Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-27-2019 6:10 AM
17 online now:
(17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,844 Year: 9,880/19,786 Month: 2,302/2,119 Week: 338/724 Day: 1/62 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
2Next
Author Topic:   Jihadists must die, --- but our real enemies are the Quran and Bible.
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6921
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 28 of 375 (751286)
03-02-2015 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Thugpreacha
03-02-2015 8:08 AM


Re: We Have Met The Enemy And He Is Us.
Phat writes:

Many say that Jesus was the "second Adam" but I see Jesus as plan A rather than plan B. God never created actualized evil, in my belief. God created the possibility of evil--potentialized evil in the form of rebellion (independence?) from His Spirit. Lucifer actualized the process by choosing to rebel---much like many of today's educated skeptics do.

Bit of an old theme this Phat, but you've literally just made that up. On the rare occasions that I go to a church service - births, deaths, marriages - I hear the priest/vicar doing the same; he just makes stuff up. He has no more knowledge of god and his schemes than I do, but he spouts this fairytale stuff anyway.

A complete fabrication repeated over and over down the centuries and across the land. Doesn't it bother you at all that ther's absolutely no foundation to any of these sorts of statements and yet you talk of the need for critical thinking?

"Lucifer actualised the process of choosing to rebel"

No he didn't, and what's more, Lucifer doesn't exist. So now what?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-02-2015 8:08 AM Thugpreacha has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-02-2015 9:21 AM Tangle has responded

Tangle
Member
Posts: 6921
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 31 of 375 (751306)
03-02-2015 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Thugpreacha
03-02-2015 9:21 AM


Re: We Have Met The Enemy And He Is Us.
Phat writes:

Why is it you always take the contrarian position by default?

Firstly, it's not contrarian, it merely differs from yours.
Secondly, I don't disagree with you by default, I disagree when I consider you to be wrong - tell me that snow is cold and that tea doesn't need sugar and I'll agree.
Thirdly, we're here to argue, if we agreed we'd be in your church, not here.
Fourthly, why don't you answer the question?


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 29 by Thugpreacha, posted 03-02-2015 9:21 AM Thugpreacha has acknowledged this reply

Tangle
Member
Posts: 6921
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 40 of 375 (758892)
06-05-2015 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by MrHambre
06-05-2015 6:18 AM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
Mr Hambre writes:

I've been dismayed to see atheism turn from a freethought community into a hate group.

I think this is at least as big a caricature of the situation as you claim is being made of believers by atheists.

I blame Sam Harris more than anyone else. etc

It's been a long time since I read that book, but it wasn't the message I got from it.

But these sorts of complaints are common enough from believers - I put it down to them never having to hear about atheism, and now they do. Too bad, we've suffered their messages, now it's their turn.

Btw, when you say you're non-religious, does that mean you're a deist or have you just gone off the word atheist?


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 39 by MrHambre, posted 06-05-2015 6:18 AM MrHambre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by MrHambre, posted 06-05-2015 9:08 AM Tangle has responded

Tangle
Member
Posts: 6921
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 42 of 375 (758896)
06-05-2015 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by MrHambre
06-05-2015 9:08 AM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
Mr Hambre writes:

I think it applies to the organized, online, American Atheist community of nonbelief. They repudiate the opinions of the majority as delusions, then bemoan the fact that the majority doesn't respect them. They stereotype and demonize believers as bigoted, ignorant, and homicidal, and pretend that teh Science validates their prejudices. And they make it sound like only butthurt religious fanatics would object to such puerile behavior.

Well OK, I wouldn't know much about that - I don't bother with such sites. But it would need to be a milion times louder to balance the drivel we get routinely from the believers side everywhere we go.

Case in point.

Fact in point. A rather obvious one at that.

However, the digital sandbox and its associated media are just feeding a debate culture, not providing an informed critique.

That's not the way it seems to me - perhaps things are more extreem in the US. I think Harris is doing a good job, Hitch was teriffic and you don't get much more thoughtful and considered that Dan Dennet. Dawkins is a bit hard to take at times I grant you.

I'm with you on the debate gravy train though - but perhaps it's just a symptom of being able to talk about it finally? These things happen when controversies emerge and consciousness gets raised - people on both sides take offence and things tend towards the extreem.


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 41 by MrHambre, posted 06-05-2015 9:08 AM MrHambre has not yet responded

Tangle
Member
Posts: 6921
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 48 of 375 (758938)
06-06-2015 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by GDR
06-05-2015 11:15 PM


GDR writes:

As far as the resurrection is concerned I just don't see it as being that difficult. If one accepts the likelihood of life being the result of a pre-existing intelligence as opposed to being the result of an infinite string of mindless processes then it isn't much of a stretch to think that there might be more of a point to all of this rather than just transient lives that will come to nothing when the universe dies out.

You mean that if you can believe something that has not only no evidence but is also contrary to the evidence, and has no philosophical basis either, then it's also possible to fool yourself into wishful thinking about mythical afterlives?

From there I just don't see it as that great a stretch to believe that God might actually have a plan that calls for the resurrection of the entire creation, and that He could, in the middle of time, resurrect the one man who perfectly embodied His nature.

This 'easy stretch' requires us to believe that one particular mythology - the Christian version - is the correct story to believe amongst all the other candidates. And in this version god sends himself down to earth to get himself killed so he can pop back to life again then disapear in order for people to be saved. It's the most bonkers of the many myths in that book - it's not even a stretch, it's not even Harry Potter, it's just incomprehensible. (That and the fact that the entire thing has been fabricated and that it fails in its own prophecy - the second coming did not happen as predicted.) Basically, it fails every single sanity test you can throw at 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by GDR, posted 06-05-2015 11:15 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by GDR, posted 06-06-2015 5:23 PM Tangle has responded

Tangle
Member
Posts: 6921
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 68 of 375 (758993)
06-07-2015 2:15 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by GDR
06-06-2015 5:23 PM


GDR writes:

Of course there is evidence. That Gospels are evidence and the start of the Christian church is evidence. Is it conclusive? No. You can choose to accept it or reject it.

You do understand that something written in a book by unknown authors and not supported by any other evidence is not evidence of it being true?

What is the evidence that the Big Bang or the process of evolution are the result of a infinite string of mindless processes? There is no evidence nor philosophical basis for believing that either.

The evidence for both being natural processes, not interfered with by any magical deity is firstly the evidence that we've discussed here ad nausium - the fossil record, genetics, hierarchical descent, natural selection, cosmic ray background, universe expansion etc etc. - and secondly the total absence of any sign of a God anywhere in the process.

Well first off, if God decided to send Himself to Earth it rather begs the question of who Jesus was praying to.

If you're suggesting that it's absurd, I'm with you.

There is a difference between God physically showing as compared to having His nature perfectly embodied in a human being.

Really? In fiction maybe. it's a funny kind of human that can raise people from the dead and turn water into wine.

Most of the prophesies were about the fall of Jerusalem. It didn't take supernatural knowledge to know that if you kept up the aggression against the Romans they would do what they always did, and for that matter it did happen within the life times of many in that generation.

I'm certainly not going to ague against your view that the prophesies - which are supposed to be proofs that the Jesus character was someone special - are nothing of the sort.

Yes there were some that thought that time would end in their life times but there have always been those that believed that. We do know that life in the world as we know it will end at some point, so we will see at that time whether or not there is re-creation of this world or not.

I'm being a little more exact than that - I'm referring directly to what the Jesus character is reported as saying in your book.

33so, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. 34"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. 35"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away

Funy how we can pick and choose, rationalise and equivocate.


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 63 by GDR, posted 06-06-2015 5:23 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by GDR, posted 06-07-2015 5:52 PM Tangle has responded

Tangle
Member
Posts: 6921
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


(2)
Message 86 of 375 (759022)
06-08-2015 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Faith
06-07-2015 10:18 PM


Re: The End of the End of Faith
Faith writes:

First of all we derive it from the Fall as reported in the Bible. I wouldn't have "seen" it until I knew about that, but as a matter of fact when I first understood the idea it was a great revelation to me that explains all the misery in this world, that otherwise had no explanation until then. How else understand all the suffering, the wars, the cruelty, the abuse of each other, the basic selfishness in all of us?

It's quite easily explained by the fact that we have evolved from animals that die and that are forced to compete with each other and against other species for their survival. We are only a few hundred thousand years passed being a creature that lived by pure instinct with no concept of morality or self awareness.

We don't need your fairy tales to explain our plight anymore Faith, we have the real story.


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 77 by Faith, posted 06-07-2015 10:18 PM Faith has not yet responded

Tangle
Member
Posts: 6921
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


(2)
Message 88 of 375 (759024)
06-08-2015 6:35 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by GDR
06-07-2015 5:52 PM


GDR writes:

We all make up our own mind about what we believe.

That's the problem in one. Making up your mind with no more than wishful thinking in it leads to these sorts of conclusions.

However, the fact that a man crucified largely for making messianic claims relatively quickly gained a substantial following is evidence although certainly not proof. There were many others in a roughly 200 year period that made messianic claims as well, many of them actually having some military success, and when they were put to death their movement died with them, or else took on a new leader.

That's no good at all is it? There's no proof that Jesus actually existed let alone was crucified and returned from the dead. The fact that a religion called Christianity now exists is not proof of anything other than that. It was brought into existence by a powerful emperor for political reasons and has continued as a major political and power source ever since. Without the wealth and power infrastructure it generated for a few over the centuries it would have fizzled out like the many other dead belief systems.

..and ad nauseum it has been repeated that somehow those processes came into existence. The question is whether or not there is an intelligent or a mindless basis for their existence.

No - that's an old fallacy that you really should not keep repeating. Whether or not there's a intelligence responsible for kicking off the universe is a separate issue to whether any man-made religious ideas are true or not.

You had essentially made claim that God sent himself down to Earth to get himself killed. I simply pointed out that your version of Christianity is not consistent with the Gospel accounts.

The difficulty atheists have arguing with Christians is we never know what the individual Christian believes is in the bible or not. The consensus seems to be that god sent his son - whatever that means - to earth. He was mortal but could do magic like a god. He was killed to save us - ffs why?? (It's just the pagan sacrifice stuff regurgitated.) Then he pops back to life etc etc. I'm afraid it's just all too damn silly to go further with really.

The first part is obviously about the fall of Jerusalem with people running for the hills etc. The part of the "Son of Man" coming is an obvious reference to Daniel 7 where the "Son of Man" is brought to the Father. That passage is not about Jesus coming to Earth but about Jesus coming to the Father.

When Jesus speaks about the fall of Jerusalem He is speaking prophetically, and when it happens as it did in 70 AD, then that along with the resurrection will vindicate His life and message and that message will go out to the nations.

It's the same problem of choosing what to believe. If you want the various defences put forward by the various Christian groups you'll find them all here:

http://www.thingstocome.org/whatgen.htm

But in the end, it's very, very clear that everyone around him believed it to mean that he was coming back soon. The words say what they mean. Even CS Lewis couldn't escape it with all his apologetic

Say what you like," we shall be told [by some critics], "the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, 'This generation shall not pass till all these things be done.' And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else."

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by GDR, posted 06-07-2015 5:52 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by GDR, posted 06-11-2015 7:49 PM Tangle has responded

Tangle
Member
Posts: 6921
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 105 of 375 (759060)
06-08-2015 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by MrHambre
06-08-2015 12:32 PM


Re: respect vs tolerance
MrHambre writes:

People should rethink the message board truism that "Beliefs don't deserve respect." At the end of the day, this is nothing more than a way to give oneself license to be as insulting and hurtful as possible, then dismiss any umbrage taken on the grounds that others shouldn't take criticism of their dearly held beliefs personally.

I don't really get all the generalisations you are making on this subject. Some beliefs don't deserve respect - like the belief that it's ok to discriminate against gays or fly into tall buildings. Those sorts beliefs should get pretty short shrift. Other less obviously harmful beliefs - like, say transubstantiation - need a more tolerant approach. But both types do need to be challenged if they are being pushed at us.

This isn't to say we shouldn't have discussions about politics, religion, sexuality, or any other subject that people take seriously. But we need to acknowledge that people identify strongly with these beliefs, and we don't need to pretend to be surprised when they react strongly against careless, unsympathetic criticism like being told their beliefs are delusions.

I doubt anyone is suprised when it happens - but maybe that's not your point. I'm all for tolerance and not hurting people's feelings, but debating strongly held beliefs leads to strong reactions more often than not. It's part of the process. You seem to be railing against an inevitability.


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 101 by MrHambre, posted 06-08-2015 12:32 PM MrHambre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by MrHambre, posted 06-08-2015 1:34 PM Tangle has responded

Tangle
Member
Posts: 6921
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 109 of 375 (759067)
06-08-2015 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by MrHambre
06-08-2015 1:34 PM


Re: respect vs tolerance
Mr Hambre writes:

But the way writers like Sam Harris have created the idea that vast cultural constructs can be reduced to sets of literal beliefs gives us the illusion that social progress in the real world can be accomplished by changing people's beliefs from the wrong ones to the right ones.

And I think that is quite correct and actually what happens. At the aggregate level - rather than the individual debate level - society's views of morality have changed for the better over time. That has only happened because our conciousness has been raised by those challenging the 'wrong' ideas and promoting the 'right' ideas. It may not change an individual's mind but it may influence the thought of a generation after.

The marginalization of the LGBTQ community involves a lot more than the widespread belief that it's okay to discriminate against them; what ends the marginalization is passing laws to make it illegal, not just convincing people to abandon their false beliefs.

Laws do not change without the consent of the people and that doesn't happen unless those harmed by the beliefs organise and promote their case. That very regularly requires not just upsetting people but also breaking laws and aggressively campaigning. Women's votes, gay rights, discrimination of all kinds are obvious examples.

People getting upset, is often a sign that something is changing for the better because something that was once hidden, is now out and in your face.


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 108 by MrHambre, posted 06-08-2015 1:34 PM MrHambre has acknowledged this reply

Tangle
Member
Posts: 6921
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 184 of 375 (759494)
06-12-2015 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by GDR
06-11-2015 7:49 PM


GDR writes:

What makes what I believe any more wishful thinking that you believe. Chris Hitchens, (who I actually enjoyed). used to say that He didn't want there to be a god of any kind. That would make what he believed to be wishful thinking.

Oh come on now......who wouldn't want to believe in an afterlife? We tell our children that mummy is in heaven to console them. It's the reason we invented it, to make our short time here bearable and to flatter our own sense of importance - we don't like knowing that we're disposable. All societies have developed some sort of afterlife fantasy to help them along. Hitch was being provocative, pointing out the revolting despotic nature of the kind of god who sets up this nasty little test for us in the Christian vision.

I don't adhere to the Christianity that you just described either.

Then you plead guilty of pick and mix Christianity. No big deal, all Christians do, even Faith.

I don't disagree with the thought that many early Christians thought that Jesus would return in their life times. However I suggest that it was because they had just had Jesus with them recently and so it would be somewhat reasonable to think that it would all happen sooner rather than later. There have always been those who said that it's going to happen any day now.

They thought that way because they were told it by the guy that was supposed to be returning. He didn't. It's in your book plain as day and it's in the history. Denial and rationalisation doesn't change 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by GDR, posted 06-11-2015 7:49 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by GDR, posted 06-12-2015 9:48 PM Tangle has responded

Tangle
Member
Posts: 6921
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 196 of 375 (759555)
06-13-2015 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 195 by GDR
06-12-2015 9:48 PM


GDR writes:

Well I suppose that because a lot of people have historically believed that physical death isn't the end of our consciousness then it must be wrong and you know better.

Correct, I, or rather, we do know better. We know an awful lot of things better now than two thousand years ago when myth and superstition was a day to day virtual reality.

Yes and no.

But what follows is yes and yes. You both read the same book, you both take totally different meanings from it. In truth it's a purely personal interpretation you both apply, each of you picking the route through it that most appeals to your preconceptions, hopes and desires. It's pure wishful thinking for both of you.

The best I can say for it is that your interpretation is at least on the side of least harm - Faith would destroy society if she could.


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 195 by GDR, posted 06-12-2015 9:48 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by GDR, posted 06-13-2015 3:55 PM Tangle has responded

Tangle
Member
Posts: 6921
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 207 of 375 (759630)
06-13-2015 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by GDR
06-13-2015 3:55 PM


GDR writes:

You can call it wishful thinking if you like, but I don't think I'm any different than either you or Faith for that matter in that like everyone else we are looking for what we believe to be truthful, and on that we can build our individual world view which establishes how we live out our lives.

I'm interested in the things we can actually know, not what we can fantasise about. I'm not searching for truth - I'm just getting along with what we know. I'm baffled by those that think they can know some further truth just by wanting something obviously mythological to be true.


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 205 by GDR, posted 06-13-2015 3:55 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by jar, posted 06-13-2015 6:15 PM Tangle has responded
 Message 212 by GDR, posted 06-14-2015 5:39 PM Tangle has responded

Tangle
Member
Posts: 6921
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 211 of 375 (759659)
06-14-2015 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by jar
06-13-2015 6:15 PM


Re: believe vs know
Jar writes:


Do you differentiate between believe and know?

Of course

How do you determine something is obviously mythological?

If you think I'm going to get into yet other endless and futile Monty Python "what do you mean by mean?", discussion you're wrong.


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 208 by jar, posted 06-13-2015 6:15 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

Tangle
Member
Posts: 6921
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.3


(1)
Message 314 of 375 (761003)
06-27-2015 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by GDR
06-14-2015 5:39 PM


GDR writes:


I'm interested in things that I can know as well. However, there are some things that we can know objectively and some things that we believe subjectively. There are no doubt things that you believe that you can't know. You take the information available to you and form a conclusion.

You're attempting to equate knowledge with belief; they're polar opposites.

My world view is the same as yours and everyone else on the planet that is not either a religious fanatic or a psychopath - 'do as you would be done by'. It does not require a belief in a Christian god - of whatever flavour - or any fantasy of afterlives and miracle works to know that that is a good, moral life policy.

Even in the case of your atheism you have taken the available information and formed a conclusion, but you can't know whether your conclusion is correct or not.

But we do know the truths about religions - they're man made. If you spend a couple of days researching the world's religions, beliefs and mythologies the conclusion is very, very, obvious. And we know the truths about miraculous happenings - they don't. Whether there's an ultimate deistic kind of god is, and always will be, uknown. But that is irrelevant as it tells us nothing about our fantasies of afterlives etc.

That world view is presumably based on something that you believe to be true or none of it would matter.

Of course it matters! Not harming others and adding to the general wellbeing of humanity is demonstrably 'a good thing'. And it doesn't require belief in sky daddies, it's quantifiable and measureable.


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 212 by GDR, posted 06-14-2015 5:39 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by GDR, posted 06-27-2015 6:53 PM Tangle has responded
 Message 317 by MrHambre, posted 06-27-2015 7:53 PM Tangle has responded

1
2Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019