Hey! What's going on here? Without Mark Knowles you guys are sorta dead in the water, or what? ! It's been 11 hours and no post.
I expect more from all of you! Let's hear from someone....
I think Ender only really wanted to debate with Mark. So Mark went on vacation and Ender was brutally assulted by us kick assers, and left.
J/K Ender, I know your just hiding out looking for new material.
When it comes to Dualism, I would have to argue that I think the term is a bit of a generalization. If we assume that everyone is capable of Good or Evil, then I guess that would generically define what Dualism represents. But does it? If a man kills his wife because he "suspects" her of having an affair, and another man kills his kid because he was screaming during a football game, can we really pool these two together? I mean yes, they are both most certainly "evil" in some respect, but are they "equally evil"? Dante gave his "Hell" multiple levels for this reason precisely, (although we might disagree with his categorizations today).
So I think it would be more appropriate to say that at least we are existing in an infinite number of "potentials" between the "really good" and the "really bad" ends of the spectrum. The real question is: "What is it in ourselves that makes us good or makes us evil, and to what degree of either? Is it God? Is it innate? I think that we all learn our mores through socialization. And we can learn the same moral lessons with, or without, the need to believe in a "God".
But everything does have it's equal opposite. Doesn't matter how big or small it its, it just does. Don't really know why it has to be that way yet it is unless you want to talk about colors, now that might an interesting debate.
Physics. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For every kind of matter, there is an equal and opposite "anti-matter". For every good deed, there must be a bad one to counter it I guess. But that isn't to say that our entire world couldn't be the "good guys" with some other world being the "opposite" to our goodness, right?
I don't now. I was talking to CW once. We were talking about karma. I said Karma is a funny thing. I went my whole life, never did anything wrong really, I mean I never hurt no one and did the good Samaritan thing. Then one day I did something bad, really bad, never thought I would do it.
I thought about that old saying, what goes around comes around. Well the bad kept coming around and I kept waiting for the good. Till one day I did the 'bad' thing and got something 'good' out of it.
That's kinda funny...because it has always been my experience that when everything in my life seems to be going really well, (you know...living the clean life, doing the right things), that that is when the shit seems to hit the fan...almost like I'm being punished for trying to do the "right things"...
I know right! So what did you do? I am gonna guess here, you did something not so good.
Well when I was younger I probably said, "What's the frigging point?"...and went off and did something stupid. Who knows...I did loads of stupid shit when I was younger. But as I got older, I just took it all in stride. Of course now that my book is finished, and it looks like my stock portfolio is turning around again, I'm probably gonna get diagnosed with some horrific disease or something! Well, at least my loved ones will be in good shape...
Then it all works out. Though I still do stupid sh*t! I doubt you will get diagnosed with a horrific disease, well I hope not anyways! Congratulations on your accomplishments. Most likely you will just bump into annoying hurdles that will make a vain in your head protrude for sheer frustration of having to put up with stupid crap.
Sounds like everyone is just chatting until Mark and Ender get back in the fray.
I refuse to bleat "off topic" each and every time.
When someone makes a post which addresses a current proposition or makes a new one, I will duly note it.
Sandy, do you want to propose "we should discuss gnosticism vs agnosticism as well as theism va atheism" as Proposition 11?
Yes. I will start with this;
Gnosticism is a belief in a beginning of the material existence and "sentience". Does not attribute this to deities (though some might) Believes in a Universal law... the laws of nature and subsequently cannot break those laws but will use the sciences to have knowledge but hold to "knowledge" as being something that is "known". Similar to theories that have been proven, held as "fact" however understands that all "things" are flawed, which doesn't mean "bad" or not good enough. Also says that 'god' is flawed.
Flawed in that all things seem to have at least one and so to does god. In the old days they prolly would have said something like god is flawed because of its unnatural existence.
In ancient days, the gnostics were the modern day scientist. All gnostics are agnostic until otherwise known to the individual which then agnostics are gnsotics yet believe that all things have their "flaws".
Practices mysticism, however mysticism is not really "magical" it is the same as medicine or chemistry... alchemy, cosmology, astonomy. Other practices of mysticism "spell casting" lol... is not mystical either, its more like writing a math formula. And believes that all souls are divine, and is not subject to only one understanding or teaching.
Those gnostics who believe in deities hold them to be flawed lesser gods as well.
I trust you will be able to shorten this up for me.
Yo uknow I have had some great discussions with aetheists,
If you get away from the ones that just argue and want to prove a point many of them are searching for answers
and people are not giving clear answers just biblical language that often means very little to them.
I think there is a need to clarify language and make it simple without patronising.
You may be right of course, but I can imagine a few here having trouble fitting it in with their beliefs!
I am not sure it matters to those who believe. The Taliban still live on a flat planet because of their religious beliefs, and some religionists still live on a 6 million year old planet. So far indoctrination is doing better than education it seems.
But Muslims, Islam and Qur'an are totally against it. Look at the following verse of Qur'an.
The Holy Qur'an says in Surah Naziat, Ch. No. 79, Verse No. 30…. It says. ‘And thereafter, We have made the earth egg-shaped’.
The Arabic word ‘Dahaha’ comes from root word ‘Duhya’, meaning an Egg-shape and it does not refer to any normal Egg. It specifically refers to the Egg of an Ostrich - and today we know that the world is not completely round like a ball- It is Geo Spherical. It is slightly flattened from the top and bulging from the centre - It is Geo Spherical. And if you analyze the shape of the Egg of an Ostrich - it too is Geo Spherical, slightly flattened from the top and bulging from the centre. So the Holy Qur'an describes the exact ‘geo spherical earth’ 1400 years ago.
There is no fact of established science which is against Qur'an. This very fact which your scientists discovered today was already mentioned in Qur'an 1400 years ago by ONE and ONLY the GREATEST-ALLAH
The same sort of babble has been around since the dynasties of Egypt, you believe because you are too afraid of your psychotic god not to believe.
OK, we seem to be strolling randomly again.
The current question under discussion is this:
As we have all agreed that there is insufficient scientific evidence to conclusively prove the existence or non-existence of a deity, and in fact by definition a supernatural deity could evade scientific proof, and by definition science cannot prove a negative, then we all agree that anyone who takes a firm position as a theist OR as an atheist has made a "leap of faith" for some reason other than purely considering the scientific evidence.
Those people who HAVE taken one or other of these positions, why did you do that?
If you took the leap to theism, it is true that life was boring before you did, or if you took the leap to atheism, is it true that your life is boring now?
Sandy, I don't know that this group is attuned enough to the nuances to properly debate gnosticism vs agnosticism. Maybe start a new thread for that?
adj 1: of or relating to Gnosticism; "Gnostic writings"
2: possessing intellectual or esoteric knowledge of spiritual
things [ant: agnostic]
n : an advocate of gnosticism
Gnostic \Gnos"tic\, n. [L. gnosticus, Gr. ? good at knowing,
sagacious; as a n., man that claims to have a deeper wisdom,
fr. gignw`skein to know: cf. F. gnostique. See Know.]
One of the so-called philosophers in the first ages of
Christianity, who claimed a true philosophical interpretation
of the Christian religion. Their system combined Oriental
theology and Greek philosophy with the doctrines of
Christianity. They held that all natures, intelligible,
intellectual, and material, are derived from the Deity by
successive emanations, which they called Eons.
n : a person who doubts truth of religion [syn: doubter]
An agnostic believes there is a higher being of some kind, but doesn't believe the religious doctrines that attempt to explain it and/or describe it. In fact, it is because this being is so advanced it is thought beyond human comprehension and religion attempts to simplify the complex. But because they all claim to be the "accurate" or "right" version, for all of them to be right means all of them are wrong and if all of them are wrong then none of them are right.
THAT is agnostic. Have fun debating a definition; as an atheist can not argue the theists point of view - because they will never be in a position to argue from that position - and vice versa and everything in between. A white man can not argue race and the perspectives and/or points of view of a black man becuase he will never be in the position to understand what the world is like as a black man (relevant American political argument). And vice versa.
I stumbled on this thread out of total curiosity as to how the sides would be argued and I have to say my expectations were the total opposite of what's going on. The most open person in this whole discussion is the evangelical preacher who has explicitly said it is not his position to judge but to present his beliefs and allow people to learn. The atheist argument started with assumptions and belittling from the get-go. And I'm really surprised that everyone immediately dismissed the one Muslim perspective. The only one who has really offered consistent theistic comments that were of a religion other than Christianity - which people repeated asked "where are the eastern religions on this issue?" Probably scared off by the automatic belittling of Islam as crazy. Both sides did this. And I'm new so this has nothing to do with any previous threads. In this thread, knowing nothing about anyone I saw absolute judgment and dismissal. From what I saw ( and I read everything straight through without pausing to get involved until now) he responded with his Biblical commentary and said MANY times that he does not prescribe to the violent extremism that is sometimes associated with Muslims. Interesting how it's assumed no one here is violent extremist right-wing Christian conservatives, but a Muslim interjects and it's automatic??? I think that's sad.
What an atrocious load of garbage. Clearly you did not read any of this thread and do not know what "agnostic" means because they certainly do not "believe there is a higher being of some kind."
Yes - another 4LOL statement (copyright ERic Graudins)
How very sad.
Clearly I have no clue what I'm talking about...
That's the definition copy and pasted from Webster's Diction and the Collaborative International Dictionary of English.
Agnostic is not atheist. Agnostics doubt the religion, Atheists don't believe in the god.
So - that is the same as "believing there is a higher being of some kind"
Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove and hence unknowable.
Which is a little different to "beleieving there is a higher being of some kind."
That was put forth as personal opinion: that an agnostic does not necessarily believe there is no God, they don't believe in religious doctrine. Agnostic is an antonym to Gnostic; Gnostic is the philosophical interpretation of Christianity that all natures, intelligible,intellectual, and material, are derived from the Deity; that religion can be supported by human knowledge. Agnostics don't believe that whether or not there is a Deity is not known through human knowledge - believing we don't have evidence to support religion. The existence of God is not the emphasis; the arguments that support it as fact is what the point is.
Now you are rambling.
Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual beings, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove and hence unknowable.
What arguments support the "fact" that there is a god?
At this point, I'm not arguing you. We're not really saying different things. I don't think there are "facts" or empirical evidence that supports the Christian doctrine; I believe that religion by definition can not be proven. That's why it's a faith, because it is an unwavering belief in a doctrine without hard evidence to support it. Religion has become something that makes it impossible to back up with facts.
I was pointing out that Atheist and Agnostic are not the same thing. I'm not saying Gnositc is right, just what the definition is.
OK - but agnostics do not "believe there is a higher being of some kind." They are of the opinion that this is unknowable.
I, on the other hand, have come to the conclusion that there is not. Having said that - I will happily change my tune if anyone can prove other wise. But for now, I am happy with the 100% lack of evidence as proof against.
So, Mark, is your life boring ... ?
Having dealt with "irrational" (both theism and atheism have problems under strict rationality) and "illogical" (you can torture logic through the selection of assumptions into justifying anything), we really only have "boring" left to go ... as an atheist, pray please provide us with a data point ...
Well - some times. Working online is certainly pretty boring sometimes - which is why I find myself here a little too much.
But that has more to do with my need to earn a living than my lack of belief in a deity I think.
I guess I could just forget about that and trust god will provide instead. That could be more exciting...............
People through out my life, who believed in religion, were of the opinion that believing in a higher power but not religion fits best with "agnostic". Hey, I could be wrong; but I don't necessarily identify as an atheist. I'm totally open to evidence that proves a religion as the authority on everything, but there isn't. There is substantial evidence supporting Evolution and the historical inadequacies of the NT and OT interpretations - the Dead Sea Scrolls being a huge one. But I also don't think that I can say there is no proof of a higher being because science makes discovers daily that change everything. I think it's notable that a huge percentage of scientists believe in a greater being/design because of scientific research.
I digress; I'm not arguing religious beliefs one way or the other, just semantics. That said, if there is a term that better fits the rejection of religion but includes the belief in a higher being/advanced being I would love to know. ?
Deism sees universe like a wound up clock left by God to tick by itself without constant divine intervention thingy.
William Miller was a deist before he became a christian. Who was William Miller you ask? He is very important in Adventist heritage.
From this site:
Upon the outbreak of the War of 1812, Miller raised a company of local men and travelled to Burlington, VT. He transferred to the 30th Infantry Regiment in the regular army of the United States with the rank of lieutenant. Miller spent most of the war working as a recruiter and on February 1, 1814, he was promoted to captain. He saw his first action at the Battle of Plattsburg, where vastly outnumbered American forces overcame the British. Miller came to view the outcome of this battle as miraculous and therefore at odds with his deistic view of a distant God far-removed from human affairs. He later wrote, "It seemed to me that the Supreme Being must have watched over the interests of this country in an especial manner, and delivered us from the hands of our enemies....So surprising a result, against such odds, did seem to me like the work of a mightier power than man." (Memoirs of William Miller, Sylvester Bliss, p. 52-53).
After the war, and following his discharge from the army on June 18, 1815, Miller returned to Poultney. Shortly after his return however, he moved with his family back to Low Hampton. Throughout this time period Miller was deeply concerned with the question of death and an afterlifeneither of which he was comfortable with.
Soon after his return to Low Hampton, Miller took tentative steps towards regaining his Baptist faith. At first he attempted to combine both, publicly espousing Deism while simultaneously attending his local Baptist church. His attendance turned to participation when he was asked to read the day's sermon during one of the local minister's frequent absences. His participation changed to commitment one Sunday when he was reading a sermon on the duties of parents and became choked with emotion. Miller records the experience: "Suddenly the character of a Savior was vividly impressed upon my mind. It seemed that there might be a Being so good and compassionate as to Himself atone for our transgressions, and thereby save us from suffering the penalty of sin. I immediately felt how lovely such a Being must be; and imagined that I could cast myself into the arms of, and trust in the mercy of, such an One." (Apology and Defence, William Miller, 5).
You know, I had your back about you not being patronizing and saying "gee, an Evangelical minister who is at least pretending not to be earnest in trying not to shove their beliefs down my throat" and "maybe they ARE open to site empirical facts as an addition to their preaching/lecturing" but you managed to lose ALL credibility. Congratulations.
William Miller could have believed in Leprauchans and Unicorns for all I care, that has nothing to do with deism other than as speculation on an OPINION cited as relevant facts. That is not a fact, nor is it even unique. I've already heard the anecdote about the guy who happened apon a Church and was moved by a sermon in a time of extreme emotional duress. I have a degree in Psychology and the only thing that tale is indicative of is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - a common issue during COMBAT. And guess what? There are ministers, and priests, and scientists, and empirical evidence that all explicitly say duress needs treatment not encouragement to get lost in this very serious issue.
Congratulations, you have convinced me that your basis for everything is Psychological Trauma.
And this helps support the argument that religion can be based on crazy predictions:
"This Date in History: Great Disappointment & William Miller
Saturday October 22, 2005
October 22, 1844: The "Great Disappointment" occurred when the return of Christ, predicted by William Miller, failed to happen once again. At least 100,000 disillusioned followers returned to their former churches or abandoned Christianity completely - but many went on establish what would become known as the Adventist Churches. "
From your source. http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/10/22/t … miller.htm
Truth is I was simply saying one of our founders started out as a deist. Not arguing one way or the other. Miller was wrong in his predictions.
I jumped at the opportunity to share that a deist went on to be part of out heritage. Miller made the mistake of making time specific predictions. But the story explains the difference between deism and theism.
His is a famous case. Read his story and you learn he had many deist friends. Evidently deism was in vogue during the middle of the 19th century. This is not about your psychology degree. History. He was a deist. Had deist friends. And i simply appended the dramatic story of his conversion.
See the story as an example of famous deist who became a theist. thats all. I know about it because thats how I learned the word deism back in the days. So when Jenny corrected you I knew right away jenny was right because I learned about deism because of William Miller.
Just reinforcing jenny's point, and sharing something from Christian history. yes. I'm an evangelist so my reference will include stories from christian history. Notice it happened at a Baptist church and I'm not a Baptist so I am sticking with history.
Oh my. let me try again.
Yes that is deism and our church heritage has the history of a famous deist by the name of William Miller who had a dramatic conversion.
Deism basically believes in a superior being but believes that God wound up the universe like a clock and left it to tick by itself. Something like that. So no need to call on god for day to day existence.
No illustration of his dramatic conversion now.
No reference to his emotional trauma when he gave up his deism and returned to his Christian roots.
Honestly, I'm not going to lie. I thought it was a good conversion story.
For sometimes we have to be broken to make great decisions for God, queen, and country.
Great books and poems usually come out of people in great stress.
But I'm always one to revise and come again to keep the forum calm. We have enough wars in the offline world.
You referenced him as an example of a religion's conception based on the prophecies of a man who was considered a disappointment as a prophet (his predictions were failures) yet there is a following devouted to his teachings. You just backed up the argument that Christian prophets have been wrong. That was a terrible conversion story!! No offense to your personal taste but that was awful! You literaly lost my support for your belief being valid as a belief.
Great things come from great stress, not going to argue. Some of the best, most infamous art is the product of men who had severe mental illness. But that doesn't mean the voices they heard were real. Edgar Allen Poe is one of the Greatest American Writers, but that doesn't mean we should read "the Raven" as the talking snake.
Dramatic conversion story because of 2 things: 1. i referenced it as an example of a deist who transitioned to theism.
2.beginning of his search for answers about second coming.
That search led him to start the movement which evolved into adventism. The Great Disappointment was not Miller. The Great disappointment describes the disappointment of his followers who expected christ to return in 1844. He had the right attitude to prophecy, but he made wrong conclusions about second coming when jesus hiself taught that no one knows day or hour.
After two wrong predictions, which he had no right to make, since bible does not teach man will know day or hour; his group broke into many factions. Most drifted back to their origins. A few continued to pray and study, and arrived at the insight that 1844 did not represent the coming of Christ to earth but something special in the divine realm. The preparation for the judgement hour as it were.
This group was blessed with a prophet by the name of ellen G White who guided them in their studies and the establishment of Seventh-day Adventist Church. Kept the jewish sabbath as memorial of creation, and adventist because main focus was preparing world for coming (advent) of Christ. focus a lot on sola scriptura, health reform, diet, education, family etc. Idea is to strip protestantism of all that is unbiblical and carry forward the protestant reforms.
I think you may be right.
n : the form of theological rationalism that believes in God on
the basis of reason without reference to revelation [syn:
The last time I visited a casino, I won 5 super jackpots on 5 consecutive pulls of the handle. (nearly impossible mathematically). There was no evidence that I had done anything illegal to increase my odds. The casino owner, having a 100% lack of evidence of my guilt happily paid me my winnings and simply chalked it up to luck.
"nearly impossible mathematically" is the evidence you cheated. But like you said it's "nearly" impossible. Word usage is important, that's all I'm getting at...
You need to refresh your knowledge of statistics, if any. Any exact combination of five consecutive pulls is "nearly impossible"
Yes........ and....... finish your thought.
Math is not my thing, but I learned in Quantitative Research studies that statistics can be used to prove or disprove anything.
Honestly, I'm here as an educational endeavor; not to argue my perspective as accurate but really to form one. As a non-math, non-religious perspective "nearly impossible" still leaves room for information - for my understanding, NOT to debate any one else's.
(for the record, I saw "Casino" so I do know those odds are almost impossible).
The probability of something happening, AFTER it has happened, is 100%.
You can only say something is unlikely BEFORE it happens.
AFTER it happens, it is not unlikely, it is 100% likely.
Probability works in one direction only - an error made by many people, and exploited by many conmen, the world over.
If you toss a fair coin 100 times, and it comes up heads every time, then on the 101th toss it is still a 50/50 chance. The previous 100 throws mean nothing.
Before you did the 100 tosses, the chances of 101 heads in a row were one in 2 to the power of 101 - ie, very small.
After the first 100 tosses, the chances of 101 heads in a row was 50%. Not unlikely at all.
Because the past doesn't matter to probabilities.
You have misunderstood. It wasn't a lesson in probability.
But isn't this about current/future chances of there being a God as opposed to the likelihood that the past was correctly portrayed in the Bible?
Thirteen billion years ago, the future existence of Mark Knowles was much more unlikely than the 5 consecutive jackpots, yet Mark Knowles does exist. There is no evidence that a supreme being designed Mark Knowles, but no other explanation works to overcome these odds. Proof of God? Not even close. The more likely scenario than a random series of events producing Mark Knowles against astronomical odds. Yes by an incredible margin.
You cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Likewise you cannot prove or disprove the existence of Mark Knowles, but saying for certain that Mark does not exist because you cannot offer 100% proof of it would be a little silly wouldn't it?
I would accept 0.0000000000000001% proof of the existence of god.
Can you offer that?
No, but you accept less than that as proof of his non-existence. You have stated that you are 100% sure of his non-existence.
I think the agnostic point of view is more logical. We don't know; and the lack of evidence is reason to remain skeptical; not certain.
Ron, that point has already been won in this thread.
The atheists have admitted that it not possible to prove a negative, and that therefore a 100% belief in the absence of a God requires a leap beyond what science can establish.
Mark has taken such a leap, and is comfortable with it.
He has explained his reasons for doing so.
We are now discussing whether having taken that leap, life becomes boring (which was Ender's original assertion).
The theists have admitted that it is not possible to prove the existence of a deity, either, and that they are making a leap of faith beyond what science can establish.
There is an open invitation to theists of all stripes to explain why they feel that leap was worth it, and whether their life was boring before they made it and more interesting after.
No takers to share on the theist side, yet.
Mark has posted differently. He has stated that he has a 100% belief in the non-existence of God or any other supreme being which is scientifically based. (being a rational articulate adult, I think he can defend his own statements).
It is unfortunate that you do not enjoy our current discussion, many of us are learning something. Your participation, or not, is up to you.
Ron, you are clearly a latecomer to this thread, and can be forgiven for not having read the first 20 pages, where the ground rules were set.
In short, I am the elected moderator, and my job is to keep the thread on topic.
The topic is whether atheism is irrational, illogical and/or boring.
There is a separate thread where points agreed by both sides were noted as they were agreed - you should read up on that if you want to keep participating in this thread.
My participation is, fortunately or unfortunately, required until such time as Ender, who started the game, declares it is over - or until the tread goes quiet, which I thought it had, actually.
We have dealt with irrational (yes, absolute atheism is irrational - so is theism), and we have dealt with logic at tiresome and painful length, the final conclusion being that the logical deduction is only as good as its premises or assumptions, and the two sides were never going to agree on those. So both can be justified logically, and both can be dismissed logically.
Having dealt with rationality and logic, we have now moved on to "boring" - an issue that seems not to attract anywhere near as much interest as the various digressions that people keep making.
It has always been like herding cats, but if Ender doesn't come back soon I am going to be tempted to let the little buggers scratch the sofa and pee behind it unmolested, because I am getting a little bored ...
However, for now, Ron, I am sticking to my duty. Just call me Horton.
Bored? Why don't you run with that?
Your second response was very puzzling to me, so I did go back some pages to see what might have prompted it. I did join late in the discussion, but because Mark's posts (which I was responding to) were a description of his rationale for atheism, the topic certainly seemed to be current.
If boredom is going to be the only topic discussed, you can probably take the weekend off.
You can probably get most of it by reading Ender's original post, and then the summary thread - which I have bumped up again by adding an update.
Evolution has been ruled off-topic, since there are plenty of theists who believe in it. There was a solid try to get prophecy up, but that floundered on formulating propositions. Some Christians left when other Christians agreed to treat the Bible as a historical document with equal weight to others of similar vintage.
Actually, no, this is an example of the false reasoning which conmen use to dupe their marks by side bets in casinos.
It is not 13 billion years ago - it is now. And now, the chances of Mark Knowles existing are 100%.
If you went back 13 billion years, and ran the Universe over again, and events really were random, then after 13 billion years you probably wouldn't have a Mark Knowles. You would have something else.
That something else was just as unlikely as Mark Knowles before the 13 billion year experiment, and once it exists its probability will also be 100%.
You see, chains of random events have outcomes. Any one outcome is breathtakingly unlikely. But you will always have AN outcome of some kind. Before it happens, your chances of predicting the outcome that actually happens are miniscule. But afterward, your chances are 100%.
I will refrain from editorial comment about mounting this argument just after it has been pre-emptively demonstrated to be flawed, because I just realised I am supposed to be keeping this thread on a different topic as moderator.
Please take spurious reverse probability arguments to another thread so I can express myself in less than reasoned tones ...
You've missed the points badly, but I did enjoy your post. How can you possibly have an outcome of a chain of events that never begins? A supreme being could have done what you describe as having a miniscule chance of predicting. The existence of Mark Knowles as an example was not the important point it was one scenario. The existence of anything at all is what is so improbable without a creator.
I'll give you a Mulligan on your rude comment which ended your otherwise fine but off point post.
By the way, some Mormons knocked on my door yesterday. I had just emptied my bladder moments earlier, so I was left defenseless against their unprovoked attack.
Boring? How could something which explains and defines the great questions of life be boring. Unfortunately part of the excitement includes religious wars and mudslinging matches on this forum.
Seriously, it depends on the perspective. I mean do you enjoy camps, picnics, rallies, conventions, socials, concerts, crusades, church programmes, workshops, seminars, outings, marriage, funerals (cant leave that out), sports day, family, service to mankind, ...
It does get boring if all you want to do is eat potato chips and watch tv.
Ender's assertion was that ATHEISM is boring, glendoncaba.
Atheists usually get to weddings and funerals, but skip most of the rest of those events you mentioned. At least the church-organised ones. Plenty do service to mankind in various ways.
They do, however, watch football games on Sundays, we hear ...
Have you ever been an atheist yourself, glendoncaba? Was it boring?
Or have you always been a theist?
Like my hero Martin Luther I too have had my dark night of the soul...
Always been theist.
There are no atheists in Jamaica. As in there are no atheists on a battlefield. Too many bullets flying around. Friend of mine ex-husband was murdered two nights ago.
ZOMG, you are just really telling it like it is! Wanna know why atheist aren't on a battlefield? ZOMG ROTFLMAO!
Here are a few battlefield atheists. http://www.maaf.info/expaif.html
I'm sure you guys can take a joke. Of course there are atheists in Jamaica. We have at least five universities. And enough freemasons to spread secularism.
And I thought i was getting boring.
Heres another one. All the atheists in Jamaica become rastafari, you dont have to go to church, and you get high all weekend on the best weed in the world.
Please dont send me links for best ganja. We already grow it in Jamaica.
You missed the joke but the link was a sobering read.
Sad joke really. Living in Jamaica just when you feel safe someone you know gets murdered. Tragic. Guns and gangs and drugs have messed up the island paradise.
I know many people who are atheists, and well, they seem to get angry or depressed a lot. Could atheism be part of it? I believe so. People who believe in God seem to have a firm grasp on life and know where they are going and what to do to get there. I believe that Theism basically just is better for people in general.
And there are sound psychological theories to support your belief. Victor Frankl was a leading proponent of the belief that we have a "need" for faith. From Webspace: If meaning is what we desire, then meaninglessness is a hole, an emptiness, in our lives.....Frankl suggests that one of the most conspicuous signs of existential vacuum in our society is boredom. He points out how often people, when they finally have the time to do what they want, don’t seem to want to do anything! People go into a tailspin when they retire; students get drunk every weekend; we submerge ourselves in passive entertainment every evening. The "Sunday neurosis," he calls it. .. http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/frankl.html
There will be a temptation, mostly to atheists, to disregard Deism as the keystone of his viepoint. A quick study of his work will demonstrate that this is not the case.
Carl Jung proposes a pre-disposition to religiosity as well.
I don't believe that, though without statistical data, it's not provable. "Believers" of the evangelical kind tend to rest their morals and responsibilities on being told something and believing it. I'm wondering if there is more complacency in those satisfied believers and not self-motivated betterment. If you rest your life on being saved by something, then you are not going to strive to be the best you can. It is usually this striving for individual improvement that makes a person less boring, more awake and willful. Hence people who don't rest their laurels on others, tend to be exciting, more alert, more educated in the use of rational thinking. Of course this is a generalization, because until you crunch numbers it's a sweeping statement that believers don't get as angry or depressed.
Another sweeping statement would be that sexual repression is of grave concern to the community, with the growing number of sex offenders emanating from within the church.
Hey Jewels, we should totally team up. I am doing a short series on sexual repression for the 30day 30 hub challenge. We could totally link up.
Of course if you are not busy. Lemme know.
Maybe we should ammend the title of the thread so that it reads: Atheism is irrational, illogical and boring, but may keep you from buggering choir boys.
Beyond the buggering of choir boys. I am wondering about boredom and it's ties to purpose, and whether purpose has been manufactured (or not) to be directly linked to this higher power, or God?
If the goal of a thiest is to attain a seat next to God, then that is the dangled carrot that drives a person to achieve (something), yes/no?
What then is the driving force of an atheist?
Why is boredom in the debate? (am not arguing that it should not be).
It is included in the title of the thread and apparently the first two points have been settled with the results being posted on a seperate summary thread.
This is where it was left before cup cakes took over.
I wondered what Ender's initial reference to boredom was about. Is he suggesting that if your purpose in life is not to get a seat next to God, why bother and so life must be boring?
Is he suggesting that an atheist, because he does not adore a personal God, would be bored with life?
Is he suggesting that Purpose and a God is one and the same thing, and because an atheist doesn't believe in a God, his/her life is likely to be boring?
Interesting claim, spidergirl364.
Can you cite a source for the statistic that atheists are more likely to be angry and depressed than theists?
In this thread, people introducing material as facts for discussion need to provide supporting evidence.
I think you must be moving in the wrong circles. I find people to be at about the same level of contentment no matter what their beliefs.
I plan to play football in heaven for all the football I'm missing here.
I am the product of a skillful baker.
I just happened.
It never just happens Ron... I time my coffee breaks to suit your cupcakes, and if the muffins are Blueberry then I'm in for the Muffins.
what good is a muffin if it is not topped with icing? Can I get a made to order muffin with icing please.
I'm moving to the States to get closer to the cupcakes. Ron has the best, most appropriate cupcakes on the web. He is indeed "The Cupcake King" How he goes with the Muffins we will need to see.
Is that evidence of an inherent boredom in atheism?
No, downtime from my unbelievable fulfilled life that also includes muffins with icing.
On the other hand, as you can see my life is boring as hell without cupcakes.
And I am still trying to get one! Where's mine.
Blondepoet appears to be done with me for the evening and fierycj isn't taking my calls so I guess I can come over to do some baking.
My son was a chorister at a large church in our city for 5 years. Most of the kids in the choir new every Joke about priests and ministers you could imagine. When one particular Archbishop came to the church the kids stayed well away from him and jeered. They had seen him on TV defending the indefensible.
Wow! You guys got yelled at. Why is this thread put on such a pedastal? Jeez Louise. ( no offense to Christians or anyone named Louise.)
Sorry Ron, I will try to behave, but I lose it when the cupcakes have a lot of icing like this one has.
Miller is not recognised as a prophet at all. And he was not really a founder of the church. His follower went on to found the church after more studies.
He never settled for the ordinary. Quite a dramatic man. In war and peace. So he over reached himself but it makes for a great story. Not submitted at all as what represents a religion.
Just a deist who converted and went on to make history. Infamous yet noble.
He is highly respected as one who stimulated a return to prophetic studies.
The middle of the 19th century had the historic Second Great Advent Awakening which had a great impact on Christian history. Several churches sprang up from those who survived the disappointment. Some have learned form Miller's mistakes.
No one not even the enemies of Adventism regard him as a prophet.
He has no followers now. But his seminal work, despite his errors, laid the groundwork for calmer minds to do more studies of the prophecies.
My church does not make predictions of time. We simply preach the bible prophecies.
And you don't see the problem... Despite numerous errors throughout the Bible, erroneous assumption and falty claims, christianity still continues to preach you have the truth while admitting over and over again how your very own book of truth has errors and the followers of it also error but ye yourself and they were just clearly wrong.
Saul was a zealous man who erroneously persecuted christians until he saw the error of his ways.
Christian church erroneously killed so called heretics until reformation and law and enlightenment changed that.
Miller correctly interpreted the timing, he incorrectly interpreted the location of the event. The prophecy was referring to the sanctuary in heaven. His error was in the location. Daniels prophecy 2300 days. Revelation points to temple in heaven. This is not thread for prophecy.
Meaning thats enough prophecy for now. For more i would need a new thread.
You cant discuss religion without passing mention of prophecy.
And sex, and football, and apple, and the Third Eye, and sex again, its that time of the night. And her lingerie is quite sensuous.
My lady is happy when i bring something up at this time of the night.
Unusually naughty mood. Drunk on lack of sleep.
Yawn and burp (just finished the last of the "stars n bars cupcakes.
The Seventh day adventist church in my country are famous for making quality breakfast cereal that is healthy, and for their amazing food! My wife and I spent a week in their luxury recreational health center and the food was not only healthy it tasted wonderful too! We did not get preached to even once.
Thank you ernest. This is refreshing. so you understand why even the comic relief pastry in this thread i could spend a week saying hey guys eat some apple or banana instead, healthier.
for fun i did two light hubs (no pun intended) on my wife's diet that she wont stick to nowadays.
The health reform thing was part of the emphasis of the founders.
I had promised a story on Dr Kellogg the corn flakes man if you and mark behaved.
I wont speak for Mark, but it is unlikely I will behave. Not my nature!
Agnostics and Christians, together on one buffet!!
this still here going on? Been like a month or something.
Yep, still going. An interesting tidbit every once in a while but mostly glendoncaba preaching, which I skip over because it's almost as boring as going to a real church.
Wrong, been away from here for about a week. Or more.
Because its really a non-debate after it became sterile, but congrats to jenny for making something of it and getting us to behave. We should all give jenny a prize or something.
Only been back since Saturday afternoon. And mostly chatting to pass the time when I should be doing hub challenge.
I'm reading the hub challenge thread and i cant seem to figure out if there is an official way to register. But I'll find out soon.
Funny how when we start looking for things we can agree on, the temperature drops and those who love an exchange of insults drift away.
Now that atheists, theists and agnostics are quietly asking one another respectful questions about their admittedly-valid-yet-different choices in worldview, the level of interest has dropped right off.
We are all so addicted to proving others wrong that we find it hard to converse when that is not an option.
Sad, really, since we can all gain so much from sharing one another's deepest truths with respect and good will.
How much easier, and less fulfilling, to just slope off to another thread where insults and self-righteousness are still the order of the day ...
At church i tell a lot of stories in my sermons that I am not allowed to tell here. The summer is hot and most churches are not airconditioned so you have to keep them awake
keep it real and enthusiastic
Yep it has stayed a while, not too unusual, as the title was pretty inflammatory.
Sorry about the crime rate, but still a magnificent place to live.
It truly is.
Grass greener on yankee side as well as UK so the Jamaican population overseas same as in Jamaica.
My wife loves it here. We travel overseas a lot on business and she still convinced Jamaica is best, crime and all. I would love to retire in say Canada, or hear this, when I've made a lot of $$$ on hub pages, Switzerland
I'm fed up with the crime. But trying to help in my own little corner. I try to reach out to under-privileged in my own personal way.
Church has projects but can do more. Need to get out of the four walls more often.
Wow, the topic creator actually trolled you all into a war.
But anyway, I don't think atheism is irrational, illogical and boring. Maybe you should change the title to a question rather than a statement. You are justifying the opinions of athiests for a thiest like you. And you should really know that this argument is never going to end. First, both parties have their own views to religion. They either believe it or do not believe it. These judgements are firm and never changing. It's a belief, not a truth. If these two parties go into an argument, things are never going to work out because they both believe in different things. Similarly, one cannot rule out the existence of God by using the illogical statements in the Bible. And the thiest party will then argue that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally (I'm sick of hearing this over and over again). So, this topic is either solely created for a failed troll's use or creator have not thought about beforehand. But that's just me.
Oh, and about the belief part. Millions of people died for their own belief in the past. This is fact to support my reasoning. (Note: People fight in wars and want to win because they are the "good" side and because they are "good" God will help them win the war. The problem is, if God even exists, God does not take sides.)
@ Randy Godwin.
Yes. Enders has no staying power, it seems. (Like me. I haven't bothered to read the previous 300 or so posts)
I was hoping that he'd be able to back up his boast of shooting down Mr. Knowles.
All they are really fighting about is who has got the best imaginary friend.
My money, as always, is on the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
At least you get a good feed when you consume his body.
Bye now from your officially appointed thread jester.
True Eric, the side which wins the battle always claim God was on their side.
I knew from the first ender was blowing smoke but was willing to see if he could back up his words. No surprise at his attempts as others of his ilk are common on the internet. Oh well, there will be plenty of others to take his place I fear.
The snake- convincing ladies to eat the forbidden fruit.
I agree Panda, there is no foreseeable end to this thread, not a satisfactory one anyway. Neither side can win this argument. The old adage "two heads are better than one, even if one of them is a goat head" doesn't seem to apply here.
In fact, there was a satisfactory outcome ages ago when it was clearly demonstrated that Rationalism is the only position that can be supported by reason (which is not surprising). The problem is that most theists insist that their subjective knowledge is better than reason, while the atheists are very unwilling to admit that reason does not support their absolute stance. We are seeing the primitives slugging it out while the evolved humans walk away to do other things.
Two words. Epic win. Nothing more needed to say.
Why didn't I think of that?
It was enjoyable being a part of this discussion even if Enders was absent for most of it. Thanks Jenny for keeping it together.
"Rationalism is the only position that can be supported by reason"? Don't you see a problem with that?
Second, subjective knowledge involves reasoning. Even if the reasoning leads to wrong conclusions, it's still reasoning.
Furthermore if God is not the Ground of all Being, then all knowledge is subjective. Scientific knowledge is reduced to agreement and agreement is subjective. But, if God is the Ground of all Being, then the revelation from Him is objective, even if my individual experience of knowing Him is subjective.
And finally, for being the guy walking away to do other things, you don't appear to be doing it quickly. Speed it up a bit; set a good example for the primitives.....
I assume you are not addressing me. Paraglider made the "walking away" statement. I have no problem disagreeing with your logic though. "The Ground of all Being?" Sounds like a hamburger using many meats>
Yes, the "Ground of all Being"--you won't be grilling it on the Bar-B this weekend, but some people will try anything so, knock yourself out....
Were you here from the start?
By 'reason' I believe the thread is referring to the strict tenets of rationalism. Faith by definition is not limited by limited human reasoning, therefore as a theists me must admit that theism goes beyond rational which is limited to the world of science and leaps into the realm of the supernatural which does not always obey human logic.
On a few occasions I sought to introduce the christian idea of reasonable faith supported by prophecy, archaeology, and personal experience. We have to admit that in the light of scientific theories there is the need for a leap of faith. The discussion was not limited to the Christian religion. Its a long read but go have a look and share your views, preferably in a new thread.
I suggest you begin a new thread with title like:
FAITH AND REASON IN THE AGE OF SCIENCE
EPISTOMOLOGY FOR THE BELIEVER
THE LIMITS OF RATIONALISM IN DISCUSSING FAITH
THE SCIENTIFIC AND LOGICAL ARGUMENTS FOR THEISM
If you do I'll add my tuppence from time to time so long as participants dont spend half the time insulting and cussing.
CORRECTION OF TYPO:
third line should read "as theists we must admit".
"Faith by definition is not limited by limited human reasoning, therefore as a theists me must admit that theism goes beyond rational"
The opposite of reason is unreasonable. The opposite of rational is irrational. There is no beyond reason or rationality. There are facts and there is speculation. No facts means speculation.
There is only certainty through facts or uncertainty due to lack of facts.
Faith makes people believe they are certain when they can't be. And yes, that's unreasonable/ irrational thinking.
Again, people require clarification. Atheism does not hold the belief that a god does not exist, because no one can prove that any more than they can prove invisible pink squirrels don't exist. We lack the belief that theist have that their god exists.
So our position is rational. If some day someone can prove the Christian god, or any god exists I'll be happy to accept that. Unfortunately, like invisible pink squirrels, no one seems to be able to prove it's existence yet.
But by all means, keep trying.
The problem is that you've already been trolled by topic creator anyway. Which is unbelievable regarding the type of trolling he was using.
I haven't bothered to read all the posts, so I don't know if he responded or not. If he responded quite well, then he might not be a troll. But the fact if he is a troll does not matter, because I'm going off-topic. So forget about these 2 paragraphs.
Yes, this is not going to end and I don't see any party going to win this debate at all. So let's just call it to an end. Again, that's just my opinion.
Edit: From the above post, I am 99% sure that topic creator is a failed troll.
Edit: If topic creator wants a debate, you really need to change title from statement to question.
Well, let's put it to the test.
Ender, if you are still around, and you want to keep this thread going, turn up and make some intelligent contribution.
I'll give it a few days, and if we haven't heard from Ender, I'll call it "game over".
And Mark - the things we agreed are recorded in the summary thread for your reading convenience.
Once the theists agreed that the Bible would be treated like any other historical document, many of the Christians left the field. glendoncaba shot up dramatically in my estimation by being able to go on with a genuinely ecumenical discussion, but most of the others just left.
You missed the plot man. The game went into extra time and still ended 0-0. Fans of both teams instead of beating each other over the heads with broken bottles are choosing to have a drink (in my case juice) in the stadium bar.
Sorry to bore you. It was a lose-lose from the get go. But a profound journey in tolerance. And a very educational experience that distracted me from my hub writing. Might get another match if enders returns. Same inevitable lose-lose.
Here is an intuitive way to look at it. Rationalism will always be more convincing and impressive in print, and in moments of sober reflection. So Side A rejects faith even when reason leaves us with more questions than answers. Reason and the Humanist Project has promised and delivered a degree of progress and prosperity but has been humbled by the forces of nature and usurped by the darkest side of human nature. Ever the optimist, the humanist believes that man will endure and excel.
Faith will always be more inspiring when great deeds are required, and humanity must overcome insurmountable obstacles. Side B, at it's worst, has also killed and maimed and persecuted millions in the name of faith, yet at it's best, except for instances of miracles, can only offer preventive strategies and relief to populations that are affected by the awful cycles of natural and man-made disasters. Faith is unable to answer all the questions, but answers enough to satisfy the believer. Therefore Side B will still grab hold of faith even when some of the pillars of faith are downright irrational, because for Side B, faith, despite its cognitive gaps, tells us something better is possible in this world and the glorious world to come.
In the following link Para kinda summed it up well for you, except for that interesting last sentence. But hey its an open forum:
partial Definition of belief- Beliefs are also how we think things really are.
Which leads me to everyone that post in here or anywhere concerning proof and belief, As a believer in an intelligent designer, I have proof everyday when I look in to my children s eyes and see them starring back at me, proof when the sun sets, and when the sun rises to give us another day, to get over ourselves already.
For me the proof is in the pudding, for others, such as Ron Montgomery, it's in the cupcakes.
Seriously out of respect for what has gone on please continue in a new thread. I'll come visit in between my 30 in 30 hub challenge.
Just by the sheer volume of replies to any atheist thread... Atheism is not boring at all. Otherwise, the thread would have been dead a long time ago.
by The Minstrel 8 years ago
Why can't Atheists just admit that they have taken a step of faith?
by Mmargie1966 7 years ago
I am a Christian, and an American. I believe in the freedom to believe in anything you choose to (or not). What I don't understand is why Christianity is under attack.I don't necessarily believe in everything the "Church" teaches, but I don't bash other religions, and frankly,...
by Brittany Williams 5 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people, immoral, or mean that we are going to hell. It just means that we think the...
by Tim Mitchell 5 years ago
Does belief require something to be a known (to know) to exist? Does to know something mean there is belief (rather than simply suggest) that it exists? If there are more than a singular known existing as truths, then does a belief system exist? If a belief system truly exists then can practicing...
by M. T. Dremer 4 years ago
Theists/Atheists: Can you compliment the opposite belief system?If you're a theist, what's something positive you could say about atheists? If you're an atheist, what's something positive you could say about theists? Please no sarcastic or passive-aggressive responses.
by Angela Michelle Schultz 2 years ago
If they truly believe that there is no God, why does it matter to them that I do believe?I have written online Christian articles. Those who comment on my Christian writings are usually, 75% Christians, 25% atheists. I appreciate all the comments, but what I find interesting is how hard some of the...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|