But is that information you linked to real evidence though?, i and many others and the scientific method can prove without doubt that humans arise only from humans, if you want to use the word evolution then human beings can only evolve from human beings and this is a proven fact. If you want to believe that humans evolved from an ape-like creature over millions of years then that is your choice to believe that, if you believe that the information you observe points to evolution then that is your choice to believe that.
Richard Dawkins sums up religion
- Thread starter Merlin5
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,324
- Location
- Woking
Can you provide me with your proof please? I'd be very interested to read it.
So how did humans come about then?
So how did humans come about then?
Yeah, thought so, straight over your head...
To prove that you truly have free will. Obviously, you don't because you can't just simply change your mind, just the same as everyone else.
Thing is, aside from playing with words - what is the practical consequence of your position?
I don't see how you can be anything other than an atheist, if you won't even accept any questions on god existing, let alone holding a belief either way, because there is no question or idea on god - you surely hold zero belief, because there's nothing sufficiently defined to believe in, if you hold any positive belief at all - that means the question is meaningful enough for you to gain positivity - however you've said many times that it isn't.
Weirdly, this seems like the same position I'm in - everything is too vague to say one way or another - so I just dismiss it as nonsense, which seems to be very similar to what you do, except you don't outright dismiss it, which to me doesn't really matter - you still don't seem to believe any of it, just like me.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Apologies for the delay in replying and I'm sure the debate has proceeded to go nowhere but in lovely circles since then but I felt I'd like to respond anyway.
I think those beliefs would be covered under my proviso "not directly harming yourself or others". If those beliefs are being acted upon or otherwise used to harm others then action can, and should, be taken. If those beliefs are not acted upon then the question is more difficult to answer - at that point you're advocating denying people to think whatever they want, essentially you're looking for thought police for want of a better phrase.
I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge that there are billions of stupid opinions in the world (I probably hold a number of them myself) and a number of those opinions will make me view the person holding them with less respect but should holding an opinion, no matter how unpleasant, be actionable even if no deed follows thought*?
*For the sake of argument I'm allowing that people have thought themselves into holding the stupid opinions, most of the time there will have been no brainpower expended on the opinion in the first place.
Again I'd point you to the caveat regarding harm, if people want to believe that good and evil are absolutes and indeed are external actors on behaviour then that's fine for them. I would have a bit more of an issue if those beliefs were then used to determine how the criminal in this example was dealt with - this assumes of course that we can come up with a broad evidence based agreement about how best to deal with criminals.
I don't accept a stance as a matter of fact without evidence but for much of the time I can simply afford to ignore it as it doesn't impinge on me to any degree. If you wish it's apathetic or perhaps it's live and let live - people holding different opinions to you doesn't necessarily harm you even if you don't view them as being supported by evidence.
I think those beliefs would be covered under my proviso "not directly harming yourself or others". If those beliefs are being acted upon or otherwise used to harm others then action can, and should, be taken. If those beliefs are not acted upon then the question is more difficult to answer - at that point you're advocating denying people to think whatever they want, essentially you're looking for thought police for want of a better phrase.
I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge that there are billions of stupid opinions in the world (I probably hold a number of them myself) and a number of those opinions will make me view the person holding them with less respect but should holding an opinion, no matter how unpleasant, be actionable even if no deed follows thought*?
*For the sake of argument I'm allowing that people have thought themselves into holding the stupid opinions, most of the time there will have been no brainpower expended on the opinion in the first place.
Again I'd point you to the caveat regarding harm, if people want to believe that good and evil are absolutes and indeed are external actors on behaviour then that's fine for them. I would have a bit more of an issue if those beliefs were then used to determine how the criminal in this example was dealt with - this assumes of course that we can come up with a broad evidence based agreement about how best to deal with criminals.
I don't accept a stance as a matter of fact without evidence but for much of the time I can simply afford to ignore it as it doesn't impinge on me to any degree. If you wish it's apathetic or perhaps it's live and let live - people holding different opinions to you doesn't necessarily harm you even if you don't view them as being supported by evidence.
That is not what I said..I will accept the validity of any question on the existence of God as long as the term is coherently and universally defined.
I am not an atheist as I do not know whether I hold a belief or not as the proposition has not yet been presented in such a manner as to warrant a coherent reply. To say I hold no belief is to assume to much...do you see the fundamental difference?
It is a knowledge position..you do not believe..I do not know whether I believe. That is the difference between us.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,324
- Location
- Woking
So which question would warrant a coherent reply?!
Which comes down to practicality, you know full well that there will never ever be a coherent or universally defined question, such a question is impossible to define.
I see the difference if you're just playing with words, but I don't see any real practical difference.
Not at all. Practically it is about how we substantiate our position when we lack knowledge or definition of a proposition and the assumptions we attach to that proposition in order to either ask or answer it...do we like Atheists or Theists make a judgement one way or the other by assuming the proposition has validity.. so they answer the question by choosing to either believe in the proposition or to not...or do we simply recognise the invalidity of the question and not assume anything...practically I could believe or disbelieve the proposition depending upon the definition attached to the proposition...this is what my example to estebanrey illustrated.
I do not feel that the question is impossible to define as that would also assume too much about the proposition.
It is a philosophical position. It is as practical as the observer defines it to be from their own perspective.
If you recognise any question on the existence of god as being invalid (as do I) then you have, to a certain extent made up your mind for the time being, because you've rejected the question - compared to an agnostic who simply says "I don't know" when faced with the same question, you go and reject it, or class it as invalid.
I know that this doesn't mean you're choosing to disbelieve in god, simply because you reject the question - but if there's no actual way of asking a question on god you don't immediatley reject - I don't see how it's really any different from mine - who simply rejects the entire question and any possible belief attached to it..
Idk, seems like a big unnecessary word game, or philosophical conundrum that doesn't really mean much. I understand exactly where you're coming from - but I'm struggling to see the real difference and how it applies to ordinary people.
Last edited:
Not any question on the existence of God.....only the question being presented at the time. It is about the assumptions required to consider such a question rationally. "Does God exist?" doesn't mean anything because depending upon what assumptions I attach to the definition of the term God, I could be a theist, atheist or agnostic. I could be any of those things depending upon the assumption of the term God..that is about as practical as it gets and means therefore that I cannot logically be defined as an atheist, because practically I could be the opposite.
Its why many philosophers do not accept some of the more recent definitions of Atheism (as per my discussion with Elmarko earlier in the thread) as valid...as they assume too much to be practical and only undermines atheism rather than defines it.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 664
''We should not pretend to understand the world only by the intellect. The judgement of the intellect is only part of the truth.''
Carl Jung
Carl Jung
proof for what? where human beings come from?, are you serious?, humans come from humans where else can a human being can come from?. I'm simply astounded.
I'm sorry but you don't make any sense, anyone can change their mind if they choose to. Get real mate.
Last edited:
OK let's define a god for you.
God =
any supernatural deity from any of the worlds religious texts at any part of history
any supernatural being who can control our reality or minds by will
any supernatural being who can create or destroy life/worlds/the universe at will
Do you believe in a god?
God =
any supernatural deity from any of the worlds religious texts at any part of history
any supernatural being who can control our reality or minds by will
any supernatural being who can create or destroy life/worlds/the universe at will
Do you believe in a god?
On the simple question "Does god exist"
For all intents and purposes, the last two answers translate into roughly the same thing practically - the question is totally crass, I say no, you say "it's meaningless" you could swap them round and it doesn't really matter..
If something doesn't mean anything, that essentially means it's nonsense or totally incoherent, if you could expand the question and inject some definition into the word "god" then it would start to mean something, but until that happens I don't see the real difference between us.
Not sure if serious?, let me go ask Richard Dawkins, big lol.
Perhaps I do....I would need to have all the religious texts ever written to be able to answer the first definition and then I could and practically would be a atheist, theist and agnostic all at the same time considering the differences in those definitions are as infinite as the propositions presented...it is also clearly not a universal, coherent definition being presented...so my initial position that the question is not coherent is validated.
The second, I would have no way to objectively know whether any decisions I make on the validity are a result of such a deities mind control or will...this would require an enormous amount of assumption and is therefore not a coherent universal definition.
The third also requires assumptions which could mean I am agnostic, theist or atheist dependent upon those assumptions...so again, not a coherent proposition.
Therefore as no coherent universal proposition has been made the question(s) assumes to much to be meaningful......I am not an atheist or theist as both would assume too much given the knowledge you have supplied.
Last edited:
No they don't...the first and second make a position based on an assumption applied to the term 'God'..the last doesn't assume anything...
The answer to the "Does God exist?"
Theist: Yes.
Atheist: No.
Castiel: Define the term God?
I may be an atheist, a theist or agnostic depending upon the assumptions inherent in the term God.
The difference between us is that you assume a meaningful definition to the term God within the proposition...I do not. Its a subtle, yet fundamental difference.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,324
- Location
- Woking
I'm astounded that you've not even bothered to read the definition of evolution before denouncing it. If you had offered some evidence, I would have at least bothered to read it before telling you it was crap.
Which church is it that you belong to? Church of England or what?