Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,581
- Location
- Warwickshire
In that case, every single human on this planet is agnostic by definition.
Reason: nobody can be 100% sure either way.
The pope. Popeing about.
- Thread starter benneh
- Start date
In that case, every single human on this planet is agnostic by definition.
Reason: nobody can be 100% sure either way.
But some people do have complete faith.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,581
- Location
- Warwickshire
Faith != certainty.
They have total faith and certainty a deity does or does not exist. It really is that simple.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,581
- Location
- Warwickshire
They think they do, but it's not possible to be certain of this thing. It really is that simple.
Most sceptics I know, at least never say they're 100% certain of no higher being. Whereas religious people seem to be '100%', even though they cannot possibly be. This tells me they that heart of hearts, they don't believe themselves. It's an overly defensive position.
Funny you should mention that.....
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100921/tsc-environment-us-redsea-011ccfa.html
haha
Startling headline,wow, it must rank alongside the several discoveries of Noah's ark of several which turned out to be hoaxes & another was the remains of some shepherds hut.
So it's a computer simulation that shows the wind could possibly blow a passage through the sea from one side to the other is it ,did it hold the water there for several hours to allow thousands of people to walk across did it ?, lol That therefore of course totally proves the Exodus story does it
This also appeared in the daily mirror & no doubt the daily fail so it must be true.
So you guys think that it could happen do you just because some geeks did a computer simulation ? that the sea can be parted by a blast of wind for several hours ?
Have you not read the accepted fact that it was the ''Sea of reeds & not Red sea that supposedly parted ?
Stop press:-
I just did a computer simulation that proved Jesus could not have risen from the dead but I just rang the daily fail and they say they won't print details for fear of upsetting people apparently as it's not the kind of thing they like to read.
Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God
Theism: the doctrine or belief in the existence of a God or gods
Agnosticism: The belief that the existence of God is not knowable
It's all about which one you believe not which one you have certainty. So of course people can be other than agnostic.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,581
- Location
- Warwickshire
People can think they are anything other than agnostic, whereas in reality everyone is agnostic due to the fact that it's not possible to take any other stance than 'maybe, maybe not'.
It's impossible to be sure either way.
When people say they believe something, hold a gun to their child's head and tell them to place her life on it...they'll soon get rational. Of course this is a silly thing to say, but I'm trying to illustrate that pro-religion people have no incentive to admit that it's possible that there is ... nothing else.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
It presumes for a starting point that logic applies, that's not necessarily so. If there's an omnipotent being then why do physical or logical limits apply?
Then again it's only really an argument against particular religions who believe in free will and gods will - it's not an argument against the idea of there being a deity of some description.
Another possible answer is that there may be only one higher being who either appears in different forms to suit the time and people there or perhaps it is simply people relating one god to concepts they can understand.
It seems as astounding to me the thought that the universe more or less just came into being, either there's a god or there isn't, both possibilities are equally amazing - apologies to Arthur C. Clarke for the paraphrase.
I take the view that if people want to believe in something and it's a catalyst for good (or at least doesn't cause harm to others) then who am I to definitively state that the idea is stupid or flawed when I just don't know. If they ask for my opinion I'll give it but other than that provided they leave me to get on with my life I'm more than happy to give them the same courtesy.
You seem very sure of this, how can you categorically state this is the reason for religion? It may be, it may not be but at this point in time it seems a little bit of a leap to make.
As I say above, believe whatever you want to believe as long as it's not hurting anyone else - if you're a FSMist then you get an equal amount of respect from me as anyone else would for their beliefs. That most people only claim belief in it as a facetious statement is neither here nor there really - believe what you want and allow others the same freedom.
Isn't a lot of science based on theoretical models? Surely a scientific explanation is a good thing?
Seriously, some arguments...
Really? So people can't be anything other than agnostic because you're not happy with the definition of the word? What has proof or reality got to do with belief?
Belief: any cognitive content held as true
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,581
- Location
- Warwickshire
I agree and you're right of course, but there's a difference between allowing people to get on with their own beliefs and trying to establish which belief is probably correct. This is futile but it's fun to try
.Another question to someone of a given religion: you are talking to someone that can appreciate the concept of a higher being. How do you explain to them that the one you have devoted your life to, is the one true god and that you are not wasting your life worshiping X when Y is in fact the god? By saying that your belief is a small part of the bigger picture? Surely this marginalises your god?
Associate
- Joined
- 16 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,724
- Location
- Worcestershire
It's true I tell you ,
I just replicated the same simulation in the same size fishtank as they did & I blew a channel from one side of the tank to the other, mind you the missus is still scraping the goldfish off the ceiling so don't know what went wrong there Why would it marganalisr him, why would a deity take offence at minor difference on Human storys translated a thousand times and passed down even more. Over thousands of years. He knows wevare not perfect and can only go on what we know. Surely the only thing a deity who knew these things would care about, is you belive in him.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,581
- Location
- Warwickshire
I understand that you are highlighting the difference between reality and belief in the definition of theism, agnostiscism...people believe stupid things all the time. But for me, that only serves to further my point that religious pigeonholes are equally as silly as religion itself.
People claim to believe in a god but they cannot know there's a god, therefore they cannot be sure, therefore they are agnostic. Unless religious belief is blind to logic...oh, wait.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,581
- Location
- Warwickshire
So branches of religion are just the manifestation of the interpretation of people's ideas about what they should be doing to worship something they don't know exists in the form that they are worshipping.
How do they know that their god isn't allergic to candle smoke?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,581
- Location
- Warwickshire
This lack of desire to prove something that they spend their entire lives following, is what I cannot get my head around.
I agree with him completely,although the pope wasn't blaming atheism for the Holocaust either however, he was stating much the same as Dawkins, that religion is no more at fault for the bad that man does than secularism, the Pope was expressing a concern about militant atheism or secularism side-lining or denigrating those of Faith and the dangers that can entail, for example the Holocaust.
Now the Richard Dawkins we see the quoted video is somewhat less extremist in his view than the one seen in the earlier clip and this is my problem with his view, it is becoming more absolute and he contradicts that Fox interview on numerous occasions.
The Fox interviewer was correct with one thing though, He cannot prove that God exists, but then Richard cannot prove he does not so they are equally faith based ideologies that ultimately are incompatible with each other.
My main gripe with the majority of Atheists is that they readily accept that Science is a progressive thing and as more philosophies and observations and evidence is attained we have a differing view of the theories within science, we change them, discard some or create new ones based on a myriad of things.
Yet when Religion becomes progressive, disregarding doctrine or re-interpreting doctrine or it's scripture based on modern thinking and interpretation they attack it, saying that it proves it's bunkum.
Frankly that is rubbish, suppose for one moment that God did speak to Moses, a primitive, poorly educated and naive man when compared to modern standards, how do you think he is going to interpret what he is told? By his own pre historical context of course, as time progresses and Man becomes more complex and educated the interpretation of those words will change, doctrine and belief based on this will alter also, much like an evolving theory in Science, hence we see changes in religion, Judaism giving birth to Christianity and both giving Birth to Islam and so on, also within each religion we also see differing evolutions of interpretation, hence the different denominations and so on.
I could really throw a spanner in the works and mention Solipsism, in other words, nothing can be proven to exist except my own mind.
Which is fair enough and the religious lot cant get their heads around that you and others do not believe in a God or deity of some sort.
Swings and roundabouts as i like to call it.