Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,641 Year: 4,898/9,624 Month: 246/427 Week: 56/103 Day: 0/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Atheists can't hold office in the USA?
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9532
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 721 of 777 (751013)
02-25-2015 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 715 by ThinAirDesigns
02-25-2015 12:41 PM


Re: and ANOTHER opportunity for Tangle to review his position ...
TAD writes:
And with this I also agree. This is why my common response to the question "Do you believe in god?" is "Define your god -- only after that can I rationally assert a position."
and to which definition of God do you rationally answer yes?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 715 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 02-25-2015 12:41 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 724 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 02-26-2015 9:11 AM Tangle has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 722 of 777 (751015)
02-25-2015 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 708 by dronestar
02-25-2015 10:46 AM


Re: It's natural to be a naturalist . . .
So, even though it still has problems, does anybody concede that the term "naturalist" is the best term to use?
I consider myself a naturalist; in fact, I consider myself a right empiricist. I also consider myself an agnostic. And I consider myself a theist.
I don't think co-opting words that have other uses really solves the problem of people being hardcore definition nazis.
It'd be better if those people would simply be reasonable, honest, and understanding.
The second best option is to simply ignore their nonsense and give it none of the attention only good arguments deserve.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 708 by dronestar, posted 02-25-2015 10:46 AM dronestar has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9532
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 723 of 777 (751021)
02-26-2015 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 717 by New Cat's Eye
02-25-2015 2:03 PM


Re: and ANOTHER opportunity for Tangle to review his position ...
Cat Sci writes:
There's even issues on the theist side...
Yes, I know :-)
When asked the question: "Does god exist?", some people will go: "Yes, god does exist."
Others, like myself, will refrain from taking that positive position. My response would be more along the lines of: "Well, I really don't know, but I do think that a god exists. I believe it, but I won't claim that one does."
This is the the problem - if you believe in god you are a theist or deist. That's straight forward. It really doesn't make any sense to then say that you're agnostic - in the matter of your belief you're clearly not.
I've had conversations in RL with hardcore True ChristiansTM where I've just told them I was agnostic. It was a lot easier to just say that I was an agnostic than go through the details of my position on the matter - partly because of what I know about those types of people and how they would react.
This is why the word agnostic is really of very little use now; it's used as a disguise as much as anything. Instead of a word to describe those of us that are rational enough to answer the question 'does god exist/not exist?' with 'I don't know,' which is true of belivers and non-believers alike, we need one to describe the irrational that say they do know. Probably it should be gnostic - except that has been taken and means something else.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 717 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-25-2015 2:03 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2458 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 724 of 777 (751025)
02-26-2015 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 721 by Tangle
02-25-2015 7:23 PM


Re: and ANOTHER opportunity for Tangle to review his position ...
Tangle writes:
and to which definition of God do you rationally answer yes?
"The kindness of the human spirit - the natural desire of humans to do good for one another.", to name just one.
Now, I don't find that definition meets MY definition of a god, but it meets theirs and so I can happily answer the question based on their definition. I believe in the kindness of the human spirit and thus I believe in what THEY call god.
There are other definitions that involve nature that I could also answer in the affirmative ("Natural beauty is god - it warms me and makes be feel whole.") . Once again, not god to me but to them.
I actually know people who give versions of the above.
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 721 by Tangle, posted 02-25-2015 7:23 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 725 by Tangle, posted 02-26-2015 9:37 AM ThinAirDesigns has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9532
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 725 of 777 (751028)
02-26-2015 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 724 by ThinAirDesigns
02-26-2015 9:11 AM


Re: and ANOTHER opportunity for Tangle to review his position ...
TAD writes:
"The kindness of the human spirit - the natural desire of humans to do good for one another.", to name just one.
Well yes, but that - as you say - is not god, it's people.
Now, I don't find that definition meets MY definition of a god,
But that was the question....
There are other definitions that involve nature that I could also answer in the affirmative ("Natural beauty is god - it warms me and makes be feel whole.") . Once again, not god to me but to them.
I actually know people who give versions of the above.
But again you're not answering the question. I'm not asking you what others think, I'm asking you which definition of God are you prepared to sign up to?
At the moment it seems that you're just finding weasley ways of avoiding admitting that you're an atheist. Fine if you need tactics to keep talking to your Christian chums I suppose, but sort of pointless in discussions here.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 724 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 02-26-2015 9:11 AM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 727 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 02-26-2015 10:08 AM Tangle has replied

  
ScottRP
Member (Idle past 233 days)
Posts: 515
From: Tustin, California USA
Joined: 02-26-2015


Message 726 of 777 (751029)
02-26-2015 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
01-13-2015 12:55 PM


Perhaps, the White House is keeping God a secret? They do keep secrets from the American people.
Edited by ScottRP, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 01-13-2015 12:55 PM Tangle has not replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2458 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 727 of 777 (751030)
02-26-2015 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 725 by Tangle
02-26-2015 9:37 AM


Re: and ANOTHER opportunity for Tangle to review his position ...
Tangle writes:
Well yes, but that - as you say - is not god, it's people.
And using their definition that's not a problem now is it?
But that was the question....
No it wasn't, but that likely gets into definitions as well and you've shown that only your definitions matter to you. Fair enough.
Bottom line is this: You apparently feel that the only honest/rational answer is one which forces the questioner to live by your own chosen definitions of words. I don't find that true, useful or productive. As long as they can articulate to me what their definition actually is, I'm usually quite capable of answering their question using their definition.
At the moment it seems that you're just finding weasley ways of avoiding admitting that you're an atheist.
And by holding to the notion that your definitions are the only definitions validly in use, you can maintain that position indefinitely.
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 725 by Tangle, posted 02-26-2015 9:37 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 729 by Tangle, posted 02-26-2015 10:34 AM ThinAirDesigns has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 728 of 777 (751031)
02-26-2015 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 714 by dronestar
02-25-2015 12:11 PM


Re: It's natural to be a naturalist . . .
If I asked you: Are you skeptical or atheist about Easter Bunnies that created the universe, I suspect you would say you are atheist about those entities. To say you were merely skeptcal would mean to me that you were earnestly keeping an open mind to such entities such as universe-tampering Easter Bunnies.
Well I would say that was playing word games to redefine the "easter bunny" as a god, and I am agnostic\deist on god/s.
The original easter bunny was a symbol of fertility for the goddess Eostre, along with colored eggs. What we have today is a caricature construct, a cartoon. Bunnies do exist, and the do "breed like rabbits" and thus are a perfectly legitimate symbol of fertility.
We also have objective empirical data that shows that mammals in general and rabbits in particular are not prone to laying colored eggs, nor do they have hands for carrying baskets.
If scientists kept an infinitely open mind to all possibilities, I would think science wouldn't progress too quickly. I would prefer scientists who are working on cancer and environmental problems to not keep an open mind and consider/hypothesise/test that Easter Bunnies are possibly tampering with the universe.
You're actually talking about god/s tampering with the universe, and curiously there are a lot of people, some of which are theist scientists, some of which are creationists and IDists that do spend time considering god/s tampering with the universe.
Open-minded and skeptical is not "infinitely open mind to all possibilities" -- it involves choices: different choices will be made by different people. Some may choose to investigate, others to wait and see, and others still to criticize.
For example you can take the Ivory Billed Woodpecker. Evidence pointed to this bird being extinct since a pair was shot in Florida in the 50's (for identification iirc).
  • A believer would say that the bird survives in the depths of Louisiana swamplands and we must go and search for them.
  • The open minded skeptic would say it is possible the bird survives, but the information is anecdotal and inconclusive -- you go and look if you want, but I can wait for better results.
  • The disbeliever would say don't waste your time (and my tax dollars) looking
Well believers went and looked and found better evidence, the open-minded skeptic is happy.
Or we can take the Sasquatch for an example. There are many claims of Sasquatch sightings but nothing is confirmed yet
  • A believer would say that the Sasquatch lives in the tangled depths of West-coast forests and we must go and search for them.
  • The open minded skeptic would say it is possible such a critter exists, but the information is anecdotal and inconclusive -- you go and look if you want, but I can wait for better results.
  • The disbeliever would say don't waste your time (and my tax dollars) looking
Believers are still looking.
Curiously I have no problem with people looking for things that may or may not exist, that is one way discoveries are made after all (even if not necessarily what was being sought).
Enjoy
btw -- are you aware of the usage of "naturalist" for nudist?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 714 by dronestar, posted 02-25-2015 12:11 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 733 by dronestar, posted 02-26-2015 12:28 PM RAZD has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9532
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 729 of 777 (751034)
02-26-2015 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 727 by ThinAirDesigns
02-26-2015 10:08 AM


Re: and ANOTHER opportunity for Tangle to review his position ...
TAD writes:
And using their definition that's not a problem now is it?
Of course it is - it's dishonest! Unless, of course, you think people are gods, which I'm pretty sure you don't.
And by holding to the notion that your definitions are the only definitions validly in use, you can maintain that position indefinitely.
They're not my definitions, they're bog standard, dictionary definitions.
These people that use these apple pie and motherhood phrases I assume are actually god fearing Christians? Do they never ask you if you believe in Christ?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 727 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 02-26-2015 10:08 AM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 730 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 02-26-2015 11:07 AM Tangle has replied

  
ThinAirDesigns
Member (Idle past 2458 days)
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


Message 730 of 777 (751035)
02-26-2015 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 729 by Tangle
02-26-2015 10:34 AM


Re: and ANOTHER opportunity for Tangle to review his position ...
Tangle writes:
They're not my definitions, they're bog standard, dictionary definitions.
And this is where you fail to realize and accept that there are MANY dictionary definitions of the word "god". That's demonstrably your problem, not mine.
Example:
God Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
quote:
God
: the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe
: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people
: one of various spirits or beings worshipped in some religions
: a person and especially a man who is greatly loved or admired
Just the facts. My highlighted definition fits perfectly well with "the kindness of the human spirit" that my friend would use.
These people that use these apple pie and motherhood phrases I assume are actually god fearing Christians?
Oh, absolutely not. Christians of my family would consider those friends of mine demon possessed and those friends would consider my family misguided and abusive.
Do they never ask you if you believe in Christ?
Well, I've established that your assumption leading to this question is false, but as a separate answer to your question: The fundamentalists of my family and friends (and a great swath of the US), wouldn't generally think to use the word "Christ" in place of the word "God". In fact many would even object to it. In their world when one refers to God, one is referring to the Father (of the trinity). Christ is the Son. (No, don't ask me to make sense of their beliefs).
JB

This message is a reply to:
 Message 729 by Tangle, posted 02-26-2015 10:34 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 732 by Tangle, posted 02-26-2015 12:27 PM ThinAirDesigns has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 731 of 777 (751037)
02-26-2015 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 713 by AZPaul3
02-25-2015 11:53 AM


Re: When words get in the way ... and respect is lost in the kerfuffle
Both side discard reality in not acknowledging there exists the alternative.
But the discussion is about what people say they believe, not whether their beliefs are valid. The reality is that people describe their beliefs in many different ways, as is rather obvious from the length of discussion on this thread.
Logic exists to assist understanding. Logical fallacies also exist, and they are ways to identify poor understanding.
The "reality" is that the logic exists as well as the popular vernacular. Each is appropriate within their spheres.
But if we are talking about what people actually say they believe, the people that should get to say what they believe are the people themselves, not someone else.
If a person says they are a theist, that the word "theism" describes their beliefs, then they are de facto a theist, and we should take them at their word that that is what they believe. They should be able to use whatever definitions and descriptions they like to describe their belief in greater detail if necessary.
If a person says they are an atheist, that the word "atheism" describes their beliefs, then they are de facto an atheist, and we should take them at their word that that is what they believe. They should be able to use whatever definitions and descriptions they like to describe their belief in greater detail if necessary.
and ...
If a person says they are an agnostic, that the word "agnosticism" describes their beliefs, then they are de facto an agnostic, and we should take them at their word that that is what they believe. They should be able to use whatever definitions and descriptions they like to describe their belief in greater detail if necessary.
We would not and should not let a fundamentalist theist say that an atheist is by definition a "godless immoral sinner," because that is the fundamentalist defining the beliefs of the atheist rather than the atheist.
Likewise we should not let some intolerant fundamentalistic dictionary pedant say that one specific definition must be used, that ONLY the orange definition can be used for "agnostic" ...
quote:
Oxford Dictionaries
language matters
Agnostic
noun
A person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.
... and that people who claim to use the yellow definition are using the wrong definition and that they are actually a theist or actually an atheist (depending on how the pedant feels that moment) that is too dishonest to admit it to themselves.
For that is no more tolerant or respectful of other people of their beliefs than the fundamentalist theist was of atheism.
And a person can even make up their own terminology to describe what they believe if they find the existing words inadequate.
For instance: If a person says they are a Simultanist, that the word "Simultanism" describes their beliefs that god/s both exist and don't exist at the same time, then they are de facto a Simultanist, and we should take them at their word that that is what they believe. They should be able to use whatever definition they like to describe their belief in greater detail if necessary.
Anything less is fundamental intolerance and disrespectful.
Like I said: "words are poor descriptors of reality" -- so people should be allowed to define and expand on how they are using words to improve communication, and not be put presumptively in one box or another.
You are free to have your opinion of my beliefs but your opinion does not define my beliefs, it defines your (in)tolerance of my beliefs and how I describe them.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : .
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 713 by AZPaul3, posted 02-25-2015 11:53 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9532
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 732 of 777 (751038)
02-26-2015 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 730 by ThinAirDesigns
02-26-2015 11:07 AM


Re: and ANOTHER opportunity for Tangle to review his position ...
TAD writes:
"The kindness of the human spirit - the natural desire of humans to do good for one another.", to name just one.
That speaks of the desire of people to be kind. Which is nothing at all to do with this:
: a spirit or being that has great power, strength, knowledge, etc., and that can affect nature and the lives of people
Now does it? Come on be honest, one is describing a desire in people, the other is a standard definition of a god.
In their world when one refers to God, one is referring to the Father (of the trinity). Christ is the Son.
Ho hum, I really don't mind what they call it, I'm sure we both know what I'm asking. Have you ever been asked any of them? If so how do you answer?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 730 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 02-26-2015 11:07 AM ThinAirDesigns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 737 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 02-27-2015 3:45 PM Tangle has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 733 of 777 (751039)
02-26-2015 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 728 by RAZD
02-26-2015 10:13 AM


Re: It's natural to be a naturalist . . .
Hi RAZD,
RAZD writes:
Open-minded and skeptical is not "infinitely open mind to all possibilities" -- it involves choices
Yes, that was my hopeful point in asking:
quote:
Are you skeptical or atheist about Easter Bunnies that created the universe?
By writing "it involves choices," it seems you are agreeing that there SHOULD be SOME limits or "choices" to open-mindedness. Good.
RAZD writes:
Well I would say that was playing word games to redefine the "easter bunny" as a god
No, I was not re-defining the "Easter Bunny." I was specifically attempting to use the Easter Bunny as gullible children use it. Children believe the Easter Bunny is an invisible magical entity that delivers goodness, chocolate, and hides baskets. Children believe the Easter Bunny does these magical/supernatural things, just as god(s) similarly do, I am told. My parallel construct is accurate.
With this definition clearly now defined, I will re-ask you:
quote:
Are you skeptical or atheist about Easter Bunnies that created the universe?
I suspect you will CHOOSE to answer "athiest."
RAZD writes:
Curiously I have no problem with people looking for things that may or may not exist, that is one way discoveries are made after all (even if not necessarily what was being sought).
As I wrote before, tax money is finite, tax-payers SHOULD have a say into what researchers do with our money. Some money is well-spent: Cancer research, Alzheimer's cure, larger phosphorus bombs to use on a bigger parts of civilian communities. But I wouldn't want my tax-money spent on researching the existence of Easter Bunnies.
I believe everybody on this forum can contrive other satisfactory examples.
RAZD writes:
btw -- are you aware of the usage of "naturalist" for nudist?
Yeah, in conversation using the term naturalist, if people's eyes widen, I know I have to further clarify my naked position. (But which came first, the naturalist or the nudist?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 728 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2015 10:13 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 734 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2015 2:58 PM dronestar has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 734 of 777 (751046)
02-26-2015 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 733 by dronestar
02-26-2015 12:28 PM


Re: It's natural to be a naturalist . . .
By writing "it involves choices," it seems you are agreeing that there SHOULD be SOME limits or "choices" to open-mindedness. Good.
And sometimes that choice is to do nothing until better information is available.
Now I would also expect that a person that thinks they have seen a sasquatch to think that they have good reason to investigate further, just as the people that thought they heard an ivory billed woodpecker deep in the Louisiana swamps were more committed to investigate further. And imho they are welcome to do that while I await their results with no a priori position on the possibility of their success.
No, I was not re-defining the "Easter Bunny." I was specifically attempting to use the Easter Bunny as gullible children use it. Children believe the Easter Bunny is an invisible magical entity that delivers goodness, chocolate, and hides baskets. Children believe the Easter Bunny does these magical/supernatural things, ...
Well, if you are a priori going to define the easter bunny as a fictional caricature of the original fertility symbol (because rabbits), then I would agree that such modern fiction is indeed fictional because we can trace the fictional roots in fictional books that portray this fictional caricature. Alternatively I can also say that rabbits exist and they do breed like rabbits, so they would be good symbols of fertility.
... just as god(s) similarly do, I am told. My parallel construct is accurate.
If you like to believe so, I will not be in your way -- your belief is your belief. But a rather major difference imho is the source of beliefs comparing childhood beliefs with grownup beliefs.
For the Easter Bunny the source is cartoonish children story books read by indulgent parents that pretend to believe. There are no churches to the Easter Bunny AFAIK.
Adult beliefs come through believing adults, and there is a large body of theological study behind various positions.
So I am skeptical that your claim of similarity is valid or anything other than the eye of the beholder.
I suspect you will CHOOSE to answer "athiest."
Curiously I can call a fictional caricature a fictional caricature without invoking atheism, just as I can discuss Harry Potter characters as fictional. To my mind it weakens your argument to toss fictional books and stories into a lump with god/s and say you lack belief in them: there is no intent for fictional characters to be believed, just as there is no intent by parents to have their children believe in an easter bunny beyond childhood. Using it thus cheapens it imho.
Myself, I would apply the term atheist for things supernatural that were intended to be believed. By adults. For life.
Now I can be skeptical of god/s, but I don't feel a need to be skeptical of Harry Potter and the Easter Bunnies (a new rock group in town), when I can simply believe they are fictional stories intended for entertainment, rather than supernatural beings intended to be believed by the faithful.
As I wrote before, tax money is finite, tax-payers SHOULD have a say into what researchers do with our money. Some money is well-spent: Cancer research, Alzheimer's cure, larger phosphorus bombs to use on a bigger parts of civilian communities. But I wouldn't want my tax-money spent on researching the existence of Easter Bunnies.
I believe everybody on this forum can contrive other satisfactory examples.
And I don't like for my tax dollars to go to wars and war profiteers or to large fossil fuel corporations, but I can see some value in funding people that want to look for ivory billed woodpeckers ... or sasquatch ... instead - on things we can (possibly) learn from.
Yeah, in conversation using the term naturalist, if people's eyes widen, I know I have to further clarify my naked position. (But which came first, the naturalist or the nudist?)
... we were all born nudists, it came naturally, a tabula rasa ...
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 733 by dronestar, posted 02-26-2015 12:28 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 735 by dronestar, posted 02-26-2015 3:45 PM RAZD has replied

  
dronestar
Member
Posts: 1425
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 735 of 777 (751054)
02-26-2015 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 734 by RAZD
02-26-2015 2:58 PM


Re: It's natural to be a naturalist . . .
RAZD writes:
And sometimes that choice is to do nothing until better information is available.
Okay, sometimes.
RAZD writes:
Well, if you are a priori going to define the easter bunny as a fictional caricature of the original fertility symbol (because rabbits), then I would agree that such modern fiction is indeed fictional because we can trace the fictional roots in fictional books that portray this fictional caricature.
And as I previously explained to CS, you would also have to show evidence that the bronze-age caveman didn't also create its god as a fictional character. And since we know that god's and Easter Bunnie's magic/supernatural abilities exist only in the imaginations of man, then its without doubt that all gods started as fictional characters too. But perhaps you need even more tangible evidence . . .
RAZD writes:
There are no churches to the Easter Bunny AFAIK.
Adult beliefs come through believing adults, and there is a large body of theological study behind various positions.
Well, I don't doubt that a bronze-age cavemen COULD have imagined a rabbit-god, then created an Easter Bunny church, and through time, have it expand. And wouldn't you know? There is just such an example, a temple to a rodent, not a rabbit, but a rat, in India, Karni Mata Temple.
And yes, RAZD, their beliefs in this god come through believing adults. The similarity of children believing in the Easter Bunny as a god is uncanny, wouldn't you agree? (or are you gonna split hares?)
quote:
Out of all of the thousands of rats in the temple, there are a few white rats, which are considered to be especially holy. They are believed to be the manifestations of Karni Mata herself and her four sons.
Karni Mata Temple - Wikipedia
RAZD writes:
Myself, I would apply the term atheist for things supernatural that were intended to be believed. By adults. For life.
Like the following little adorable gods? . . .
Sooo, do you, RAZD, beleive that the Easter Bunny rat manifestations of Karni Mata herself, are:
1. indeed gods
2. merely skeptical but very open to more evidence,
3. athiest about them?
RAZD writes:
but I can see some value in funding people that want to look for ivory billed woodpeckers ... or sasquatch ... instead - on things we can (possibly) learn from.
I haven't disagreed with this.
Edited by dronestar, : (or are you gonna split hares?) too good a pun to leave out

This message is a reply to:
 Message 734 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2015 2:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 736 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2015 4:59 PM dronestar 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