|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheists can't hold office in the USA? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
But to decide if one believes in God or not doesn't require thinking you understand God, and most of us who believe in God figure we'll be learning about Him for all eternity. But isn't it reasonable to suppose one could be in the process of learning enough to decide if you simply believe?
Yes, it is entirely reasonable to suppose that one would be in the process of learning. But then that is not what your theology is about, is it? There is no process. Your theology has been determined in advance. There is no learning process involved. Rather, it is all about conforming to what you have already decided must be absolutely true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Believing my doctrine is correct, apart from the fact that I've never said it's PERFECTLY correct, since even among the people I identify with we have small differences of doctrine, doesn't imply perfect knowledge of God, or anything about "understanding" God. I think you've confused some different concepts.
That is nothing but weasel-wording.
DWise1 writes:
You create an elaborate theology. So very full of minute details. Details about what God is saying, what God means, what God intends.
Part of the problem is that so many "true Believers" behave as if they do already understand God and have no more to learn. They believe that their doctrine is so correct that if reality begs to differ from it, then reality is wrong. Yes, Faith, I am looking directly at you. DWise1 writes:
Oh, isn't it? Must it not be? I've never said it's PERFECTLY correct, What would happen if your theology were not correct? Could you even cope with your theology not being correct?
Would you even attempt to deal with your theology not being correct? You have more than amply demonstrated that you would oppose the Truth as much as you possibly could.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
RAZD writes: This is belief not knowledge Theres's no fooling you is there?! That's why they are two different words to describe two different things.
by your own logic -- you are agnostic. I am agnostic about knowledge of god. Tick. Said it dozens of times in this thread. I am not agnostic about belief in god. This, by the simple meaning of words, does not make me agnostic about belief in god. Just as believers in god are not agnostic about their belief but they should be about knowledge.
Believing one way or the other is irrelevant when there is no evidence pro or con, its an arbitrary choice of no rational or scientific value. Says who? You and Huxley? I think you'll find that people in general will laugh in your face if you call their beliefs irrelevant - or arbitrary. You're talking like Spock as though the only thing that matters for decision making is the scientific method. My disbelief in god is neither irrelevant nor arbitrary, nor non-scientific. It's a result of examining evidence, finding it lacking, accepting that a black swan may at some point turn up, but deciding that last missing piece of knowledge is not strong enough to prevent me believing that it won't.
This example does not prove that no god/s exist either, so you still do not have any evidence for your opinion and fall back on belief. Belief that is curiously incapable of altering reality. The example was to prove that atheists exist, not gods. It's that reality that you have to confront RAZD. Do you accept ringo's assertion that he lacks the evidence for Bigfoot but believes it exists anyway? That's a reality. You can't just think it away. People have beliefs that are built on both knowledge and emotion. Get over it.
Curiously, acting on belief does not make that action rational or correct. Curiously, it does. We have imperfect knowledge, so we routinely take actions that pedantically have to be called irrational. I don't know that there isn't an axe murderer waiting for me in my home. But you know what? I believe that there isn't so I'm going in anyway. If we wait for perfect knowledge before action, we're incapacitated. Those that believed the world wasn't flat and sailed off to prove it were irrational according to the knowledge of the day.
beliefers" (those that act based on beliefs ) -- and "not-beliefers" (those that do not act based on beliefs) ... I wonder what I could call them ... The first type are called people. The second we call machines. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8551 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.9
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Tan writes: I don't know that there isn't an axe murderer waiting for me in my home. But you know what? I believe that there isn't so I'm going in anyway. Which would make you an a-axemurdererinmyhouse-ist as opposed to an axemurdererinmyhouse-ist. Where an axemurdererinmyhouse-ist is someone who does indeed believe that there is an axe murderer waiting for them in their home and the 'a' prefix denotes those that do not believe this, such as yourself. Without any basis for believing that there is an axe murderer waiting for them those who do believe this (i.e. the axemurdererinmyhouse-ists) are paranoid delusionists and those that don't (i.e. the a-axemurdererinmyhouse-ists) are just people going about their everyday lives unconcerned by such irrational nonsense. Now swap in the terms 'theist' and 'atheist' into the appropriate places and voila, all should become clear to those still struggling here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5949 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I have made no mistake at all! You are the one who is incapable of using the English language! You are the one who kept stating what you don't actually believe.
What is your problem? Did your mother drop you on your head?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Straggler writes: Now swap in the terms 'theist' and 'atheist' into the appropriate places and voila, all should become clear to those still struggling here. Precisely, just like there is no word (until now, when some lunatic just made it up) for a disbelief in an axe murderer waiting behind a door, there should be no word for someone who doesn't believe in the superstitious nonsense spoken about God, (Gods, god, gods - fuck, I'm bored with this pedantry). Then we pose a lessor risk of another loony coming along a couple of thousand years from now with an "I don't know" position just to hide his disbelief in axe murderers. Hence the accusation of special pleading for religious "knowledge" over knowledge of fairies. And axe murderers.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Tangle writes:
You're the one who's confusing knowledge with belief when you claim there's no such thing as an agnostic.
You're confusing knowledge with belief. Tangle writes:
Do they?
People know what they believe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
Neither Huxley nor anybody else has the power to "allow" any such thing.
Sadly, Huxley, says youre not allowed to believe that. Tangle writes:
You may believe that I'll agree, but you don't know whether I will or not. You're agnostic, whether you believe it or not.
Luckily, and I'm sure you'll now agree, he's wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Precisely, just like there is no word (until now, when some lunatic just made it up) for a disbelief in an axe murderer waiting behind a door, there should be no word for someone who doesn't believe in the superstitious nonsense spoken about God, (Gods, god, gods - fuck, I'm bored with this pedantry). ... Hence the accusation of special pleading for religious "knowledge" over knowledge of fairies. And axe murderers. At most the 'special pleading' is for devoted terminology. But that is more a reflection of the need for such terminology vis--vis the frequency with which people discuss (and the importance they place on the topic of) god, God, GOD, gods, Gods, and GODs vs. the frequency with which they discuss (and the importance they place on the topic of) axe murderers, fairies, etc. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
ringo writes: You're the one who's confusing knowledge with belief when you claim there's no such thing as an agnostic. Oh, no I'm not. Have I walked into a bloody pantomine? People are agnostic about knowledge, but not about belief. You are agnostic about the existence of Bigfoot, but you are certain of your belief in Bigfoot. (Apparently)
Do they?. Yes, quite often, just like you and Bigfoot. (Apparently). But when they don't know whether they believe in Bigfoot or not, then they don't believe in Bigfoot. You see belief is a positive, it either exists or it doesn't. Fun this ain't it?Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Tangle writes:
If people ARE agnostic about knowledge, you can't say there's no such thing as an agnostic. That's all people are trying to tell you. People are agnostic about knowledge, but not about belief. Being agnostic "about belief" is a nonsensical concept. Nobody is arguing that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9509 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
ringo writes: If people ARE agnostic about knowledge, you can't say there's no such thing as an agnostic. That's all people are trying to tell you. I'm fully aware of what people are saying - it's hardly novel or difficult. But this is my entire point, which has gone flying over your - and others - heads. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. You can be agnostic about knowledge - in fact you MUST be, but not belief.
Being agnostic "about belief" is a nonsensical concept. Exactly my point. Well done. You can't be agnostic about a belief. Shazham! But be careful, that makes Huxley an atheist. (Which in my view he was.)
Nobody is arguing that.
I'm pretty sure they are - we're a few hundred posts into it. I would have noticed....Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 438 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Tangle writes:
You're arguing against a point that nobody is making.
But this is my entire point, which has gone flying over your - and others - heads. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. You can be agnostic about knowledge - in fact you MUST be, but not belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: But that is more a reflection of the need for such terminology vis--vis the frequency with which people discuss (and the importance they place on the topic of) god, God, GOD, gods, Gods, and GODs vs. the frequency with which they discuss (and the importance they place on the topic of) axe murderers, fairies, etc. I agree with you that the subjective importance people place on God is the basis for the special pleading in question. But special pleading it remains. Anyone who lacks the belief that there is an axe murderer waiting for them at home is an a-axemurdererinmyhouse-ist in exactly the same way that anyone who lacks a positive belief in any gods can accurately be described as an atheist. If one talks logically with all special pleading absented.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024