Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8871 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-13-2018 9:26 PM
213 online now:
Capt Stormfield, GDR, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx (5 members, 208 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: paradigm of types
Post Volume:
Total: 841,907 Year: 16,730/29,783 Month: 718/1,956 Week: 221/331 Day: 97/43 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
7576
77
787980Next
Author Topic:   Importance of Original Sin
Porkncheese
Member
Posts: 92
Joined: 08-25-2017


Message 1141 of 1196 (841936)
10-24-2018 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1139 by Phat
10-22-2018 11:43 AM


Re: Original sin
Phat. Sorry man I forgot how to quote stuff.
Ur correct about my old. Though I quickly concluded that it is irrational to call someone stupid when they have reached a position on an issue that no one has the total truth to. I mite think someone's view or idea is idiotic but making the person idiotic is lame.

Interesting point u make on the athiest position. Like a lot of their arguments it's mearly formed to oppose religion. They say "ur claiming God so u have to provide evidence otherwise I'm discounting the whole idea of deities" Its far from being a scientific conclusion.
As an agnostic this is unacceptable. Especially wen I hear Dawkins admit the possibility of extraterrestrial creation but not a God...

There a weird kind of culture I'm noticing on campus coming from the humanities and social subjects. I'm still monitoring it but it seems their being taught some really radical shit. "Feelings over facts". My engineering subjects remain unchanged by their ideology because we deal in facts. It explains a bit about society and we're it's going as well as why so many biologists are athiests. Without mathematics to confirm things Biology has adopted this "feelings over facts" approach according to my mate Dave who claims all hypothesis must fit into the darwinian framework which is absurd. Just to cherry pick the data that supports your belief and disregard anything that doesn't.
It would be negligent to do that in engineering

That brings me to this "one does not need to be religious in order to be good to others". Reminds me of what a modern psychologist said. "Without religion it's easy to loose morality". First I thought no there is the law to keep us in line but some morals aren't covered by law. How about women. The law let's them do as they please. As a result we have this metoo movement were countless women have no problem in making a false accusations in order to get rich. They say without God and religion your most cherished position becomes your religion. For a lot of women that's feminism. Dangerous. I'd like to hear some thoughts on that view from the people making that point.

Thanx Faith also for your insights

Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.

Edited by Porkncheese, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1139 by Phat, posted 10-22-2018 11:43 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1142 by Stile, posted 10-24-2018 9:30 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3256
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 1142 of 1196 (841943)
10-24-2018 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1141 by Porkncheese
10-24-2018 1:06 AM


Re: Original sin
Porkncheese writes:

Though I quickly concluded that it is irrational to call someone stupid when they have reached a position on an issue that no one has the total truth to. I mite think someone's view or idea is idiotic but making the person idiotic is lame.

Sounds good.

Everyone has their reasons for thinking/believing what they do on every idea.
Even if they cannot articulate them immediately upon request to do so.

Therefore, it's always a good idea to argue positions, and not people.

Without mathematics to confirm things Biology has adopted this "feelings over facts" approach according to my mate Dave who claims all hypothesis must fit into the darwinian framework which is absurd. Just to cherry pick the data that supports your belief and disregard anything that doesn't.
It would be negligent to do that in engineering

"Everything must fit into the darwinian framework" in Biology just as "everything must fit into the newtonian framework" in engineering.
It's absurd to think otherwise for anything not on the cutting edge.

This isn't because the Biologists refuse to test the darwinian framework... just as engineers don't refuse to test the newtonian framework.

It's because the darwinian framework is tested, confirmed, and re-validated with almost every aspect of biology (and has been for a great many years) that it's not worth the time to consider it "possibly wrong" for 90% of the work in biology.
Just as the newtonian framework is tested, confirmed, and re-validated with almost every aspect of engineering (and has been for a great many years) that it's not worth the time to consider it "possibly wrong" for 90% of the work in engineering.

The framework isn't respected as some sort of "thou shalt not question" idol.
The framework is respected as a tried-and-true, rigorously tested, continuously validated foundation and it's understood that to focus more "testing" on such things that have already been tested is a waste of time and energy that can better be spent expanding the cutting edge.

And, of course, the cutting edge is always allowed to think-outside-the-box... they just have to prove it as well.

That brings me to this "one does not need to be religious in order to be good to others". Reminds me of what a modern psychologist said. "Without religion it's easy to loose morality". First I thought no there is the law to keep us in line but some morals aren't covered by law. How about women. The law let's them do as they please. As a result we have this metoo movement were countless women have no problem in making a false accusations in order to get rich. They say without God and religion your most cherished position becomes your religion. For a lot of women that's feminism. Dangerous. I'd like to hear some thoughts on that view from the people making that point.

1 - I do not need to be religious in order to be good to others. I'm good to others because I want to be good to others.
I don't need the law, I don't need a book, I don't need you or anyone else.
In fact, if anyone does need religion, or the law, or a book, or someone (something?) to "force them" to be good... I don't want anything to do with them, and they scare me - because they are very likely a very evil person.

2 - It's about damn time the #MeToo movement came along.
And anyone who thinks "it's a scary time to be a man" dating in a world like this also scares me.
Should a man be scared to kiss a woman without her permission? Absolutely.
Should a man be scared to grab a woman's arm and pull her towards him without her permission? Absolutely.
Such "worries" for a man would go a long way to making the world a better place for everyone.
No one has the right to treat anyone else as "something they can control" without their permission.

Good men don't worry about such things... because they would never consider doing them in the first place.
Only evil, vile, should-likely-be-in-jail-anyway men think that they should have any sort of protection to use their physical power to force anyone else to do anything else that they do not have permission for in the first place.

Good people already know this, and aren't afraid of the #MeToo movement, and aren't afraid to date in "today's society" because they don't have to change a single thing.

Edited by Stile, : Adding second half of post


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1141 by Porkncheese, posted 10-24-2018 1:06 AM Porkncheese has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11403
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1143 of 1196 (841957)
10-24-2018 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 320 by ringo
10-20-2013 2:59 PM


This Whole Sin Thing
ringo,addressing ICANT writes:

The children of Adam and Eve - and all mankind - have the knowledge of good and evil and they are subject to the consequences of their actions. It has nothing to do with "inheriting sin" from one man. It's just the way things are.

Granted people choose to sin. The point can be made, however, that we are more likely to choose to sin than to be righteous. The entire History of humanity provides many examples where wars, individual actions against others, and political attitudes have sprung from the flesh rather than from the "fruits of the spirit".

We cant blame our tendencies on some inherited mutation or demon.

ringo writes:

Adam and Eve acquired the knowledge of good and evil. Apparently, they passed that on to all mankind. All mankind has inherited the tendency to sin but they haven't inherited sin itself.

You can inherit the family name without inheriting the family fortune. We're all responsible for making our own fortune and we're all responsible for our own sins.

One way to be responsible for our own sins is confessing them and acknowledging them. We need Communion in order to acquire the strength to overcome. Atheists may argue that the only communion we have is with each other, but it has been wisely said that a sheep cannot pull another sheep out of a ditch. The communion requires a shepherd.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by ringo, posted 10-20-2013 2:59 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1144 by ringo, posted 10-24-2018 1:29 PM Phat has responded
 Message 1145 by Tangle, posted 10-24-2018 1:39 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15567
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1144 of 1196 (841963)
10-24-2018 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1143 by Phat
10-24-2018 1:11 PM


Re: This Whole Sin Thing
Phat writes:

Atheists may argue that the only communion we have is with each other, but it has been wisely said that a sheep cannot pull another sheep out of a ditch. The communion requires a shepherd.


When a shepherd pulls a sheep out of a ditch, it's for his own purposes, not the sheep's. Sometimes the sheep gets eaten.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1143 by Phat, posted 10-24-2018 1:11 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1146 by Phat, posted 10-25-2018 1:44 PM ringo has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6229
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1145 of 1196 (841964)
10-24-2018 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1143 by Phat
10-24-2018 1:11 PM


Re: This Whole Sin Thing
Phat writes:

Granted people choose to sin. The point can be made, however, that we are more likely to choose to sin than to be righteous.

No you can not make that point without evidence. And, of course, it's plainly wrong. To be correct, we'd all have to be psychopaths and sociopaths.

quote:
The entire History of humanity provides many examples where wars, individual actions against others, and political attitudes have sprung from the flesh rather than from the "fruits of the spirit".

Equally, people have created social structures to limit these tendencies - the entire criminal justice system, NATO, health services, charitable organisations etc etc not to mention unlimited occurrences of individual niceness to others.

quote:
We cant blame our tendencies on some inherited mutation or demon.

Correct, only an imbecile would do that. Our 'tendencies' are designed in. Obviously that simply a function of our evolutionary journey, but if you're a creationist you can't explain why the loving god did such an evil thing.

quote:
One way to be responsible for our own sins is confessing them and acknowledging them. We need Communion in order to acquire the strength to overcome. Atheists may argue that the only communion we have is with each other, but it has been wisely said that a sheep cannot pull another sheep out of a ditch. The communion requires a shepherd.

This is just pious, meanigless plonkerism.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1143 by Phat, posted 10-24-2018 1:11 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11403
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1146 of 1196 (842011)
10-25-2018 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1144 by ringo
10-24-2018 1:29 PM


Re: This Whole Sin Thing
ringo writes:

When a shepherd pulls a sheep out of a ditch, it's for his own purposes, not the sheep's.

Running with that analogy....Using God (or Jesus) as "the Shepherd"..of course the overall purpose is His and not ours. Our collective purpose seems to be about making more money, building bigger military forces, and continually oppressing the group of the moment. Tangle would argue that we *are* getting better in this regard... and I suppose that a point can be made that reality suggests that it is only our purpose that matters.

Worship gives us pause to reflect that we are not the top of the food chain in this universe. You may argue that in addition to there being no evidence of a God, the book seems ambiguous about whether such a God is even worth worshiping. Critics of Jesus say that He was far from perfect. Others claim that Jesus was human yet was ultimately as good as one can get for the times He was in.

The responsibility for sin rests with each individual, but the method of repenting and correcting the sin can involves prayer and reflection as well as personal responsibility. It only makes sense.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1144 by ringo, posted 10-24-2018 1:29 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1147 by ringo, posted 10-25-2018 2:08 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1148 by Tangle, posted 10-25-2018 3:59 PM Phat has responded
 Message 1149 by GDR, posted 10-25-2018 4:25 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15567
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1147 of 1196 (842014)
10-25-2018 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1146 by Phat
10-25-2018 1:44 PM


Re: This Whole Sin Thing
Do you have a point? That doesn't seem to be a reply to my post at all.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1146 by Phat, posted 10-25-2018 1:44 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6229
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 1148 of 1196 (842023)
10-25-2018 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1146 by Phat
10-25-2018 1:44 PM


Re: This Whole Sin Thing
Phat writes:

Tangle would argue that we *are* getting better in this regard...

That's not a argument, that's a straightforward, thoroughly evidenced fact.

and I suppose that a point can be made that reality suggests that it is only our purpose that matters.

You've got this totally screwed up. We don't have a 'purpose'. We just 'are'. We're here like daffodils are here, like fish are here, like rhinos are here. We make the best of it and get on as best we can. Searching for higher purpose is futile - it's never been found because it doesn't exist. You either get on with it, or make one up and prey to it.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1146 by Phat, posted 10-25-2018 1:44 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1150 by Phat, posted 10-25-2018 6:10 PM Tangle has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4526
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1149 of 1196 (842026)
10-25-2018 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1146 by Phat
10-25-2018 1:44 PM


Re: This Whole Sin Thing
Phat writes:

The responsibility for sin rests with each individual, but the method of repenting and correcting the sin can involves prayer and reflection as well as personal responsibility. It only makes sense.

Sin is hard to define. It seems that some things are sinful for some but not for others. We generally seem to think that sin is about what we do or don't do. I suggest that when we see it that way we are only looking at the symptoms of sin and not the actual sin itself.

I think that the actual sin is what is in our hearts. Where is it that we find joy in this life? I think that sin is in some ways an addiction. When we do something for our own benefit regardless of the impact on others it becomes just a little easier the next time and it has a cascading effect. If however we resist then it is a little easier to resist the next time.

It works the other way as well. If we do something for someone else sacrificing something of ourselves then that too comes more naturally to us as we continue down that path, and we find joy in bringing joy to others.

At the ultra extremes I would say that sin is having a heart that finds pleasure in the suffering of others and the opposite is finding pleasure in completely giving one's life over to serving others. It seems to me that in this life pretty much everyone is going in one direction or another, at least to some extent. That isn't to say though that the trajectory that we establish can't be changed.

As for original sin I'd suggest the the Genesis account is only about the point that we do have a sense of right and wrong from very early on in life.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1146 by Phat, posted 10-25-2018 1:44 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1153 by Faith, posted 10-25-2018 7:59 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11403
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1150 of 1196 (842034)
10-25-2018 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1148 by Tangle
10-25-2018 3:59 PM


Tangles Basic Belief
Phat writes:

Our collective purpose seems to be about making more money, building bigger military forces, and continually oppressing the group of the moment. Tangle would argue that we *are* getting better in this regard...


Tangle writes:

That's not an argument, that's a straightforward, thoroughly evidenced fact.

A case can be made either way. Ask yourself do we still have wars? Are they occurring as often as they did 1000 years ago? Some would argue that the only reason that they aren't any worse is because of modern weapons of mass destruction. YYou would prefer to imagine that we are improving by leaps and bounds and are happy that the need for religion appEars to be dying. The fact is that you happened to come along at a time when wars were in remission...but if you had to go through a Great Depression or another World War you may not be so optimistic and would remove your rose-colored glasses.

We don't have a 'purpose'. We just 'are'. We're here like daffodils are here, like fish are here, like rhinos are here. We make the best of it and get on as best we can. Searching for higher purpose is futile - it's never been found because it doesn't exist
What you really mean is that it doesn't exist because it has never been found. I would assert that some have found it. You may argue that without objective evidence they have nothing, but I would say that you won't allow yourself to believe anything without objective evidence.
Tangle writes:

We're here like daffodils are here, like fish are here, like rhinos are here. We make the best of it and get on as best we can.

Thus your only purpose? Sad that you limit your beliefs.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1148 by Tangle, posted 10-25-2018 3:59 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1151 by Straggler, posted 10-25-2018 7:24 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1154 by Tangle, posted 10-26-2018 4:04 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10237
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 1151 of 1196 (842037)
10-25-2018 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1150 by Phat
10-25-2018 6:10 PM


Re: Tangles Basic Belief
What you really mean is that it doesn't exist because it has never been found. I would assert that some have found it. You may argue that without objective evidence they have nothing, but I would say that you won't allow yourself to believe anything without objective evidence.

You are doing that thing again where you break things into a binary choice. Those who follow an impossible robot-like existence determined solely by reason, rationality and objective evidence Vs those who accept irrational beliefs.

Finding purpose and meaning in life can be very personal and subjective in many ways. Love, children, family, friends, companionship, fulfilment, goals, experience etc. are amongst the things pretty much everyone would cite.

But finding meaning in loving and bringing up your kids (for example) is clearly more grounded than finding purpose by divining the wishes of a supernatural being and seeking to live your life according to how you believe this entity wants you to behave.

I dont love my kids and find meaning and purpose in bringing them up because my scientific instruments tell me to. But equally Id agree with Tangle that there is no reason to think that some sort of elusive God given higher purpose even exists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1150 by Phat, posted 10-25-2018 6:10 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1152 by Faith, posted 10-25-2018 7:55 PM Straggler has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30022
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1152 of 1196 (842040)
10-25-2018 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1151 by Straggler
10-25-2018 7:24 PM


Re: Tangles Basic Belief
...no reason to think that some sort of elusive God given higher purpose even exists.

Not even the fact that millions of others have thought so and many even written extensively about it. Not even a little bit of a reason?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1151 by Straggler, posted 10-25-2018 7:24 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1155 by Straggler, posted 10-26-2018 4:13 AM Faith has responded
 Message 1158 by ringo, posted 10-26-2018 12:05 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30022
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1153 of 1196 (842041)
10-25-2018 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1149 by GDR
10-25-2018 4:25 PM


Re: This Whole Sin Thing
Sin is hard to define.

Scripture defines it as violating God's Law.

It seems that some things are sinful for some but not for others.

That just means that some have more sensitive consciences than others do, not that there is any objective difference in what sin actually is.

We generally seem to think that sin is about what we do or don't do. I suggest that when we see it that way we are only looking at the symptoms of sin and not the actual sin itself.
I think that the actual sin is what is in our hearts.

Jesus said that sin is basically in the heart, but sinful deeds are clearly sinful.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1149 by GDR, posted 10-25-2018 4:25 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6229
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 1154 of 1196 (842054)
10-26-2018 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1150 by Phat
10-25-2018 6:10 PM


Re: Tangles Basic Belief
Phat writes:

A case can be made either way.

It really can't. There's no debate that life is better for more people now than say, 1,000 years ago.

Ask yourself do we still have wars? Are they occurring as often as they did 1000 years ago? Some would argue that the only reason that they aren't any worse is because of modern weapons of mass destruction.

We still have wars and we still have famines and disease and poverty and inequality and so on - this is the human condition. The point is that progress is being made on all these issues.

You would prefer to imagine that we are improving by leaps and bounds

It's not imagination, it's a fact measureable in every dimension you care to mention. You personally are better off in every measureable way than your earlier anscestors.

and are happy that the need for religion appEars to be dying. The fact is that you happened to come along at a time when wars were in remission...but if you had to go through a Great Depression or another World War you may not be so optimistic and would remove your rose-colored glasses.

We have just come through a global banking crash that had it happened a 100 years ago would have put the West back 50 years. Our modern institutioned cushioned that effect - bad though it was. We have been to war with several nations and still are, but those conflicts haven't been able to escalate on the scale that previous wars have - yet; again because of our institutions. It's still possible that things will go wrong again, but unless we manage to wipe ourselves out, we're making steady if halting progress. That's not at all in doubt by any sufficiently objective analysis. Things are getting better.

What you really mean is that it doesn't exist because it has never been found.

What I really mean is that it doesn't exist. As a species we've been looking for thousands of years.

I would assert that some have found it. You may argue that without objective evidence they have nothing,

Is this some form of forum schizophrenia?

Thus your only purpose? Sad that you limit your beliefs.

What is it with you that you have to invent in your own head what you think is in mine? Despite what I say?

When I say we have no purpose I mean we have no purpose. I do not mean that our purpose is only to fuck like animals. Try not to limit your imagination to include only your own sad view of life here. If you could escape from your limited, polluted and drab view of our lives here - god knows where it comes from - you might be able to actually enjoy your life here and stop hoping for an invented next. This is what you've got, enjoy it while you can.

Go fishing for god's sake. [Or whatever floats you boat.]


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1150 by Phat, posted 10-25-2018 6:10 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10237
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 1155 of 1196 (842055)
10-26-2018 4:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1152 by Faith
10-25-2018 7:55 PM


Re: Tangles Basic Belief
The fact that lots of people believe something doesnt make it true. Lots of people have believed lots of very silly things.

There is a question to answer about why so many people believe such things. And if we examine that question using the most reliable investigative techniques available to us there are answers to be found. But the answers so far achieved point to psychology, culture, history and other such very human factors. There is nothing to suggest actual god-given purpose beyond the popularity of the idea that there is one (with no real agreement on what that purpose would actually be, even amongst believers).

So the difference between me and Phat is not that I am a robotic automaton who cannot experience love unless my Geiger counter tells me to. Its that I am happy to claim love, find purpose and subjective meaning etc. Whilst accepting what science has to say about why we humans have such needs, feelings and experiences.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1152 by Faith, posted 10-25-2018 7:55 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1156 by Faith, posted 10-26-2018 10:10 AM Straggler has responded

  
RewPrev1
...
7576
77
787980Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018