B. Is it? Not to me it isn't
Are you saying that you can belittle my opinion because you can't know 'my' God?
!!!! do I run, now?!!
Seriously, and I'm sorry to backtrack a bit but I would like an answer and I have only just caught up with this thread:
mark, are you saying that there was NO science of ANY kind before Christianity?
What do you mean by science? Didn't the Romans (pre Christian) and other civilisations have any science?
SYNACK mentioned more that I'd also agree with. I don't think I'm saying anything outside general understanding on the subject.
Last edited by mark; 10th January 2009 at 04:00 PM. Reason: 'foe example' & 'some of that(knowlegde)' added
Sorry gwendes, post blindness!
You say that I have a unique belief..
I also like conservative religion. Nothing wrong with someone with guts. Ann Coulter is awesome.
1. Affirmation that gods do not exist.
2. Rejection of theism.
3. Absence of belief in gods.
Affirmation that gods do not exist can be made on the basis of the most probable likelihood as much as the reverse of that can (belief in anything), and really is down to the subjective experiences of the individual.
It's the third, and to a lesser extent second which make the crossover with agnosticism as mentioned earlier by another poster.
Everything is a position of faith. I believe that everything I interact with exists.That's a very definite statement.. As it's not possible to know that fact, it is a position of faith. You have to have faith somehow (perhaps through accepting some other postulation) that God doesn't exist.
However, since it functions in exactly the same generally predictable manner whether it does exist or not makes the point moot. The same is true for gods. Since they have no interaction in my existant (or non-existant) world, whether they exist or not is equally moot and irrelevant.
The same is not true for people who believe in such things, who can and do impact the world of others.
So, what's your point?
You don't 'believe' the sink exists, you have further proof. Like you said. My point is that 'atheism' (being a belief in no God) requires faith.
You do need faith that 'the sink exists', you believe that you are not in an hallucinagenic dream, that you are actually alive etc... These are all what could be taken as 'faith'. 'Proof' as you put it also requires some level of faith. But as the previous poster said, they are moot points. Atheism is the same - it isn't an active belief that god doesn't exist. It is just a lack of belief, that is all.You don't 'believe' the sink exists, you have further proof. Like you said. My point is that 'atheism' (being a belief in no God) requires faith.
And that is precisely why most atheists can't and don't believe in god. Working purely off 'faith' and with no empirical evidence seems naive to me (yes, I know that could be a sign of arrogance but that's just how I feel about it).Gods have no empirically provable intervention in your world because to do so would be contrary to the logic of them existing. Chocolate teapot anyone?
Last edited by localzuk; 9th January 2009 at 09:17 AM.
Don't think I am. I just see Christianity as a reflection of some parts of society but a part that must be closed to certain ideas - for example, multiple gods. The rest of us are free to use and information from any source without a bias towards the Bible.Originally Posted by mark
There is also evidence that it was.Originally Posted by mark
I don't believe Christianity was a soley negative influence on science and knowledge - it had many positive influences infact. I just don't think Christianity deserves the credit anymore that Atheism deserves the credit if an atheist makes a discovery. In every case it is the people we should thank.
Personally 'knowing' God isn't empirical? I think it is. You experience God - don't you?Originally Posted by mark
Also, isn't that a little closed-minded? What if the Bible got it wrong at there is a visible, all powerful creator and he pops back to Earth to see how we're getting on? I'm not being facetious!
Quick clarification of definitions.Originally Posted by mark
God is the one true God. The Judao-Christian trinity. All-everything. Timeless. Personal. Creator. Here and now.
god(s) is any deity. Can be a personal god if you don't agree that it fits the definition of Him, the one true God.
NO!Originally Posted by mark
I don't think it's thinely defined, I think God's attributes are very well defined but that definition isn't helpful. Every desirable human quality was simply made perfect or infinite and it has made them all meaningless.
Does God have freewill?
Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind? - Karen Ownens
I think that your personal god is a very different creature than God - I think that makes it much greater than the God of Genesis since it was defined and created (in my opinion) by you for you.
I wouldn't agree. I can certainly give examples where it is doing good and negative things. That's evidence enough for me that it isn't special.Originally Posted by mark
If I do something good do we credit atheism? Religion should have no claim over the good works of followers.
It is responsible for things like discouraging the use of condoms in AIDS-ridden Africa - because it could change it's stance (I blame the C Church btw).
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. - Steven Weinberg
Originally Posted by markNope. In practical terms I am without-god (a-theist) as well as being unable to prove either way that He exists. Interestingly God would find himself having the same problem. In 'Old Harry's Game' (Radio 4 comedy) 'The Professor' asks God, "How can a god be certain He is the one true God, it's a fascinating question" (which it is)Originally Posted by mark
I'm not comparing myself or anything...
Philosophy of language is very interesting.
I will cite Russell and Dawkins to answer this.
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
- Bertrand Russell
"Nobody but a lunatic would say "Well, I'm prepared to believe in the teapot because I cannot disprove it" Maybe we have to be technically and strictly agnostic but in practice we are all teapot-atheists" - Richard Dawkins
Belgian? Do I have to put hot tea in it?Originally Posted by mark
Dawkins first book explicitly about religion is "The God Delusion" - shock title but very calm and considered writing. I think if you flick through it you'd actually enjoy it and find that you agree with him about most things.Originally Posted by mark
He thinks that religion is a product of belief based on faith and that this is dangerous. Personal gods do not give people the conviction to do evil things in the name of religion - Dawkins, like me, is frustrated when he looks around the world by the damage that can be done when large numbers believe, 100%, that they have all the truth. I don't need to give examples.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)