Isn't that kind of a flawed argument to make? You could say there's an invisible ethereal bright green flamingo under the bed, but can't disprove it. It's an easy get-out card that is played far too much by the blind-faithful when they run out of steam.
Jealous of the Ned Flanders?
- Thread starter monkai666
- Start date
Isn't that kind of a flawed argument to make? You could say there's an invisible ethereal bright green flamingo under the bed, but can't disprove it. It's an easy get-out card that is played far too much by the blind-faithful when they run out of steam.
yeah the beginning is truly confusing. I think you need at least a degree in advanced mathematics to being to understand it
Man of Honour
...with the inevitable follow-up 'ah, but the lord works in mysterious ways'.
No because if i show you two cups and say one has a ball under one does not.
There is no way you can know which cup the ball is under (assuming you only have sight and cannot do other tests) there fore any decision you make is a leap of faith.
The only sensible answer is "i do not know"
You could look?
Actually its an argument against the religius and the atheists, the argument is purely that you cannot know and so cannot make a decision.
Although as i said you can disprove the writings of the bible etc but not of a creator.
Soldato
No one's claimed that there are bright green flamingoes. If someone claims "there is no God", that's a statement on a completely untestable hypothesis, much like "there is a God".
Gilly never said this, however. I think the confusion lies in the double meaning of "I don't believe in". It can be taken to be an active denial of the existence of a God (atheist), the apathetic indifference to the existence of a God (agnostic), or the unknowing "I can't possibly tell either way" stance (agnostic).
And for a further point, what if I'm wrong along with my friends. What if there is a God and a end up standing in front of those pearly gates saying, "It's not my fault! I had 6 hours of science and school and 0.5 of R.E.!" Do I go to hell or does God show sympathy and wave me through?
To justify my first post, I'm not saying God isn't real, it's just I'm not sure without proof. I still see God as possible I suppose but science seems more likely. Or is that my schooling that makes me think that? I'm unsure now.
To justify my first post, I'm not saying God isn't real, it's just I'm not sure without proof. I still see God as possible I suppose but science seems more likely. Or is that my schooling that makes me think that? I'm unsure now.
Soldato
Then you're not an atheist.
regardless of how much dawkins and others try to expand the definition to inflate their numbers.
Man of Honour
definition of green
But way to avoid the point.
quiet you!
most of the time when people start defending atheism as not a faith based position they usually are in the camp of there is no god
Why would god care how you lived your life?
Why should god like good people? maybe god likes people like Stalin and hates people like Flanders.
God's possibly just bored, so be entertaining, he might send you back for a second series
Soldato
Because for some reason we're all driven by an impulse to do what's "right", even though there's no discernible benefit to the individual.
We can go into semantics if you want, but my point still stands, you really can't just go 'disprove something I just totally made up without the possibility of doing so', it's just ridiculous.
Not all of us...
Also that probbably because it;s engrained in you from childhood, not because it;s instinctive. although an experiment to test this would be unbelievably shady in ethical terms.
yes which is the whole point of that argument...
You cannot say god does not exist nor can you say he does. with any degree of certainty. At best you can attack books written by men, but that does nothing to solve the question.
I can understand that, when my Dad had a kid with my step mum even when she was very young, not even old enough to speak decently, if she did something wrong her face would show it. You just looked at her and knew she'd done something. I can't remember what it was, something to do with the hamster I think, but she'd never done it before and never been told off for anything like it but she knew she id something wrong. It's inbuilt.
Soldato
No, this is something "higher" than simply morals that are taught you. Why do we all argue with each other about what's fair, ethical, or morally correct? Where does the concept even come from? What's the point?
I don't have the answer by the way...
Instinctively, it's quite the opposite - look out for number 1 and screw the rest. You need to be told what's right and what's wrong. I can't be the only one who has to force myself to do good/selflessness over bad/selfishness with nearly every decision I make.
Prove it. We argue because the concept was ingrained at childhood. The 'higher' thing is actually the simple morals. You're sort of trying to bring God into this now.
Prove it. We argue because the concept was ingrained at childhood. The 'higher' thing is actually the simple morals. You're sort of trying to bring God into this now.
How are you justifying that statement?
Because :
fair, we all want the most we can get, however we also generally don;t want to risk a fight an equal share is the best solution.
ethical, because we're taught that there are certain ways to act and we should abide by them, if you do not wish to face punishment.
moral sam thing as ethical.
Being an utter **** usually ends up with you being dead or other such unpleasantness occurring (at least in the early stages of human development) and so a structure formed around that.