Well, we've threads on religion and atheism, so I suppose we need one on agnosticism, a philosophical system which was fashioned by T. H. Huxley.
Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, 'Try all things, hold fast by that which is good'; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.
It would be appropriate for me to include myself in the ranks of the agnostics because I live in a world that's characterized by uncertainty and wonder rather than certainty and doctrine.
I hereby reject atheism and absolve myself of all of my atheistic errors.
[move]Certainty isn't all that it's cracked up to be.[/move]
But what's THE problem with that thing?
And I just noticed — why are you 3738?
Multiple accounts. Old habits hardly die.
It would be appropriate for me to include myself in the ranks of the agnostics because I live in a world that's characterized by uncertainty and wonder rather than certainty and doctrine.
Isn't it rather certain that uncertainties lurk behind every corner and hide themselves in every nook and cranny and then trouble you in your sleep? My temperament is to methodically address uncertainties, paradoxes, and problems, until they are figured out, solved, and answered. I don't like unanswered questions. In the end, I have found no question unanswerable. The result is life free of surprises and wonders. May seem boring to you, but I call it trouble-free.
Perhaps we should have The problem with people thread?
Perhaps we should have The problem with people thread?
Wooof! Woooof! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/Bigdoggy.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/monkeythumbwinkerbi5.gif)
Multiple accounts. Old habits hardly die.
I lost the password for the alternate jimbro. If you knew how many manifestations I have had in D&D over the years you'd think me dafter than you do now.
I have thought on making up a false account for rjhowie... but it would not be funny. Besides, I don't communicate well in Scottish.
I miss your good old Jaybro account.
I lost the password...
You could retreive it!
There must've been an email you set when registered - ask Frans.
That is true. I can also change the password.
I lost the password...
You could retreive it!
There must've been an email you set when registered - ask Frans.
That is true. I can also change the password.
How it aughts ta be: One user account per user..........[glow=red,2,300]
period, no exceptions[/glow] (except to the head honcho, & to the select one(s)
whom 'he' deems it administratively necessary to)
Why, 'cuz I'd hate to see this forum tank to the level of credibility that that Opera one did with all them sock-puppets springing up with 3 or 4 posts to their name, siding with their puppet masters, or just continually causing general mayhem!
Can you evaluate yourself? (https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi833.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fzz253%2FPunani_Don%2Fdawins_scale.png&hash=adde595ef7b078530cc13c95b76e4abe" rel="cached" data-hash="adde595ef7b078530cc13c95b76e4abe" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/zz253/Punani_Don/dawins_scale.png)
(This reminds me here: http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=9050592)
Close to 7. Nobody can say "I know there is no God" without taking a look at the whole universe (and around) and being sure that "he's not there".
If it weren't for the word "know", I would be 7. For me, the probability is zero.
"Dawkins scale"
I'm out of scale, probably minus 5.
God can be known beyond knowledge, rational thinking is not the limit of human beings. Why does the scale stops at "I know"?
And who's that Dawkins by the way?
rational thinking is not the limit of human beings
Yes, we can see it all the time. ::) ;D
And who's that Dawkins by the way?
Dawkins is associated with two things:
1. The word "meme" which sounds both cool and important, but hasn't amounted to any sort of consistently usable concept.
2. New Atheism. He is the first and greatest proponent of it.
And there's a third thing too - his name is occasionally mixed up with Stephen Hawking.
Oh, yes... that Dawkins.
Why does the scale stops at "I know"?
Probably because a negative range would turn into pathologic :o
Why does the scale stops at "I know"?
Probably because a negative range would turn into pathologic :o
I see... agnostics are the "positive" ones... the higher the rank the more they get into perfection, meaning atheism.
It must be the positiveness of "I don't know"...
I see... agnostics are the "positive" ones... the higher the rank the more they get into perfection, ...
There is no relation between the numbering and 'getting into perfection', except you want to give it your
very own interpretation ;)
I see... agnostics are the "positive" ones... the higher the rank the more they get into perfection, ...
There is no relation between the numbering and 'getting into perfection', except you want to give it your very own interpretation ;)
Well, I like everything
very my own... :)
Why does the scale stops at "I know"?
Probably because a negative range would turn into pathologic :o
The scale would be quite okay if agnosticism were centred at zero.
Why does the scale stops at "I know"?
Probably because a negative range would turn into pathologic :o
The scale would be quite okay if agnosticism were centred at zero.
That's just the beginning of The Problem with Agnosticism.
Just as we have these days the "new atheism", we also have the "new agnosticism". New agnosticism means a posture of indifference towards much more than just philosophical questions, it means simply I don't care, I don't want to know. It includes philosophical questions but also much more things.
That's not Agnosticism, Agnosticism means a
certainty that
is not possible to the human being
to know if God exists.
In others words, the ultimate truths and, very particularly - the existence of God, are not accessible to Men.
I used to be there until I realized the mistake and wrongness of the classical agnosticism.
The scale would be quite okay if agnosticism were centred at zero.
That's just the beginning of The Problem with Agnosticism.
Just as we have these days the "new atheism", we also have the "new agnosticism". New agnosticism means a posture of indifference towards much more than just philosophical questions, it means simply I don't care, I don't want to know. It includes philosophical questions but also much more things.
That's not Agnosticism, Agnosticism means a certainty that is not possible to the human being to know if God exists.
In others words, the ultimate truths and, very particularly - the existence of God, are not accessible to Men.
I used to be there until I realized the mistake and wrongness of the classical agnosticism.
Even though the scale comes from a new atheist, I don't see it as tendentious. I have seen similar scales in the eighties. The problem with the scale is the fact that it's one-dimensional, while the issue is more-dimensional. In addition to "knowing" if there is God or not, there's also the issue what one does with the knowledge. For example "knowers" of God may well have buried their heads in sand or hiding in the closet from the direct implications of the knowledge, and "knowers" that there is no God may have tightly tied their careers to evangelising about God, a la Dawkins.
Agnosticism also has at least two sides. One type of agnostics "know" that "Does God exist?" cannot be answered either way, while others are totally lukewarm to the question, and they think this is what agnosticism means. Or, in a slightly better case, they think "I don't know" is a good and valid answer that should be eye-opening to people and convince everybody to affirm the same.
Same trouble with skepticism. Skepticism mostly means doubt these days, but there are skeptics who see doubt as something to be removed by means of enquiry and investigation, to come up with sure knowledge in the end. Then again, other skeptics only reinforce doubt by undermining all possible positive accounts of anything, criticising everyone and everything without any purpose other than criticising, until the field of uncertainty is absolute.
On your DAWKINS scale I would rate myself the strongest of #1.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZtgrKRA.jpg&hash=dbffe586352f0f5445d8e90b42262312" rel="cached" data-hash="dbffe586352f0f5445d8e90b42262312" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/ZtgrKRA.jpg)
I dunno who this Jung fella is, prolly just another imperfect human, but with or without his claim to knowledge.....I "know" there is a God, because I personally know God.
Can't get any closer than that, but as far as me needing anyone else to believe whether I do or not, it's totally & absolutely immaterial to me whether they do or don't.
I "know" there is a God, because I personally know God.
I don't believe humanity possess the knowledge or the rationale to state with absolute certainty that a supernatural deity does or doesn't exist. To be quite so emphatic is to question the state of your mental health.
I don't believe humanity possess the knowledge or the rationale to state with absolute certainty that a supernatural deity does or doesn't exist. To be quite so emphatic is to question the state of your mental health.
How do you test any given phenomenon for 'supernaturality' in the first place?
How do you test any given phenomenon for 'supernaturality' in the first place?
I posted this link last month: http://richardcarrier.blogspot.be/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html Of course, it also touches on what you said
But were these just twisted, interdimensional aliens, or real supernatural demons? That's another question altogether. But regardless of whether you can know the difference, there is still a difference.
I "know" there is a God, because I personally know God.
I don't believe humanity possess the knowledge or the rationale to state with absolute certainty that a supernatural deity does or doesn't exist. To be quite so emphatic is to question the state of your mental health.
Take a deep breath, then let it out slowly.......
The first part of your rationale -- that is the extent of your knowledge, but as for your conclusion, anything outside your own personal sphere of knowledge is unknown to you.
You shouldn't fear the unknown.
See the unknown only as an obstacle to overcome, a challenge to your personal desire to know.
You are limitless, if & until you let the desire slip away........
How do you test any given phenomenon for 'supernaturality' in the first place?
I posted this link last month: http://richardcarrier.blogspot.be/2007/01/defining-supernatural.html Of course, it also touches on what you said
But were these just twisted, interdimensional aliens, or real supernatural demons? That's another question altogether. But regardless of whether you can know the difference, there is still a difference.
Interesting story, even though too long and too much about what people say, instead of about what would make sense to say. By his definition, for example laws of nature would be supernatural. Laws of nature are not physical, but they rule everything physical. Perfectly qualifies as non-physical mental entity, god or such by his definition.
I do not define supernatural that way. For me, laws of nature are entirely natural. They are just not physical. Mental phenomena are as natural as physical phenomena. Since laws of nature don't deviate from nature, there's nothing miraculous about them.
So, laws of nature, as a non-physical disembodied universal aspect of nature, are natural. A miracle or a supernatural instance would be a non-physical universal aspect of nature with a body (just one). Or a natural entity with two or more bodies, while not being a universal. At the same time, they'd very much be deviations from nature, more often undesirable than something good for anything.
Laws of nature are not physical, but they rule everything physical.
You say the laws of nature 'rule', that is an action verb meaning that they have a separate power beyond the powers which they describe. Congratulations, you have just given birth to an entity that never existed before.
Laws of nature are not physical, but they rule everything physical.
You say the laws of nature 'rule', that is an action verb meaning that they have a separate power beyond the powers which they describe. Congratulations, you have just given birth to an entity that never existed before.
Laws of nature don't exist? Interesting theory.
Instead of "rule" how about "govern"? Though both should be unproblematic:
At the heart of quantum mechanics is a rule that sometimes governs politicians or CEOs--as long as no one is watching, anything goes.
Instead of "rule" how about "govern"?
"Laws of Nature are executed... um... by Nature!";)
:lol:
I do not define supernatural that way.
This is the way I look at it; if a supernatural God exists then he is easily detectable (or he's not God)...he has to choose not to be detectable. If there is a god who doesn't find it necessary for me to know that he's there then I must logically deduce that it does not matter to God one way or the other what I think about him. If it makes no difference then I'll just choose not to believe in him in the first place and make things a whole lot simpler.
If there is a god who doesn't find it necessary for me to know that he's there then I must logically deduce that it does not matter to God one way or the other what I think about him. If it makes no difference then I'll just choose not to believe in him in the first place and make things a whole lot simpler.
Supernatural means beyond or above nature. God in any meaningful sense is that, supernatural, so in any meaningful sense it's perfectly expected that we do not detect God the way you detect objects of nature. We detect God by means of seeking, investigating or contemplating the supernatural. And this is merely logical. No belief needed. You detect and conclude whatever works for you. To me at least God has nothing to do with beliefs.
so in any meaningful sense it's perfectly expected that we do not detect God the way you detect objects of nature. We detect God by means of seeking, investigating or contemplating the supernatural. And this is merely logical.
God, being who he is, can be as obvious or as obscure as he wishes. Is God available only to those capable of thorough probing, scrutinizing and deep contemplation? That is not at all logical.
Common sense suffices. It makes perfect sense that God is unconspicuous, because otherwise those who insist on denying God would not have a chance. It's nice to offer everyone a chance.
You are doing well in denial. You manage to will even laws of nature into non-existence. God is not a sensible topic with you.
You are doing well in denial. You manage to will even laws of nature into non-existence. God is not a sensible topic with you.
You need to learn how to be less predictable. When you have no logical counter, you always resort to insult. It's nice to know I've stumped you.
I will reiterate that God will be undetectable only when and because HE chooses to be. Therefore, either knowledge of God is irrelevant to us or God simply doesn't exist.
I will reiterate that God will be undetectable only when and because HE chooses to be.
I see your point in this context:
He chooses to be detectable to me all the time, while at the same time He obviously chooses to be undetectable to you, that is probably 'till He desires you to detect Him like I do.
I guess that's because God isn't a one size fits all Entity to all the people that know Him.
He chooses to be detectable to me all the time
How do I know God is detectable to you, how do I know it's God you are detecting and how do I know you are telling me the truth? I have no reason at all to not accept God, but I will not accept God for no reason at all.
How do I know God is detectable to you, how do I know it's God you are detecting and how do I know you are telling me the truth?
You don't know, not because it's impossible for you to know, but simply because you find it unbelievable to know, which within itself stops you from knowing.
You don't know, not because it's impossible for you to know, but simply because you find it unbelievable to know,
It's not unbelievable, it's just unverifiable--so I can't reasonably use it.
How can you say you know what I find unbelievable for anyone else to know? Maybe God revealed himself to you, I don't know, and I don't find it unbelievable, but that doesn't mean I
must believe you, for the aforementioned reasons.
Hey, don't believe me.....I don't care one bit what you believe.
I have not, & never will have any desire whatsoever to convince you of anything.
Every thought you have regarding this subject so emanates from your own thought -- within your own mind.
You are doing well in denial. You manage to will even laws of nature into non-existence. God is not a sensible topic with you.
You need to learn how to be less predictable. When you have no logical counter, you always resort to insult.
I simply quoted you back at yourself. It's your own logic insulting you. I have been clear about my definitions of everything. You have not had anything to say about them even when I am supposedly predictable, so naturally I won't add unpredictability and surrealism to the mix, because you would just perceive more insults where there are none.
I will reiterate that God will be undetectable only when and because HE chooses to be. Therefore, either knowledge of God is irrelevant to us or God simply doesn't exist.
If God chooses to be undetectable (or if he chooses anything at all), then it logically follows that he exists, and has chosen to be undetectable to you. The reasons for this are between you and God. Everybody has one's own relationship with God.
If God chooses to be undetectable (or if he chooses anything at all), then it logically follows that he exists, and has chosen to be undetectable to you.
I presume that remark depends in some way on the context of what was said before because by itself it is not logical that God exists because He is undetectable, rather the opposite.
If you are going to go on to say that He is detectable to you ... how do
you detect God?
If God chooses to be undetectable (or if he chooses anything at all), then it logically follows that he exists, and has chosen to be undetectable to you. The reasons for this are between you and God. Everybody has one's own relationship with God.
An undetectable god is indistinguishable from a purely fictional god. How can you have a relationship with something that doesn't interact with anything ( if it did it would be detectable )?
If God chooses to be undetectable (or if he chooses anything at all), then it logically follows that he exists, and has chosen to be undetectable to you.
I presume that remark depends in some way on the context of what was said before because by itself it is not logical that God exists because He is undetectable, rather the opposite.
If you are going to go on to say that He is detectable to you ... how do you detect God?
And if that god is detectable only to you how do you know it's not just another voice in your head?
If God chooses to be undetectable (or if he chooses anything at all), then it logically follows that he exists, and has chosen to be undetectable to you.
I presume that remark depends in some way on the context of what was said before because by itself it is not logical that God exists because He is undetectable, rather the opposite.
You are right. My statement is tied to context. In the context, the emphasis is on God choosing, not us detecting. If God is a chooser, his existence is already logically presupposed.
If you are going to go on to say that He is detectable to you ... how do you detect God?
Spirit is a logical implication in continuum theories. God is spirit. This is a deist or panentheist definition of God. There's no detection of spirit in an empirical sense. Rather, it's an inevitable logical deduction like existence itself.
If you insist on saying that it's mere faith, it's the same kind of faith as faith in logic and rationality. For example, you don't throw out the Big Bang theory or evolution theory merely because you can't detect Big Bang or evolution. You can't detect them, but there are facts that strongly imply Big Bang or evolution, and so you believe those theories. You believe in them until a better explanation emerges, if at all. But continuum theories are more fundamental than this. Quantum mechanics is more fundamental than relativity theory.
If God is a chooser, his existence is already logically presupposed.
Logically?
Speaking of logic, the result of <if> does not define the premise. T→T=T, F→F=T, F→T=T, and only T→F=F.
You are right. My statement is tied to context. In the context, the emphasis is on God choosing, not us detecting. If God is a chooser, his existence is already logically presupposed.
I thought that was the case, the conclusion depends on the assumption that God exists, that assumption rooted in a claim that imagination equates with logic.
You are right. My statement is tied to context. In the context, the emphasis is on God choosing, not us detecting. If God is a chooser, his existence is already logically presupposed.
Spirit is a logical implication in continuum theories. God is spirit. This is a deist or panentheist definition of God. There's no detection of spirit in an empirical sense. Rather, it's an inevitable logical deduction like existence itself. If you insist on saying that it's mere faith, it's the same kind of faith as faith in logic and rationality. For example, you don't throw out the Big Bang theory or evolution theory merely because you can't detect Big Bang or evolution. You can't detect them, but there are facts that strongly imply Big Bang or evolution, and so you believe those theories. You believe in them until a better explanation emerges, if at all. But continuum theories are more fundamental than this. Quantum mechanics is more fundamental than relativity theory.
So it all boils down to a claim that religious-based thinking is superior to other thinking and that no measurable or observable evidence is necessary because the "logic" of such thinking, being revealed by God and only available to those that believe, is so wonderful. A little bit of day-dreaming methinks.
That may seem a harsh statement, but it is against generations upon generations of what use to a religious elite claiming superiority over everyone else.
Same tactic, longer words.
You are right. My statement is tied to context. In the context, the emphasis is on God choosing, not us detecting. If God is a chooser, his existence is already logically presupposed.
I thought that was the case, the conclusion depends on the assumption that God exists, that assumption rooted in a claim that imagination equates with logic.
Yes, if logic is imaginary for you. But logic is not imaginary for me. I deduce everything based on facts and logic. Logically you can't have someone who, on one hand, makes choices, but, at the same time, does not exist.
So it all boils down to a claim that religious-based thinking is superior to other thinking and that no measurable or observable evidence is necessary because the "logic" of such thinking, being revealed by God and only available to those that believe, is so wonderful. A little bit of day-dreaming methinks.
That may seem a harsh statement, but it is against generations upon generations of what use to a religious elite claiming superiority over everyone else.
Same tactic, longer words.
You are right that I attribute superiority to logic and rationality over statements and claims that go contrary to reason and facts, but please help me to understand how you can find such a conviction to be religious-based.
you don't throw out the Big Bang theory or evolution theory merely because you can't detect Big Bang or evolution. You can't detect them, but there are facts that strongly imply Big Bang or evolution,
I have no idea what you could possibly mean when you say 'you can't detect the Big Bang or evolution', do you mean I can't see it or touch it? If so, then you are purposely convoluting the issue again.
If a God existed he would be detected; otherwise He has to choose to be undetectable to us which means His existence is of no relevance to us. Either way we can stop worrying about it and move on to more important things.
If a God existed he would be detected; otherwise He has to choose to be undetectable to us which means His existence is of no relevance to us. Either way we can stop worrying about it and move on to more important things.
If you really arrived at the conclusion that you should not worry about God, it makes me wonder why you keep worrying about him. Evidently your subconsciousness is pounding at your mental threshold loudly enough, informing you of your denial.
Detection is not everything. Everybody knows this except you. Detection is the same thing as perception and perception is not reliable, as anyone who ever dreamed or hallucinated can tell.
Facts become knowledge only after methodical organisation. In the process, many perceived facts are discarded as irrelevant or merely apparent as opposed to real, such as dreams or hallucinations. This is an example of inductive reasoning, the inferior type of logic. Beyond this, there are a priori intuitions, inferences, things that cannot be coherently denied. These are the elements of deductive reasoning, the superior type of logic.
Knowledge crucially depends on one's grasp of deductive reasoning, not on perception. This is particularly true with the current topic, which is not about isolated phenomenal facts, but about ultimate things, about the limit of knowledge. For example, we don't detect our own limit of reason. Instead, we reasonably infer that it exists, it's there. We cannot measure the scope of our ignorance with precision. Instead, from what we know we either extrapolate what we don't know, or we infer a magnitude that we reasonably cannot deny.
As a minimum, we cannot coherently deny our own existence and we cannot deny some limit to our knowledge. We cannot deny the inevitability of organising the perceived facts and thus we cannot deny the power of reasoning that organises the facts. You cannot detect any of these. You cannot detect the existence of things beyond the limit of mind, but you cannot deny them either. You cannot detect the mind itself, but you cannot coherently deny it either. Nothing makes sense otherwise. Nothing can be explained otherwise.
This is deductive reasoning. If explanations play a role in your convictions, then you go by deductive reasoning, not by mere detection.
If you really arrived at the conclusion that you should not worry about God, it makes me wonder why you keep worrying about him. Evidently your subconsciousness is pounding at your mental threshold loudly enough, informing you of your denial.
Your attempt always seems to be to want to make God so exceedingly recondite and profound and mystical that any attempts by mere mortals to know Him are laughable. You tried the other day to reserve knowledge of God only to those who diligently seek, scrutinize and deeply contemplate Him. Not everyone walks around soul-searching and being introspective all their lives, nor should they. What about the more simple people--those merely looking to enjoy life without being cerebral all the time, i.e. most people. Can they know God? God (if He is anything), is all things, so He is simple and He is infinitely complex. Give me the "God for Dummies" version.
People are different, but not too different in my opinion. If you think you and I are insurmountably different, then you are asking from the wrong person. Find someone who suits your mindset better, whom you can believe more easily.
The philosophy that serves as a perfect explanation of everything for me, evidently means nothing for you, so I must admit we are different on this point. The way I am explaining things is the dummies' version from my point of view. To ask to detect God is, to me, so self-evidently a wrong demand that I don't understand why you keep insisting on it.
Remember that I am a convert myself. I converted solely by the power of my own mind. Nobody preached to me, ever. There are no religious people in my family and circle of friends. I am the only one. At conversion, some things changed, such as my understanding of the deeper meaning of life. I reconciled the fact of life with the fact of death, happiness with suffering. Heaven and hell, spirit, soul, matter, and a host of other concepts acquired significance for me. This all only took a little more insight into the nature of the mind-aspect of the universe. This may sound complex or mystical, but isn't, because everyone of us has a mind and can acquire the same insight right here right now, by turning the attention there.
There are some things that didn't change. For example, my hierarchy of proof was always this way:
- Empirical detection is the least important
- Inductive reasoning is a bit better
- Deductive reasoning is most convincing
So, to me to talk about detecting as proof or evidence of something, of anything, always was like the buzzing of flies, meaningless babble. I simply don't understand when people speak of detection as evidence, it's either trivial or meaningless, worthless in either case. To get to the real truth, the attention must be directed not at fleeting things, but in the opposite direction. It's correct that not everybody is well predisposed for introspection, but absolutely everybody has their own mind at their disposal at all times, so nobody is far from the opportunity to try this either.
It's just a matter of making up your own mind. Anybody should be able to do it.
If a God existed he would be detected
God is a secretive ghost who chooses to be undetected...unless you have a BS detector.
While our agnostic/atheist friends keeps demanding (??) that God has the same attributes than the neighbor next door, therefore being perceived the same way, the problem with ..... will persist endless.
A good thing that it only affects less than four percent of world's population... :)
To ask to detect God is, to me, so self-evidently a wrong demand that I don't understand why you keep insisting on it.
It's interesting (but typical), that you would find the simplest (for the beings He created), and most convincing way for God to reveal Himself, the least important and logical. It is EXTREMELY suspect that God refuses to be crystal clear. Certainly God knew that by creating His ambiguity, He would create all kinds of trouble. For God to choose to be undetectable is insanely illogical.
A good thing that it only affects less than four percent of world's population...
...the four percent that is committed to reality. ;D
A good thing that it only affects less than four percent of world's population...
Recent surveys have showed that 29% or more of people only mouth the words 'I believe' when asked and actually never go to church, read the Bible or live by His word. To what good end is believing if hate, sin and hypocrisy still rule believers lives?
To what good end is believing if hate, sin and hypocrisy still rule believers lives?
True believers only have to think once a month about our Invisible Friend Who has turned a blind eye to the killing of Christians in the Middle East and parts of Africa.
Apparently, He doesn't want to take sides.
A good thing that it only affects less than four percent of world's population...
Recent surveys have showed that 29% or more of people only mouth the words 'I believe' when asked and actually never go to church, read the Bible or live by His word. To what good end is believing if hate, sin and hypocrisy still rule believers lives?
I can't say I would go along with that, doubter that I am.
Many people get their own benefits from religious teaching, with a framework of "good behaviour" which stands them in good stead and makes them steadfast human beings, and derive a comfort to fall back on if they have misfortune or bad health. I may have my doubts for the rationale for that belief and in my ruder moments even call it a placebo effect, but it is definitely there.
I'd like to see a person with a severe toothache derive comfort from either a Bible or thoughts of Jesus.
Many people get their own benefits from religious teaching, with a framework of "good behaviour" which stands them in good stead and makes them steadfast human beings,
"Some of my best friends are believers..." All facetiousness aside, I have a huge family (40-50 on FB), we are a good mix from devoutly religious to atheist, but the common thread we all share is exceptional goodness of heart. My family's goodness doesn't stem from religion, the Bible or God, we derive goodness from each other generation after generation by passing it on freely. I don't believe people derive their goodness from religion at all. Sending an evil person to church gives you an evil believer, that's all. Even if you ordain single minded sexual deviants...well, you get the picture. You can't squeeze goodness out of people by promising they will live forever and eternal damnation is certainly not a deterrent to screwing your neighbor's wife.
To what good end is believing if hate, sin and hypocrisy still rule believers lives?
True believers only have to think once a month about our Invisible Friend Who has turned a blind eye to the killing of Christians in the Middle East and parts of Africa.
Isn't the whole point to have someone else do the thinking for them?
Apparently, He doesn't want to take sides.
All part of the show. The writers suck though.
rue believers only have to think once a month about our Invisible Friend Who has turned a blind eye to the killing of Christians in the Middle East and parts of Africa.
Apparently, He doesn't want to take sides.
You don't know how right you really might be.
God doesn't give anyone any special protections in life solely because they believe in Him.
Actually, the only way that might happen is through fervent prayer.
God's Kingdom (what some call heaven) is reserved for the afterlife -- after death, & it is only then can we appreciate His love & goodness. How we suffer prior to death isn't as important as that it ends in death, for it's only through death will there be life.
All we need to do is believe in Him during our life, which is a just trial/test of that belief prior to everyone's eventual death -- which will bring about eternal life through Him.
Faith is all that believers need to live.
Oh, & before you start pounding the hammers of hell, I don't care if you believe what I've said, & be rest assured I won't ever try to prove any of it either.....Why? .....'cause I don't give a rats ass what you believe or don't believe.
I'm too busy with my own salvation to care about yours.
I'm too busy with my own salvation to care about yours.
How perfectly Christian of you.
[quote author=SmileyFaze, & before you start pounding the hammers of hell, I don't care if you believe what I've said, & be rest assured I won't ever try to prove any of it either.....Why? .....'cause I don't give a rats ass what you believe or don't believe.
I'm too busy with my own salvation to care about yours.[/quote]
Given that this is a discussion group, I care about what you've said even if I don't agree with your beliefs.
As for proving any of your beliefs, I damned well know that you can't prove any of them...unless you have a video of yourself walking on water, liquid water, without water skis.
I'm too busy with my own salvation to care about yours.
How perfectly Christian of you.
Did I say I was a Christian?
Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-01-18, 15:26:16
Quote from: SmileyFaze on 2014-01-18, 04:02:06
I'm too busy with my own salvation to care about yours.
How perfectly Christian of you.
Did I say I was a Christian?
Ok then...How perfectly sanctimonious of you. (Better?)
Being for a while I was a paid killer of men, & quite proud of every soul-less monkey/gook I dispatched except one --- a 10-12 year old girl --, I can accept your nescient criticism regardless of how typically atheist of you.... (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/kissingmonkey001.gif)
Many people get their own benefits from religious teaching, with a framework of "good behaviour" which stands them in good stead and makes them steadfast human beings,
"Some of my best friends are believers..." All facetiousness aside, I have a huge family (40-50 on FB), we are a good mix from devoutly religious to atheist, but the common thread we all share is exceptional goodness of heart. My family's goodness doesn't stem from religion, the Bible or God, we derive goodness from each other generation after generation by passing it on freely. I don't believe people derive their goodness from religion at all. Sending an evil person to church gives you an evil believer, that's all. Even if you ordain single minded sexual deviants...well, you get the picture. You can't squeeze goodness out of people by promising they will live forever and eternal damnation is certainly not a deterrent to screwing your neighbor's wife.
On the red text. Although I don't believe that religion is necessary to develop morality or live by its precepts, one had to admit that historically our societies haves been influenced by the predominate thinking on these issues which has been religious. So unless your family have lived all their lives in a different society than the rest of us they have been influenced by that society to think of some things as good and some things as not good.
Maybe in a few more generations our
societies will have diverged from their historical bases and think differently, for example substituting Buddhist mores or Atheist mores or indifferent mores so that even the existence of their present religious basis is seen as not good, but for the moment one should recognise the society for what it is.
On the blue text. That is nonsense. It denies the possibility that the religious mindset does not instil a set of values. What those values are depends on the church/sect and can be beneficial even if there are some extreme sects and even if it is done under the umbrella of some superstition or other.
Recent surveys have showed that 29% or more of people only mouth the words 'I believe' when asked and actually never go to church, read the Bible or live by His word. To what good end is believing if hate, sin and hypocrisy still rule believers lives?
Never go to church, read the Bible or live by His word are not synonymous of
hate, sin and hypocrisy...
There's a certain tendency in Europe for a more secular kind of religion and that's not a necessarily bad or censurable thing, very much the contrary.
The Catholic Church structures are realizing that such behavior doesn't make worst Catholics, people are focusing the importance of the Church at real important moments of their lives rather than just willing to show to others "look how I'm a good Catholic and go everyday to the church".
That's certainly a good thing.
So unless your family have lived all their lives in a different society than the rest of us they have been influenced by that society to think of some things as good and some things as not good.
From psychology we have learned that the predominant influences for molding us into the type of people we are going to be are friends and family; and probably in that order. The rest of society will have very little to do with what kind of person we become. If we don't get morals and goodness from our family, we are unlikely to get it somewhere else. To say that my family's goodness could only stem from religion is to say that it couldn't stem from basic human nature which is peace not hatred, happiness not greed, love not heartache, and wisdom not confusion. The goodness religion teaches lasts for the hour it takes to deliver the sermon and then people are off doing their own thing again; people live with their families not their pastors. I'm not denying the Christian foundation and influence in this nation, but if it weren't for strong family influence, goodness wouldn't spread any further than the front door of the church.
So unless your family have lived all their lives in a different society than the rest of us they have been influenced by that society to think of some things as good and some things as not good.
From psychology we have learned that the predominant influences for molding us into the type of people we are going to be are friends and family; and probably in that order. The rest of society will have very little to do with what kind of person we become. If we don't get morals and goodness from our family, we are unlikely to get it somewhere else. To say that my family's goodness could only stem from religion is to say that it couldn't stem from basic human nature which is peace not hatred, happiness not greed, love not heartache, and wisdom not confusion. The goodness religion teaches lasts for the hour it takes to deliver the sermon and then people are off doing their own thing again; people live with their families not their pastors. I'm not denying the Christian foundation and influence in this nation, but if it weren't for strong family influence, goodness wouldn't spread any further than the front door of the church.
Strongly suggesting that some people, yourself included, led a very sheltered life -- retarding their value system's development, & furthermore, bastardizing their perception of it.
To say that my family's goodness could only stem from religion is to say that it couldn't stem from basic human nature which is peace not hatred, happiness not greed, love not heartache, and wisdom not confusion. The goodness religion teaches lasts for the hour it takes to deliver the sermon and then people are off doing their own thing again...
Is basic human nature distinct from family and society influence? Do sermons preach something else than basic human nature?
From psychology we have learned that the predominant influences for molding us into the type of people we are going to be are friends and family; and probably in that order. The rest of society will have very little to do with what kind of person we become. If we don't get morals and goodness from our family, we are unlikely to get it somewhere else.
Society influences our way of thinking, as it did our parents and their parents before them. If that were not the case then a family living in a Christian community would feel no difference if they were suddenly transported to an Islamic community. No family makes up a complete code of conduct, they may embellish it or ignore some aspects, but the fabric is that of the community in which they, and their forebears, lived. How else do you think that a distinct Chinese community lives in America, or Mexican, or Native Indian or Polish or Irish, all gradually morphing into an American way of life and thought?
To say that my family's goodness could only stem from religion is to say that it couldn't stem from basic human nature which is peace not hatred, happiness not greed, love not heartache, and wisdom not confusion.
Whether or not human beings are so sainted as you portray is highly debatable, but another debate.
Of course "goodness" (or evil) does not stem only from religion, but it just so happens that religions have tried to set themselves up as such for generations and have put more effort into it than relatively disorganised non-religious individuals. Religions have had their nunneries and monasteries to (others might say scholars) refine and "improve their "holy books" for years, each holy book purporting to be God's answer to morality. Whether I think that these books are the answer or not is beside the point, the fact is that what is in them has moulded our civilisation for hundreds of years and in so doing set much of the moral framework of cultures and the people living in them. Note I say much, consistent with my previous use of the word "predominate".
Do sermons preach something else than basic human nature?
Some sermons teach all sorts of things that do not derive from basic human nature - not working on Sunday, not eating "that which is forbidden", a woman covering her hair, and so on and so on and so on....
Do sermons preach something else than basic human nature?
Some sermons teach all sorts of things that do not derive from basic human nature - not working on Sunday, not eating "that which is forbidden", a woman covering her hair, and so on and so on and so on....
How do you know not working on Sunday etc. is against human nature? Maybe it's human nature to preach various things, to make up rules, to try to follow them, then to rebel, tear it all down, live in anarchy for a while, then think of some order again, etc?
How do you know not working on Sunday etc. is against human nature? Maybe it's human nature to preach various things, to make up rules, to try to follow them, then to rebel, tear it all down, live in anarchy for a while, then think of some order again, etc?
Have you noticed this trend in human civilization? If not, then it is not in our nature. Human nature takes into account only those behaviors we have exhibited in the past. If you think we might evolve into something else, then that's a different story, but human nature is based on our demonstrated behavioral history, not on any possible future behavior.
How do you know not working on Sunday etc. is against human nature? Maybe it's human nature to preach various things, to make up rules, to try to follow them, then to rebel, tear it all down, live in anarchy for a while, then think of some order again, etc?
Have you noticed this trend in human civilization? If not, then it is not in our nature.
Serious question. How far does your knowledge of history go? By the age of twenty, I had already seen empires rise and fall first hand. Nothing human (or inhuman, if you prefer) is unknown to me.
By the age of twenty, I had already seen empires rise and fall first hand. Nothing human (or inhuman, if you prefer) is unknown to me.
I KNEW you were going to say something like that. Yes, empires have risen and fallen, but is it something humans do like bees make honey? I think not, but think what you will and keep it to yourself.
By the age of twenty, I had already seen empires rise and fall first hand.
When I was 20 I was too busy watching Bosoms rise and fall, as for the hand --- well ....
When I was 20 I was too busy watching Bosoms rise and fall, as for the hand --- well ....
Vile! Absolutely vile and juvenile...and, and, and utterly Wessexian!
By the age of twenty, I had already seen empires rise and fall first hand. Nothing human (or inhuman, if you prefer) is unknown to me.
I KNEW you were going to say something like that. Yes, empires have risen and fallen, but is it something humans do like bees make honey? I think not, but think what you will and keep it to yourself.
If you knew it, you should have some logical answer to it (as opposed to emotional).
We disagree on our views of human nature and I think, quite reasonably, that such disagreement itself is a vivid example of human nature, and of the nature of humanity. I have no problem living with it, but I accept that it's equally human to struggle painfully trying to cope with it. This is so because human nature is dual. Human nature is divine and diabolic nature active in the same body.
Human nature is divine and diabolic nature active in the same body.
Not really. Human nature is to question why and explore. Ever had an inquisitive child ask you a question and then ask 'why' at the end of your explanation and then 'why' again at the end of that explanation, etc. etc. We humans have been doing that since we came down out of the trees and we'll probably never stop because there will always be wondering. We figure out a lot of stuff, but we're always looking for the next thing to figure out and that's what keeps us exploring.
Human nature is divine and diabolic nature active in the same body.
Not really. Human nature is to question why and explore. Ever had an inquisitive child ask you a question and then ask 'why' at the end of your explanation and then 'why' again at the end of that explanation, etc. etc.
Yes, I have them asking 'why' all the time. It's diabolic. And human.
I do my best to explain. I get through to children better than to you. That's life.
The more knowledge one accumulates, the fact of how much we as humans don't know, is ever more evident.
There is no doubt that great revolutions of scientific thought will occur in the next century, the century after that, & in centuries onward. So which current pet scientific dogmas will be among the first washed away by new facts & sudden clarities?
There is no doubt that great revolutions of scientific thought will occur in the next century, the century after that, & in centuries onward. So which current pet scientific dogmas will be among the first washed away by new facts & sudden clarities?
Over the years, several dogmas (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=1vfQ6VFksiHkWM&tbnid=p_oKMsHE0YW8iM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dogtagart.com%2Fdog-tags%2Fcustom-tags%2Fanubis-egyptian-god-head&ei=vETiUtbcD8WU0AWTzICgDw&psig=AFQjCNEBhe1h9v4QfFukCHkvCPSLrj_46A&ust=1390646809536380) have been swept away and replaced by new ones.
Who knows what mankind will worship next ... catmas (https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTbgDRCv71XAEKwUYNEgqEd5oYg6SjJEf8Cc6a9j3RynOQiiIjm) have been done --- dolphinmas? (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Ganga_Kalighat_1875.jpg/220px-Ganga_Kalighat_1875.jpg) .... well also taken - how about snailmas? (http://www.vivianagutierrezartwork.com/asp_scripts/print_image.asp?WebsiteID=33037&GalleryID=94004&MediaID=1449864&Print=0) .... - it looks like mankind has been very fickle with their deities .... .
It is indeed mankind's nature to believe in funny things.
dogmas
"Dogmata" is plural.
I think... :o
dogmas
"Dogmata" is plural.
I think... :o
You are like some guy who insisted something like virii was the proper plural for virus. Maybe in Latin* it is but not in English.
* I know it isn't :)
You are like some guy who insisted something like virii was the proper plural for virus.
"Viri" maybe?
Maybe in Latin* it is ...
* I know it isn't
It is. In English it is also - facultative. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dogmata)
dogma (n.) (http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=dogma) [abbr=Look up dogma at Dictionary.com](https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fetymonline.com%2Fgraphics%2Fdictionary.gif&hash=54f8c774341411667544edc552d47be2" rel="cached" data-hash="54f8c774341411667544edc552d47be2" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://etymonline.com/graphics/dictionary.gif) (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dogma)[/abbr]
c.1600 (in plural dogmata), from Latin dogma "philosophical tenet", from Greek dogma (genitive dogmatos) "opinion, tenet", literally "that which one thinks is true", from dokein "to seem good, think" (see decent (http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=decent)). Treated in 17c.-18c. as a Greek word in English.
As I said, not English. Dogmata is Greek. Viri is Latin. Dogmas and viruses is English. To each language its own grammar.
As I said, not English.
dog·ma (dôgm, dg-)
n. pl. dog·mas or dog·ma·ta (-m-t)
Dogmata is Greek. Viri is Latin. Dogmas and viruses is English.
Plural of virus
1 Most English (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/English+language) words ending in -us, particularly those derived from Latin, replace the -us suffix with -i to form plurals. This is irregular, however: some words that end in -us do not pluralize with -i. Sometimes this is because they are not Latin words, and sometimes due to habit (e.g. campus (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Campus), plural campuses, anus (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Anus), plural anuses, are both Latin words that do not, in English, pluralize with -i). Conversely, some non-Latin words ending in -us or Latin words that would not have pluralized with -i in Latin are given an -i ending in English...
2 The English plural of virus is viruses.[1] (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Plural+of+virus#cite_note-1) In most speaking communities this is non-controversial and speakers would not attempt to use the non-standard plural in -i. However, in computer enthusiast circles in the late 20th century and early 21st, the non-standard viri form (sometimes even virii) was well-attested, generally in the context of computer viruses.[2] (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Plural+of+virus#cite_note-2)...
... In any case, I was writing in DnDSpeak ...
Selectively applying latin or greek grammar to words in a sentence that's otherwise in english is rather silly. If you want greek grammar, write in greek.
Otherwise, would you apply the original language's grammar to every single loan word? If not, where do you draw the line?
@Josh
This is the situation you get in two cases: 1. In case of a rampantly invasive lingua franca 2. In case of low prestige of home language absorbing foreign elements.
The first case is lingua franca, which I don't really identify as a language. It can be twisted too much as situations require, which is not possible with a true language. For the speakers of a lingua franca of course they are perfectly positive they have a language, so I mostly just silently disagree, even though the reasons are solid.
The second is the case of a dying language, a language being replaced, assimilated into another.
To me language equals grammar. Grammar is rules. The rules are not fluid. They only appear fluid when there are parallel rules having an effect on each other. In your examples, the rules are perfectly well documented as originating in different languages. They organically belong to their respective languages and only have occasional use in English through direct immediately traceable borrowing.
How should I explain it to you? There's a difference between a language and a language game.
... In any case, I was writing in DnDSpeak ...
Right. I hope Josh will get it some day.
@Macallan
Agreed.
To me language equals grammar.
Grammar is a structural element, feature of a language.
The rules are not fluid.
Of course, they are.
As language being a product of people, each and every speaker - in every generation - participates in CREATING the language. Academically, English is a descriptive language - people rule it.
The rules are not fluid.
Of course, they are.
As language being a product of people, each and every speaker - in every generation - participates in CREATING the language. Academically, English is a descriptive language - people rule it.
Your own posts speak against you. You pick on language implying that the rules are different from how people use the language here. In effect I was simply agreeing with you, even though in a way you don't like to be agreed with.
You can't twist the rules any way you like. I mean, you can, but this is language game, not proper language. I know Russian and I can twist it so that it breaks your heart. This would stop your liberal-mindedness about grammar, but I don't want to break your tender heart.
People can't break the law - bur they create the law -- where they elect - democratically - their representatives, or even sometimes by referendum.
And not always that straight. The public opinion may also (and often does) incite politicians to create/change the legislation.
It is a model.
@Josh
Very poetic.
In my view, inasmuch as the parts of the system don't act in unison, it's undescriptive to view them as a single unit with a single purpose or rule. It's not practical to state that Greek or Latin plurals are English, when they in fact only interfere with English plurals and are neither universally applied nor applicable the way native rules are.
Also, it's not practical to state that people can't break the law when the focus of all legal systems anywhere is to tell criminals from non-criminals and illegitimate rule from legitimate.
The bottom of our disagreement has been reached.
@some mod
Is the latest span of posts in this thread grammatical mutterings, political mutterings, or some third kind of mutterings? It doesn't appear to be about agnosticism any more.
Very poetic.
No.
Simply mathematic.:P
@some mod
Is the latest span of posts in this thread grammatical mutterings, political mutterings, or some third kind of mutterings? It doesn't appear to be about agnosticism any more.
I could try to split if off if you like, but I think some kind of pragmatism vs. idealism is at least tangentially related. :)