Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 10:02:00
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Douglas Bader
|
Orlanth wrote:If the evidence showed those who believe in God were definitively correct it would be proof. So far I have been persistent on the point that proof is intentionally not forthcoming.
Instead the purpose of the evidence is to indicate that a choice to believe in God can have merit and isn't random.
The point is that your "evidence" isn't anywhere near proof. You'd have a point if you were talking about evidence that reached the "this is pretty compelling, even if it's not 100% undeniable", but you're posting the equivalent of "SDIOIOWEJIOWE$JIOJWERIOGMJLWERKJGLKWERJOIGFIOWERG THEREFORE GOD". Your "evidence" doesn't support the claim at all, and it's only going to be even remotely persuasive if you're already a Christian and looking for clever things to post on a forum in defense of your faith.
Tests on HIV are very thorough and double checked. It a common ploy in blind faith based atheism to try and dismiss he unwanted evidence by handwving it away as erroneous. It you were to aplly that logic to actual science little could even be achieved.
Thinking 'I dont like the findings therefore the findings must be a result of procedural error' is a sign of a pseudo-scientific mind.
So, which is more likely:
1) The test was wrong, as you can inevitably expect to happen occasionally in a large enough sample size given the fact that no test is absolutely 100% accurate.
or
2) God stepped in and healed them, unlike every other case of people with the same disease praying to be healed. And this god did so without leaving any evidence of its intervention that could be observed by other people.
I think it's pretty obvious that testing error is the vastly more likely explanation.
That is a very twisted theology. God wishes all people to be healed, but Man will not walk in faith to claim the prize. All miracles are in conjunction with faith. No faith, no miracle.
I see. So of all those billions of Christians praying for miracles only a tiny, tiny handful of them are actually faithful? Let me guess, being faithful enough to receive healing miracles is strongly correlated with being a member of your particular branch of Christianity?
I said that if the scriptural signs occur in September 2017 then the schedule will have merit. I have sufficient interest that I will watch for those signs. This is scriptural to do, God tells us to watch for the signs of end times, but not to rush to assume specific timelines are accurate. Covered that in my last post before this one, so I wont repeat it here.
What exactly makes the September 2017 prophecy any more believable than any of the countless other end times prophecies which did not happen? What could possibly justify your "sufficient interest" after such a long and well-established history of utter failure?
Ok. The broadest definition of End Times is the time between the first Pentecost and the Second Coming. We may, or may not be getting close to the Tribulation, which mean the last few years before the coming of Christ,typicaly a seven year calender in which the anti-Christ comes into power, We don't even know what an anti-Christ is hough, it might not be a literal person but a movement or organisation.
IOW, "any day now, even if it takes 10,000 years longer". Which of course conveniently excuses any failed end times prophecies. Didn't get the date right this time? Doesn't mean anything, we're still in the end times and it's still coming.
It doesn't work that way. Bible prophesy is sealed. That is to say it is hidden in plain sight,but understood only at the correct time. The significance of th 70 biblical weeks was only recently understood even though it relates to events in 1948.
I had mentioned that Biblical prophesy is not intended as a guide to action, but an indicator that God is in control and has made promises that He will keep.
IOW, exactly what I said. The bible contains a vast amount of text, and if you look at it with a generous enough definition of "accurate prophecy" you'll probably be able to find something that matches. Or you'll be able to find something that matches a different event. The point is that it's always much, much easier to have a "prophecy" after the events have already happened. Biblical prophecy would be an interesting idea if it made specific testable predictions in advance of the predicted event, and believes in biblical prophecy were willing to consider failures of those predictions to be evidence that their beliefs are wrong. But that's not what we have.
Actually there are many fake denominations. It is not a matter of whether they find my 'brand' of Christianity. I am a charismatic Protestant, a Catholic is my brother, a Christian Scientist however is not.
The fake denominations are identifiable by their doctrines. However even so there is common ground on some issues.
Yep, no true Scotsman it is.
You aren't paying attention. I am not here to prove Christianity, I don't believe that it is possible before the appointed time, when Jesus proves Christianity.
So you admit that your evidence falls well short of the burden of proof, and there is no rational justification for belief in Christianity.
But when the powerful experience that causes people to rethink their lives is a 1 to 1 with a particular God....
It isn't a one-to-one match with your particular god. For example, here are some from an entirely different religion being used in support of their beliefs: http://www.near-death.com/religion/hinduism.html
Why would an atheist who doest necessarily socialise with Christians, and doesnt attend any church or associate with those who do, and possible intensely dislikes Christianity visualise a Christian God just because a larger % of he national population are nominal Christians.
Because said atheist lives in a Christian-majority society where Christian images are everywhere? Do you honestly not understand how even an atheist's images of death/heaven/etc can be influenced by the culture they live in? I mean, I'm as strong an atheist as you can get but if you said "draw god" I'd probably give you something that looks like common Christian images of god.
Big claim, small claim, it's all the same. Evidence is evidence. You have to apply the same weighting in order to be fair.
No, you absolutely don't apply the same weighting. If I say "I had cereal for breakfast today" the standard of proof required to believe in that statement is going to be very different from the standard of proof required to believe "Orlanth is a murderer". You're addressing a question on the "Orlanth is a murderer" level of seriousness with the standard of proof appropriate for a discussion about this morning's breakfast.
Actually this is not true because atheism is not a de facto default position.
Yes it is, just like the default in every question of whether or not something exists is "no". The burden of proof is on the side claiming that the thing exists. If I say "there is an invisible unicorn in your room" the appropriate response is "prove it", and to not believe in the unicorn until I meet that demand for proof. And when I inevitably fail to do so the appropriate belief is "there is no unicorn". If I responded with "but 'no unicorn' isn't the default position" you'd just laugh at me and continue holding the only reasonable belief: that there is no unicorn. The only reason we don't treat your god the same way as the unicorn is that there are a lot of religious people who really want their beliefs to be true and demand special treatment for them.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/29 10:02:55
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 10:45:38
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Wicked Warp Spider
|
To Orlanth and Peregrine (but of course all and any of you who is really interested in this subject) - please, both of you, do some reading on where the current academic discussion on whether god (a god, not only the Christian God) exist trully lies at the moment. Because all of your arguments are very, very far from actual scientific/theology discussion.
And there is even a single, perfect book for both of you: https://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Explanations-Universe-Michael-Heller/dp/3642021026 (I wish, there was a translation of his other book "Philosophy and universe", but I cannot find it, and it is originally written in Polish, so I don't think you are able to read it...).
This book is ideal because of several reasons: first of all, Heller is both a prized, leading edge astrophysicist AND a catholic priest at the same time, specialising in philosophy of science. This book is a "popular science" book, but beware - it may require a whole lot more reading to trully comperhend a science discussed in it. And he deals with all major "god existence proofs" throughout written history, confronting them with philosophy and science developements. Leading to some interesting conlcusions, which both of you may find interesting and challenging.
And to Orlanth - you believie, that the universe is an omnipotent God driven place, yet all of the evidence shows, that it is in fact Mathematically and not magically driven. All material universe is strictly bound by mathematics and physics, and the scale of imbalance between proofs of "bound to mathematics" and "miracle driven" is trully vast. Science is able to influence world in ways many times more astounding than doubtfull HIV healing miracles (we can actually LOOK into WORKING brains through fMRI scans, which are machines working DIRECTLY on Quantuum Mechanics principles). And all of your religious evidence is always anchored in human psychology, intuitive reasoning, interpretation and, well, circular belief. All those are purely human traits and not observable, quantifiable nor reproducible facts. And to be perfectly clear: I do not want to undermine your faith - if it suits you and fills a meaningfull space in your life, then I'm perfectly fine with it. Heck, I might just handed you the "motherload" proof that you will ever find or require, that you may be in fact (almost) right in your faith. But please, at least make it an "informed decision" and confront your faith with all available scientific observations on the nature of the universe and our place in it, and do not stick to a single book written by desert wandering nomads half of entire human history ago…
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 10:53:53
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade
|
Gargantuan wrote:Orlanth wrote: Peregrine wrote: Two African women diagnosed with HIV who no longer have HIV. This cannot happen with current medical science. This is a) evidence, and b) anything but vague. Alternatively, it's evidence that the initial diagnosis was incorrect. Tests on HIV are very thorough and double checked. It a common ploy in blind faith based atheism to try and dismiss he unwanted evidence by handwaving it away as erroneous. It you were to aplly that logic to actual science little could even be achieved. Thinking 'I dont like the findings therefore the findings must be a result of procedural error' is a sign of a pseudo-scientific mind. If they double check then that means false positives are possible. Two consecutive false positives isn't surprising. diseases such as cancer go into remission or disappear. Magic Johnson is HIV free now. Its not unheard of, and its definitely not supernatural. Sometimes people's bodies work for them sometimes against.When cancer goes away, its a great day, but not a day that is owed to anyone but a physician. Next time you thank god someone turns out healthy, try turning around and shaking the doctors hand. He did a hell of a lot more to help your loved one than god did. Now in Africa since treatments are probably few and far between, it is plausible then, and most likely the case that the tests were a false positive.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/29 10:55:25
10k CSM
1.5k Thousand Sons
2k Death Guard
3k Tau
3k Daemons(Tzeentch and Nurgle)
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 11:38:08
Subject: On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair
|
Much as I want to put my faith in the Malawian health system, those reports could have been written by anyone, they're each signed off by one person without any indication of the credentials or quality of testing, they also happen to be different people on the different findings. What this amounts to is someone being found to have something, getting a second opinion and being told they don't. It doesn't mean they were cured of anything.
Further, people do occasionally get better. Cancer does go into remission. People oberwhelmingly die of AIDS rather than getting better, but it's only proof of them getting better. There's no evidence for it being God. You've got an unusual circumstance that you're desperate to attribute to God, there's no evidence that leads to God as a conclusion. On the same basis of evidence, you could attribute it to aliens or fairies.
The evidence here is evidence of something unusual happening. Nothing more, you can't extend it to draw the conclusion that God exists. Science is full of the unexplained, especially when you have an incomplete set of facts and data. Not every unidentified light in the sky is aliens. And just because you don't know the cause of a certain phenomena, that doesn't constitute evidence in itself of divine intervention.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/07/29 11:45:04
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 13:59:10
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Peregrine wrote:Actually this is not true because atheism is not a de facto default position.
Yes it is, just like the default in every question of whether or not something exists is "no". The burden of proof is on the side claiming that the thing exists. If I say "there is an invisible unicorn in your room" the appropriate response is "prove it", and to not believe in the unicorn until I meet that demand for proof. And when I inevitably fail to do so the appropriate belief is "there is no unicorn". If I responded with "but 'no unicorn' isn't the default position" you'd just laugh at me and continue holding the only reasonable belief: that there is no unicorn. The only reason we don't treat your god the same way as the unicorn is that there are a lot of religious people who really want their beliefs to be true and demand special treatment for them.
Actually, I must agree with Peregrine here. Atheism, or at least agnosticism is the default position for people. When you're born, you aren't born a Christian, Muslim, (practicing) Jew, Hindu or any other religion. You MUST be taught religion and faith. Usually, this is done in a rather forced manner by parents and other close relatives.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 14:26:31
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch
|
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Peregrine wrote:Actually this is not true because atheism is not a de facto default position. Yes it is, just like the default in every question of whether or not something exists is "no". The burden of proof is on the side claiming that the thing exists. If I say "there is an invisible unicorn in your room" the appropriate response is "prove it", and to not believe in the unicorn until I meet that demand for proof. And when I inevitably fail to do so the appropriate belief is "there is no unicorn". If I responded with "but 'no unicorn' isn't the default position" you'd just laugh at me and continue holding the only reasonable belief: that there is no unicorn. The only reason we don't treat your god the same way as the unicorn is that there are a lot of religious people who really want their beliefs to be true and demand special treatment for them. Actually, I must agree with Peregrine here. Atheism, or at least agnosticism is the default position for people. When you're born, you aren't born a Christian, Muslim, (practicing) Jew, Hindu or any other religion. You MUST be taught religion and faith. Usually, this is done in a rather forced manner by parents and other close relatives. I went to Sunday school, etc., church stuff as a kid. My parents didn't. It wasn't forced on me. I wanted to go. But I started asking questions and getting answers that weren't actually answers. The other kids didn't understand how those answers didn't make sense to me. I realized at a very young age that we were being conditioned into these beliefs, and my skepticism of "the truth" was actually negatively impacting how my peers viewed me. Innocent, real questions getting handwaving answers or straight up "are you stupid" answers wasn't good enough for me. Edit here: My grandma was actually the reason I did those things. She used to tell me about being a Christian and their God and everything, and she inspired me to check it out. On the "people getting better" points. Why those people in your anecdotes? What do they matter in the scheme of things? Why do you believe a certain mother can take the sickness from their child, but another is forced to watch her child die a slow, painful, agonizing death? Is one mother a better person? Is it just because she believes harder? I've never understood how people point to adults getting healthier suddenly and saying it's evidence of a deity while ignoring completely the fact that the same deity is ignoring children starving to death or dying of incredibly ugly diseases. Who knows, maybe they deserve it for being born in the wrong country. Unless you want to say that both are evidence of a deity. Which I would respond to by saying that it's no deity that deserves any kind of worship. I honestly believe polytheism has a lot more merit than monotheism, because then at least it can be that one deity is killing children while another is running around curing adults that go on to do nothing more significant than anyone else with their lives.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/29 14:29:48
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 14:29:28
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Wicked Warp Spider
|
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Actually, I must agree with Peregrine here. Atheism, or at least agnosticism is the default position for people. When you're born, you aren't born a Christian, Muslim, (practicing) Jew, Hindu or any other religion. You MUST be taught religion and faith. Usually, this is done in a rather forced manner by parents and other close relatives.
Well, unfortunately that is not entirely and uconditionally true. If you are born in a modern society, then yes, newborn has no religious beliefs and can be made to believe in any God, gods or Santa Claus. Sometimes intentionally by parents, sometimes by cultural surroundings which answer some questions before they're even asked. But… If you are somehow born in the wild, without proper schooling or cultural influence, then you will develop some form of primitive animism. This is how our brains are dealing with unexplainable events in the world - we make up explanations based on our experience. Because the most important thing our brain is capable to do, and does it better than any other animal on earth, is finding patterns. To a point, where it finds pattern where there are none ("critical paranoia" is one example of how this mechanics works). It simply allowed us to survive in changing enviroment. We didn't evolve to dispute God's existence, we evolved so we were not eaten by stronger animals but instead hunt them using tools. Our ability to dispute God's existence is just an emergent property of level of complication of our brains needed to form societies and use tool and there is clear historical record on how we invented more complex religious beliefs to meet needs of more complex societies.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 16:07:53
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Building a blood in water scent
|
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Actually, I must agree with Peregrine here. Atheism, or at least agnosticism is the default position for people. When you're born, you aren't born a Christian, Muslim, (practicing) Jew, Hindu or any other religion. You MUST be taught religion and faith. Usually, this is done in a rather forced manner by parents and other close relatives.
This is the most compelling argument against organized religion out there.
But as any parent knows, asking questions and wondering "why is the world the way it is? how did we all get here?" is asked by every child about ten minutes after they first fully understand that everyone is a unique individual.
Personally, my biggest issue with accepting "nope no higher power" as true is that then we are the highest power. And holy feth is that a depressing thought.
|
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 16:40:52
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch
|
feeder wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Actually, I must agree with Peregrine here. Atheism, or at least agnosticism is the default position for people. When you're born, you aren't born a Christian, Muslim, (practicing) Jew, Hindu or any other religion. You MUST be taught religion and faith. Usually, this is done in a rather forced manner by parents and other close relatives.
This is the most compelling argument against organized religion out there.
But as any parent knows, asking questions and wondering "why is the world the way it is? how did we all get here?" is asked by every child about ten minutes after they first fully understand that everyone is a unique individual.
Personally, my biggest issue with accepting "nope no higher power" as true is that then we are the highest power. And holy feth is that a depressing thought.
I take that one step further by thinking that it's more depressing if something created us.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 16:42:48
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Legendary Master of the Chapter
|
BossJakadakk wrote: feeder wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Actually, I must agree with Peregrine here. Atheism, or at least agnosticism is the default position for people. When you're born, you aren't born a Christian, Muslim, (practicing) Jew, Hindu or any other religion. You MUST be taught religion and faith. Usually, this is done in a rather forced manner by parents and other close relatives.
This is the most compelling argument against organized religion out there.
But as any parent knows, asking questions and wondering "why is the world the way it is? how did we all get here?" is asked by every child about ten minutes after they first fully understand that everyone is a unique individual.
Personally, my biggest issue with accepting "nope no higher power" as true is that then we are the highest power. And holy feth is that a depressing thought.
I take that one step further by thinking that it's more depressing if something created us.
i dont know i think its certainly more depressing if there was nothing else out there in the universe
but thats just imho
|
Unit1126PLL wrote: Scott-S6 wrote:And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.
Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 17:08:13
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Building a blood in water scent
|
BossJakadakk wrote: feeder wrote: Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Actually, I must agree with Peregrine here. Atheism, or at least agnosticism is the default position for people. When you're born, you aren't born a Christian, Muslim, (practicing) Jew, Hindu or any other religion. You MUST be taught religion and faith. Usually, this is done in a rather forced manner by parents and other close relatives.
This is the most compelling argument against organized religion out there.
But as any parent knows, asking questions and wondering "why is the world the way it is? how did we all get here?" is asked by every child about ten minutes after they first fully understand that everyone is a unique individual.
Personally, my biggest issue with accepting "nope no higher power" as true is that then we are the highest power. And holy feth is that a depressing thought.
I take that one step further by thinking that it's more depressing if something created us.
You take that back! I've heard nothing but good things about your mom.
|
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 17:13:12
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress
Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.
|
Peregrine wrote:
The point is that your "evidence" isn't anywhere near proof. You'd have a point if you were talking about evidence that reached the "this is pretty compelling, even if it's not 100% undeniable", but you're posting the equivalent of "SDIOIOWEJIOWE$JIOJWERIOGMJLWERKJGLKWERJOIGFIOWERG THEREFORE GOD". Your "evidence" doesn't support the claim at all, and it's only going to be even remotely persuasive if you're already a Christian and looking for clever things to post on a forum in defense of your faith.
However the evidence is frequently persuasive for many or they wouldnt become Christians on account of it. any mny people become Christians n account of the varied evidence, which is a good reason why it could be called evidence, it need not convince you to remain evidence. Not all of them see the evidenced as their preferred viewpoint, but are convinced by it anyway, as C.S. Lews attests:
“You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England. I did not then see what is now the most shining and obvious thing; the Divine humility which will accept a convert even on such terms. The Prodigal Son at least walked home on his own feet. But who can duly adore that Love which will open the high gates to a prodigal who is brought in kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance of escape? The words “compelle intrare,” compel them to come in, have been so abused be wicked men that we shudder at them; but, properly understood, they plumb the depth of the Divine mercy. The hardness of God is kinder than the softness of men, and His compulsion is our liberation.”
― C.S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life
Peregrine wrote:
So, which is more likely:
1) The test was wrong, as you can inevitably expect to happen occasionally in a large enough sample size given the fact that no test is absolutely 100% accurate.
or
2) God stepped in and healed them, unlike every other case of people with the same disease praying to be healed. And this god did so without leaving any evidence of its intervention that could be observed by other people.
I think it's pretty obvious that testing error is the vastly more likely explanation.
However you say that the first option is definitely what happened. the women themselves believe the second and are closer to the story than you and I are.
'Which is more likely' and 'which is possible' are to different questions. I need only demonstrate the latter to have reasonable room for faith. Divine healings are recorded enough by medical science, I picked one YoueTube video at random.
Peregrine wrote:
That is a very twisted theology. God wishes all people to be healed, but Man will not walk in faith to claim the prize. All miracles are in conjunction with faith. No faith, no miracle.
I see. So of all those billions of Christians praying for miracles only a tiny, tiny handful of them are actually faithful?
Miracles are not uncommon, major miracles that attract attention are much rarer. Miraculous faith is rare in a sceptical world, that doesn't mean the rest of Christanity is faithless. It is also more common in some areas than others. In the passage below Jesus himself was partly shutdown by the unbelief of the area of Nazareth:
Mark 6:3-6
3 Isn’t this the carpenter? Isn’t this Mary’s son and the brother of James, Joseph,[a] Judas and Simon? Aren’t his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him.
4 Jesus said to them, “A prophet is not without honor except in his own town, among his relatives and in his own home.” 5 He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. 6 He was amazed at their lack of faith.
Peregrine wrote:
Let me guess, being faithful enough to receive healing miracles is strongly correlated with being a member of your particular branch of Christianity?
There are miracle testmonies for many demoninations (branches) of Christianity. Catholics believe in healing occurances at Lourdes, I don't know enough about Lourdes to comment more, and an generally sceptical of bleeding statues of the Virgin Mary for multiple reasons, but I have nothing to suggest it isnt a means for God to attract the attention of mainstream Catholics.
Peregrine wrote:
I said that if the scriptural signs occur in September 2017 then the schedule will have merit. I have sufficient interest that I will watch for those signs. This is scriptural to do, God tells us to watch for the signs of end times, but not to rush to assume specific timelines are accurate. Covered that in my last post before this one, so I wont repeat it here.
What exactly makes the September 2017 prophecy any more believable than any of the countless other end times prophecies which did not happen? What could possibly justify your "sufficient interest" after such a long and well-established history of utter failure?
For a start its not a 'well-established history of utter failure' because Jesus himself predicted accurately that this phenomenon would occur. I like the irony.
If you go onto YouTube the world is ending in 2012 videos, of which there were many can still be found, though most quietly disppeared. 2012 was common end of world date, but you ould see similar for 2013, 2014 etc etc and so on and so forth. Even better look for the identity of the anti-Christ. It was/is <insert name of US president>, so it was Clinton, then Bush, then Obama - a lot on Obama, now Clinton again. There are videos, quite a few saying Prince Harry is the anti-Christ with a lot of convoluted stretched to fit the signs evidence for this. For example of the latter case are several numerological calculations that add up to 666, many of them patently unfair. Like 'King Harry'.
Now the September 2017 prediction is already in part accurate., it is the end of the religious Jubilee, which happens once every fifty years on the Jewish religious calender, starting this September. There is separate evidence that it is the seventieth in the religious calender. That of itself is fair. What that means is up for debate. The 70th jubilee numerology could mean various things and has already been hijacked
Peregrine wrote:
IOW, exactly what I said. The bible contains a vast amount of text, and if you look at it with a generous enough definition of "accurate prophecy" you'll probably be able to find something that matches.
No that isn't fair. Some people do that, hence the 'Obama is the anti-Christ/Beast/False Prophet rants.' However just checking the Jewish religious calender and seeing that pivotal events are marked at precise repeated timing for each other is different. It isn't massaging the data at all.
Again a twisted point of view. There is a coordinated agreement as to what makes a genuine Christian denomination, as agreed by the Evangelical Alliance. While the denominations have many differences there is core scriptural agreement on what salvation is. Those organisations which teach the Bible and a gospel that according the the words of Jesus is sufficient to teach salvation can be called churches, those that do not are denied as cults. The delimitation is clear cut, quite unlike a 'true Sotsman', so for example Methodists, Baptists, Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholics all agree and comply, even if they have many differences. Christian Science, Jehovahs Witnesses, and Mormons etc fall outside the category.
Peregrine wrote:
You aren't paying attention. I am not here to prove Christianity, I don't believe that it is possible before the appointed time, when Jesus proves Christianity.
So you admit that your evidence falls well short of the burden of proof, and there is no rational justification for belief in Christianity.
Not at all. I am saying that the evidence is there and is plausible and is real, it just escapes being demonstably conclusive to all, because God reveals himself to those He wills.
God proved himself to Paul, he proves himself to those who know the Holy Spirit, by sending his Holy Spirit, though the faith has to come fist, then the 'internal proof' appears.
Universal proof however is still lacking, for now.
Evidence on the other hand, enough evidence that people can rationally choose to become Christians, even if they would prefer to believe something else in some cases, does exist.
Peregrine wrote:
But when the powerful experience that causes people to rethink their lives is a 1 to 1 with a particular God....
It isn't a one-to-one match with your particular god. For example, here are some from an entirely different religion being used in support of their beliefs: http://www.near-death.com/religion/hinduism.html
Which is why I wrote what I wrote. People can and do claim to have NDE's and see Buddha/Shiva/Mohammed etc.
Why would an atheist who doest necessarily socialise with Christians, and doesnt attend any church or associate with those who do, and possible intensely dislikes Christianity visualise a Christian God just because a larger % of he national population are nominal Christians.
Because said atheist lives in a Christian-majority society where Christian images are everywhere? Do you honestly not understand how even an atheist's images of death/heaven/etc can be influenced by the culture they live in? I mean, I'm as strong an atheist as you can get but if you said "draw god" I'd probably give you something that looks like common Christian images of god.
Big claim, small claim, it's all the same. Evidence is evidence. You have to apply the same weighting in order to be fair.
No, you absolutely don't apply the same weighting. If I say "I had cereal for breakfast today" the standard of proof required to believe in that statement is going to be very different from the standard of proof required to believe "Orlanth is a murderer". You're addressing a question on the "Orlanth is a murderer" level of seriousness with the standard of proof appropriate for a discussion about this morning's breakfast.
Peregrine wrote:
Actually this is not true because atheism is not a de facto default position.
Yes it is, just like the default in every question of whether or not something exists is "no".
The default position is not sure, and until proven a theorem remains a theorom, not an invalidity.
Peregrine wrote:
The burden of proof is on the side claiming that the thing exists. If I say "there is an invisible unicorn in your room" the appropriate response is "prove it",
It is acceptible to ask for proof, the conclusion to this process is to say, If the deity is unproven then it is unproven. There is no standpoint to say it does not exist.
Invisible unicorn might be incredulous to th point that many would choose to dismiss the evidence, but then where are the holy texts to proclaim the invisible unicorn, where are the followers with changed lives, where at those who claim to have been healed or guided by it. Show me those and there is room to believe in the invisible unicorn.
Some cross the line and state in faith that God is not real, and ironically become alike to religious followers of a cult of no-God.
You do what actual science does not. There are many things we cannot see and for a long term could not discern. Black holes for instance. We can see evidence f them now an believe the evidence, astronomers believed they existed before the breakthroughs occurred that allowed us to indirectly detect them. There was never a case when the scientific body could turn around ad say, 'we don't detect black holes therefore they don't exist'. It is not the default position in actual science.
If I say "there is an invisible unicorn in your room" the appropriate response is "prove it", and to not believe in the unicorn until I meet that demand for proof. And when I inevitably fail to do so the appropriate belief is "there is no unicorn". If I responded with "but 'no unicorn' isn't the default position" you'd just laugh at me and continue holding the only reasonable belief: that there is no unicorn. The only reason we don't treat your god the same way as the unicorn is that there are a lot of religious people who really want their beliefs to be true and demand special treatment for them.
|
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 17:27:26
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch
|
Desubot wrote: [snip snip] i dont know i think its certainly more depressing if there was nothing else out there in the universe but thats just imho I mean if something actually created us as we are, it's depressing to me, because that implies we're working as intended, and that's so far beyond fethed up. Plus, believing we have no creator is not the same as believing there's nothing else in the universe. The stars won't align everywhere (to begin life), so to speak, but I would be surprised if they only aligned once in an ever-expanding universe. Automatically Appended Next Post: feeder wrote: [SO MUCH SNIP] You take that back! I've heard nothing but good things about your mom.  LOL you got me there
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/07/29 17:34:34
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 17:39:17
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Shas'ui with Bonding Knife
|
feeder wrote:
Personally, my biggest issue with accepting "nope no higher power" as true is that then we are the highest power. And holy feth is that a depressing thought.
Psh, we just haven't met our new alien overlords yet!
|
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 17:46:04
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress
Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.
|
nou wrote:To Orlanth and Peregrine (but of course all and any of you who is really interested in this subject) - please, both of you, do some reading on where the current academic discussion on whether god (a god, not only the Christian God) exist trully lies at the moment. Because all of your arguments are very, very far from actual scientific/theology discussion.
There are many criteria to this discussion. If you want to open up that line of theology go ahead, the floor is yours. I might comment on it.
nou wrote:
And to Orlanth - you believie, that the universe is an omnipotent God driven place, yet all of the evidence shows, that it is in fact Mathematically and not magically driven.
I don't see those two comments as being mutually exclusive. Why cant a magical God exist in a mathematical universe. The former is the intervention state the latter the default state. So for example I believe that God can cause earthquakes, because earthquakes were recorded at the crucifixion and were recorded by witnesses as a sign of God's anger. That doesn't mean I believe that God holds the earth in is hand an every now and then gives it a shake, earthquakes occur by naturally occurring scientifically understood methods.
As to the workings of God I do not know Him well enough to understand, nobody does, according to Jesus nobody can because mortal minds cannot fathom an infinite God. However from our limited understanding the earthquake that occurred possibly because God 'cast an x level Earthquake divine spell', but possibly because God calculated the exact timing of the events, knew when the crucifixion would occur and arranged events geologically perhaps over a vast period of time so that the quake would occur. Both ways show an awesome God, I will even agree the latter sounds more awesome, but I cannot logically presume to know the insist of God's mind, all I know about that is that God is too big for human understanding, and I accept that as flat truth without concern, even though I am an imaginative man and like to stretch my mind, as I assume are most people on a fantasy forum.
nou wrote:
And all of your religious evidence is always anchored in human psychology, intuitive reasoning, interpretation and, well, circular belief. All those are purely human traits and not observable, quantifiable nor reproducible facts.
That was what was needed as evidence IMHO. My standpoint is that there is rational evidence for God, taken in general but specifically from a Christian perspective (I will leave it to someone else to provide evidence for other deities). The point is that there is enough rational evidence provided that someone can make the choice to believe in God with some logical foundation for doing so.
I could look at an infinite architect God in an infinite universe, but when contemplating Gods position in the multiverse the very scale works against us. God has always been a personal God. "I Am the God o Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" proclaims the Lord from a high hill. What does it mean to anyone if He said "I Am the God of VY Canis Majoris, VV Cephei and NML Cygni" though the latter would be a more impressive claim.
Most important of all salvation is a spiritual event of itself, I have kept this aspect off the thread beyond stating that after someone is born again they can receive the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit can and likely will become indwelling ongoing evidence for the existence of God.
nou wrote:
And to be perfectly clear: I do not want to undermine your faith
Little chance of that.
nou wrote:
- if it suits you and fills a meaningfull space in your life, then I'm perfectly fine with it.
Thank you, and may God bless you the same way.
nou wrote:
Heck, I might just handed you the "motherload" proof that you will ever find or require, that you may be in fact (almost) right in your faith. But please, at least make it an "informed decision" and confront your faith with all available scientific observations on the nature of the universe and our place in it, and do not stick to a single book written by desert wandering nomads half of entire human history ago…
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."
A big claim from a small man who is also a big God.
I am all up for your 'motherload' though. Post a synopsis if you would, please.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/29 18:09:05
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 17:46:22
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Building a blood in water scent
|
Wolfblade wrote: feeder wrote:
Personally, my biggest issue with accepting "nope no higher power" as true is that then we are the highest power. And holy feth is that a depressing thought.
Psh, we just haven't met our new alien overlords yet!
Oh man. I hope Smith and Goldblum are still with it enough when that day comes.
Following that line of thought, if this scenario is true, does that make the alien race gods?
|
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 18:04:12
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress
Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.
|
redleger wrote:
diseases such as cancer go into remission or disappear. Magic Johnson is HIV free now. Its not unheard of, and its definitely not supernatural. Sometimes people's bodies work for them sometimes against.When cancer goes away, its a great day, but not a day that is owed to anyone but a physician. Next time you thank god someone turns out healthy, try turning around and shaking the doctors hand. He did a hell of a lot more to help your loved one than god did.
http://www.thebody.com/content/76192/magic-johnson-wants-you-to-know-he-isnt-cured-of-h.html
Magic Johnson is still HIV positive, he is able to live a normal life with HIV because of effective medication. This is commonplace.
As for spontaneous cancer remission, honest doctors cant take credit for that. Chemotherapy is not spontaneous remission.
Also a belief in a healing God should not involve a contempt for medicine, we are agreed on that.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
Further, people do occasionally get better. Cancer does go into remission. People oberwhelmingly die of AIDS rather than getting better, but it's only proof of them getting better. There's no evidence for it being God. You've got an unusual circumstance that you're desperate to attribute to God, there's no evidence that leads to God as a conclusion. On the same basis of evidence, you could attribute it to aliens or fairies.
I will accept your standpoints on the grounds that you claim spontaneous remission occurs, and thus refine the comment that the remission of AIDS is impossible in medical science, to say that it cannot currently be caused by human intervention.
It still happens though by your own admission.
In this case it allegedly happened to two women as a response to their prayer and petition of God. Leaving it open to comment that the events are connected, a viewpoint the two women certainly share. It would be unfair to handwave that away as impossible.
Howard A Treesong wrote:
The evidence here is evidence of something unusual happening. Nothing more, you can't extend it to draw the conclusion that God exists.
Something unusual happened, if we look for a 'smoking gun' we ave the two women asking God for healing.
It is evidence enough to claim a connection is plausible. You can chose to do so, or not to do so.
Remember this is one case taken at random, there are many more. More than enough for reasonable people to put hand on heart and say they they can believe there is a healing God at work in the world today.
|
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 18:14:03
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Using Object Source Lighting
|
Peregrine wrote:And honestly, I don't think you want to claim this one because if it's evidence for god then it's evidence for the sadistic  version of god who picks who lives and who dies on a whim. This "god" decided to cure two random women, while leaving countless other people to die of the same disease? Granted, "god is a  " isn't evidence against the existence of god, but it sure does make you wonder what kind of person would worship such a morally horrible being.
This is a big part of why I'm atheistic. A more memorable quote for me on the subject--
"If God is good, He is not God. If God is God, He is not good. Take, the even, take the odd."
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 18:44:35
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Boosting Space Marine Biker
Texas
|
nou wrote:But please, at least make it an "informed decision" and confront your faith with all available scientific observations on the nature of the universe and our place in it, and do not stick to a single book written by desert wandering nomads half of entire human history ago…
Assuming you are referring to the Christian Bible, the Christian Bible is not a single book, but a collection of 66 books written and collected over a 1,500 year period by 40 different credited authors (likely more unaccredited) from all walks of life, e.g. shepherds, farmers, merchants, physicians, fishermen, priests, philosophers, judges, various government officials including a tax collector  , generals, princes, and kings with the backdrop of many of the events being the most advanced and sophisticated cities and societies for their time, e.g. Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Persia, Greece, and Rome and in such cities as Thebes, Nineveh, Jerusalem, Corinth, Damascus, Corinth, and Rome.
Doesn't seem consistent with the summary of a, "single book written by desert wandering nomads" does it?
For a post that seemed to start from a perspective that one should strive to seek diverse and different sources of information and authorship to avoid becoming bigoted this was a disappointing sentiment for you to close with. Consequently, you should probably take your own advice as you seem to be uninformed about the religious texts, their historical context, and their authorship. I to once had this attitude and flippantly disregarded religious texts, being influenced by select books and authors I was "forced" to read in my youth.
Of course you sound like an intelligent person who probably knew that already, so why write something so inaccurate?
In the meantime, thank you for the reading suggestion. I will have to look into getting a copy.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 18:59:18
Subject: On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
OP you must read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
Atheism is a much broader concept than agnosticism. In truth - all agnostics are atheists as they are not theists. Pick your flavor.
|
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 19:08:44
Subject: On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Building a blood in water scent
|
There's a lot of interesting info in that link - thanks. The link does draw distinction between various form of atheism and agnosticism though
Theological noncognitivism is not something I had heard of, but I do like it.
|
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 19:10:55
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Secret Force Behind the Rise of the Tau
USA
|
Lord of Deeds wrote:Assuming you are referring to the Christian Bible, the Christian Bible is not a single book, but a collection of 66 books written and collected over a 1,500 year period by 40 different credited authors (likely more unaccredited) from all walks of life,
To expand on this and further emphasize the complexity of the Bible's origins; the Bible is 66 books out of hundreds (if not thousands) of known texts written in a roughly 1000 year period (600 BCE to 3-400 CE) by numerous authors* and canonized in 1546 at the Council of Trent (prior to which the Church had operated in more of a "common Bible" concept). *Many of these authors are virtually unknown, as critical examination has generally discounted the commonly accepted beliefs of authorship for many books, and shown most to have had multiple authors who are not credited in any text.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 19:20:27
Subject: On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Nasty Nob
|
TBH, religion to me, is geographical. You believe what you are taught based on where you are brought up, and when you were brought up.
8000 years ago, you'd have believed in whatever god, gods, spirits or whatever you were taught to by your elders.
However, there have always been atheists, even if they were secret ones who didn't fancy getting strung up by the larger of their goolies by admitting it. Every culture has people who just don't believe in the supernatural, and even before science, there were probably people who didn't believe in whatever the local priest, druid or shaman was blathering on about.
The diversity and confusion of religion throughout known history, and even what probably passed for religion in prehistory is proof enough to me that it is all bunkum.
Agnosticism is just not wanting to offend anyone, and hedging your bets. That won't work btw, if other people can see straight through your moral ambiguity, a deity is going to give you very short shrift indeed.
I don't believe God exists, for a long time I wanted it to exist, but I decided that it was just wishful thinking.
However, If you want to believe in whatever, crack on, just feel free to keep that to yourself.
|
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984 |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 19:44:25
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
Orlanth wrote:
Something unusual happened, if we look for a 'smoking gun' we ave the two women asking God for healing.
It is evidence enough to claim a connection is plausible. You can chose to do so, or not to do so..
That's not how evidence works. Correlation is not causation.
You could as easily claim that since both women have feet, their possession of feet was what cured them. But then you start looking at how many other women have feet and who weren't spontaneously and mysteriously cured... and when you find that number to be vastly larger than your original sample group, you're forced to consider that your hypothesis is wrong and there must have been some other cause.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 19:57:22
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress
Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.
|
insaniak wrote: Orlanth wrote:
Something unusual happened, if we look for a 'smoking gun' we ave the two women asking God for healing.
It is evidence enough to claim a connection is plausible. You can chose to do so, or not to do so..
That's not how evidence works. Correlation is not causation.
You could as easily claim that since both women have feet, their possession of feet was what cured them. But then you start looking at how many other women have feet and who weren't spontaneously and mysteriously cured... and when you find that number to be vastly larger than your original sample group, you're forced to consider that your hypothesis is wrong and there must have been some other cause.
Er no. There was no prior will to be healed by the power of possessing feet. There was a prior will to be healed by God, and when subsequent healing occurred it is not illogical to attribute the healing to God.
If there was no intercession before the healing and the women had just found out that they no longer had HIV then you would have a point.
The correlation is indicative of causation, and evidence of such.
|
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. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 20:11:02
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
Orlanth wrote: There was a prior will to be healed by God, and when subsequent healing occurred it is not illogical to attribute the healing to God.
Only if you take that specific example in isolation.
When you consider the number of people who asked to be healed and weren't, it becomes a much less likely explanation.
If there was no intercession before the healing and the women had just found out that they no longer had HIV then you would have a point.
No, the point remains. The women had feet prior to their healing. You could insert any other thing that occurred to the women prior to being healed (they had breakfast, they dyed their hair, they owned cats, they saw a robin) and the result would be the same... you've taken one specific thing that happened prior to the women being healed and assumed, with no actual evidence to back up that assumption and while completely ignoring any contrary examples) that this particular thing is the most likely cause of the healing.
What is it exactly that makes 'I asked God to heal me' a more likely explanation than 'Having feet magically cures you of illness'?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 21:34:44
Subject: Re:On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Building a blood in water scent
|
insaniak wrote: Orlanth wrote: There was a prior will to be healed by God, and when subsequent healing occurred it is not illogical to attribute the healing to God.
Only if you take that specific example in isolation.
When you consider the number of people who asked to be healed and weren't, it becomes a much less likely explanation.
I arrived at the same conclusion.
What is it exactly that makes 'I asked God to heal me' a more likely explanation than 'Having feet magically cures you of illness'?
Active vs passive participation, probably.
|
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 21:52:37
Subject: On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Hangin' with Gork & Mork
|
I don't buy that argument even a little. Atheism isn't an eternal concept but a fairly recent ideology, comparatively. That isn't to say it is right or wrong, just that it isn't an idea as old as humanity itself. Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well I am sort of healthy and I have feet so the idea pans out.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/07/29 21:53:18
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 22:10:48
Subject: On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Tzeentch Veteran Marine with Psychic Potential
|
Ahtman, human civilization is a very small part of our past, and an even smaller part of the universe's history. We've been here a very short time.
Asking any of our past ancestors in the evolutionary tree what deity they subscribed to would surely get you an answer of "nothing".
There have always been atheists. It's religion that is a very recent invention. And it continually complexifies and renames itself based on the knowledge of the time, so it can at least keep some supporters in face of evidence it's incorrect. No one still believes in Zeus.
I've stayed out of this until now, but I just can't let you think atheism is "recent". It's the default state of a mind. Religion is something that must be invented and then taught. This isn't even possible before complex communication is a thing. What do you think all the current species of apes are, Zoroastrianists?
Not to mention I think it's a bit absurd to suppose that there were NO individuals who didn't believe in the past religious times, even if you disregard what I said above.
Once a mind begins to be complex enough in structure to ask questions it can't answer, it decides on answers that allow it to make some sense out of events, and goes with them until they fail or even further than that as we're seeing in today's times. Hence the naturalistic tendencies of past pantheons... those gods were invented to help people come to terms with events they could not understand. They're quite poetic and artistic answers as well. But correct? No.
|
7500 pts Chaos Daemons |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/07/29 22:20:28
Subject: On atheism, theism, and agnosticism
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Building a blood in water scent
|
AncientSkarbrand wrote:Ahtman, human civilization is a very small part of our past, and an even smaller part of the universe's history. We've been here a very short time.
Asking any of our past ancestors in the evolutionary tree what deity they subscribed to would surely get you an answer of "nothing".
There have always been atheists. It's religion that is a very recent invention. And it continually complexifies and renames itself based on the knowledge of the time, so it can at least keep some supporters in face of evidence it's incorrect. No one still believes in Zeus.
I've stayed out of this until now, but I just can't let you think atheism is "recent". It's the default state of a mind. Religion is something that must be invented and then taught. This isn't even possible before complex communication is a thing. What do you think all the current species of apes are, Zoroastrianists?
Not to mention I think it's a bit absurd to suppose that there were NO individuals who didn't believe in the past religious times, even if you disregard what I said above.
Once a mind begins to be complex enough in structure to ask questions it can't answer, it decides on answers that allow it to make some sense out of events, and goes with them until they fail or even further than that as we're seeing in today's times. Hence the naturalistic tendencies of past pantheons... those gods were invented to help people come to terms with events they could not understand. They're quite poetic and artistic answers as well. But correct? No.
If you count animism, paganism, shamanism, etc as religion, then I suspect you'd find religion at all points of human existence.
|
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” |
|
 |
 |
|
|