My Beliefs- GDR

Maybe it's because that's exactly what you said.

quote:

---

I’m going to be less inclined to believe in Bigfoot than I am in a deity that talks about life after death.

---

You're either not comprehending or being deliberately obtuse.Straggler never said "don't believe in bigfoot" he said "those who are more sceptical would put forward more mundane explanations for these phenomena and would dispute that they can be legitimately ascribed to the activities of Bigfoot."You see, they start with no premise at all. The evidence can lead them to the actual bigfoot, but they don't start from that point. They start from objectively evidenced sources and work their way forward from there. So no 'cart before the horse' fallacy here.However, starting with the belief that bigfoot exists is putting the cart before the horse.Like with the resurrection. Starting with the belief that god exists and therefore the resurrection can happen is putting the cart before the horse. To NOT commit this logical fallacy the starting point should be neutral - start with the objective evidence and work your way forward from there.- Oni

Sure, I don't disagree with that but I understood the discussion was comparing the atheistic vs theistic positions. Maybe I misunderstood.

I wanted to get away from the idea that to rule is about controlling people and exercising power. Jesus said that He came to serve and not to be served.Mark 10:45

quote:

---

"For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many."

---

Yes we are called to serve Him, but we are called to serve Him by serving others. One example of Jesus ruling sacrificially is the example of Him washing the feet of the disciples. I do agree also that dying on the cross is another example of ruling through sacrificial love.I assume it is where the idea of calling government employees and politicians public servants came from. If I'm right it's going to work out much better in the next life.

It is and Stile described the more common atheist perspective. You have been here long enough to know that atheism does not mean "I believe there are no gods" but rather "I don't believe gods exist as they have been put forth". You're smart enough to know the difference.

My point was that if we are simply the result of mindless particles forming into life that the potential for sentience had to exist from the beginning. If we are the result of an intelligent designer then sentience could have been introduced somewhere else in the evolutionary process. Paul puts it this way then:

quote:

---

who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,

---

Look, I don't pretend to have any idea when existence as we know it will come to an end or what will cause it. Personally I'm of the opinion that it will be caused natural disaster or by human means as opposed to a God ordained end, and hopefully millions of years from now.Frankly, I don't really put a lot of thought into it as I don't see it influencing any aspect of my life. What will be will be. I also know that the Jews had a number of beliefs about the coming messiah and they had it all wrong the first time so I have a hunch we all, including me, have it wrong the next time as well.

This is about the yearning for justice. I have no idea why you are so evasive, but man it's frustrating.You said from the beginning we've had a yearning for justice. I explained how these feeling could have evolved culturally. Then you said it makes sense that it's evolved.So which is it? We had the yearning from the beginning (then you can define what you mean by "beginning") or it's evolved? Then we can move past this so I can get to my actual point. This is about the yearning for justice. But frankly, it is specifically about how you're switching your position every other post. I have no idea what this means either. I have always been taught the Trinity (although I admit I don't understand it) god, Jesus, holy ghost are all one and the same.But no matter, let's say Jesus and not even call him a god. Better for me.Jesus surely fits your conclusion of ""the more time that goes by without a confirmed sighting the less plausible its existence becomes"" does he not? Look, I'm just trying to understand your logic here. You said "the more time that goes by without a confirmed sighting the less plausible its existence becomes" which I agree with.I'm just curious as to why you don't hold the same logical conclusion for Jesus?It calls into question how honestly you're approaching the question of god.- Oni

OK. I’m going to have to eat a little humble pie. I see your point. I went back to see what I had written so I could point out to you where you were wrong and it appears to be more that I wrote poorly. Here is what I wrote. The two sentences were meant to be one thought. From an atheistic POV I thought that the point could be made stronger as the common perception of Christianity is that the prime thing about being a Christian is that you gain life after death. I was actually agreeing with your point and actually saying that it could be made stronger than the example that you used. I quite honestly didn`t become a Christian for that reason, which I think that I have demonstrated by what I have written in this thread.This is an apology for unfairly maligning you by the way. OK, I understood that one group rejected the possibility of Bigfoot existing. In the example that you give I just don’t see any real difference. For those that are sceptical about its existence they will wait for more information as will those who are inclined to believe that Bigfoot does exist.Let’s see what Straggler has to say. I sure don’t follow that. From your explanation about Bigfoot I assume that you are talking about people who think that God could exist but it is unlikely, compared to those who think that it is likely that God does exist but might not. In either case belief or disbelief in the resurrection is going to have be based on other information.

Then what is an agnostic? I equate atheism with materialism.

*takes victory lap waving the American flag* We'll wait for Sraggler but it seems clear in the way he worded it that no one is rejecting anything. They're just not starting with the premise that bigfoot exists.Maybe here is where you're having the issue.Just because one doesn't start with the premise that bigfoot exists doesn't mean they rejected bigfoot. Just simply put, there is no evidence for bigfoot in any conclusive way so it makes more sense to start from more objectively evidenced sources - like a bear for example. Does it make more sense like this: When examining the resurrection, it makes more sense to start from more objectively evidenced sources than to start with the premise that something as unevidenced as god did it?- Oni

This was meant as a reply to oni's post 606.Here was my point about justice. I can’t see where I said that justice existed from the beginning. I assumed you were talking about sentience as I was saying that from a materialistic POV the potential for sentience must have existed from the beginning. I assume that you mean by a confirmed sighting that you are talking about the second coming. I equate the second coming with the end of time as we know it. If He isn’t around when that time comes, whenever it is, I’ll concede the point. (I’m not expecting Him anytime soon by the way.)Incidentally something I’ll add to what I said earlier. It seems IMHO that God pretty much always works through humans. Even when He revealed Himself, (I can’t think of a better way to put it), He revealed Himself through the man Jesus. In light of this I’m inclined to think that one way or another, and not necessarily in a destructive way, that it will be through mankind that time will end. It is just a thought and I certainly am not able to present any more of an argument for it than that.BTW - I'm out the doorEdited by GDR, : linked to wrong post

I thought I was describing atheism What you are calling "atheistic" is more what would be called "fundamentalist (or military) atheism"... which is only held by a very small percentage of crazy people. Just like "fundamentalist (or cultish) theism"... which is also only held by a very small percentage of crazy people.But when you mention theism in your discussions here... you're talking more about your position... a rational theistic position.
I just wanted to explain to you the equivalent on the atheism side... the rational atheistic position.
Each are much more common, and quite different from the fundamental versions.I do agree with you (and I think most here would) that a rational theistic position is favourable to a fundamental atheistic position.
But no one really cares about this comparison.Everyone here is attempting to discuss from the rational atheistic position... degrading that down to the fundamental position is what's causing a lot of the problems.I understand it is difficult to self-monitor and regulate. I'm sure some here are also guilty of accidentally accusing you of holding fundamental-like positions instead of the actual rational-theistic position you do hold. You probably know that it makes you feel quite defensive when people get this wrong. ("That's not what I mean!") Materialism, again, is not a very widely held position in the extreme fundamentalist sense.
It is a widely held theory (since there is no known evidence against it yet). But it is not generally held in the way you are implying. It is generally held more in the way I've described atheism (as a theory).I don't really know what agnosticsm is. It's never made much sense to me.
I'm pretty sure it's for pansies

*gnosticism relates to knowledge.*theism relates to belief. Belief is a subset of knowledge.Agnostic Atheist: You don't know whether or not there is a god, but you don't believe there is one. Most atheists take this position as it is the most intellectually honest since only a Sith deals in absolutes.Agnostic Theist: you don't know if there is a god, but you believe there is one.Gnostic Atheist: you know there is no god OR you actively believe there to be NO gods.Gnostic Theist: you know there is a god. Materialism is materialism and atheism is atheism. You should equate atheism with atheism (the non beleif of a deity). Matt Dillahunty of The Atheist Experience has this explanation down to a science, so check this link out:abe:
Also a common mistake with a lot of people is to think that agnosticism is a mid point between theism and atheism. It's not. Lastly, you are atheist towards all the other gods that have been presented (Zeus, Thor, Hades etc), I just go one further (credit to Carlin, obviously).Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

Another subject you seem to not know about but you feel a need to spout off about. You are exceedingly insulting.I am atheist and extremely non materialistic. The most materialistic people I know are also the.most religious.

Just a guess: you are using "materialistic" in a different sense than GDR meant the term "materialist." You are using it as a personality trait of greed or acquisitiveness, GDR merely meant the philosophy of materialism as in anti-supernaturalism.Yes?

I see my point was lost on you.
Maybe he and you will understand what happens when you make up definitions. Other people can take those definitions and get even more ridiculous.