A "Biblical" question
#1 Posted 24 August 2011 - 12:12 PM
#2 Posted 24 August 2011 - 01:03 PM
#3 Posted 24 August 2011 - 02:06 PM
This post has been edited by MusicallyInspired: 24 August 2011 - 02:07 PM
#4 Posted 24 August 2011 - 02:22 PM
#5 Posted 24 August 2011 - 02:52 PM
Spirrwell, on 24 August 2011 - 02:22 PM, said:
People have been trying to doing that forever and no one can really decide if god exists... so i guess... good luck?
#6 Posted 24 August 2011 - 03:05 PM
This post has been edited by MusicallyInspired: 24 August 2011 - 03:07 PM
#7 Posted 24 August 2011 - 07:35 PM
MusicallyInspired, on 24 August 2011 - 03:05 PM, said:
If the idea lies in a book, in which hypocrisy lies, how is it possible that a flawed hypocritical supernatural entity exists that is supposedly flawless? Unless the true flawlessness itself was intended as a flaw? I "believe" that simple math can prove that such a being doesn't exists. It may be impossible to prove directly that no such being exists, but it is possible to prove something, and have it completely contradict what this "holy" book says. Or better yet find a flaw in the book itself, like I may have found. Richard Dawkins happens to be one of my newest role models, and I don't know how much he himself understands, but one of the things he had said stuck with me. Since based on his belief of atheism, he said that the only way the Bible or some other religious text could possibly make sense is if the original intention was to deceive.
What I want to know, is if we started out as immortal spiritual beings, and we made ourselves mortal with the fruit of the tree of knowledge, then where is the trace of this tree? It has to be somewhere. Here's something else interesting, God supposedly knows all. Then, if that's true, how come he didn't prevent Adam and Eve from eating the fruit? Why does he act like he doesn't know it happens after the fact? Something is flawed with this story. Also, how about Noah's Ark? How in the world would one fit so many animals in one ark, without making it ridiculously huge? Some things just don't add up to balance the equation. Also, let's not forget that the Bible itself is a collection of books. I could go on. Well...
"Let God sort'em out!"
-Duke Nukem
#8 Posted 24 August 2011 - 08:34 PM
Believe it or not, it's quite possible to make progress in answering the question(s). But you have to remain focused on what is relevant. If you are easily distracted, then you don't get anywhere.
#9 Posted 25 August 2011 - 08:17 AM
Spirrwell, on 24 August 2011 - 07:35 PM, said:
Richard Dawkins is a quack..not to mention ugly. He has the same flawed logic as religious fundamentalists: namely that the Bible is supposed to be fact. Large parts of it were never intended to be "fact" but were meant to explain things. Augustine talked about the four ways to understand scripture: literal, allegorical, moral, and mystical. The etiological uses of, especially, Genesis 1-12 are ignored by groups on both sides of the argument on the existence of God and the verifiability of the Bible. In recent years even Evangelicals have stepped back and admitted that science isn't all bad, but they are "fringe" among their peers and laughed at in some places.
This post has been edited by Mr.Flibble: 25 August 2011 - 08:28 AM
#11 Posted 25 August 2011 - 10:12 AM
Mr.Flibble, on 25 August 2011 - 08:17 AM, said:
Dawkins' militant atheism offends many, but there should be no doubt that he has done brilliant work in the realm of evolutionary biology.
#12 Posted 25 August 2011 - 01:35 PM
#13 Posted 25 August 2011 - 02:14 PM
Captain Awesome, on 25 August 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:
Would you mind providing an example of one of Dawkins "absurd" thoughts? I don't mean that in a hostile way, but I'm not familiar with all of his statements and those I have heard have never struck me as absurd or obviously fallacious.
#14 Posted 25 August 2011 - 02:22 PM
#15 Posted 25 August 2011 - 03:08 PM
This post has been edited by rasmus thorup: 25 August 2011 - 03:08 PM
#16 Posted 25 August 2011 - 03:44 PM
Captain Awesome, on 25 August 2011 - 02:22 PM, said:
Most claims of existence or nonexistence fall into that vast middle ground between speculation and proof. Typically, atheists do not try to prove the nonexistence of god. They try to show that, on balance, there is no reason to believe that god exists, and that belief in god is therefore irrational. It's an important distinction. I'm an atheist myself, but I don't claim to be able to prove the nonexistence of god. I doubt that Dawkins does either (although he might think, as I do, that certain conceptions of god have been ruled out). Some people might say I am agnostic, because I admit that I could be wrong...maybe god does exist after all. But the admission that I could be wrong does not make me agnostic. An analogy: I believe that I live on 21st century Earth. However, I admit that I could be mistaken: perhaps I am in the Matrix (or something like that) and it's all an illusion. I admit that possibility, but it doesn't make me an agnostic with respect to believing I live on 21st century earth; I still believe it and I still have good reason to. Likewise, as an atheist I believe god does not exist, and have good reason to believe it; however, I admit the possibility of being wrong. As far as I know, Dawkins would say the same thing.
#18 Posted 26 August 2011 - 10:16 PM
MusicallyInspired, on 26 August 2011 - 09:16 PM, said:
Theism: I believe that there is a God.
Atheism: I believe that there is no God.
Agnosticism: I don't have a belief one way or the other.
The point I made in my previous post was that someone can have a belief while admitting the possibility of error.
#19 Posted 28 August 2011 - 04:17 PM
DeeperThought, on 25 August 2011 - 03:44 PM, said:
Unfortunately most atheists are just people with hardons for going 'THERE IS NO GOD I HATE CHRISTIANS' etc etc. They've put just as much thought into their sentiments as hardline Christians. It's just as stupid. The ones you speak of, that say it is 'irrational' don't take into account that as humans, we know jack shit. Therefor a disbelief in god is irrational. Instead, the most rational belief is "I know I know nothing, and with the evidence laid before me there is plenty of proof that can be swayed as evidence for or against god. However, since I cannot prove there is a god, and you cannot prove something doesn't exist, the logical decision is that of knowing ignorance.' You can search for the truth surely, but ultimately whatever you end up believing usually arrives from evidence and your own personal speculation. Too many atheists think that if you can disprove a tiny portion of what the Bible says or some Christians believe that you've disproven god. You've no idea who or what god could be. God could be collective consciousness of all of us. 'Well, we just don't know, Dude.'
DeeperThought, on 26 August 2011 - 10:16 PM, said:
Atheism: I believe that there is no God.
Agnosticism: I don't have a belief one way or the other.
The point I made in my previous post was that someone can have a belief while admitting the possibility of error.
Not quite. In fact, the Atheism you described above is rather more in line with Agnostic Atheism than true Atheism itself.
Taken right from Wikipedia:
Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists. In a more specific sense, theism refers to a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe. Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism that contended that God, though transcendent and supreme, did not intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not via revelation.
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves there is a God, whereas an atheist disbelieves there is a God. In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify knowledge whether God exists or does not. Within agnosticism there are agnostic atheists (who do not believe any deity exists, but do not deny it as a possibility) and agnostic theists (who believe a God exists but do not claim to know that).
Deism in the philosophy of religion is the standpoint that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is a creation and has a creator. Furthermore, the term often implies that this supreme being does not intervene in human affairs or suspend the natural laws of the universe. Deists typically reject supernatural events such as prophecy and miracles, tending to assert that a god (or "the Supreme Architect") has a plan for the universe that this god does not alter by (regularly or ever) intervening in the affairs of human life. This idea is also known as the Clockwork universe theory, in which a god designs and builds the universe, but steps aside to let it run on its own. Deists believe in the existence of a god without any reliance on revealed religion, religious authority or holy books.
Personally, I am an Agnostic Deist which likely also falls under Dutch Ietsism. My belief is that while I know nothing, what I can see leads me to believe that there was or is something greater out there, but it has no care about human matters. I believe this thing would be a 'neutral chaotic', it is fair and without any true order.
#20 Posted 28 August 2011 - 04:38 PM
Captain Awesome, on 28 August 2011 - 04:17 PM, said:
This statement is irrational.
I don't believe that there's a monkey who created the universe by ejaculating. Does that make me irrational? Neither do I belive that there's a teapot orbiting between the Earth and Mars. Does that make me irrational? I just heard a car drive somewhere outside. I don't believe the driver was my mother because she lives a hundred miles away and has no reason to drive around my neighborhood in the middle of the night but I cannot prove that she wasn't in the car. Does that make me irrational?
#21 Posted 28 August 2011 - 04:52 PM
#22 Posted 28 August 2011 - 05:06 PM
Mr.Flibble, on 28 August 2011 - 04:52 PM, said:
I don't think anyone means it literally when they say that they don't believe in God simply because they haven't seen him with their own eyes. "Seeing" here refers more to the overall fact that there's absolutely no trace whatsoever of God and neither any reason to assume that there'd be.
#23 Posted 28 August 2011 - 05:17 PM
Mikko_Sandt, on 28 August 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:
orly?
Albert Einstein said:
This post has been edited by Mr.Flibble: 28 August 2011 - 05:27 PM
#24 Posted 28 August 2011 - 06:02 PM
Mikko_Sandt, on 28 August 2011 - 04:38 PM, said:
I don't believe that there's a monkey who created the universe by ejaculating. Does that make me irrational? Neither do I belive that there's a teapot orbiting between the Earth and Mars. Does that make me irrational? I just heard a car drive somewhere outside. I don't believe the driver was my mother because she lives a hundred miles away and has no reason to drive around my neighborhood in the middle of the night but I cannot prove that she wasn't in the car. Does that make me irrational?
You're just being brash for the sake of it. Loaded questions that don't even begin to relate to super powerful beings beyond our comprehension. It's irrelevant, provocative, and instead meant to be conducive to the conversation, rather than making any actual point.
Mr.Flibble, on 28 August 2011 - 04:52 PM, said:
Though, through science we have evidence that air does exist.
Mikko_Sandt, on 28 August 2011 - 05:06 PM, said:
Depends on your perspective and your definition of God.
#25 Posted 28 August 2011 - 07:31 PM
Captain Awesome, on 28 August 2011 - 06:02 PM, said:
Gravity, electromagnetism, or light would be more appropriate examples, then -- as physical forces, waves, particles, things that are really there; perhaps antimatter is another example that could be thrown out there. I feel like this conversation tree has been thoroughly plucked, however, in other thread(s).
#26 Posted 28 August 2011 - 07:44 PM
orly?
[quote name='"Albert Einstein"]I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books' date=' but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.[/quote'][/quote]
What's your point? You have the name of a famous scientist talking about God?
#27 Posted 28 August 2011 - 08:49 PM
Here is an excerpt from Einstein's letter:
Quote
That does not show that he is an atheist, but I think it is safe to say that Einstein wanted no part of organized religion.
@Captain Awesome: The wikipedia entries you quoted agree with my statements. Mine were simple, but accurate. The wikipedia gives three different takes on what atheism is, and my statement referred to the narrow sense. The broad and inclusive senses overlap with agnosticism and so are not useful in explicating the three positions as contrasting categories. By the way I have an M.A. in philosophy and I know what I'm talking about.
#28 Posted 28 August 2011 - 10:13 PM
DeeperThought, on 28 August 2011 - 08:49 PM, said:
I'll give you a MA in Big Fucking Deal. You provided vague descriptions of complex terms.
#29 Posted 28 August 2011 - 11:22 PM
Captain Awesome, on 28 August 2011 - 10:13 PM, said:
I thought I was being clear and concise.
#30 Posted 29 August 2011 - 05:01 AM
Captain Awesome, on 28 August 2011 - 06:02 PM, said:
Except I was making a point about when it's rational not to believe in something. The basic logic I applied applies to "super powerful beings beyond our comprehension" as well, obviously.
Btw, why assume some things are beyond our comprehension? I assume you're not merely talking about current technological limitations?
Quote
Sure, if you're an idiot you can define God as "everything we don't know about the universe" which is exactly what stupid people have been doing for millenia. You can prove pretty much anything you want simply by messing with definitions.