Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Albatross wrote:
What I'm saying is that if the man who deciphered the prophecy knew the dates involved beforehand, he could find apropriate passages to cross-reference to make them look like a prophecy. I think this is the strongest case against it, to be honest.
Sorry. You do not understand the nature of prophesy. There are two types. An open prior prediction or an pre-declared but veiled prediction. as I said the wording is plain text in the bible, if people did not see it they did not see it. This second type of prophesy is refered to a signiture prophesy. God is saying I did that, predictive prophesy is there so that people can act on it. Signiture prophesy is different in that regards.
The real question is why would someone not see the prediction in plain text beforehand, the answer is that they are not supposed to. God reveals his Word, so something in plain text could well vbe overlooked if God chooses it to be so.
In either case a book written over two millenia ago predicted a political event to the day May 14th 1948. There is no strong case against that, there is no case at all.
..and you feel comfortable presenting this as fact because you accept the rationale that the prediction was 'veiled', which is an eloquent way of saying that one could only decipher it by working backwards when in possesion of the dates in question. I'm sorry, have I gone mad? Has the world turned upside-down or something? Since when does a prediction after the fact have any credibility whatsoever? From the excerpt you posted, it is clear that the all the author had to do once he'd had determined the length of a biblical year was find a reference to the number 7 in the Torah, preferably one that suited his purpose.
Also, his calculations seem to hinge on the the BC countdown to 1BC, year interval (no year zero), then counting up from 1AD. I could be wrong here (and anyone can feel free to correct me), but Jesus couldn't have been born before after 4BC because that was the year that King Herod died, wasn't it? If 1AD is taken as the year Jesus was born (or even the year after), meaning that 1AD directly should directly follow 4BC (for the sake of argument, some people place it earlier, apparently...), wouldn't that throw the prediction out by a few years? I'm just thinking aloud at this point.
Orlanth wrote:
Your understandable error is that you dont calculate for the living God behind the words and are treating the words like ordinary mortal words in an ordinary mortal text. You might miss a secular prediction or ignore it until it occurs, but signiture prophesy is a holding back. We have had a long time to work out the dates, but never did until it occured.
Orlanth, you ask too much of me. Ridicule comes naturally to me, and my sense of humour is often cruel, but I am really trying to fight my natural impulses because I am enjoying the discussion. But you ask too much. What I WILL say, is that this sounds like apologism for predictions made in reverse, and I will leave it at that.
Albatross wrote:
It's your comfort-blanket, Orlanth.
I accept your comment on face value. This is in a very real way true, a personal relationship with God is a powerful and intimate relationship, I will not deny that it can indeed should foster a degree of dependency.
I want to make clear that I wasn't referring to your religious beliefs being a crutch, rather the belief that all atheists are 'religious' non-believers.
Albatross wrote:
With this in mind, you are acutely aware of the baselessness of some of the things you believe. Claiming that atheism is religion makes you feel better because you can tell yourself that there is parity between the levels of dogma adhered to by both 'sides' (I don't really consider myself part of some monolithic atheist block, I'm just a bloke who doesn't observe religion because I don't see the point...), but there actually isn't. There aren't any requirements save one: not being a theist.
I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here. it is good that we are returning to this point ever gsooner in our discussions, it means the cirlce is closing and we are approaching the real issues head on, and with aded politeness and respect each time. I havent planned this, just pointed out my point of view honestly, it is an inevitavble conclusion when we both do the same.
Again, I'm enjoying the discussion this time around, and am glad that it's been both polite and respectful on a personal level.
To you (tell me if I have you wrong here) atheism is declaration of intention to abstain from any theistic thought process. Make religion a non issue and live without it.
It hasn't been a conscious decision - I've been functionally atheist pretty much all my life, without ever really calling it anything. It's only relatively recently that I've come to accept that my world-view makes me a de facto atheist. Religion just hasn't factored into my life in any meaningful way. That's not to say I haven't been interested in the philosophies of belief systems such as Wicca, Taoism - and of course Christianity. I've just never subscribed to them. To me it has always been clear that religion is so obviously man-made, just another facet of human culture, evolving much in the same way as (and of course, connected to) art, music and language. The concept of gods is a human concept - it doesn't exist seperately from human imagination and belief, or rather, it can't be demonstrated to do so. So when another human tells me that god exists, I ask that person how they know, and the answer is never satisfying. That has nothing to do with faith, save for perhaps a lack thereof.
Albatross wrote:
Again, you haven't presented any evidence - I'm just going on what you have said so far. I know none of the specifics, all I have is your word that this 'prophecy' even exists.
This is good. I know I havent shown the predictions yet, you asked questions even tried to refute it blindly. I am replying to those posts. This is not a trap, though you would have been wiser tgo find out what I was going to post berfore jumping in wioth both feet. Nevertheless its actually useful and in a way healthy.
Presumption is part of human thinking part of where out emotive processes overwhelm our calculative processes. I beleive (this is a secular teaching) that we can improve our mental outlook with two simple mental exercises. The first I showed you in a previous thread. Declaration of Paradigm. By admitting that one is a person with a personal agenda and therefore biased one can minimise ones bias and see more clearly. The alternative is to simply 'attempt to be impartial', which can be difficult because men are not, it also makes it difficult to see ones lack of impartiality withoutv this mental exercise.
The second mental teaching has been inadvertently revealed here. Presumption Analysis. I beleive it is healthy to make immediate presumptions and put them on record somewhere. Again this is to do with a persons inherent bias, but also accounts for a human 'hunch'. By boxing off your presumption you are also preventing yourself from acting on it. So for example if you have a bad first impression of someone, it no longer soils your outlook becuse your negative first impression is 'boxed'. You then review your first impression or presumption with a more refined impression afterwards. Analyse the differences.
Follow these two mental disciplines and you will develop a stronger more keen analytical understanding of what is around you. The first limits your own paradigms bigotry, and we are all bigots one way or another. The second allows us to more keen ly analyse quicker and with a greater degree of accuracy.
Yeah, thanks for the advice, Dad.
I've asked for the evidence all along, and all you did was provide vague bits of unsourced info. That's all I had to work with, so I posited several areas which might be problematic based on what you said. What's wrong with that? That's hardly jumping in with both feet - especially when you consider that you offered the 'prophecy' as irrefutable proof of god's handiwork. I think I showed quite a lot of restraint, considering you didn't initially back it up.
It's also worth pointing out that more than one of my assumptions still appear to be valid.
Orlanth wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Were the Philistines (Y/N?) muslim? What does the prophecy say about building settlements on their land?
No Philistia was destroyed over a thousand years before Islam began.
Yes, I know! I was being facetious! Did you honestly think that was a serious question? That Islam pre-dates Christianity?
What do you take me for?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/07/14 01:18:32
Orlanth wrote:Yes and no. It does but not through scientific method but though mass of popular opinion. Thus scientific method should be immune to this type of impact but sceince isnt always honest and is subject to pressures as wsith any other human thought process. Atheistic science was mandatory in the Soviet Blok within living memory, it is still prefered in some countries
What exactly would atheist science be?
And even if such a thing were to exist, your argument is basically a claim that a small number of atheists are using the media to advance their cause and figuring this might indirectly lead to more atheism in science, it is a really long bow.
It is simply not the same thing as the organised religious groups who have gotten their members onto school curriculum boards in order to have creationist ideas taught in science classes. This is a real thing that simply can’t be considered equal to anything attempted by atheists. The equivalent would be atheist groups placing members onto school boards into order to have atheism presented in science class as the natural conclusion of all our scientific discoveries.
The traditonal 'beleive in the seven days or your a heretic' fanatic shouldn't have hands on acces to the eduction system. However I will not be too judgemental of them. Stern ultra-relgious types often make good school governors as much as they make bad teachers. I would be happy to see hardcore creationists as school governors. Hardcore creationists are also hardcore moralists but not necessarily fanatical in a dangerous sense. A bulldog attitiude may well be good at helping prevent moral decline - a major issue nowadays.
Sure, people of all types should be free to teach in the education system. It would be abhorrent to stop someone teaching because they believed in young earth creation or because they believed in a Godless universe.
The issue is not who is and who isn’t allowed to teach, but what they might teach and in what classes they might do so. The issue is in trying to get a religious belief with no scientific backing put into science class. It doesn’t matter who teaches it, young earth creationism should not be presented as science.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/07/14 06:17:21
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Albatross wrote:
..and you feel comfortable presenting this as fact because you accept the rationale that the prediction was 'veiled', which is an eloquent way of saying that one could only decipher it by working backwards when in possesion of the dates in question. I'm sorry, have I gone mad? Has the world turned upside-down or something? Since when does a prediction after the fact have any credibility whatsoever?
There is no difference in application between a veiled and an open prophesy. It has credibility because it was predictive. Let me simplify this for you. imagine you had ther seers gift and you forsaw two events you wrote each down on a piece of paper. one piece of paper you datsstamped and sealed in a vault, he other you puiblished. both came true. Which of the two are genuine predictions, the one you are aware of beforehand or the other one neither or both. The answer should be both.
Albatross wrote:
From the excerpt you posted, it is clear that the all the author had to do once he'd had determined the length of a biblical year was find a reference to the number 7 in the Torah, preferably one that suited his purpose.
How is that clear, you must assume there are myriad verses giveing different numbers of multipliers and different return preduictions to wide cast this. Not only was there no wide casting but let us assume you truied to find some. to get a prediction in scripture linking an event to the day
Albatross wrote:
Also, his calculations seem to hinge on the the BC countdown to 1BC, year interval (no year zero), then counting up from 1AD. I could be wrong here (and anyone can feel free to correct me), but Jesus couldn't have been born before after 4BC because that was the year that King Herod died, wasn't it? If 1AD is taken as the year Jesus was born (or even the year after), meaning that 1AD directly should directly follow 4BC (for the sake of argument, some people place it earlier, apparently...), wouldn't that throw the prediction out by a few years? I'm just thinking aloud at this point.
What has that got to do with anything? Sorry you are getting confused. We dont know the exact birthdate of Attila the Hun, that was an event between 536BC and 1948AD, so how does that fit in? It doesnt, should we be concerned, no because its not relevent.
For your information there are several candidate dates for the nativity and the crucifixion both, but with the unearthing of records in Damascus dating from the tgimes we are finally geting to narrow down the dates. A lot of the confusion stemmed from the known dates of when Quirinius was governor of Syria with the tax census degreed by Augustus Caesar. The unearthed records showed that Quirinius was in fact governor of Syria twice.
Albatross wrote:
Orlanth, you ask too much of me. Ridicule comes naturally to me, and my sense of humour is often cruel, but I am really trying to fight my natural impulses because I am enjoying the discussion. But you ask too much. What I WILL say, is that this sounds like apologism for predictions made in reverse, and I will leave it at that.
The prediction was not made in reverse, it was made in the bible when the Old Testament was written. This was before 1948AD, the prediction was never in reverse, the discovery of the prediction was in reverse, big difference.
Albatross wrote:
It hasn't been a conscious decision - I've been functionally atheist pretty much all my life, without ever really calling it anything. It's only relatively recently that I've come to accept that my world-view makes me a de facto atheist.
Nevertheless I will point out the consequences of that in a logic chain:
1. Since you started getting involved in the type of debate you have been thinking about the possibility of the existence of God to some extent, unless you never read any posts here and never wrote your own.
2. You are yet to scientifically prove the existence or non existence of God as scientific fact, thus removing any obligation to draw a conclusion of your own however temporary.
3. You seem to have drawn some form of conclusion nevertheless because you profess to have an identity based on one of the opposed premises, in your case 'atheist'.
4. Thus you have to some extent made a personal choice on this point.
5. A personal choice taken on this issue is defined as a faith choice.
6. Therefore you have made a faith choice.
Albatross wrote:
Yes, I know! I was being facetious! Did you honestly think that was a serious question? That Islam pre-dates Christianity? What do you take me for?
Well I have heard worse.
Were you being facetious when you said your prior assumptions were still valid, or that Nativity dates might throw the prediction askew? Its hard to tell sometimes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
What exactly would atheist science be?
And even if such a thing were to exist, your argument is basically a claim that a small number of atheists are using the media to advance their cause and figuring this might indirectly lead to more atheism in science, it is a really long bow.
you are fixaating on the wrong part of the comment. there is no atheist sceince because sceince is neutral, atheists and theists can apply sceince and theology together, but they remain in seperation.
This is the point of focus. Some persons, like to foster an assumption that atheism and science are connected. It is a political statement not s scientific one, but often veiled under the aegis of 'science' and sometimes proposed by scientists who also happen to be atheists. Dawkins being a good example here.
Its about propoganda technique not scientific method.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/07/14 07:20:40
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth wrote:you are fixaating on the wrong part of the comment. there is no atheist sceince because sceince is neutral, atheists and theists can apply sceince and theology together, but they remain in seperation.
This is the point of focus. Some persons, like to foster an assumption that atheism and science are connected. It is a political statement not s scientific one, but often veiled under the aegis of 'science' and sometimes proposed by scientists who also happen to be atheists. Dawkins being a good example here.
Its about propoganda technique not scientific method.
Yes, I agree that there are people that attempt to relate atheism and science, and I agree that they are wrong.
But you are missing my point here, in that you are focussing on the atheists and not only equivocating them with creationists, but even claiming their influence is greater. It isn’t. Creationists continually attempt to have creationism taught as a legitimate scientific theory, and they’ve even been successful in specific instances. In contrast you have Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and a handful of others making the speaking tour.
People like Dawkins annoy the religious and exacerbate the misunderstanding that science and faith are opposed, but they don’t actually impact the practice or teaching of science in any way.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Orlanth wrote:
There is no difference in application between a veiled and an open prophesy. It has credibility because it was predictive. Let me simplify this for you. imagine you had ther seers gift and you forsaw two events you wrote each down on a piece of paper. one piece of paper you datsstamped and sealed in a vault, he other you puiblished. both came true. Which of the two are genuine predictions, the one you are aware of beforehand or the other one neither or both. The answer should be both.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with self-fulfilling prophecies. If a certain religious group is prophesied to to return to a sort of Holy Land, and everyone in that religious group knows this, then it stands to reason that certain factions within that religious group will focus on the fulfillment of that prophecy; eventually they may even succeed. Its not a matter of foresight, its a matter of cultural onus creating the circumstances in which something which was said thousands of years ago can be made prophetic.
Contrast this with a prophecy which no one is aware of, at least not until after the fact, and which cannot be considered to be self-fulfilling.
That doesn't even enter into the sense in which general 'prophecies' are subject to fulfillment by chance.
Orlanth wrote:
The prediction was not made in reverse, it was made in the bible when the Old Testament was written. This was before 1948AD, the prediction was never in reverse, the discovery of the prediction was in reverse, big difference.
I'm interested to know how you reconcile the fact that 430 years cannot be self-evidently drawn from Ezekiel with your assumption that the prediction is obvious. I've made this point 3 times now, twice in detail, and you have continued to ignore it.
Orlanth wrote:
5. A personal choice taken on this issue is defined as a faith choice.
Only in those instances in which there is overt statement being made; eg. I believe there is no God vs. I do not believe that there is a God. We've gone down this weak/strong atheism road before, and we both concluded that no faith choice is made in lacking a belief in God.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
@Orlanth - I would add to what dogma said by stating that it isn't a simple case of believing or not believing that god exists, and more a case of disbelieving the humans who say that he does. I don't know for absolutely certain that there isn't a god, but the point is, neither do you. Neither does anyone. Religious people have moved the goalposts so far and so often that they have purposefully ensured that the answer to the question is unknowable. As we have seen, there is a very good reason for this - it's useful in a debate to say 'you can't PROVE that god doesn't exist!'. It's a favoured tactic. But you can't debate god into existence.
What we DO know is that religion is a product of human culture, and scripture obviously a result of human agency in the form of authorship. It's made up.
You, and people like you, say that god is real. I don't believe you.
p.s. - I don't know where I was going with the whole nativity thing - it was late, and I was high.
dogma wrote:
Apparently you are unfamiliar with self-fulfilling prophecies.
How does one have a self fulfilling veiled prophesy. This is pasrt of the reason they are veiled anyway as sighniture prophesies, its plauin text and a very simple calculation, but only seen afterwards.
dogma wrote:
That doesn't even enter into the sense in which general 'prophecies' are subject to fulfillment by chance.
Of course, thats a 1:907,200 chance though of getting the prrediction right to the day by pure chance. actually its a lot higher than that because the May15th 1948 is not the last possible end date to be chosen as a 'wild guess'.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
The prediction was not made in reverse, it was made in the bible when the Old Testament was written. This was before 1948AD, the prediction was never in reverse, the discovery of the prediction was in reverse, big difference.
I'm interested to know how you reconcile the fact that 430 years cannot be self-evidently drawn from Ezekiel with your assumption that the prediction is obvious. I've made this point 3 times now, twice in detail, and you have continued to ignore it.
What is there to comment on? I have to adress your comment only because you reiterate it: 390 for Israel + 40 for Judah = 430 days total. A day taken to represent a year means 430 years total. What is so hard to understand. Perhaps you are ignoring the figures because you are assuming here that Israel and Judah are one and the same. They were split into different nation states after Solomon.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
5. A personal choice taken on this issue is defined as a faith choice.
Only in those instances in which there is overt statement being made; eg. I believe there is no God vs. I do not believe that there is a God. We've gone down this weak/strong atheism road before, and we both concluded that no faith choice is made in lacking a belief in God.
Incorrect, no faith choice is made ionly f you has no thought process on God at all. With true ignorance of any form of religion one can be atheistic without a faith choice, the thought never occurs. Once the question of a God is raised and not answered by empirical science to a conclusive uncontrovertible fact then a personal belief choice rises to fill that void, either one believes or one does not. The choice is a faith choice either way. There can be no other explantion because there is none.
Take your own testimoniess (dogma and Albatross) and the point you cannot refute and repeatedly ignore.
Have you ever questioned the existence of God? Hint: posting in this thread would definately count.
Can you draw a conclusion that proves of disproves the existence of God entirely through a scientific process?
Do you draw any interim conclusions anyway? i.e. Do you label yourself either a member of a specific religion or and agnostic or an atheist perhaps?
Somewhere along the line a choice is made. Like it or not that is a faith choice.
You can try and dress it up, but the single essential question is being asked and answered.
Albatross wrote:
You, and people like you, say that god is real. I don't believe you.
There finally. "I do not believe", a human preferential choice. If you could refute our own faith choice that God is real by empirical fact you would have done so. You have option to chose to beleive or not to beleive, you cannot provide proof, so a faith choice is made.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/07/14 15:04:31
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth wrote:
There finally. "I do not beleive", a human preferential choicechoice. You have option to chose to beleive or not to beleive, you cannot provide proof, so a faith choice is made.
No Orlanth.
We are defined by what we do do, and what we do believe, not what we dont do and dont believe. If someone asks you what your job is, you tell them. You dont say im a "non postman non soldier non bricklayer non taxi driver non nurse non fireman non plumber etc etc etc"
If you think there is no ANYTHING, it doesnt define you to the point of even mentioning it to anybody. There are millions of things i dont believe in, so do i have a few million "religions"?
You dont make a faith choice that Scobby doo isnt real, that the toothfairy isnt real, that the sky is pink or the grass is blue. You make a choice because it doesnt SEEM to be that way. How on earth is it a faith choice, when i say that the sky is NOT pink? Its not faith at all, it just seems thats the way that it is!
There doesnt SEEM to be a God, i mean, there might be, it just doesnt seem to be that way, so whats faith got to do with anything?
You and i have had this out about a dozen times mate, and you are so adamant and will never admit otherwise because it lends your position credence to say that we are all making faith or "religious" choices when clearly we are not.
A lack of belief doesnt require you to DO anything so what has it got to do with faith of religion?
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
Atheism is not a faith choice but a rejection of faith. A choice is between similar actions. Cake or pie for dessert is an example of a choice. Deciding that there is no dessert (or room for one) is not a choice; it's a flat-out denial. A faith choice would be agnostic in the possibility of a dessert but not choosing cake or pie.
...
No one said they'd be pie! jk
My Sisters of Battle Thread
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/783053.page
*odd posting error tidied up, don't think I deleted anything that isn't still here, apologies if I did. If so then feel free to repost it*
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Orlanth wrote:Have you ever questioned the existence of God? Hint: posting in this thread would definately count.
Can you draw a conclusion that proves of disproves the existence of God entirely through a scientific process?
Do you draw any interim conclusions anyway? i.e. Do you label yourself either a member of a specific religion or and agnostic or an atheist perhaps?
Somewhere along the line a choice is made. Like it or not that is a faith choice.
And as I've already said, you keep asserting this belief because it comforts you to think that we are all in 'the same boat'. It's a validation to you.
Let's look at the questions you asked:
Have you ever questioned the existence of God? Yes I have.
Can you draw a conclusion that proves of disproves the existence of God entirely through a scientific process? No, but then I don't need to, and it's not possible at the moment anyway. The only case to be made for the existence of a christian god (for the sake of argument) is a scriptural one, that is to say that scripture forms the basis of all christian belief, however remotely. This throws up controversy - the books have human authors. So I'm basically taking someone's word for it. Not good enough for me. Humans create fiction, embellish and flat out lie. Whilst I'm not going to say for certain whether or not any of these things are the case, there's enough doubt about it that following a theistic religion simply wouldn't be prudent for me without some form of scientific evidence - and the greater the claim, the greater the eveidence needed, as we all know. As no evidence is forthcoming (and probably never will be) for me, a sensible default position is to be a-theistic, or 'without the theistic belief'.
Orlanth wrote:
Albatross wrote:
You, and people like you, say that god is real. I don't believe you.
There finally. "I do not believe", a human preferential choice. If you could refute our own faith choice that God is real by empirical fact you would have done so. You have option to chose to beleive or not to beleive, you cannot provide proof, so a faith choice is made.
I wouldn't be so quick to adopt such a triumphant tone. My non-belief stems from a lack of faith in human agency, a lack of trust in human sources. That not remotely connected to religious faith. Is it a question of religious faith that I don't believe in the dark lord Sauron from Lord of the Rings? Whether or not I believe you have wings is not a question of religious faith either, it's a question of trust. I don't trust the sources, therefore I don't believe.
So don't break out the party-hats just yet.
Also, the onus is not on me to prove that god doesn't exist, the onus is on the person claiming that he does - religious faith is not a default position, otherwise we would all be born with knowledge of god, and there would be no need for scripture, priests... any form of inter-human dissemination of religious teaching.
Orlanth wrote:
There finally. "I do not beleive", a human preferential choicechoice. You have option to chose to beleive or not to beleive, you cannot provide proof, so a faith choice is made.
No Orlanth.
We are defined by what we do do, and what we do believe, not what we dont do and dont believe. If someone asks you what your job is, you tell them. You dont say im a "non postman non soldier non bricklayer non taxi driver non nurse non fireman non plumber etc etc etc"
Actually some ommissions carry their own definition. 'Innocent' being one, it is defined by the lack.
You can choose not to be a fireman. This does not define you. however some processes are a boolean switch, you choose yeah or nay in one form or that other, guilt and innocense being good examples. There is no word for a not-fireman, but there are words to decribe a non-believer in God, some were considered derogatory or a dangeous label depending on the place and time.
You are labouring on the false assertion that a choice to not belief is ignoring religion just as a choice not to be a firman is ignoring the opportunity to be a fireman. Ther idea of becoming a frieman or not might not occur to you. A faith choice as determined by a belief in the existence of non existence of God is unavoidable due to ther nature of man. One way of loking at it: God calls out I AM, you choose to beleive or not. Another way: What is to become of me? The concept of divinity and spirituality is so central to human psyche that it demands answer, not from without but from within. These answers define you in a way that a career choice, however unlike the idea that you choose your career and only that career defines you, your spirituality is defined both ways.
You choice not to beleive leads you here posting on your side of the debate, there is no forum for not-firemen, because in this you are correct man is not defined that way. But some questions some concepts some choices are bigger and they define you either way. Surely from your time as a soldier you must have seen this. It is an essential element of human nature.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:
And as I've already said, you keep asserting this belief because it comforts you to think that we are all in 'the same boat'. It's a validation to you.
Let's look at the questions you asked:.....
The third question was pivotal, the other two part of the logic chain leading to the third more pertinent question.
Do you draw any interim conclusions anyway?
Albatross wrote:
I wouldn't be so quick to adopt such a triumphant tone. My non-belief stems from a lack of faith in human agency, a lack of trust in human sources. That not remotely connected to religious faith. Is it a question of religious faith that I don't believe in the dark lord Sauron from Lord of the Rings? Whether or not I believe you have wings is not a question of religious faith either, it's a question of trust. I don't trust the sources, therefore I don't believe.
You could allocate your non-belief to anything. You could say it stemmed from my posts and its all my fault. A choice is still made, it always was, you just had chosen words that avoiding vocalising it that clearly before.
Albatross wrote:
So don't break out the party-hats just yet.
No hats. Spoilsport.
Albatross wrote:
Also, the onus is not on me to prove that god doesn't exist, the onus is on the person claiming that he does - religious faith is not a default position, otherwise we would all be born with knowledge of god, and there would be no need for scripture, priests... any form of inter-human dissemination of religious teaching.
This would be true if you held no relgious though processes of your own. i.e you were able to bask in a true ignorance of religion. However you do not. It is not on anyones onus to prove or disprove anything regarding God, its futile anyway. Either it doesnt exist and cannot be found, or too clever and powerful and can mask Himself perfectly.
Religious faith, inlcuding the option of a choice-belief in non existence of God is a default position as it inevitably occurs in any exposed to the concept because the faith choice, even if only intended as an interim standpoint while a proof is sought.
As for whether we are born with knowledge of Gosd, interesting point. Many believe we do and that children are closer to God than adults. On a Christian theological level this is one of ther things beleived that all life has some form of relationship with the creator. Free Will can and will to one extent or another dull that relationship.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/07/14 16:11:09
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Orlanth, is not believing in the ancient greek gods a religion or a personal faith choice?
Your question not honest and is baed on a flaweec premesis that a general set of beliefs are synonymous with a specific set of beliefs. One does not assume other other.
For example. I do not beleive in the Greek Gods. This would not make me an atheist because he non belief in the Greek Gods is a subset of larger belief system. The issue is whether one beleives in any deity of relgious system. If one beleives in one then depending on the form of belief it can disavow belief in others.
Thus belief in (spwecific God) does not confrim or reflect a faith choice between atheism ior theism.
but belief in God(s) in general does.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, this is kind of wierd. How do you choose to believe something? Is it like choosing to be gay?
You have a false allegory error here.
How do you choose to beleive in something? Quite easy, you just do.
For example:
Do you beleive in Santa Claus Y/N? The choice yes or no can be taken arbitrarily.
How you define the question can shape your answers but not the essential human choice of free will. So for example you might define Santa Calus as the figure who gives present to good vhidlren worldwide during ther night of 24th dec. or you could define Santa Calus as an identity and thus believe that he exists whenever someone puts on the gear. This is of course inconsequent because either way a choice are made.
Is it like choosing to be gay? Is it? some people might well chose to become gay in one way or anther but ultimately its more likely part of their make up. Someone who wants to try out a homoesexual experiment may well at one level be choosing to be gay, but that is possibly different from a discovery that one is 'wired that way'.
in any event we are talking about as biological urge rathar than a purely intellectuual thought process. differences will occur.
Perhaps you should try a more fair analogy. Such as: 'Is it like choosing a specific poltical preference?' I seriuously doubt people are genetically predermined towards say socialism or conservatism as they may well be towards sexual preference.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/07/14 17:18:51
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Orlanth, is not believing in the ancient greek gods a religion or a personal faith choice?
Your question not honest and is baed on a flaweec premesis that a general set of beliefs are synonymous with a specific set of beliefs. One does not assume other other.
For example. I do not beleive in the Greek Gods. This would not make me an atheist because he non belief in the Greek Gods is a subset of larger belief system. The issue is whether one beleives in any deity of relgious system. If one beleives in one then depending on the form of belief it can disavow belief in others.
Thus belief in (spwecific God) does not confrim or reflect a faith choice between atheism ior theism.
but belief in God(s) in general does.
You're going to have to elaborate. How is it a faith choice to believe/not believe in one set of god/s and not a faith choice to believe/not believe in a different, incompatible with the first, set of god/s?
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually, this is kind of wierd. How do you choose to believe something? Is it like choosing to be gay?
You have a false allegory error here.
How do you choose to beleive in something? Quite easy, you just do.
...What.
For example:
Do you beleive in Santa Claus Y/N? The choice yes or no can be taken arbitrarily.
How you define the question can shape your answers but not the essential human choice of free will. So for example you might define Santa Calus as the figure who gives present to good vhidlren worldwide during ther night of 24th dec. or you could define Santa Calus as an identity and thus believe that he exists whenever someone puts on the gear. This is of course inconsequent because either way a choice are made.
Okay, I fully believe that God exists. God is a concept that religious and spiritual people have which is essentially undefined except insofar as it is "Way huge, maaaaaan."
God as a whole actual thing? Not so much.
Again, though, you need to elaborate. How does one just 'believe' that something is? Belief clearly isn't what you do; I could in one breath shout out "Praise Jesus!" and in the next "feth Jesus!". While these might be indicative of what I believe, they are not in and of themselves 'belief'.
So what is belief? How do I believe something spontaneously rather than just choose to do so?
Is it like choosing to be gay? Is it? some people might well chose to become gay in one way or anther but ultimately its more likely part of their make up. Someone who wants to try out a homoesexual experiment may well at one level be choosing to be gay, but that is possibly different from a discovery that one is 'wired that way'.
No, see, I was being mildly sardonic there. Choosing to have a homosexual experiment isn't choosing to be gay. Whether or not homosexuality is genetic or environmental, you don't choose what you get aroused over.
in any event we are talking about as biological urge rathar than a purely intellectuual thought process. differences will occur.
Is religion a purely intellectual thought process? There's no "feeling God" involved at all ever and no other religious "experiences" ever occur?
Perhaps you should try a more fair analogy. Such as: 'Is it like choosing a specific poltical preference?' I seriuously doubt people are genetically predermined towards say socialism or conservatism as they may well be towards sexual preference.
That seems off the mark as well. My political preferences are based off the idea that people should have the least amount of interference in their lives as can be while still trying to balance the needs of the group as whole with those of the individual. This value is very important to me. I could not spontaneously choose to disregard it.
But maybe it's less off the mark than it seems. Could you spontaneously choose to not believe in god? Would that be an empty choice; would you still believe in god despite your resolve not to?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/07/14 18:16:22
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Orlanth, is not believing in the ancient greek gods a religion or a personal faith choice?
Your question not honest and is baed on a flaweec premesis that a general set of beliefs are synonymous with a specific set of beliefs. One does not assume other other.
For example. I do not beleive in the Greek Gods. This would not make me an atheist because he non belief in the Greek Gods is a subset of larger belief system. The issue is whether one beleives in any deity of relgious system. If one beleives in one then depending on the form of belief it can disavow belief in others.
Thus belief in (specific God) does not confrim or reflect a faith choice between atheism ior theism.
but belief in God(s) in general does.
You're going to have to elaborate. How is it a faith choice to believe/not believe in one set of god/s and not a faith choice to believe/not believe in a different, incompatible with the first, set of god/s?
I didnt say incompatible, ther topics are not exclusive,tnstead one is a subset of the other. The choice to not beleive in specific Gods cannot occur outside tghev general choice to beleive in gods in general. Not an incompatibility but a subset within the larger question.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Okay, I fully believe that God exists. God is a concept that religious and spiritual people have which is essentially undefined except insofar as it is "Way huge, maaaaaan."
God as a whole actual thing? Not so much.
You are confusing belief in the existance of religion with belief in God.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Is religion a purely intellectual thought process? There's no "feeling God" involved at all ever and no other religious "experiences" ever occur?
The choice is. One can have experinces or witness the experiences of others and reject the testimony of them. The Gospels accounts how Jesus healed 11 blind people in one miracle, yet only one of those eleven had any subsequent faith in him.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Perhaps you should try a more fair analogy. Such as: 'Is it like choosing a specific poltical preference?'
That seems off the mark as well. My political preferences are based off the idea that people should have the least amount of interference in their lives as can be while still trying to balance the needs of the group as whole with those of the individual. This value is very important to me. I could not spontaneously choose to disregard it.
Hardly off the mark at all. You were not genetically wired to think this way, or at least we havent found any gene for political persuasion yet. You have just explained how you choose to see politics. If you had developed an opposed viewpoint and were of a mind to back form of politics that proposes the concept of a centralised state wirth communal resources, would it be any less of a choice? Omitting here the eventual outcome on the democratic process within such a system for the moment.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Could you spontaneously choose to not believe in god?
Yes, if that was your choice.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Would that be an empty choice; would you still believe in god despite your resolve not to?
Our choices are not always honest. Take the blind men in the scriptural example. They could now see, but if they followed Jesus they could get into trouble thus it was easy to choose to not beleive.
Normally even our honest paradigm choices also mold what we can see and think in the future.
So some can see the majesty of creation as described by St Paul in the book of Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse Others look at the same universe and see no sign of God whatsoever.
niether value is necessarily intellectually dishonest, ultimately our personal choice affects our paradigms.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Da Boss wrote:Why does it matter so much if not believing "counts" as a faith choice?
Surely the debate is simply about the science, and not misrepresenting it?
It matters Boss because attempting to call belief in modern Science "the dumbest religion ever" as i have heard said many times, gives Creationists ammunition when they are telling lies to kids.
The largest denominations of Christians are Catholic's and Orthodoxy and both groups accept evolution, as does the Church of England.
Pope Benedict described evolution as "an enriching reality" and called Creationism "absurd" and told followers to consider evolution to be "more than a hypothesis" and urged Christians that belief in it should in no way affect their faith in almighty God.
Most Christians are not creationists. Most Muslims arent either. A fraction of religious believers reject modern Science and take the bible literally, and those are the people i can not tolerate. I really didnt care about Religion until a few years ago and i actually started looking into what goes on over there in the USA, here is a link to a good video i watched from 1998.
Sit through that, and then tell me you dont feel strongly about this nonsense.
I live in England as a result i dont worry about it too much, but if i had a kid in school being mislead by some bible literalist demanding we "teach the controversy" i would be utterly disgusted. I find evolution denial almost as offensive as holocaust denial, and this is what causes the arguments here. I have no huge issues with Religious people, and a healthy respect for the pleasant nuanced religion they seem to peddle in the COE, but People want the right to lie to children, and i am stunned that more people are not appalled by it.
Now on here, we have pleasant chaps like Orlanth and GG who are Creationists, sure, they arent charlatans like many are who peddle their brand of religion to make money or fleece credulous people, they are sincere and polite, so i almost feel bad arguing with them, but it has to be done. If you allow them to speak this stuff without a rebuttal then you are walking a slipperly slope. If Science denying Creationists start flooding out of our universities and (as educated people are want to do) take up positions of authority, will end up the same way as the middle east, once a centre of learning and Science, who fell into a black hole they never recovered from because they allowed Religious Zealots to rise to power.
And on that note, thank feth Bush is gone.
Im no fan of Barrack, but at least the man respects Science.
What about if Huckerby and Palin take over? Will you get angry about Creationism when they scrap the "silly" fruit fly research and ban stem cell reseach and start preying for the troops instead of giving them body armour?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/07/14 19:02:26
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
Orlanth wrote:I didnt say incompatible, ther topics are not exclusive,tnstead one is a subset of the other. The choice to not beleive in specific Gods cannot occur outside tghev general choice to beleive in gods in general. Not an incompatibility but a subset within the larger question.
This would be true if people believed in two different kinds of god simultaneously (leaving aside the whole concept of the trinity and the various hindu gods and so forth). They don't. They believe in God. They don't believe in God, in general, and God, in the specific; they just believe in one or the other, and for them it is exactly as specific as it is.
But leaving the semantics: If it is a faith choice to look at the Christian god from the perspective of an atheist and say "No thanks", then it is just as much a faith choice to look at the Greek gods from the perspective of a Christian and say "No thanks". You are saying that you do not believe in a worldview that is utterly distinct from the one to which you subscribe; this is true of either perspective. If one is a faith choice, then both are.
So. Is it a faith choice for a christian to deny the greek gods?
(And yes, it can. You can make a list of all the gods which you're aware of and work your way down the list deciding whether or not to believe in each, completely independantly of the other.)
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Okay, I fully believe that God exists. God is a concept that religious and spiritual people have which is essentially undefined except insofar as it is "Way huge, maaaaaan."
God as a whole actual thing? Not so much.
You are confusing belief in the existance of religion with belief in God.
No, I'm not. I'm using your santa example. I understand the difference between a religion and a deity. I do, in fact, believe that God exists. God is a concept, an idea. This definately exists.
Is there something beyond the idea? I don't believe that there is. I'm not ruling out it out, but I do not believe in the existence of god as creator.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:Is religion a purely intellectual thought process? There's no "feeling God" involved at all ever and no other religious "experiences" ever occur?
The choice is. One can have experinces or witness the experiences of others and reject the testimony of them. The Gospels accounts how Jesus healed 11 blind people in one miracle, yet only one of those eleven had any subsequent faith in him.
Right. I choose to fly! I'm flapping my arms real hard!
Bollocks, why aren't I flying?
Could it be that simply choosing to do something isn't enough to do it? How do I go about believing something?
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Perhaps you should try a more fair analogy. Such as: 'Is it like choosing a specific poltical preference?'
That seems off the mark as well. My political preferences are based off the idea that people should have the least amount of interference in their lives as can be while still trying to balance the needs of the group as whole with those of the individual. This value is very important to me. I could not spontaneously choose to disregard it.
Hardly off the mark at all. You were not genetically wired to think this way, or at least we havent found any gene for political persuasion yet. You have just explained how you choose to see politics.
I don't choose to see it this way. I literally just told you that I don't. I can choose my actions, but I cannot choose my beliefs. Apparently you can. Share with me, if you will, how you go about it?
If you had developed an opposed viewpoint and were of a mind to back form of politics that proposes the concept of a centralised state wirth communal resources, would it be any less of a choice?
How can you have less of a choice than no choice at all? I could certainly choose to back such a form of government. I can choose my actions.
I couldn't make myself think that it was in principle a good idea.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Could you spontaneously choose to not believe in god?
Yes, if that was your choice.
I wasn't asking some indefinate article. I was asking you, specifically. Could you, Orlanth, spontaneously choose to not believe in god? Obviously you could stop praying, and so on. But actions aren't belief. Could you stop believing in God, by choice?
mattyrm wrote:
It matters Boss because attempting to call belief in modern Science "the dumbest religion ever" as i have heard said many times, gives Creationists ammunition when they are telling lies to kids.
That no different than those fanatics who wish to persecute relgious perople in the name of 'free-thinking'. met a few of those.
mattyrm wrote:
Pope Benedict described evolution as "an enriching reality" and called Creationism "absurd" and told followers to consider evolution to be "more than a hypothesis" and urged Christians that belief in it should in no way affect their faith in almighty God.
Pope Benedict has goofed in that he doesnt understand what Creationism is. All it is is the belief that God has something to do with the order of the Universe. What he ought to do is remove ther bible literalism from Creationism rather than just say no Creationism, then practice the same sort of Creationist thinking that I do by the back door anyway, by default and without any clear doctrine to bak it up. By believing in almighty God, but there is no such thing as Creation. He is just setting up a dogma of hypocrasy with big logic holes in it, but I suppose that is busines as usual from the Vatican.
We were not there, all God asks his faithful is to beleive that He was in command of the process. Exactly how that is is not known and has never been clear.
mattyrm wrote:
Most Christians are not creationists. Most Muslims arent either.
In both cases the majority dont know what Creationism is. The public perception of the Biblical literalist account of Breation is all they know. A
mattyrm wrote:
Sit through that, and then tell me you dont feel strongly about this nonsense.
I feel stronger about bible literalists than you ever could, because they claim to speak for all the faithful, and outsiders listen enough to beleive that this is what we all believe or are taught to beleive. They arent speaking for you.
mattyrm wrote:
Now on here, we have pleasant chaps like Orlanth and GG who are Creationists, sure, they arent charlatans like many are who peddle their brand of religion to make money or fleece credulous people, they are sincere and polite, so i almost feel bad arguing with them, but it has to be done. If you allow them to speak this stuff without a rebuttal then you are walking a slipperly slope. If Science denying Creationists start flooding out of our universities and (as educated people are want to do) take up positions of authority, will end up the same way as the middle east, once a centre of learning and Science, who fell into a black hole they never recovered from because they allowed Religious Zealots to rise to power.
What type of 'bigot' do you prefer Matty? The New Labour kind that beats secular dogmas. you see true freedom of thought doesnt try and bash relgion, in fact it accepts that one can be relgious or not and still be worthy of position. Perhaps because of that rather than in spite of that our system has been largely fee of relgious fanatics. Fanaticism comes when you try to lock down the other argument rather than just acceopt that not all of us think the same. Who fears the science denying Creationist? I tell you who, the atheist fanatic. New Labour was awash with these clowns. Lots of religion bashing and new Labour dogma, PC bollocks in the scool and school assembly. Furthermore because they were secular they could claim to be fonts of reason. You wonder why faith schools do so much better than non faith schools in the UK. It is because of the curb on this dogmatised BS that was forced into the curriculum and this was in spite of greatly incrwaed scrutiny of anything faith schools do and extra grant after grant for the dogmatised flagship schools prefered by the New Labour government.
Now not all to do with religion was considered an evil all the time, because as we all ought to know ethnic = good. I found out that in some schools in Birmingham children are taught that brown is the natural colour of man and that Caucasians are a genetic abberation. I tried to double source this but the local system close up very fast on enquiry. I have heard stuff that is just as bad anyway.
But its all hearsay and these are proper New dogma speakers of truth so who are we to question them and their ways. Matty just go home polish your bayonet and eat babies for tea like we 'all know' you do. Sooner or later you might miss a good bit of faith schooling if actually get to look at the alternative.
You dont have any kids Matty, admitedly I dont either, but if you knew soldeirs that did you might understand just what the dogmatists teach, the nephews of a good friend cannot choose their uncle as a subject matter for what their family do for a living as soldiery is an unsuitable punlic role model.
You might ask what this has to do with atheism? Technically it doesnt, but if you want to bring in intolerance, you have to watch for what you get. why dont we go back to how it weas when your relgion was your choice, it oidnt take away from your value in any occupation except as a priest of that religion. You want to be relgious and a man of science go ahead, you will find yourself in good company. If you actually do want to embrace free thinking, let freedom be.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/07/14 19:57:33
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Aye Orlanth, i agree with mmuch of what you say, but most people that arent religious dont want to persecute religious people (although i admit a rather unhealthy dislike of Muslims, but certainly not Christians, as according to the census i am one, and i dont feel strongly enough to be concerned enough to get it changed, and it said "CofE" on my dog tags as well!)
Most people that arent interested in religion dont want to persecute people mate, but Creationists really do want to force their views onto people, and thats why we have had Roe vs Wade etc etc
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
Orlanth wrote:
How does one have a self fulfilling veiled prophesy. This is pasrt of the reason they are veiled anyway as sighniture prophesies, its plauin text and a very simple calculation, but only seen afterwards.
One doesn't. You claimed that there was no difference between a veiled prophecy (which I took to reference a prophecy of which few people are aware) and an open prophecy (which I talk to mean a prophecy of which many people are aware). Because open prophecies can be self-fulfilling there is an obvious distinction between the application of the two types, which you claimed did not exist.
Moreover, I dispute this notion of veiled prophecies, that you seem to be defending, as things which can only be understood after the fact points towards a very dubious sense of accuracy given what may or may not have been claimed in the past.
Orlanth wrote:
Of course, thats a 1:907,200 chance though of getting the prrediction right to the day by pure chance. actually its a lot higher than that because the May15th 1948 is not the last possible end date to be chosen as a 'wild guess'.
When I reference the concept of general prophecies, I mean such things as "The Jews will reclaim Israel." not such things as "The Jews will reclaim Israel in X years."
Orlanth wrote:
What is there to comment on? I have to adress your comment only because you reiterate it: 390 for Israel + 40 for Judah = 430 days total. A day taken to represent a year means 430 years total.
A year of sin, not a year of punishment. Nowhere in the passage you quoted does it note that the number of years were ever given as punishment. There are translations that equate sin with punishment, but the fact that there is more than one interpretation is certainly sufficient to question the extent to which the 'prophecy' is as accurate as many claim.
Orlanth wrote:
What is so hard to understand. Perhaps you are ignoring the figures because you are assuming here that Israel and Judah are one and the same. They were split into different nation states after Solomon.
I'm ignoring the figures because they have nothing to do with punishment per the translation provided. I am also questioning the figures given that Ezekiel later references the sum of the punishment as 390 days.
Orlanth wrote:
Incorrect, no faith choice is made ionly f you has no thought process on God at all. With true ignorance of any form of religion one can be atheistic without a faith choice, the thought never occurs. Once the question of a God is raised and not answered by empirical science to a conclusive uncontrovertible fact then a personal belief choice rises to fill that void, either one believes or one does not. The choice is a faith choice either way. There can be no other explantion because there is none.
First, one can be religious and an atheist. Religion is not necessarily connected to God.
Second, you've forgotten the possibility of indifference. In classical logic a lack of anything is not a thing, it is nothing; the mathematical analogue is 0. Atheism, as the negation Theism (which is always a positive quality), embodies a set which can be represented mathematically as X</=0. Any position which equates to 0 is analogous to total indifference, but would still be called atheism due to the definition of the term.
To lack a belief in God is, in its most fundamental form, to simply be indifferent to the question regarding God's existence. To believe that there is no God is to make an active claim that God does not exist.
Orlanth wrote:
Have you ever questioned the existence of God? Hint: posting in this thread would definately count.
Not necessarily, you're making an assumption regarding our motives for engaging in this dialogue. I'm not at all interested in whether or not God exists. I'm interested in the manner in which people will consider his possible existence, nonexistence, or indifference; and how that consideration might impacts human activity.
But yes, I have questioned the existence of God. I came to the conclusion that the question is irrelevant given our current knowledge base. The Universe is what it is regardless of whether or not it includes a God.
Orlanth wrote:
Can you draw a conclusion that proves of disproves the existence of God entirely through a scientific process?
No.
Orlanth wrote:
Do you draw any interim conclusions anyway? i.e. Do you label yourself either a member of a specific religion or and agnostic or an atheist perhaps?
No.
Orlanth wrote:
Somewhere along the line a choice is made. Like it or not that is a faith choice.
You can try and dress it up, but the single essential question is being asked and answered.
The question is asked, but no answer is given. You're presuming that a question asked must be responded to, and this is entirely false. You yourself have posited that Albatross and I are ignoring a point; indicating that it is possible to simply proceed without bother. Answers are active responses, if I do not take an active stance on the matter, then I am not answering the question.
I will also take this time echo Warboss Tzoo in wondering how one chooses faith.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/07/15 01:15:17
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
dogma wrote: Because open prophecies can be self-fulfilling there is an obvious distinction between the application of the two types, which you claimed did not exist.
Indeed, which is why the prophesy is veiled. Though it is interesting to read that what is hidden is hidden in plain sight. We are not talking about bible Code, just adding two scriptures together in a logical way, stuff Bible students have been doing for centuries,. Why was this not done before the event?
Possibly because God did not intend it to happen. This is a recurring theme in scripture.
2 Corinthians 3:14 However, their minds were hardened, for to this day the same veil is still there when they read the old covenant. Only in union with the Messiah is that veil removed.
dogma wrote:
Moreover, I dispute this notion of veiled prophecies, that you seem to be defending, as things which can only be understood after the fact points towards a very dubious sense of accuracy given what may or may not have been claimed in the past.
How is it any way dubious. The prediction was ancient, very accurate and fulfilled in modern times. You have to give a better reason than a handwave dismissal. You make no atempt to give any logic as to why an obviously acurate prophesy is of no value.
dogma wrote:
When I reference the concept of general prophecies, I mean such things as "The Jews will reclaim Israel." not such things as "The Jews will reclaim Israel in X years."
That is not what we are discussing. There is no wow factor of itself in a prediction that the Jewish people would one day seek to return to the Holy Land.
dogma wrote:
A year of sin, not a year of punishment. Nowhere in the passage you quoted does it note that the number of years were ever given as punishment. There are translations that equate sin with punishment, but the fact that there is more than one interpretation is certainly sufficient to question the extent to which the 'prophecy' is as accurate as many claim.
One and the same. God punishes sin, as God doesnt like sin a year of sinis a year of consequence of sin not a year in which to sin.
dogma wrote:
I'm ignoring the figures because they have nothing to do with punishment per the translation provided. I am also questioning the figures given that Ezekiel later references the sum of the punishment as 390 days.
For Israel meaning the ten tribes alone. The unified Israel consirts of twelve tribes that means Israel plus Judah which consists of the remaining two tribes. As the return is not restricted to specific tribes the IJews are taken as a whole.
dogma wrote:
First, one can be religious and an atheist. Religion is not necessarily connected to God.
Indeed so. I dont miss this point, I just dont word it that way anymore. I prefer to say 'atheism is a faith choice' to 'atheism is a relgion' the former is similar, more precise and doesnt offend those who disagree.
dogma wrote:
Second, you've forgotten the possibility of indifference.
I have not forgotten that either. In fact I made note of it in just about all the post replies to you. Indifference can occur, but only in terms of true ignorance. To be truly indifferent to the matter of the existence of God and for that matter braoder questions of our own existentialism one must have no contact with the debate. in practical terms such a person does not exist unless severely slowed in some way. It is in our nature to question and every culture and tribe no matter how remote has some context of God and afterlife. The question is inevitable.
dogma wrote:
In classical logic a lack of anything is not a thing, it is nothing; the mathematical analogue is 0. Atheism, as the negation Theism (which is always a positive quality), embodies a set which can be represented mathematically as X</=0. Any position which equates to 0 is analogous to total indifference, but would still be called atheism due to the definition of the term.
Silly boy. We are discussing affairs of the human heart, we are not robots running programs. But let us assume we were attempting to live lives of logic and had the discipline maturity and knowledge to address the questions of the universe in this way. What happens when we are not processing the Great Equation? The rest of our lives outside the lab or the debating chamber. Our own thoughts creep in, our human emotive thoughts that are not based on purest logic but on choice, as both you and I have demonstrated. Noone is deminated entirely by reason alone, we all make choices human choices, to think otherwise is to be deluded not only in terms of ones own doctrine, but in terms of what it is to be human.
dogma wrote:
Not necessarily, you're making an assumption regarding our motives for engaging in this dialogue. I'm not at all interested in whether or not God exists. I'm interested in the manner in which people will consider his possible existence, nonexistence, or indifference; and how that consideration might impacts human activity.
But yes, I have questioned the existence of God. I came to the conclusion that the question is irrelevant given our current knowledge base. The Universe is what it is regardless of whether or not it includes a God.
So you dismiss God as irrelevant. A choice nevertheless, you have to think about something to dismiss it, to dismiss as irrelevant also involves some form of evaluation. With more evaluation not less being required for the decision to be considered rational. One accepts or rejects we all have our excuses why, and they can differ enormously and they can also change. We all rationalise the choices we make, somtimnes so well we do not see the choice just the rationalisation. I am no different to you in this, noone is.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Do you draw any interim conclusions anyway? i.e. Do you label yourself either a member of a specific religion or and agnostic or an atheist perhaps?
No.
That is not true by your own testimony. Your interim conclusion is 'I came to the conclusion that [existence of God] is irrelevant given our current knowledge base.'
dogma wrote:
The question is asked, but no answer is given. You're presuming that a question asked must be responded to, and this is entirely false.
Know yourself. An answer was given, but then an answer was inevitable (you might not have disclosed what the answer was).
dogma wrote:
I will also take this time echo Warboss Tzoo in wondering how one chooses faith.
One simply does. You just did. In fact you may have done so so casually you deceived yourself into not noticing that you had.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth wrote:One simply does. You just did. In fact you may have done so so casually you deceived yourself into not noticing that you had.
One does not simply walk into Mordor. One cannot casually disregard one's experiences and knowledge that have led one to one's mental position on just about anything.
One can choose to do so, but this does not mean that one can actually do so.
If you, in fact, can choose to believe anything you like, as an act of will, please expand on how this is done for the rest of us mere mortals.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/07/15 13:14:51
Orlanth wrote:One simply does. You just did. In fact you may have done so so casually you deceived yourself into not noticing that you had.
One does not simply walk into Mordor. One cannot casually disregard one's experiences and knowledge that have led one to one's mental position on just about anything.
One can choose to do so, but this does not mean that one can actually do so.
If you, in fact, can choose to believe anything you like, as an act of will, please expand on how this is done for the rest of us mere mortals.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Orlanth wrote:One simply does. You just did. In fact you may have done so so casually you deceived yourself into not noticing that you had.
One does not simply walk into Mordor. One cannot casually disregard one's experiences and knowledge that have led one to one's mental position on just about anything.
One can choose to do so, but this does not mean that one can actually do so.
If you, in fact, can choose to believe anything you like, as an act of will, please expand on how this is done for the rest of us mere mortals.
People are like dice, a certain Frenchman said that. You throw yourself in the direction of your own choosing. People are free because they can do that. Everyone's circumstances are different, but no matter how small the choice, at the very least, you can throw yourself. It's not chance or fate. It's the choice you made.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
One does not simply walk into Mordor.
Thanks for the troll magnet.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote: One cannot casually disregard one's experiences and knowledge that have led one to one's mental position on just about anything.
One accounts for them, but the process is a 'walking' one. You go about your life and your expereince and knowledge lead you along your path.
WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
If you, in fact, can choose to believe anything you like, as an act of will, please expand on how this is done for the rest of us mere mortals.
You misunderstand perhaps deliberately, perhaps not. Your beliefs are your own choice, noone else chooses the for you, neither do they risde unbiddent to your head. depending on individual choices two people can read the same information in two different ways. This is an esseential truth of human nature, one you should understand. It is evident everywhere.
Take from example two persons in similar circumstances both living in the same country. One votes for one party, one votes for another. their choices could be makde out of pure self interest, but we are trying to discussd peope of similar circumstances. such people exist, you probably know a few. they both live under the same stystem they both see more or less the same things, however one chooses different from the other.
Spiritual issues are no different. Why is this of any importance? Because for people to assume they take their belief systems out of pure logic is in fact dangerous. Those who claim to speak for absolute truth are those most likely to challenge opposed viewpoints with violence. This is the path trod by bigots of all denominations, such bigots thus eventually try to remove the alternate point of view by removing its proponents.
The closer one walks to the idea that ones own point of view is inviolate reason the further from reason you walk. Understand there is human choice in all we think, and human choice in all we know with exception of absolute Law.*
By accepting the frailty of human nature and the fact that ones decisions are your choice then you can walk with an element of truth, you own truth in your own paradigm and one casn respect the decisions of others.
By rejecting human nature and frailty and assuming ones thoughts are pure and ones reasoning absolute, one fails to understand the frailty of human choice and deludes onself. In order to keep with the comfort of ones own thinking one can be led to ever greater measures to secure that position, unaware of how one is sinking morally because one is divorced from the truth that ones opinons are the result of ones own personal choices. As a result any challenge to ones prefered thinking is a danger to be countered, as the challenge persists the need to remove the thread increases and the mothods one chooses to accomplish that becaome broader as the goal becomes a higher priority.
This essential condition in human nature is the root cause of fanaticism. We are creatures of human choice, those who accpet this can live in peace, those who cannot cannot. Fanatics of all walks of life, theist, atheist, alternating reglions or fasctions within a relgion, politics etc can live liversd of hatreed over the simplest divison in doctrine. Now admittedly many of the above dogmas are in fact exploited by polticians and the horrors unleashed are not the fault of the proponents of the differeng ideologies, but they are fuel for the fire and the sources of mental division that allows subsequent conflict to occur on a large scale.
This is as truth of the Spanish Inquisition or the Taliban. Those who speak to walk in science and reason are not immune as Soviet atheism has shown. Some of the sadest events come from schisms amongst supposed allies over sub-doctrines. Such a Calvinism. While Calvinism is by no means a trivial concept of itself it is minor in that those who are proponents or opponents of Calvinism should by their nature all have grasped the concept of Christian salvation which is the topic of Calvinism. Why would followers of Jesus who understand the teahings of jesus be at weach others throats in this manner? Because of the nature of man to make choice of belief but to be arrogant enough to mask choice as something more certain. I could give other examples, but I gave a Christian one because honest example should look inward first. Hopefully you will have ther maturity to see this is not just a problem amongst theists. One would be worryingly deluded to brush this off an 'that is them, we are us'.
* Where absolute Law is available we can understand truth because no further discourse is needed. I mention this here in relation to scienctific Law, spiritual issues do not normally fall within that remit. I say usually because some myself included beieve that a point of absolute Law is possible by a divine event of revelation. But that is not relevant to the discussion. It will be proven correct if the Second Coming occurs, or equivalent events in alternate religions, and otherwise remain inconclusive.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/07/15 14:39:52
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Orlanth wrote:
Indeed, which is why the prophesy is veiled. Though it is interesting to read that what is hidden is hidden in plain sight. We are not talking about bible Code, just adding two scriptures together in a logical way, stuff Bible students have been doing for centuries,. Why was this not done before the event?
Possibly because God did not intend it to happen. This is a recurring theme in scripture.
Perhaps because the ‘prophecy’ requires a significant degree of revisionism to be considered prophetic.
Orlanth wrote:
How is it any way dubious. The prediction was ancient, very accurate and fulfilled in modern times. You have to give a better reason than a handwave dismissal. You make no atempt to give any logic as to why an obviously acurate prophesy is of no value.
I’ve indicated several times, using several arguments, that the prophecy is not ‘obviously accurate’ and that any given reading is just as likely to conclude that the actual punishment was not 430 years, but a series of other possible numbers.
Orlanth wrote:
One and the same. God punishes sin, as God doesnt like sin a year of sinis a year of consequence of sin not a year in which to sin.
A year of sin is a year in which someone has sinned, and the punishment that follows from that is almost never immediate. There is a general theme of retroactive justification for hardship in the Old Testament, which is consistent with mentality that follows from being God's chosen people.
Either the Jews sinned for a certain amount of time, or are being called to atone for their sins for a certain amount of time. You cannot have both if the concept behind sin and punishment in the Old Testament is to be considered sound.
Orlanth wrote:
For Israel meaning the ten tribes alone. The unified Israel consirts of twelve tribes that means Israel plus Judah which consists of the remaining two tribes. As the return is not restricted to specific tribes the IJews are taken as a whole.
The prophecies of Isaiah do not, and could not, have referenced a unified Israel (Judah was not yet in captivity). So why are we using that standard when considering Ezekiel, who clearly regarded both as separate entities?
Orlanth wrote:
I have not forgotten that either. In fact I made note of it in just about all the post replies to you. Indifference can occur, but only in terms of true ignorance. To be truly indifferent to the matter of the existence of God and for that matter braoder questions of our own existentialism one must have no contact with the debate.
That's untrue. It is possible to consider each element of the debate as being present on equal footing, where those elements do not contradict observation, even while engaging with them. Simply because you have an innate, emotional response to certain ideas does not indicate that others are the same.
Orlanth wrote:
in practical terms such a person does not exist unless severely slowed in some way. It is in our nature to question and every culture and tribe no matter how remote has some context of God and afterlife. The question is inevitable
But the answer is not. You're presupposing that a question that is asked must be answered.
Orlanth wrote:
Silly boy. We are discussing affairs of the human heart, we are not robots running programs.
It is possible to not have an emotional response to the specific subject of a question, and yet have such a response to an ancillary matter which compels the consideration of said question. But this impulse will not necessarily force an answer.
Orlanth wrote:
But let us assume we were attempting to live lives of logic and had the discipline maturity and knowledge to address the questions of the universe in this way. What happens when we are not processing the Great Equation? The rest of our lives outside the lab or the debating chamber. Our own thoughts creep in, our human emotive thoughts that are not based on purest logic but on choice, as both you and I have demonstrated. Noone is deminated entirely by reason alone, we all make choices human choices, to think otherwise is to be deluded not only in terms of ones own doctrine, but in terms of what it is to be human.
Yes, we do, but that does not indicate that we must make an emotive choice with respect to the existence of God. You're attempting to induce a conclusion from a set of specific instances by arguing that, because some choices are based on emotion, all choices will inevitable be based on emotion, or be decided by an emotive response. This is a fallacious argument.
No one is governed by reason alone, but they may be governed by reasons in all ways directly pertinent to the question being asked.
Orlanth wrote:
So you dismiss God as irrelevant.
No, I dismiss the question of his existence as irrelevant.
Orlanth wrote:
A choice nevertheless, you have to think about something to dismiss it, to dismiss as irrelevant also involves some form of evaluation. With more evaluation not less being required for the decision to be considered rational.
Evaluation does not imply an answer, or an emotive response. I decided long ago that God either exists, or does not exist, and that his existence would have no bearing on the nature of the Universe. This is not to say that he is irrelevant, only that the Universe is as we observe it regardless of God’s presence. If he’s there he’s there and everything we sense is still everything that we sense; knowing that he’s there changes nothing, because he was there all along.
Orlanth wrote:
That is not true by your own testimony. Your interim conclusion is 'I came to the conclusion that [existence of God] is irrelevant given our current knowledge base.'
No, as I said, I came to the conclusion that the question is irrelevant because either the answering yes or no produces no observable distinction with respect to the universe.
Orlanth wrote:
Know yourself. An answer was given, but then an answer was inevitable (you might not have disclosed what the answer was).
No answer was given. A statement regarding the irrelevance of a question is not an answer to the question. You're moving the goalposts.
Orlanth wrote:
One simply does. You just did. In fact you may have done so so casually you deceived yourself into not noticing that you had.
What you’re describing is not a choice in the philosophical sense.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Did you honestly think that was a serious question? That Islam pre-dates Christianity? 
No one said they'd be pie! jk
