Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Belief in Deity vs Belief in Fictional Four
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 31 of 71 (432553)
11-06-2007 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by sidelined
11-06-2007 12:46 PM


Re: Huh?
that's what it sounds like, totally weird.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by sidelined, posted 11-06-2007 12:46 PM sidelined has not replied

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 5142 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 32 of 71 (432556)
11-06-2007 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Stile
11-05-2007 9:49 AM


Re: Popular belief
Stile writes:
I would say the fundamental difference between belief in a deity and belief in the Fictional Four is current social acceptance.
It is currently socially acceptable for an adult to believe in a deity.
It is currently not socially acceptable for an adult to believe in any of the Fictional Four.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense - a clear and concise answer to this whole thread. It also explains encouragement. An older (or younger) person is encouraged by many to believe in a socially acceptable fictional being, and discouraged from believing in the opposite.
Have a fun day everyone-
Equinox

-Equinox
_ _ _ ___ _ _ _
You know, it's probably already answered at An Index to Creationist Claims...
(Equinox is a Naturalistic Pagan -  Naturalistic Paganism Home)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Stile, posted 11-05-2007 9:49 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 33 of 71 (477285)
07-31-2008 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Stile
11-05-2007 9:49 AM


Re: Popular belief
Stile writes:
I would say the fundamental difference between belief in a deity and belief in the Fictional Four is current social acceptance.
It is currently socially acceptable for an adult to believe in a deity.
It is currently not socially acceptable for an adult to believe in any of the Fictional Four.
That makes sense to me! The P.C. Deity or the popular Deity. Or are they one in the same?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Stile, posted 11-05-2007 9:49 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Mylakovich
Junior Member (Idle past 5684 days)
Posts: 20
From: Cambridgeshire, UK
Joined: 08-29-2008


Message 34 of 71 (480391)
09-03-2008 5:18 AM


A deity that is indistinguishable from nature is the same as no deity at all. So why suppose unnecessarily?

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Phat, posted 10-21-2008 8:13 AM Mylakovich has not replied
 Message 42 by Phat, posted 06-15-2009 1:54 AM Mylakovich has not replied

  
Watson75 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5671 days)
Posts: 75
Joined: 07-28-2005


Message 35 of 71 (482802)
09-18-2008 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by mjfloresta
10-30-2007 2:56 PM


No way.
The question I want to pose is this: Why (how?), if belief in God is categorically equivalent to belief in the Fictional Four, does a rational, intelligent human being like Antony Flew recover (or discover for the first time) belief in the existence of a deity?
It's not! And don't let anyone tell you otherwise my friend.
Belief in God is a Universal truth, known deep inside all of our souls, which God gave us. If you deny that inner truth, is fair enough for God to throw you to the depths of hell! Just a warning.
And if that's not enough for you, just think about this fact. The easter bunny and spaghettie monster are made up stories. God is not made up, but he did make up you! Where else would you have come from, nowhere? Does that make sense to you>?
That makes just about as much sense as the Easter Bunny, and we all know that makes no sense and doesn't exist! That's a fact. So people really need to start openning there eyes to the facts!
It makes perfect sense to believe in a creator, and not the easter bunny. So don't worry. And if you think believing in God is equal to beleiving in the easter bunny, then I think you're juts not to smart. Maybe you should go back to elementary school, and take some candy from your bunny! (I'm sorry, not real, it's just a guy in suite!)

"Give me Jonas, or give me death!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mjfloresta, posted 10-30-2007 2:56 PM mjfloresta has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Stile, posted 09-18-2008 9:31 AM Watson75 has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 36 of 71 (482834)
09-18-2008 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Watson75
09-18-2008 2:26 AM


A Perfect Example
What I said, in Message 26:
quote:
There are, of course, differences in each specific background story. But the core belief, that something exists in which we have no physical reason to believe, is the same in all 5 descriptions. The only difference is the degree that you're made fun of or accepted by others when professing the belief.
And let's take a look at your message:
Watson75 writes:
It's not! And don't let anyone tell you otherwise my friend.
A very nice social acceptance for anyone professing a belief in God.
Belief in God is a Universal truth, known deep inside all of our souls, which God gave us. If you deny that inner truth, is fair enough for God to throw you to the depths of hell! Just a warning.
No evidence, of course. But we do have social acceptance for professing a belief in God, alongside with being threatened for not professing the belief.
And if that's not enough for you, just think about this fact. The easter bunny and spaghettie monster are made up stories. God is not made up, but he did make up you! Where else would you have come from, nowhere? Does that make sense to you>?
That makes just about as much sense as the Easter Bunny, and we all know that makes no sense and doesn't exist! That's a fact. So people really need to start openning there eyes to the facts!
This paragraph is left for the reader to find the specific instances of the following:
-social acceptance for professing a belief in God
-insulting anyone for not professing a belief in God
-any type of evidence to support either position (a trick question...)
It makes perfect sense to believe in a creator, and not the easter bunny. So don't worry. And if you think believing in God is equal to beleiving in the easter bunny, then I think you're juts not to smart. Maybe you should go back to elementary school, and take some candy from your bunny! (I'm sorry, not real, it's just a guy in suite!)
And to end everything we have more social acceptance for God, more insults for not accepting God, and the exact same lack of any physical (based in reproducible-reality) reason to believe in God's existence as for the Easter Bunny.
Thank-you, Watson75, for providing such a great example on how a belief in God is only different from a belief in the Fictional Four in terms of social acceptance.
As I've recently discovered, your time has here has been cut short and you will be unable to reply. Thanks for the help anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Watson75, posted 09-18-2008 2:26 AM Watson75 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 09-18-2008 12:01 PM Stile has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 37 of 71 (482848)
09-18-2008 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Stile
09-18-2008 9:31 AM


Proper Belief
This is an interesting and occasionally amusing argment! (or non-argument, as it were!)
As many of you know, I am a believer. I had a positive experience, (an epiphany as it were)way back in 1993, and then became indoctrinated with the collective beliefs of organized religion. I have been unafraid to question most of what I believe, excepting the actual choice to believe that God is real and alive, which I have stubbornly clung to and am afraid to set aside, even though if He were real, it wouldn't change things anyway!
I no longer try and argue with people much, nor push my beliefs very strongly. I never get angry when folks tell me that God is a figment of my dogmatic imagination...I figure that either He exists or He does not exist, and nothing anyone can say or demonstrate will change that irrefutable fact.
What amuses me, however, is how some christians try so hard to prove God to everyone. I mean, if God is real, can't God handle His own P.R.?
To me, it quite simply makes more sense that a Creator existed before created matter did. While it is plausible that the universe required no creator, the default position, from my human perspective, is that it is up to we humans to provide alternate hypothesis based on our logic, reasoning, and perspectives on reality as we know it to be.
One question that is often asked is if the entire idea of God is totally a relative concept---relative to each individual based on their chosen world view.
Again, we may never know for sure one way or the other.....and rather than fret about questions that we can't answer, why not simply deal with the questions that we can answer?
Life is too short to waste too much time dealing with hypothetical scenarios.

"All that we call human history--money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery--[is] the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy."--C.S.Lewis
* * * * * * * * * *
“The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.”--General Omar Bradley
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog." -GK Chesterson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Stile, posted 09-18-2008 9:31 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Stile, posted 09-18-2008 1:53 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 38 of 71 (482860)
09-18-2008 1:53 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Phat
09-18-2008 12:01 PM


Things Work Like This
Phat writes:
...I figure that either He [God] exists or He does not exist, and nothing anyone can say or demonstrate will change that irrefutable fact.
What amuses me, however, is how some christians try so hard to prove God to everyone. I mean, if God is real, can't God handle His own P.R.?
To me, it quite simply makes more sense that a Creator existed before created matter did. While it is plausible that the universe required no creator, the default position, from my human perspective, is that it is up to we humans to provide alternate hypothesis based on our logic, reasoning, and perspectives on reality as we know it to be.
Well said, Phat. While my personal position is that unrequired causes should be left out until something indicates their presence, I have no problem with anyone thinking differently for their own reasons in order to live their own life.
It is only when we try to impress "undisputed" knowledge onto others, be they children, family, or strangers, that we should make sure we have hard rational evidence to defend our convictions. Anything less is simply sharing opinions (which has it's own bright stage).
That is... don't say "things work like this..."
Unless you can show that things work like this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Phat, posted 09-18-2008 12:01 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by iano, posted 09-19-2008 9:26 AM Stile has replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 39 of 71 (482959)
09-19-2008 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by Stile
09-18-2008 1:53 PM


+++ a philosophy attempts to summit !! +++ a philosophy atte
Stile writes:
It is only when we try to impress "undisputed" knowledge onto others, be they children, family, or strangers, that we should make sure we have hard rational evidence to defend our convictions. Anything less is simply sharing opinions (which has it's own bright stage).
An example of philosophical empiricism writ large (my bold)
-
That is... don't say "things work like this..."
Unless you can show that things work like this.
The worlds of advertising/lobbying/finance/politics/etc have applied rational thinking in their coming to precisely the opposite conclusion.
This philosophical theists view is that "the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes.." and that it (the gospel) doesn't require its demonstration - just proclamation (via word and deed).
It's just a view, like and opposing yours. So lets all just settle back down again at base camp, shall we?
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Stile, posted 09-18-2008 1:53 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by Stile, posted 09-19-2008 10:06 AM iano has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 40 of 71 (482967)
09-19-2008 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by iano
09-19-2008 9:26 AM


Another fine example
iano writes:
This philosophical theists view is that "the gospel is the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes.." and that it (the gospel) doesn't require its demonstration - just proclamation (via word and deed).
In other words: "Things work like this... just because they do".
It's just a view, like and opposing yours. So lets all just settle back down again at base camp, shall we?
Correct. Your view is just a view that is indistinguishable from the views of the Fictional Four.
"Santa exists, and he does these things..."
-no evidence included
"God exists, and he does these things..."
-no evidence included
The only difference is social acceptance.
If you'd like to discuss your view as opposed to my view, you can return to one of the many threads that are still awaiting your response:
Message 144

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by iano, posted 09-19-2008 9:26 AM iano has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 41 of 71 (486475)
10-21-2008 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Mylakovich
09-03-2008 5:18 AM


Supposition of Belief
Mylakovich writes:
A deity that is indistinguishable from nature is the same as no deity at all. So why suppose unnecessarily?
Lets ask Mr.Dictionary a couple of questions!
1) belief \be-lef\ n 1 : confidence, trust 2 : something (as a tenet or creed) believed syn conviction, opinion, persuasion, sentiment
a belief need not be labeled as either a fact or a fantasy. It merely is an opinion or a sentiment.
2) suppose \se-poz\ vb supposed; supposing 1 : to assume to be true (as for the sake of argument) 2 : expect 3 : to think probable supposal n
Debates and arguments are caused by assumptions and expectations based on opinions and sentiment. We hardly expect to find verification within a belief context. As a believer, my only plea is that belief not be relegated to a fictional status since it is but a belief, anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Mylakovich, posted 09-03-2008 5:18 AM Mylakovich has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 42 of 71 (512161)
06-15-2009 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Mylakovich
09-03-2008 5:18 AM


Why Not?
A deity that is indistinguishable from nature is the same as no deity at all. So why suppose unnecessarily?
Why not? For some of us, belief is much more comforting than no belief. That being said, I dont try to impress the necessity of God onto those whom dont already share basic Christian dogma with me. For those who do share similar dogma, all sorts of opinions are shared, and the most logical ones usually reinforce the group dogma to another degree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Mylakovich, posted 09-03-2008 5:18 AM Mylakovich has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Perdition, posted 06-15-2009 12:07 PM Phat has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 43 of 71 (512243)
06-15-2009 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Phat
06-15-2009 1:54 AM


Re: Why Not?
Why not? For some of us, belief is much more comforting than no belief.
So, for you, a comforting lie is better than a discomforting truth? Would you prefer, if someone near and dear to you had died, that others simply pretend that your loved one has gone on an indefinite vacation without access to any mass communication technology rather than simply tell you that they're dead?
I would much rather know the truth rather than believe something just because it makes me feel good in the short term.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Phat, posted 06-15-2009 1:54 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Coyote, posted 06-15-2009 12:34 PM Perdition has not replied
 Message 45 by Stile, posted 06-15-2009 2:46 PM Perdition has replied
 Message 70 by Phat, posted 06-18-2009 5:19 PM Perdition has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 44 of 71 (512246)
06-15-2009 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Perdition
06-15-2009 12:07 PM


Re: Why Not?
This brings to mind a Heinlein quote:
History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it.
Robert A Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Perdition, posted 06-15-2009 12:07 PM Perdition has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 45 of 71 (512253)
06-15-2009 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Perdition
06-15-2009 12:07 PM


What's wrong with that?
Perdition writes:
So, for you, a comforting lie is better than a discomforting truth? Would you prefer, if someone near and dear to you had died, that others simply pretend that your loved one has gone on an indefinite vacation without access to any mass communication technology rather than simply tell you that they're dead?
What's wrong with such a thing?
Religion may be a crutch. But, if you have a broken leg, a crutch is an extemely useful tool. Even if you're simply taking a long hike with perfectly fine legs, a walking stick can be very nice to have along.
Now, if that belief ever starts to be used to force any ideologies upon other people... I certainly agree you have a very large point. However, if such a thing doesn't happen, I don't see any reason to denigrate the use of a crutch by some people who happen to find it comforting.
"Being free to do whatever you please unless you're hurting another person in the process" works both ways. There's nothing in there that states that everything everyone does must be completely scientific on all levels at all times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Perdition, posted 06-15-2009 12:07 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Perdition, posted 06-15-2009 3:39 PM Stile has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024