that you align with. That doesn't speak to a justification that those cultural values must have a supernatural origin.I don't think there is any justification that any moral values have a supernatural origin - that's the bit that is faith.
I always thought that being a theist is a faith position
Not sure I understand what you mean by 'evidence' that would make you a theist.
I always thought that being a theist is a faith position - so not based on objective evidence but based on subjective introspection e.g. you hear / read something that could be classified by society as 'of religion' or 'spiritual' - and you react to those abstract ideas, thoughts or concepts - e.g. they might resonate with values that you have an emotional and intellectual attachment to. And part of being a theist is that you attach value to faith.
If you have a reaction that includes exploring these abstract concepts further both philosophically and emotionally - you might find yourself attracted to or landing on a particular position for a while.
For example, I started reading bits of the Quran as an atheist to find holes and absurdities in it - I found value in being an atheist because the religious ideas I had been exposed to sounded so absurd to me. I was sure of my ability to find stuff to ridicule in the Quran. I went straight to the verses about women, as that seemed an obvious place to find ideas I would disagree with, but I surprised myself by not disagreeing with what I read. I ended up becoming a Muslim - which is a faith position. Of course, I could still find stuff to ridicule in the Quran if I read it literally, but if I don't take it literally I find a lot that triggers introspection that I value, and apparently I also value faith.
I must have found something that must be giving me some kind of add-value or must be meeting some kind of human need, otherwise I would not seek out or repeat the experience. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-control/201808/why-do-we-do-things-we-dont-want-to-do?msockid=37424fc5d3706b4a14025ab3d2bb6a0a
Are you suggesting that critical thinking could remove the desire for the add-value that someone experiences from faith? How do you think that works? Surely that would only work if a person perceives the results of critical thinking to be of more personal value to them than the personal value they derive from the results of their faith position? What a person derives more value from isn't an objective position - it's aesthetics / personal taste.
So what would turn me back to being an atheist would be if there was a result I valued from being an atheist that appealed to me more than the value I get from being a theist.
There seems to be quite a lot of theists for which this is true, and that's all fine if it makes you happy. I can't imagine why they would want to do that, but each to their own. The only problem is if people think they have uncovered an objective truth by subjective means such as faith. Even that can be benign in most cases, just somewhat irrational (and nobody can be rational about everything). In other cases it can be dangerous because it can lead to prejudice or even violence.As they have not presented any objective evidence that justifies any supernatural entity or their particular version of a supernatural entity, it appears they don't have any objective evidence and are instead presenting their faith claims. From their posts that I have read, they appear to be presenting only a few possibilities they have chosen, out of millions of possibilities they could have chosen.
Of course there are a lot of theists (like Alan and Vlad) who think there is either objective evidence, sound reasoning, or both. I'm not sure about Gonnagle but he seemed to be implying that all the believers in the world were evidence, which was what I was talking about, but some of what he's said since makes me unsure what he really believes and whether he really thinks there's objective evidence.
Only if you think you've uncovered an objective truth and you care that your beliefs are as accurate as possible. In other words, if you aspire to be what Pinker calls a "universal realist", see the passage I quoted for you before >here< (https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10333.msg865245#msg865245).Yes - I remember - I disagree with Pinker's idea that these beliefs make no discernible difference to people's lives - from your quote of Pinker:
As they have not presented any objective evidence that justifies any supernatural entity or their particular version of a supernatural entity, it appears they don't have any objective evidence and are instead presenting their faith claims. From their posts that I have read, they appear to be presenting only a few possibilities they have chosen, out of millions of possibilities they could have chosen.And, of course, we are back at being unable to derive ought from is. 'Reason is a slave to the passions' - Hume
Alan has stated quite often that the possibilities that he has chosen, for which he has no objective evidence, are based on his strongly held faith.
Vlad has stated quite often that there are numerous ideas in science that we discuss as possibilities that do not conform to current mainstream consensus based on current knowledge, and 'supernatural' is just one more to add to the list of possibilities.
Yes - I remember - I disagree with Pinker's idea that these beliefs make no discernible difference to people's lives - from your quote of Pinker:
People have mostly accurate beliefs about this zone, and they reason rationally within it. Within this zone, they believe there’s a real world and that beliefs about it are true or false. They have no choice: that’s the only way to keep gas in the car, money in the bank, and the kids clothed and fed. Call it the reality mindset.
The other zone is the world beyond immediate experience: the distant past, the unknowable future, faraway peoples and places, remote corridors of power, the microscopic, the cosmic, the counterfactual, the metaphysical. People may entertain notions about what happens in these zones, but they have no way of finding out, and anyway it makes no discernible difference to their lives. Beliefs in these zones are narratives, which may be entertaining or inspiring or morally edifying. Whether they are literally “true” or “false” is the wrong question. The function of these beliefs is to construct a social reality that binds the tribe or sect and gives it a moral purpose.
I think beliefs make a huge difference to people's lives - e.g. humans are often violent, savage people - even if they are not actively engaged in violence themselves they will politically and economically support the violence of others. But in these battles it is not just the reality mindset that prevails - it might buy bullets and missiles and drones but battles against larger, better equipped armed forces have also been won based on faith and what faith can motivate humans to do or to endure - it's not just about gas and bullets and objective reality.
Therefore, I appear to have no desire to embrace Bertram's view that "We children of the Enlightenment embrace the radical creed of universal realism: we hold that all our beliefs should fall within the reality mindset."
I have no desire to handicap myself that way.
Gabriella,Why would that give me pause for thought? It's not exactly a surprise that different people derive different interpretations of ideas they come across based on their own individual nature/ nurture.
Which is fine for you if you find the bits that appeal to you to be helpful, though it might give you pause to note too that the head of the Taliban justifies the disgusting treatment of Afghani women with the different bits of the same book that appeal most to him.
If you ditch the religiosity and treat the Quran as epistemically equivalent to “How to Make Friends & Influence People” and the like though and that gives you subjective truths that you find helpful then it’s no-one’s business but your own. What’s more, you could still be an atheist and find that to be the case.My experience is it doesn't work without the faith. As I said in my reply to Stranger, I appear to have no desire to handicap myself by ditching the religiosity when my experience tells me I operate better if I include the religiosity.
The problem though comes when people rely on their faith(s) to elide their personal, subjective truths into generalised, objective truths for everyone else too: “God/Allah/whatever isn’t just a fact for me, it’s a fact for everyone too”; “God/Allah/whatever isn’t just inerrantly correct in his pronouncements for me, he’s inerrantly correct for everyone else too”; “this God’s/Allah’s/whatever’s thoughts and instructions are correctly recorded in book A/B/whatever, and so apply to you just as much as they apply to me” etc.As I have said before, that's true for when people try to turn any subjective moral values into objective truths for everyone else too, despite having no logical or evidential path to get them there. For example some non-religious people hold the moral belief that Hamas murdering approx. 1,200 armed and unarmed people, including women and children, on Oct 7th justifies the Israeli government murdering 50,000 people in revenge, the majority of whom are unarmed women and children. Other non-religious people don't hold that moral belief.
And the problem with that is that, despite having no logical or evidential path to get them there, people who think that way often act that way too.
Alan has stated quite often that the possibilities that he has chosen, for which he has no objective evidence, are based on his strongly held faith.
Vlad has stated quite often that there are numerous ideas in science that we discuss as possibilities that do not conform to current mainstream consensus based on current knowledge, and 'supernatural' is just one more to add to the list of possibilities.
Yes - I remember - I disagree with Pinker's idea that these beliefs make no discernible difference to people's lives - from your quote of Pinker:
People have mostly accurate beliefs about this zone, and they reason rationally within it. Within this zone, they believe there’s a real world and that beliefs about it are true or false. They have no choice: that’s the only way to keep gas in the car, money in the bank, and the kids clothed and fed. Call it the reality mindset.
The other zone is the world beyond immediate experience: the distant past, the unknowable future, faraway peoples and places, remote corridors of power, the microscopic, the cosmic, the counterfactual, the metaphysical. People may entertain notions about what happens in these zones, but they have no way of finding out, and anyway it makes no discernible difference to their lives. Beliefs in these zones are narratives, which may be entertaining or inspiring or morally edifying. Whether they are literally “true” or “false” is the wrong question. The function of these beliefs is to construct a social reality that binds the tribe or sect and gives it a moral purpose.
I think beliefs make a huge difference to people's lives - e.g. humans are often violent, savage people - even if they are not actively engaged in violence themselves they will politically and economically support the violence of others. But in these battles it is not just the reality mindset that prevails - it might buy bullets and missiles and drones but battles against larger, better equipped armed forces have also been won based on faith and what faith can motivate humans to do or to endure - it's not just about gas and bullets and objective reality.
Therefore, I appear to have no desire to embrace Bertram's view that "We children of the Enlightenment embrace the radical creed of universal realism: we hold that all our beliefs should fall within the reality mindset."
I have no desire to handicap myself that way.
I've always thought that, if more theists admitted this, all of these arguments would go away. It often surprises me that so many theists, instead of embracing their alleged faith position, try to argue the evidence.Firstly, What do you mean, trying to argue the evidence? What evidence?The evidence that somehow makes the universe evidently without God? What evidence is that?
Alan has frequently said that he has evidence, as well as 'sound logic'.I don't think he has ever claimed to have objective evidence, has he? I'm not about to look through all his posts, but if you have a link to a post where he has claimed objective evidence, happy to have a read and revise my opinion accordingly.
Vlad thinks he has logic on his side. Most recently he's been trying to use the argument from contingency.My understanding of Vlad's posts was that he has been presenting a possibility.
I think the point was really that these beliefs have no practical impact in the way the other zone does. There is no equivalent of starving to death if you don't believe you need to eat, or falling off a cliff if you believe you can fly. He does point out these beliefs do "construct a social reality" and bind tribes.Ok but humans are a lot more than organisms that eat and don't fall off cliffs. Beliefs and social realities are part of their human experience and what makes them human.
But I think you missed my point. If people recognise that they are using a mythology mindset, there is little problem, it's when people think that their faith positions are literally and objectively true that problems can arise. Let's face it religious differences have played a huge role in many wars and other violence, precisely because people really, literally believed they were doing some God's will. The same is true for discrimination and prejudice.Differences have played a huge role in many wars, even before religion came along - e.g. tribal differences, differences in access to resources, differences in physical appearances, differences in physical and mental power and capabilities based on nature and nurture, differences in access to weapons etc
I have no need for make-believe. (https://i.imgur.com/htw8DF1.gif)What do you classify morals as?
Firstly, What do you mean, trying to argue the evidence? What evidence?The evidence that somehow makes the universe evidently without God? What evidence is that?I'm not
Secondly Stranger has given the game away that you are all aspiring "Universal realists". OK but not so OK when accompanied by a blissful unawareness that your definition of reality is also a faith position.
Firstly, What do you mean, trying to argue the evidence? What evidence?The evidence that somehow makes the universe evidently without God? What evidence is that?
Secondly Stranger has given the game away that you are all aspiring "Universal realists". OK but not so OK when accompanied by a blissful unawareness that your definition of reality is also a faith position.
Evidence presented by theists for the existence of God surely.And what evidence is that?
And what evidence is that?
You've never seen evidence presented for God by Theists?I haven't. I've seen claims of evidence but with the lack of a coherent definition of god and no methodology for what any such evidence would be, they are "not even wrong".
Firstly, What do you mean, trying to argue the evidence? What evidence?
The evidence that somehow makes the universe evidently without God? What evidence is that?
Secondly Stranger has given the game away that you are all aspiring "Universal realists".
OK but not so OK when accompanied by a blissful unawareness that your definition of reality is also a faith position.
I haven't. I've seen claims of evidence but with the lack of a coherent definition of god and no methodology for what any such evidence would be, they are not even wrong.Could you provide an example?
Could you provide an example?Miracle claims. Anything based on misuses of methodological naturalistic concepts such as probability. We've covered this many times before.
Firstly, What do you mean, trying to argue the evidence?Are you seriously trying to claim that you don't understand the meaning of "argue the evidence"?
What evidence?That's exactly the point. We keep challenging theists to provide their evidence and they never provide it.
The evidence that somehow makes the universe evidently without God?No. You are the one supposed to be arguing that there is a god remember? I wouldn't expect you to present arguments against your position, although you have been known to do it (e.g. your claim that a necessary entity can't be a composite whilst asserting that your god is a composite).
I don't think he has ever claimed to have objective evidence, has he? I'm not about to look through all his posts, but if you have a link to a post where he has claimed objective evidence, happy to have a read and revise my opinion accordingly.
My understanding of Vlad's posts was that he has been presenting a possibility.
Regardless, I am not seeing a problem that is intrinsic to religion - Trump along with most other politicians claims lots of things in order to try to convince voters of a particular reality - that's just the nature of human communication, and people who are aware of that, when they hear claims from politicians, may respond differently to certain claims compared to people who get some kind of add-value in believing that particular claim a politician has just made.
Ok but humans are a lot more than organisms that eat and don't fall off cliffs. Beliefs and social realities are part of their human experience and what makes them human.
Differences have played a huge role in many wars, even before religion came along - e.g. tribal differences, differences in access to resources, differences in physical appearances, differences in physical and mental power and capabilities based on nature and nurture, differences in access to weapons etc
What do you classify morals as?
Why would that give me pause for thought? It's not exactly a surprise that different people derive different interpretations of ideas they come across based on their own individual nature/ nurture.
For example, Mark David Chapman (who murdered John Lennon) was obsessed with the book Catcher in the Rye and from it formed the idea of John Lennon being a phony, because he saw God as real. By killing Lennon, Chapman hoped to save children from emulating Lennon’s godless ways. Chapman saw Catcher in the Rye as his inspiration. What Chapman took from the book does not give me pause for thought just because I also enjoyed reading Catcher in the Rye and recommended it to my children.
My experience is it doesn't work without the faith. As I said in my reply to Stranger, I appear to have no desire to handicap myself by ditching the religiosity when my experience tells me I operate better if I include the religiosity.
As I have said before, that's true for when people try to turn any subjective moral values into objective truths for everyone else too, despite having no logical or evidential path to get them there. For example some non-religious people hold the moral belief that Hamas murdering approx. 1,200 armed and unarmed people, including women and children, on Oct 7th justifies the Israeli government murdering 50,000 people in revenge, the majority of whom are unarmed women and children. Other non-religious people don't hold that moral belief.
Singling out religious moral values as particularly problematic for you just seems to be based on your own personal tastes, not on any objective truth.
I haven't. I've seen claims of evidence but with the lack of a coherent definition of god and no methodology for what any such evidence would be, they are "not even wrong".Agree with your "lack of a coherent definition of God etc.". But The Argument from Intelligent Design is an attempt to provide "evidence" (along with the miraculous ability to find lost contact lenses).
Agree with your "lack of a coherent definition of God etc.". But The Argument from Intelligent Design is an attempt to provide "evidence" (along with the miraculous ability to find lost contact lenses).They might be attempts but without a clear definition and methodology, they are not classifiable as evidence. If intelligent design were proved tomorrow, it isn't in any sense evidence for a god. Arthur C Ckarje's sufficiently advanced species rather.
I'm not going to look through all his posts either, but his main argument is that free will and how people think in general, is impossible to explain physically and so people's posts are evidence of God-magic.Ok but anecdotes about prayers etc is not presenting objective evidence of how humans or the universe works. So all he's done is present his opinion of the cause of his experiences based on his faith, and many of you pointed out his arguments were from a position of incredulity.
I believe he's also claimed answered prayer as evidence, and I think I'm right in saying that he thinks evolution would be impossible without guidance.
As I said, Vlad has recently been using the argument from contingency which is a supposed deductive proof originally from Thomas Aquinas.
Not sure what this has to do with anything.I was just illustrating that people putting forward religious claims is no more irritating/ problematic than some of the claims politicians come out with. We cope as it's all part of the human social experience of communicating narratives.
Indeed. I still don't see a need to hold faith positions about gods and so on, though. On the other hand, if it helps some people and they realise it's faith or mythology, then that's fine.Depends what you mean by "need". Holding any position changes your perspective - holding faith is just one example of something that would influence your perspective in a particular direction e.g. if you are suffering through a difficult time faith and rituals can give you a purpose and a hope that makes it feel less difficult. If you find a benefit to things feeling less difficult than they would without faith, presumably you would embrace your faith.
I didn't claim that religion was the only cause, but people who believe literally that their God or gods exist and they are doing its/their will, have been responsible for a lot.I agree but how is it any different to people who believe their morals are truths that need to be imposed on others, or people who believe that their nations - whether that is Israel or Russia - have a right to exist and expand, or people who believe they have a right to colonise or create empires or carve up land into nation states and allocate them to their allies or people who believe their tribe has a right to freedom or to fight for self-determination? If people did not hold such beliefs, it would remove a lot of the source of conflicts in the world.
Complicated but a combination of empathy and rules that benefit societies. I can't really see a connection to believing that beings exist without evidence.Morals are a source of conflict - see above - that people believe in to the point they will go to war to uphold them.
Gabriella,We've discussed this so many times before and my answer has not changed.
Because you’re conflating “interpretation” with “plain meaning”. Chapman may well have interpreted CitR that way, but there’s nothing expressly in that book that justifies it. I claim no expertise in the Quran, but as I understand it there’s some repugnant stuff there as well as the bits you like. Here for example:
“And righteous women are devoutly obedient and, when alone, protective of what Allah has entrusted them with. And if you sense ill-conduct from your women, advise them ˹first˺, ˹if they persist,˺ do not share their beds, ˹but if they still persist,˺ then discipline them ˹gently˺.”
https://quran.com/an-nisa/34
WTF?
Do the bits of the Quran you cherry pick because you find them helpful or appealing stand alone on their merits, or do you have to embrace religious faith too for that to be the case?I can't remove my faith to know how useful the words would be on their merits so I can't answer that. My experience is that Faith - or any other emotional response- influences perspective and gives deeper meanings to the words on a page.
I’m not. What I’m “singling out” is the tendency of the faithful (of any stripe) to jump from subjective beliefs to objective truths, and to act accordingly. As for morality specifically, again you’re missing the point. If you think the Bible contains the inerrant moral teachings of God or the Quran contains the inerrant moral teachings of Allah then that’s the end of the matter. The (often contradictory by the way) rules are frozen as written, impervious to revision or dumping for all time no matter how barbaric the morality of the society at the time and place they were written. Secular morality on the other hand is at least open to argument, to criticism and to development as societies change over time. This isn’t to imply for one moment that morality can be objectively “true” (ie, your straw man), but it is to say that without the dead hand of religious certainty morality can at least be supported with argument, and reflective of the Zeitgeist of the society that has it etc.We've had this discussion about certainty - religious or otherwise - before - and my answer hasn't changed. I gather you don't have a problem with people who are not certain about their religious views. From previous discussions we've had, I gather you have a problem with non-religious people who express certainty about moral truths.
In other words, you may think you’d “handicap” yourself by, for example, not being amenable to being “disciplined” by men for your “ill-conduct”, but I don’t.That's your simplistic interpretation.
Ok but anecdotes about prayers etc is not presenting objective evidence of how humans or the universe works. So all he's done is present his opinion of the cause of his experiences based on his faith, and many of you pointed out his arguments were from a position of incredulity.
I also don't see that the necessary entity or argument from contingency proves the existence of the gods contained in theists' various faith beliefs - not sure if that is what Vlad is arguing either. I thought he was just using that to allow for the possibility of something not detectable by science.
Holding any position changes your perspective - holding faith is just one example of something that would influence your perspective in a particular direction e.g. if you are suffering through a difficult time faith and rituals can give you a purpose and a hope that makes it feel less difficult. If you find a benefit to things feeling less difficult than they would without faith, presumably you would embrace your faith.
I thought your issue was the conflict caused by people disagreeing with the beliefs of others? If someone believed a being exists but that person was not causing any conflict, presumably you would have little interest in their right to believe what they liked. So the issue is not the belief in a being that may or may not exist, but any conflict arising from such a belief - correct?
More generally, this forum is a tiny sample, and on other discussion and debate platforms it really isn't hard to find theists who absolutely think they have solid evidence or some irrefutable argument, and will say so directly and accuse you of being a blind fool for not accepting what they say. In fact, just in the last few minutes, I've been told elsewhere that I'm ignoring 'simple logic' that means there is obviously a creator.I'm not on any other forum but have come across those frustrating types.
I'll accept that that works for you and others, but I literally have no idea why holding a belief on faith alone, so pretty much guaranteed to be wrong, would help anybody with anything.It works for me because there is no way of establishing whether a belief in a spiritual purpose is right or wrong - so I don't conclude it's "pretty much guaranteed to be wrong".
People have the right to believe any nonsense they want. Nobody wants the 'thought police'. What I was saying is that a belief that somebody recognises as a personal faith position ("mythology mindset") seems bizarre to me but also harmless. The problems come when people are totally convinced of something that is almost certainly not true, and then act on it to the detriment of others. For that reason I think it sensible to discourage the latter type of belief.I can agree that the problem is when people act to the detriment of others.
We've discussed this so many times before and my answer has not changed.
So once again, not sure why you think your quote has a plain meaning, given the original is in Arabic, and you have quoted a translation that even a quick Wikipedia search would have told you has many differing interpretations based on the multiple meanings that root words in Arabic have and the grammar. E.g. endings of Arabic words signify who is being addressed, and the context and previous uses of the phrases and words in the Quran can be used to infer meanings in this context.
For example there is conflict over the meaning of "devoutly obedient" - as some scholars say the use of devout refers to obedience to Allah and is used in other parts of the Quran to require men and women to be obedient to Allah; but other Muslim scholars interpret it to mean wives should be obedient to their husbands. The interpretation selected by an individual would be influenced by the person's nature/ nurture - so I disagree that there is a plain meaning.
From your atheist perspective you interpret the words simplistically, but that's your subjective opinion, not an objective meaning. There are alternative interpretations.
https://www.islamandquran.org/fatwas/obedience-to-husband.html
Similarly, there is disagreement over what "ill-conduct" means e.g. is it ill-conduct in relation to Islam or specifically towards the husband; there is also disagreement about what "discipline them" means. (I assume you have no problem with marital disagreements ,discussions or a husband sleeping on the couch or leaving his wife because of irreconcilable differences so am not addressing the "advise them / don't share their bed" part).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34 The line immediately before the lines you quoted sets the context of the situation where a husband and wife disagree while a husband is acting as both protector and provider. It says "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means."
So some Muslims interpret the Arabic translated as 'discipline' to mean that in a marriage where a husband is the breadwinner and financially supports his wife, ;discipline' means a symbolic gesture of using a toothpick (miswak) to tap the wife, or some Muslims think it means separate from the wife etc etc.
Not surprisingly I think I'll stick with Islam and the Quran as Muslims seem to accommodate varying interpretations and discussions about this and many other verses. Similarly, I have not ditched British culture just because casual misogyny, objectifying women or hounding women who hold gender-critical beliefs is present in some parts of British culture.
I can't remove my faith to know how useful the words would be on their merits so I can't answer that. My experience is that Faith - or any other emotional response- influences perspective and gives deeper meanings to the words on a page.
Also see my reply to Stranger about how faith can help people cope during times of struggle.
We've had this discussion about certainty - religious or otherwise - before - and my answer hasn't changed. I gather you don't have a problem with people who are not certain about their religious views. From previous discussions we've had, I gather you have a problem with non-religious people who express certainty about moral truths.
That's your simplistic interpretation.
Gabriella,You used the words "plain meaning". In various dictionaries one of the meanings of "plain" is "simple". Your faith that philosophical ideas have a "plain meaning" is simplistic.
Doesn’t work. At some point people have to agree that words have shared meanings, or they mean nothing at all. If you want to “interpret” left as meaning right, up as meaning down, black as meaning white etc all you have left is confirmation bias. Thus you don’t find bits of the Quran inspiring at all - you just find inspiring the bits that you’ve decided mean what you want them to mean, in which case why bother with the source material at all?
It gets worse: introduce the pestilential virus of “faith” and any debate about meaning becomes impossible. Certain as you may be that the various “interpretations” you like the best are correct, doubtless the head of the Taliban is just as certain about the various interpretations of the same text that he likes best (as presumably will be the author of the site I linked to). What makes you so sure that you’re right and he’s wrong? How can you arbitrate when it’s all interpretation?
Now compare that with other fields of human endeavour where faith plays no part. Person A may say 2+2=5 and person B may say 2+2=4 for example. Person B though has the advantage reason and argument for support, so we can proceed on the basis that he’s right and person A is wrong. Can you see the difference?
It’s got nothing to do with an “atheist perspective”, and poisoning the well with pejorative language like “simplistically” doesn’t help you either.
So? See above.
Unless you subscribe to British culture because that’s your “faith” too, that’s a false analogy.
It also causes people to kill each other when they disagree about their different “interpretations” that suit them best. You say “deeper meaning”, I say “entrenched”. If your subjective experience is that you think your preferred meanings have become deeper because of your faith I can’t argue with that, but I can say that it’s as epistemically worthless for the rest of us as the head honcho of the Taliban saying the same thing.
No doubt others have said he same about their countless different faiths too. Again though, in the context of what is and isn’t true, so what?
No, I have a problem when people act on those certainties in ways that are unconscionable, and use “but that’s my faith” for justification – by flying ‘planes into office blocks for example.
The poisoning the well fallacy still isn’t helping you here. Besides by the way, what could be more simplistic than using “but that’s my faith” to close down any rational enquiry and investigation?
Presumably you have a problem with "unconscionable acts" that are justified by economic or strategic interests rather than religious faith - such as collective punishment of a civilian population and bombing and killing 50,000 people with the economic and military support of the US.
No, I have a problem when people act on those certainties in ways that are unconscionable, and use “but that’s my faith” for justification – by flying ‘planes into office blocks for example.
You used the words "plain meaning". In various dictionaries one of the meanings of "plain" is "simple". Your faith that philosophical ideas have a "plain meaning" is simplistic.
As for the rest of your claims in your post - we've argued this before and I did not accept your claims and assertions before for the reasons I gave you before, and I still do not accept your claims now for the same reasons.
I don't agree that people have to agree on the meaning of Arabic words conveying philosophical ideas about relationships. The evidence clearly shows they don't agree and that there are a range of interpretations and discussions about the meaning. If you don't want to accept that, I can't help you.
Presumably you have a problem with "unconscionable acts" that are justified by economic or strategic interests rather than religious faith - such as collective punishment of a civilian population and bombing and killing 50,000 people with the economic and military support of the US.
Your Twin Towers example doesn't work. There was no simplistic "but that's my faith" as you claim. As before you'll probably run away…
…rather than address the points in Bin Laden's letter stating his motivation for the attack on the Twin Towers was US military attacks in Muslim countries and US economic and military support for propping up Israel's economy and its colonial expansion in the illegally occupied territories, and US sanctions against Iraq that led to 1.5 million dead Iraqi children etc.
I suppose the obvious question is, when it comes to religious texts that are viewed differently as regards interpretation, why over the centuries someone hasn't developed a definitive set of interpretations in each case that followers can sign up to and not argue about.You can't test such stuff as you might science, and even in science knowledge is only provisional. We haven't got to any certainty on the meaning of Shakespeare's Sonnet 18, Shall I Compare Thee To A summer's Day and it's only 14 lines.
After all, if different interpretations have validity for some subsets of followers but are regarded as invalid by others subsets, that surely wholly undermines the general value of these texts.
I suppose the obvious question is, when it comes to religious texts that are viewed differently as regards interpretation, why over the centuries someone hasn't developed a definitive set of interpretations in each case that followers can sign up to and not argue about.Who would you suggest do that and what method would they use to get the rest of the population to agree with their 'definitive' interpretation?
After all, if different interpretations have validity for some subsets of followers but are regarded as invalid by others subsets, that surely wholly undermines the general value of these texts.Yes - similar to written constitutions and laws that we have and interpret and argue over and higher courts overturn decisions by lower courts. The text is for humans to interpret - that's part of being human and what humans do.
Gabriella,Comparing philosophical ideas to simple maths does not get you off the hook either. You need to learn the difference.
Playing with ambiguities doesn’t get you off the hook either. “A triangle is a three-sided shape” is simple, but not “simplistic”. You need to learn the difference.
They’re arguments, and your avoidance of them is noted.They're simplistic assertions that your tedious repetition of them ad nauseum is noted.
People have to agree on the common meanings of words in any language if those languages aren’t to mean just whatever each person wants them to mean. That’s the point - if everything is “interpretation”, there’s no reason to take your personal interpretation any more seriously than the personal interpretation of the Taliban. You can duck and dive all you like about this, but hiding behind “but that’s my interpretation (and what’s more it’s “deepened” by my faith)” is arbitrary unless you can anchor it to agreed common meanings.You can keep making assertions that everyone has to agree on philosophical abstract ideas all you want. Philosophers will disagree with you. The evidence of the numerous different interpretations of the meanings of verses of the Quran shows you're wrong. Accept it and move on.
Yes, but again you’re conflating faith-based acts with non faith-based acts. “…collective punishment of a civilian population and bombing and killing 50,000 people with the economic and military support of the US” is a particularly bad analogue because so much of that conflict is rooted in faith beliefs too, but dropping nuclear weapons on Japan would be a better one. You can argue a lot about the morality of that, but at least you can argue about it with reason and evidence without either side resorting to “but that’s my faith” to shut down the debate.And again you're making unevidenced assertions about acts being justified by simplistic statements such as "that's my faith".
I didn’t.Actually so much of that conflict is rooted in land theft. And feel free to actually address the points in Bin Laden's letter stating why he attacked America rather than ducking and diving.
Just out of interest, what do you suppose the hijackers were shouting even as they flew the ‘planes into the towers? “This is justifiable because of US military attacks in Muslim countries and US economic and military support for propping up Israel's economy and its colonial expansion in the illegally occupied territories, and US sanctions against Iraq that led to 1.5 million dead Iraqi children”, or “Allahu Akbar”? How much luck do you think Bin Laden would have had recruiting the hijackers without an escape plan if they weren’t inspired by their blind faith?So you're still ducking and diving instead of addressing the points raised in Bin Laden's letter about territorial theft, colonialism, military attacks on Muslim countries.
Take your time.
I'm not on any other forum but have come across those frustrating types.
I don't see it as confined to only religious thought...
It works for me because there is no way of establishing whether a belief in a spiritual purpose is right or wrong - so I don't conclude it's "pretty much guaranteed to be wrong".
I can agree that the problem is when people act to the detriment of others.
I can also agree that holding beliefs - religious or otherwise - that lead to people committing these detrimental acts is also problematic e.g. people who subscribe to Andrew Tate's beliefs or believe it is their patriotic duty to invade or bomb another country to protect their strategic interests, regardless of the cost to civilian lives.
Who would you suggest do that and what method would they use to get the rest of the population to agree with their 'definitive' interpretation?
Yes - similar to written constitutions and laws that we have and interpret and argue over and higher courts overturn decisions by lower courts. The text is for humans to interpret - that's part of being human and what humans do.
I agree that irrationality is common and definitely not confined to religion.Is the 'existence of god' part related to a faith the most important part of the equation for you and you can't see or progress any further until that issue has been put to bed definitively one way or the other?
This I don't get. If it's just faith without evidence, then it can be no more likely than a guess. Since there is a vast 'space' of possible truths that go beyond what we know, I'd say that the chance of any guess being right is as close to zero as makes no difference.
Again, I agree, but religion was the subject and taking a religious belief to be a clear unquestionable and objective truth is one of the ways these sorts of things happen.Sure - objective truth is not something I am seeking in something as abstract as religion or beliefs of any kind but yes I can see having an unquestionable mindset about a belief is problematic.
Is the 'existence of god' part related to a faith the most important part of the equation for you and you can't see or progress any further until that issue has been put to bed definitively one way or the other?
I can't speak for other theists but for me the existence or not of god is really low down on my list of priorities in assessing religion because faith provides me with something that knowledge does not. It's not something that is based on logic, where you can examine it and determine what is right or wrong - I don't see any formula to be applied so it's not really something that can be explained to someone else, as one person's experience of faith will probably be different from someone else's.
The simplicity of one god as opposed to many is appealing, but I guess my faith is in what god represents. My faith is in allowing the possibility of a higher accountability. As there is no method to assess this abstract concept I'm not focusing on whether the guess is right or wrong, I'm enjoying the experience of guessing - I'm enjoying faith.
For example, it's currently the month of Ramadan in the Islamic calendar. My experience is that if I try to fast any other month, I find it very difficult. But in Ramadan fasting is easy, and gets easier as we go through the month, praying is easier in Ramadan and gets easier as the month goes on.
If I tried to diet or refrain from eating or drinking anything for any other reason than Ramadan, I probably would not last more than 4 hours because i am not doing it as an act of faith. And I sense that these acts of faith - fasting and praying - are having hugely beneficial effects on me - e.g. on my physical, mental and emotional health, my happiness, my intentions and my behaviour.
Sure - objective truth is not something I am seeking in something as abstract as religion or beliefs of any kind but yes I can see having an unquestionable mindset about a belief is problematic.
No idea - even if there can be no testable precision, I just find it odd that there isn't at least a commonly shared understanding of text that has been extant for centuries.There are some broadly shared understandings. For example, I read that there are about 1.8 billion Muslims fasting during the month of Ramadan - not just abstaining from eating or drinking anything between dawn and sunset in whichever part of the world they are but also trying to abstain from getting angry, talking badly about others, and trying to do good deeds and give 2.5% or more of their wealth (the value of their savings and investments including money and precious metals) each Ramadan in charity - based on a shared understanding of the text.
But the difference there is that constitutions and laws can be subject to revision or even removal whereas, it seems to me, that religious texts can be treated as being sacrosanct and forever fixed.Yes - but the reality is that the interpretations of the religious text still changes over time and geography - if you look at different Muslim countries and communities in different time periods they all have different interpretations of many parts of the text but also agree on many parts.
Dear Gabriella,W'alaikum salaam Gonnagle :) - thank you and I really enjoyed reading your OP and thread and all the responses it generated. I have not been on here much, so it was an extremely welcome surprise to come back and find you on here and posting great stuff - you really give this forum a fantastic boost! ❤️
"As-Salam-u-Alaikum" Hope that is right :)
It is a joy to read your posts, thank you.
Gonnagle.
It's probably the differences that cause the problems on the planet. There are similar methods or practices within most 'religions' which are used to consciously transcend the 'realms' of intellect and egotistical desires and when introduced to groups of people, a community spirit is formed. Instead of people declaring that they simply use such and such a method they give themselves a community name which usually separates them from those with a different community name. With a bit of political indoctrination thrown in by egotistical leaders the differences can be emphasised and lead to conflict. Carl Marx called religion the opiate of the masses and it was replaced by communism,the cannabis of the masses.
I can't speak for other theists but for me the existence or not of god is really low down on my list of priorities in assessing religion because faith provides me with something that knowledge does not. It's not something that is based on logic, where you can examine it and determine what is right or wrong - I don't see any formula to be applied so it's not really something that can be explained to someone else, as one person's experience of faith will probably be different from someone else's.
Is the 'existence of god' part related to a faith the most important part of the equation for you and you can't see or progress any further until that issue has been put to bed definitively one way or the other?
I guess, sort of. It's just important to me that my beliefs have a reasonable chance of being true. You talk of 'progress' as if I'm stuck or something, but I really don't see it like that at all. To be honest, the way of thinking you describe just doesn't make sense to me. Even if I decided for some reason that I wanted to 'progress' in that way, I'd have no clue how to go about it. My brain just doesn't seem to work that way. My beliefs are based on whether I'm convinced by the information I have or not. It's not something I can just choose, something would have to change my mind.
The Pinker/Russell quote made perfect sense to me, as does the following:
"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything. There are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask "Why are we here?" I might think about it a little bit, and if I can't figure it out then I go on to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose - which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell."-- Richard Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out
I guess, sort of. It's just important to me that my beliefs have a reasonable chance of being true. You talk of 'progress' as if I'm stuck or something, but I really don't see it like that at all. To be honest, the way of thinking you describe just doesn't make sense to me. Even if I decided for some reason that I wanted to 'progress' in that way, I'd have no clue how to go about it. My brain just doesn't seem to work that way. My beliefs are based on whether I'm convinced by the information I have or not. It's not something I can just choose, something would have to change my mind.Sure - I agree you need to have some speck of belief to change your mind. That's what happened to me - I read a few pages of the Quran as an atheist thinking this is bound to be complete misogynist rubbish and something sparked in my brain - some kind of recognition of how the words applied to me in a way that I had not ever thought about before. So reading something I wasn't expecting to find changed my mind and sparked a belief even though I didn't want it to - in something that seemed to know me better than I knew myself. The experience sounds mundane and stupid, but I don't really have the words to describe the feeling.
The Pinker/Russell quote made perfect sense to me, as does the following:Sure, I agree, there is nothing frightening about not having a purpose. Being an atheist was pretty comforting - knowing once you die, that's it.
"I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything. There are many things I don't know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask "Why are we here?" I might think about it a little bit, and if I can't figure it out then I go on to something else. But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose - which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell."-- Richard Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out
Sure - I agree you need to have some speck of belief to change your mind.
By 'progress' I meant move on to some other aspect - like in an exam where you are confident you answered Q1 (i) but don't know the answer to Q1 (ii) so you fudge it or guess something or take a position that you can use to move on to Q1 (iii), (iv), and (v).
So if I guess Allah exists based on faith...
...I can use that to move onto the other parts of actually practising the religion - fasting, praying, zakat, Hajj etc - and if that improves and benefits my life more than being atheist, then I have even less motivation to go ack to being an atheist.
Sure, I agree, there is nothing frightening about not having a purpose. Being an atheist was pretty comforting - knowing once you die, that's it.
Belief in some kind of higher accountability is less comforting.
I'd actually need some spec of evidence or sound reasoning to change my mind about what exists.Ok.
This is entirely alien to the way my mind works. I can't even imagine believing that something exists by faith.Fair enough - as you say, people are different - nature/ nurture.
I have no real desire for the trappings of religion either. I have no wish to 'progress' like this. Even if I became convinced that a God existed, I'm far from certain that I'd follow its religion (if it had one). The whole idea of worship, for example, seems repugnant to me.Sure - it was also repugnant to me as an atheist - seemed demeaning and pathetic.
Why would that be the case, unless you fear a harsh or unfair judgement?More just the idea of accountability is uncomfortable because you're relinquishing control.
But a higher accountability is quite handy sometimes e.g. when a family member/ friend/ acquaintance pisses me off if my reaction is to want to say something to hurt them back to make myself feel better, the idea of a higher accountability where I will be doing something good if I walk away from the situation instead of exploding often helps dissipate my anger.I don't see why a higher accountability is necessary at all. Surely all that is needed is a conscience and a level of empathy towards the other person. The golden rule would surely lead you to exactly the same conclusion, that keeping calm and walking away is the right thing to do, without any need to check what a higher authority might consider the right thing.
I don't see why a higher accountability is necessary at all. Surely all that is needed is a conscience and a level of empathy towards the other person.Well, that would be nice if that was my temperament...however, my temperament could be more accurately described as: If someone is being a twat to me, my conscience is clear if I give them a verbal kicking. In fact I kind of think they are expecting it - presumably that's why they are being a twat to me. They clearly want to play this game so let's play.
The golden rule would surely lead you to exactly the same conclusion, that keeping calm and walking away is the right thing to do, without any need to check what a higher authority might consider the right thing.Not really - if I was being a twat to someone else I would fully expect and think it right for them to give me a verbal kicking.
I don't see why a higher accountability is necessary at all. Surely all that is needed is a conscience and a level of empathy towards the other person. The golden rule would surely lead you to exactly the same conclusion, that keeping calm and walking away is the right thing to do, without any need to check what a higher authority might consider the right thing.Professor, I feel this post might be the "humanist good without God" line, something I've questioned that might be a lot easier in the saying than in the doing and explaining.
Professor, I feel this post might be the "humanist good without God" line, something I've questioned that might be a lot easier in the saying than in the doing and explaining.
I wonder for how many, staying Calm and walking away isn't actually code for "not really giving a monkeys" and not wanting the interaction.
Secondly Christians would claim that the faculties that you seem to describe as fully formed in the humanist or message board atheist, tolerance, calmness etc are better in them since accepting Christ.
I do everything 'without God' because I'm not a theist: the easy bits, the hard bits and the everyday 'just living life'And then, Professor there's the "life more abundant than a religious person" suggestion.
And then, Professor there's the "life more abundant than a religious person" suggestion.
And then, Professor there's the "life more abundant than a religious person" suggestion.Eh!?!
Who suggested that, Vlad? Not me.I cannot claim that my life is more honestly or harder or more deeply and intensly lived than anybody elses, Gordon, because I am not them.
Eh!?!I have read atheists who think their life is fuller and deeper than say, a christian's, because they don't have the emotional crutch of a God.
Not sure I even understand what you are claiming I suggested, let alone that I actually suggested anything of the sort.
I wonder for how many, staying Calm and walking away isn't actually code for "not really giving a monkeys" and not wanting the interaction.Well I cannot speak for all atheists (and nor can you speak for all christians).
Secondly Christians would claim that the faculties that you seem to describe as fully formed in the humanist or message board atheist, tolerance, calmness etc are better in them since accepting Christ.So what - see above.
I have read atheists who think their life is fuller and deeper than say, a christian's, because they don't have the emotional crutch of a God.You don't just need to read about it - I am that atheist*. See my last post.
Dear Vlad,What puzzles me Mr G is why you don't just go to your local RC church, find a suitable angry Ruby faced priest and ask to borrow one, mentioning the words atheist and Dawkins
Go get them auld son, I've got yer back, just saving up for a really thick Leather bound ( two coo's thick leather bound way brass edging ) Bible, and then we will really smite the unGodly, cower in fear Atheists the end is nigh ( well just after I have my breakfast ;) )
Gonnagle.
I cannot claim that my life is more honestly or harder or more deeply and intensly lived than anybody elses, Gordon, because I am not them.
But I can say that mine is since accepting Christ.
Then you are talking about yourself, Vlad: how is that relevant to someone like me?But you are suggesting some significant difference between you and me there, aren't you Gordon?
Dear Vlad,I merely mentioned them on the expedient that their bibles have more books in them, are heavier and are therfore better for the job of literal bible bashing.
RC Church :o :o :o What kind of Christian are you ??? I would melt or burst into flames, well my Rangers scarf might become slightly tarnished :-\ but this highlights a very serious problem which us poor Christians suffer from, Church or the building of, in my neck of the woods we have a huge, megalith RC Church, all new and sparkling and they are forever adding to its sparkle, new steps, new lighting and just across the road not ten yards away is the CoS, very old but still huge another megalith, the upkeep must be enormous.
And I look at the two and ask, is this what God wants, I have searched the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ, help me out, show me this is what Jesus wants✝️
Gonnagle.
But you are suggesting some significant difference between you and me there, aren't you Gordon?
You are a theist and I am not: no doubt there may be other differences between us (for example, on the matter of our facial hair), but whether these qualify as 'significant' is another matter entirely.Looking at this discussion I think the key is that life tends to be fuller and deeper and more ethically fulfilled when we live it as our authentic selves. So someone who genuinely believes in god will probably find life fuller and deeper and more ethically fulfilled if they align their morality etc with the god they believe in. But the flips side is also true, someone who does not believe in god will find life fuller and deeper and more ethically fulfilled if they align their morality etc with the notion that they don't believe in god.
Looking at this discussion I think the key is that life tends to be fuller and deeper and more ethically fulfilled when we live it as our authentic selves. So someone who genuinely believes in god will probably find life fuller and deeper and more ethically fulfilled if they align their morality etc with the god they believe in. But the flips his also true, someone who does not believe in god will find life fuller and deeper and more ethically fulfilled if they align their morality etc with the notion that they don't believe in god.
You are the former and I am the latter and my understanding of our respective life journeys is that as a teenager and young adult you dabbled in atheism but subsequently came to realise that the authentic Vlad was a person who believed in god. My journey was the reverse - as a teenager and young adult you dabbled in theism (really tried to believe in god, perhaps occasionally thought I did, but it wasn't true) - I came to realise that the authentic me is a person who doesn't believe in god.
Looking at this discussion I think the key is that life tends to be fuller and deeper and more ethically fulfilled when we live it as our authentic selves. So someone who genuinely believes in god will probably find life fuller and deeper and more ethically fulfilled if they align their morality etc with the god they believe in. But the flips side is also true, someone who does not believe in god will find life fuller and deeper and more ethically fulfilled if they align their morality etc with the notion that they don't believe in god.Sorry what sort of bollocks is 'authentic selves'?
You are the former and I am the latter and my understanding of our respective life journeys is that as a teenager and young adult you dabbled in atheism but subsequently came to realise that the authentic Vlad was a person who believed in god. My journey was the reverse - as a teenager and young adult I dabbled in theism (really tried to believe in god, perhaps occasionally thought I did, but it wasn't true) - I came to realise that the authentic me is a person who doesn't believe in god.
Sorry what sort of bollocks is 'authentic selves'?Oh nice neutral comment there NS.
Oh nice neutral comment there NS.Except it presupposes as you have used it here that you and Vkad were choosing to go against some absolute in your personality and not simply expressing it. It plays around with the idea of soul. It also seems to imply that changing your mind is means you either were not being your 'authentic self' or have stopped being your 'authentic self'.
Here is a suggestion, which seems to fit the bill:
Being your authentic self means expressing your genuine thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, aligning with your core values and personality, regardless of external pressures or expectations. It's about being true to who you are at your deepest level.
So as an example someone who is gay would be bring their authentic self is they recognised that to be the case and lived there life accordingly, rather than hiding it and pretending to be heterosexual (as was often the case in decades past.
For the purposes of this discussion we are talking about people who genuinely do or do not believe in god - so in this case their authentic selves would be someone whose thoughts, feelings and behaviours etc were based on a recognition of and alignment with that theism/atheism, rather than someone trying to shoehorn their own beliefs into some expected societal pressure to act as if god existed (or did not exist).
Seems a pretty straightforward concept to me. Neither rocket science, nor bollocks NS.
Except it presupposes as you have used it here that you and Vkad were choosing to go against some absolute in your personality and not simply expressing it. It plays around with the idea of soul. It also seems to imply that changing your mind is means you either were not being your 'authentic self' or have stopped being your 'authentic self'.Nope - I don't think it means that at all. It isn't just about changing your mind. It is about something much more fundamental.
Nope - I don't think it means that at all. It isn't just about changing your mind. It is about something much more fundamental.Are you honestly suggesting sexuality is analogous to belief in gods here, and that Vlad was being an atheist because of societal pressures, denying his 'true nature', and that people are either theists, atheist or bitheist by some inherent preference?
I think my analogy of sexuality is highly relevant - society, certainly from when I was young, expected people to be heterosexual, so plenty of gay people grew up with that expectation - thinking or pretending to be straight when all along they weren't. When someone 'came out' in that context it wasn't because they have changed their mind about their sexuality, it was because they had become able to recognise and publicly express that they were gay rather than pretending that they weren't.
The notion of the authentic self is about someone feeling about to express their true self rather than feeling they have to pretend to be someone they aren't, due to societal and other pressures.
Except it presupposes as you have used it here that you and Vkad were choosing to go against some absolute in your personality and not simply expressing it.I can't speak for Vlad, but I can speak for myself and yes that is exactly how it was.
I can't speak for Vlad, but I can speak for myself and yes that is exactly how it was.I didn't say it was hard, I said it was bollocks. I get that there might be times when you are in a society that doesn't accept certain beliefs as as valid as others, and that you might go along for the sake of acceptance. But the idea of 'authentic self' goes beyond that and supposes that your belief is inherently fixed. You might as well argue that political beliefs are fixed.
From a pretty young age I don't think I ever really believed in god of the religious claims, but because of the prevailing society at the time I kind of went along with the notion that god existed and that this god was the christian god. But I was pretending to believe when really deep down I know I didn't and never really had.
This is why I tend to talk about recognising that I was atheist, rather than becoming an atheist as it makes it clear that I don't think I ever believed even when I claimed to have done - I was just pretending. I never changed my mind about believing in god (as I don't think I ever really did) but I did come to recognise that I was an atheist and (to return to the term) as that point started to live life as my authentic self rather than one who due to societal pressures felt I should indicate that I believed in something that actually I didn't.
Again, not really a hard concept.
I didn't say it was hard, I said it was bollocks.But it isn't bollocks.
I get that there might be times when you are in a society that doesn't accept certain beliefs as as valid as others, and that you might go along for the sake of acceptance. But the idea of 'authentic self' goes beyond that and supposes that your belief is inherently fixed. You might as well argue that political beliefs are fixed.Again you are spectacularly (or deliberately) missing the point.
Well I cannot speak for all atheists (and nor can you speak for all christians).Presumably atheists gets their morals from ideas that were communicated through books too.
But my experience is exactly the opposite. I became interested in, recognised the importance of and really started to take notice of ethics/morality from the point where I recognised I was atheist. Prior to that, in my nominal 'I guess there a god and I guess that god is the christian god because that's what my societal upbringing told me' morality and ethics were something largely outsourced - something that you were told what to do and not do by others on the basis of some rule book, based on some nominal god. Something that wasn't really personally about me, nor something that I felt I had personal responsibility for.
That all changed when I came to recognise that I did not believe in god - no longer could I just leave this to others and their rules and their books.
Nope I had a personal responsibility to determine what I considered to be right and wrong and a personal responsibility to uphold my own moral conscience. In a way this was really a bit scary - suddenly I had to do some work on the ethics, rather than outsourcing. And that's what I did - from that point onwards (and continuing to this day) I have had a deep personal and professional interest in ethics. I doubt that would have happened had I not become an atheist.
This atheist would counter - that tolerance, calmness etc are better in me since accepting that I did not believe in god.
Presumably atheists gets their morals from ideas that were communicated through books too.
I can't speak for all theists, but my observation is that all the theists I have encountered seem to spend quite a lot of time determining what they consider to be right or wrong and upholding their personal moral conscience, regardless of what some religious rule book says or someone else says. Sometimes theists disagree with what they think their religious books are saying and sometimes they aren't sure how to interpret their books so they don't make any decisions and just think about it for a while or research the different, often opposing, viewpoints on an issue when they have time.
Correct.
People (both theists and atheists) may often give into their desires because they have expended all their will-power for the day (or the time being) in some other area of their life.
The varied interpretations of religious rules by theists looks very much like personal responsibility to me, though their rule book might have sparked a train of thought.
Correct again.
Sometimes my 'authentic' self tells myself to stop worrying about which of my multiple opposing desires is my 'authentic' one and just get on with something a bit more productive.
Correct once again.
That was actually one of the reasons I stopped trying to convince theists to become atheists - when I started hanging around with some very productive theists.
Dear Gabriella,I agree - theists seemed pretty boring to me too on the whole (not you) until I finally met some theists who weren't boring. They seemed as mad as me - the only slight difference in our insanity was they believed in a god and I didn't at the time.
Well I don't know about that one and please remember it is just my personal opinion, but theists seem to me pretty boring ( not you ) whilst Atheists bring out in me the "oh you bloody well think so side of me" and they seem to me to try just that wee bit harder ;) bless their wee cotton socks :)
Gonnagle.
I agree - theists seemed pretty boring to me too on the whole (not you) until I finally met some theists who weren't boring. They seemed as mad as me - the only slight difference in our insanity was they believed in a god and I didn't at the time.
Dear Gabriella,I'd be honoured. After all there ain't no sanity clause
Oh no!! :P I was an Atheist but I'm alright now ;D The Insanity of Theism, now that's a book :P Wonder if old Sane will mind me changing my moniker to Nearlysane2 and yes I have huge smile on my face 😀 goodnight Gabriella and may your God go with you :)
Gonnagle.
You are a theist and I am not: no doubt there may be other differences between us (for example, on the matter of our facial hair), but whether these qualify as 'significant' is another matter entirely.Interesting that you see a significant difference between people based on whether they are theist or atheist and the prejudices that either cause that perception or arise from it. It sounds like you might be inferring mental and/or moral inferiority in theists, for instance.
Well I cannot speak for all atheists (and nor can you speak for all christians).I don't think your experience can be described as exactly opposite. You merely gained enough intellectual information to realise what you always had been.A cultural theist. And that you were never actually IN as it were.
But my experience is exactly the opposite. I became interested in, recognised the importance of and really started to take notice of ethics/morality from the point where I recognised I was atheist. Prior to that, in my nominal 'I guess there a god and I guess that god is the christian god because that's what my societal upbringing told me' morality and ethics were something largely outsourced - something that you were told what to do and not do by others on the basis of some rule book, based on some nominal god. Something that wasn't really personally about me, nor something that I felt I had personal responsibility for.
That all changed when I came to recognise that I did not believe in god - no longer could I just leave this to others and their rules and their books. Nope I had a personal responsibility to determine what I considered to be right and wrong and a personal responsibility to uphold my own moral conscience. In a way this was really a bit scary - suddenly I had to do some work on the ethics, rather than outsourcing. And that's what I did - from that point onwards (and continuing to this day) I have had a deep personal and professional interest in ethics. I doubt that would have happened had I not become an atheist.
So what - see above.
This atheist would counter - that tolerance, calmness etc are better in me since accepting that I did not believe in god.
Interesting that you see a significant difference between people based on whether they are theist or atheist and the prejudices that either cause that perception or arise from it. It sounds like you might be inferring mental and/or moral inferiority in theists, for instance.
Having said that .May I offer another difference between yourself and me.
You have always been an atheist and I have been an atheist and a theist...unless you want to start on 'No true atheist'.
Do you ever take time to actually read and think about what people have actually said as opposed to what, in your fevered imagination, you'd prefer them to have said? Not only did I not say what you are inferring that I meant, I'd be ashamed of myself if that were ever my stance.I was actually trying to probe your antitheism for it's rational basis.Over optimistic of me, I'm sure.
Correct - we have different personal histories, but so what though? Atheists are people who don't hold beliefs about 'God/s': that is all that is involved, and you've been told this many times already.
I was actually trying to probe your antitheism for it's rational basis.Over optimistic of me, I'm sure.
A cultural theist.What on earth is a cultural theist?!?
What on earth is a cultural theist?!?Once again, just realising what you are or what you aren't, isn't a conversion no matter how profound you try to make it.
I understand the notion of cultural christianity as christianity involves not just belief but also customs, rituals, architecture, music etc etc - so it is perfectly possible for someone to enjoy, appreciate, participate in, be emotionally moved by those elements, but without actually believing in the faith tenets of christianity - hence cultural christianity.
But theism isn't like that - theism and atheism are simply believe and lack of belief in god or gods. There is no cultural overlay they are just belief/lack of belief. So someone isn't able to participate in the cultural aspects of theism (unlike religion) as there are none. So a cultural theist would be someone who doesn't believe in god but does participate in/appreciate the cultural aspects of theism. Oops but there are no cultural aspects of theism (unlike religion) so this simply boils down to someone who doesn't believe in god ... which is ... err ... an atheist.
Once again, just realising what you are or what you aren't, isn't a conversion no matter how profound you try to make it.What on earth are you on about - I was challenging you on the nonsense notion of a cultural theist - I don't think that makes sense, a cultural theist is ... err ... an atheist (unlike the notion of a cultural christian or a cultural muslim etc).
However you are reducing atheism to some state even a paving slab can be in and at the end of the day I think you actually believe that the universe is or will be explicable without recourse to a God.Well atheism is merely a lack of believe in the existence of god or gods. And yes of course I consider that the universe is explicable without recourse to god - not because I am an atheist, but because there is no credible evidence to suggest the need for a god to explain the universe. Physics does it rather nicely.