History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedWhy believe in God?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678910>
Author
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 14:01
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

There have been groups of atheists who persecuted dissidents, it was part of their understanding of their belief. Does this mean all atheists are bad and evil?
 
Atheism in itself doesn´t encourage people to do anything. But people are people and have motivations that has nothing to do with the lack of belief in the supernatural.

Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

  Most religions don't actively encourage believer not to tolerate others, in fact most religions teachings are humanitarian, ethical and for the benefit of society. However, people hungry for power will use, abuse and distort anything for their personal power. The actions of these people and people who claim to be religious should not be confused with religion, the two are seperate.
 
Still there is something in the ideological fabric of many religions that make it easy for power hungry people to interpret it in ways that encourage different forms of opression.

Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 14:04
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

What's particularly 'western' about them?
 
The Europeans that transported slaves to the Americas and also those who owned slaves over there could be termed westerners, but if you prefer some other epithet then just go ahead.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 14:04
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Maybe I am more perplexed now than I was a few minutes ago. Not only had I previously wanted to know about how the natural sciences reject divinity, but now I also want to know what passes as acceptable criteria for the scientist.
The acceptability criterion for a scientific theory is that predictions can be made on the basis of a theory and that those predictions may measurably fail to occur. Any theory that cannot be disproven is unacceptable to scientists qua scientists (though of course like everyone else scientists in their everyday life base their behaviour on a lot of non-falsifiable beliefs, just as religious people like Akolouthos I am sure base a lot of their behaviour on purely empirical scientific grounds).
Quote
If books that mention geological, physical, chemical and behavioral facts of our world are not accepted as evidence of someone or something's field of work then aren't we short changing our research?
That a book - or any document - contains true statements is not an indication that everything in it is true. Even adverts for valueless medicines contain factual observations about symptoms.
Quote
If a witness were at the scene of a crime wouldn't the Judge want to hear what the witness had to say before prematurely dismissing his testimony?
Of course. I'm sure everyone here would be agog to listen to someone who was actually present on Calvary that Easter weekend or saw the rock rolled away before it finished. (Though of course he might be lying.) But that's a very different matter from believing what someone who wasn't writes about it.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 14:11
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

It wasn't only Christians as your phraseology indicates. The majority of the modern slave trade was carried out by Muslims, but of course the Chinese, the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians...all had their share. And of course atheists.
 
I never said it was only the christinas. Others too were involved in slave trade. About the matter if christians or muslims where most active and who traded most slaves it is still a matter of debate. There is no concensus about that.
 
There were not so many atheists around in those days as it is today.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

So there's not a grteat deal of point bringing slavery and colonialism into it, is there, since they have absolutely no correlation with varieties or religious beliefe - including atheism? 
 
Oh it has, since many slaveowners, colonialists and similar used religious arguments to defend their doings. Even in modern times proponents of apartheid in South Africa used such arguments.
 
And atheism is no religious belief, it´s just the wish to stand outside religion because a lack of belief in the supernatural.


Edited by Carcharodon - 11-Jun-2009 at 14:13
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 14:13
Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Emperor Barbarossa wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:


No it isn't, no matter how hard people like Dawkins and Hitchens try and pull that one. Atheism is the belief there are no gods (it has nothing to do with 'supernatural beings' in general, one way or the other)
 
Atheism does not imply scepticism let alone equate to scepticism. And scepticiem about the existence of gods is a specific variety of agnosticism.
 
If you don't know or are unconvinced or doubtful about the existence of gods then you're not atheist, and it would be doing everyone a favour, as well as contributibg to a sensible discussion if you didn't claim to be.
 
Otherwise you're like someone who doesn't really believe in the Trinity claiming to be Christian because it sounds good..


You're using too narrow a definition of atheism. Atheism has two categories, weak atheism and strong atheism. You are using strong atheism, the belief that there are no gods (0% chance) to apply to all of atheism. Weak atheism is the doubt in the existence of gods, but not to the uncertainty of agnosticism and not to the belief of strong atheism (it's a [0%(strong atheism)<weak atheism<50%(agnosticism)].
That's exactly what I mean by blurring the issues, and its like Dawkins' scale (1-8 was it?). If someone doesn't believe there are no gods why on earth do you want to call him an 'atheist', even if you qualify it as weak?
 
What it really is is a device whereby people without the courage of their convictions can go around fashionably claiming to be atheists, but backing down when it comes to the crunch. 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 14:16
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

What's particularly 'western' about them?
 
The Europeans that transported slaves to the Americas and also those who owned slaves over there could be termed westerners, but if you prefer some other epithet then just go ahead.
 
My question was what is particularly 'western' about slavery and colonialism. I accept 'European' as roughly equivalent to 'western', but in that case what's particularly European about slavery and colonialism?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 14:34
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

It wasn't only Christians as your phraseology indicates. The majority of the modern slave trade was carried out by Muslims, but of course the Chinese, the Greeks, the Romans, the Persians...all had their share. And of course atheists.
 
I never said it was only the christinas. Others too were involved in slave trade.
You wrote:
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

As for slavery and colonialism, it was christian cultures and christian people who were involved in those phenomena and some of them rationalized their behaviour by stating that slavery was supported by the Bible or that is was a duty to civilize and christian the "savages" in other parts of the world.
You did not write, for instance, '...there were Christians among those involved in those phenomena...' which would have been a perfectly acceptable and unchallengeably statement.
Quote
 
About the matter if christians or muslims where most active and who traded most slaves it is still a matter of debate. There is no concensus about that.
 
There were not so many atheists around in those days as it is today.
Probably not. I don't see any indication that those that were particularly avoided the slave trade.
Quote  
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

So there's not a grteat deal of point bringing slavery and colonialism into it, is there, since they have absolutely no correlation with varieties or religious beliefe - including atheism? 
 
Oh it has, since many slaveowners, colonialists and similar used religious arguments to defend their doings. Even in modern times proponents of apartheid in South Africa used such arguments.
But the point is it is not particularly associated with religion or in particular with Christianity. Where's the point of saying some Christians supported clavery, while others didn't, just as is true of most other religious and non-religious groups in human history?
 
What you seem to be doing here is trying to indicate that religion, especially Christianity, is somehow specifically or particularly connected with slavery and colonialism. And that's not a justifiably position at all.
Quote  
And atheism is no religious belief, it´s just the wish to stand outside religion because a lack of belief in the supernatural.
I'd accept that atheism is not a religious belief, but it is still a metaphysical belief system. If you want to ignore religion altogether, fine, or not believe anything in the area,  also fine, but that doesn't make you an atheist. And for that matter, believing in the supernatural doesn't makle you a theist.


Edited by gcle2003 - 11-Jun-2009 at 14:35
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Superfluous Enabler of Sekostan

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 15:12
CXI and gcle2003 sure I've read my share of research and even conducted a few motley wrecks as well. The ability to reproduce results by testing a theoretical hypothesis after gathering empirical data is not a question of mine. The validity of proof is a goal we all cherish. Let's say that a hypothesis can state: The Quran contains scientific phenomenon bearing positive predictive value. One could conduct scientific methods (logical deduction or experimental investigation), and reach a conclusion. I don't think we would have any qualms about that.

If scripture already states certain results prior to investigation and bears results proven by research what else is there to do other than test for a statsitical significance? Now I have not personally conducted such research. I would need to scour the web and Uni libraries for that. But I would not be so hasty dismissing the possibility that a scripture may contain predicitive value, is consistant under scientific scrutiny and attests that the designer of said scripture is Divine (even though we may not have any idea who the Creator is other than through self-attestation). The work of such a designer would be representative of his existence.
Copyright 2004 Seko
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 15:51
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

My question was what is particularly 'western' about slavery and colonialism. I accept 'European' as roughly equivalent to 'western', but in that case what's particularly European about slavery and colonialism? /
 
Nothing special, but I was talking about western slavery and colonialism in this particular case.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 16:07
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

You did not write, for instance, '...there were Christians among those involved in those phenomena...' which would have been a perfectly acceptable and unchallengeably statement.
 
I wrote "it was christians".... I did not wright "it was only christians"... Wasn´t that clear enough?
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Probably not. I don't see any indication that those that were particularly avoided the slave trade.
 
 
Who said they did?
 
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
But the point is it is not particularly associated with religion or in particular with Christianity. Where's the point of saying some Christians supported clavery, while others didn't, just as is true of most other religious and non-religious groups in human history?
 
 
Becuse I were discussing the case of the western slavery where most peole involved where christian in some way or another.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 What you seem to be doing here is trying to indicate that religion, especially Christianity, is somehow specifically or particularly connected with slavery and colonialism. And that's not a justifiably position at all.
 
 
It is not specifically or particularly connected with slavery and colonialism but it is connected with those phenomena.
 
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I'd accept that atheism is not a religious belief, but it is still a metaphysical belief system. If you want to ignore religion altogether, fine, or not believe anything in the area,  also fine, but that doesn't make you an atheist. And for that matter, believing in the supernatural doesn't makle you a theist.
 
One can define an atheist as someone who not belive in any God. He can ignore religion or he can be interested in religious discussions. Still he don´t adhere to any metaphysical belief. To just don´t accept things that noone has proven the existence of is not metaphysical. In that case the lack of belive in the tooth fairy is also metaphysical. Or the lack of believe in all sorts of fairy tales that people invents.
 
A God is also a supernatural being.
 


Edited by Carcharodon - 11-Jun-2009 at 16:12
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 16:10
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

CXI and gcle2003 sure I've read my share of research and even conducted a few motley wrecks as well. The ability to reproduce results by testing a theoretical hypothesis after gathering empirical data is not a question of mine. The validity of proof is a goal we all cherish. Let's say that a hypothesis can state: The Quran contains scientific phenomenon bearing positive predictive value. One could conduct scientific methods (logical deduction or experimental investigation), and reach a conclusion. I don't think we would have any qualms about that.

If scripture already states certain results prior to investigation and bears results proven by research what else is there to do other than test for a statsitical significance? Now I have not personally conducted such research. I would need to scour the web and Uni libraries for that. But I would not be so hasty dismissing the possibility that a scripture may contain predicitive value, is consistant under scientific scrutiny and attests that the designer of said scripture is Divine (even though we may not have any idea who the Creator is other than through self-attestation). The work of such a designer would be representative of his existence.
 
It seems that noone has managed to produce such eveidence yet even if some seem to have tried, especially concerning the Bible. But the results seem not to have been satisfactory enough to convince the scientific community.
 


Edited by Carcharodon - 11-Jun-2009 at 16:11
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 18:58
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

CXI and gcle2003 sure I've read my share of research and even conducted a few motley wrecks as well. The ability to reproduce results by testing a theoretical hypothesis after gathering empirical data is not a question of mine. The validity of proof is a goal we all cherish. Let's say that a hypothesis can state: The Quran contains scientific phenomenon bearing positive predictive value. One could conduct scientific methods (logical deduction or experimental investigation), and reach a conclusion. I don't think we would have any qualms about that.
The point is: how would one react to a predictive failure? The distingusihing feature between the scientific approach and the religious approach is that in the former case a hypothesis that fails a test is rejected; in the religious approach a hypothesis that fails a test (assuming it can do so) is maintained and explained away.
 
One of my favourite images is of the Zuni Indians rain dances. If the rain came it proved the dances were effective. If the rain didn't come it proved that someone had got the steps of the dance wrong.
Quote
If scripture already states certain results prior to investigation and bears results proven by research what else is there to do other than test for a statsitical significance? Now I have not personally conducted such research. I would need to scour the web and Uni libraries for that. But I would not be so hasty dismissing the possibility that a scripture may contain predicitive value, is consistant under scientific scrutiny and attests that the designer of said scripture is Divine (even though we may not have any idea who the Creator is other than through self-attestation). The work of such a designer would be representative of his existence.
It would actually be more surprising than not if the compilers of such a work as the Old Testament did not include some scientific observations that were roughly true at least in their environment.  The quarrel is rarely with the observations recorded but with the explanations given and their adequacy and/or necessity. Certainly there's no reason to suppose that the giving of an explanation that we would accept as correct is evidence of divinity at work.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 19:15
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

You did not write, for instance, '...there were Christians among those involved in those phenomena...' which would have been a perfectly acceptable and unchallengeably statement.
 
I wrote "it was christians".... I did not wright "it was only christians"... Wasn´t that clear enough?
No. Look at what you wrote again. In my comment, I referred to your phraseology.
 
If I say it was Flintoff who won the Ashes for England, it implies his was the determinative contribution. If I say it was Liverpool fans that caused the Hillsborough disaster, it doesn't mean Manchest United fans were involved as well: it implies no other fans were involved.
Quote  
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Probably not. I don't see any indication that those that were particularly avoided the slave trade.
 
 
Who said they did?
 
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
But the point is it is not particularly associated with religion or in particular with Christianity. Where's the point of saying some Christians supported clavery, while others didn't, just as is true of most other religious and non-religious groups in human history?
 
 
Becuse I were discussing the case of the western slavery where most peole involved where christian in some way or another.
 
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 What you seem to be doing here is trying to indicate that religion, especially Christianity, is somehow specifically or particularly connected with slavery and colonialism. And that's not a justifiably position at all.
 
 
It is not specifically or particularly connected with slavery and colonialism but it is connected with those phenomena.
So is being human. What's the point in saying that? You might as well say being French is connected with eating meat.
Quote  
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

I'd accept that atheism is not a religious belief, but it is still a metaphysical belief system. If you want to ignore religion altogether, fine, or not believe anything in the area,  also fine, but that doesn't make you an atheist. And for that matter, believing in the supernatural doesn't makle you a theist.
One can define an atheist as someone who not belive in any God. He can ignore religion or he can be interested in religious discussions. Still he don´t adhere to any metaphysical belief.
Believing there is no God and no gods is a metaphysical position - i.e. it cannot be disproven.
Quote
To just don´t accept things that noone has proven the existence of is not metaphysical.
It is actually. Believing in the scientific method is a metaphysical position.
Quote
In that case the lack of belive in the tooth fairy is also metaphysical. Or the lack of believe in all sorts of fairy tales that people invents.
Lack of belief in the tooth fairy implies admitting the possibility the tooth fairy exists and also the possibility the tooth fairy does not exist: you can't really call that a metaphysical attitude because it is not an attitude at all.
 
However, believing there is a tooth fairy and believing there is no tooth fairy are both metaphysical positions since they are both asserting something that cannot be disproven. (At least that's true of the standard legend of the tooth fairy: there may be variants where its non-existence can be disproven.)
Quote  
A God is also a supernatural being.
 
Granted.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Superfluous Enabler of Sekostan

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 19:21
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

CXI and gcle2003 sure I've read my share of research and even conducted a few motley wrecks as well. The ability to reproduce results by testing a theoretical hypothesis after gathering empirical data is not a question of mine. The validity of proof is a goal we all cherish. Let's say that a hypothesis can state: The Quran contains scientific phenomenon bearing positive predictive value. One could conduct scientific methods (logical deduction or experimental investigation), and reach a conclusion. I don't think we would have any qualms about that.
The point is: how would one react to a predictive failure? The distingusihing feature between the scientific approach and the religious approach is that in the former case a hypothesis that fails a test is rejected; in the religious approach a hypothesis that fails a test (assuming it can do so) is maintained and explained away.
 
One of my favourite images is of the Zuni Indians rain dances. If the rain came it proved the dances were effective. If the rain didn't come it proved that someone had got the steps of the dance wrong.
Quote
If scripture already states certain results prior to investigation and bears results proven by research what else is there to do other than test for a statsitical significance? Now I have not personally conducted such research. I would need to scour the web and Uni libraries for that. But I would not be so hasty dismissing the possibility that a scripture may contain predicitive value, is consistant under scientific scrutiny and attests that the designer of said scripture is Divine (even though we may not have any idea who the Creator is other than through self-attestation). The work of such a designer would be representative of his existence.
It would actually be more surprising than not if the compilers of such a work as the Old Testament did not include some scientific observations that were roughly true at least in their environment.  The quarrel is rarely with the observations recorded but with the explanations given and their adequacy and/or necessity. Certainly there's no reason to suppose that the giving of an explanation that we would accept as correct is evidence of divinity at work.


After establishing a basis for professional studies we can then move onto various hypothesis, data collecting and conclusions. Point of the matter is that research is doable (has been done actually) in regards to the Quran.

As with any research the theories behind it will be under scrutiny.


Copyright 2004 Seko
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Superfluous Enabler of Sekostan

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 19:28
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

CXI and gcle2003 sure I've read my share of research and even conducted a few motley wrecks as well. The ability to reproduce results by testing a theoretical hypothesis after gathering empirical data is not a question of mine. The validity of proof is a goal we all cherish. Let's say that a hypothesis can state: The Quran contains scientific phenomenon bearing positive predictive value. One could conduct scientific methods (logical deduction or experimental investigation), and reach a conclusion. I don't think we would have any qualms about that.

If scripture already states certain results prior to investigation and bears results proven by research what else is there to do other than test for a statsitical significance? Now I have not personally conducted such research. I would need to scour the web and Uni libraries for that. But I would not be so hasty dismissing the possibility that a scripture may contain predicitive value, is consistant under scientific scrutiny and attests that the designer of said scripture is Divine (even though we may not have any idea who the Creator is other than through self-attestation). The work of such a designer would be representative of his existence.
 
It seems that noone has managed to produce such eveidence yet even if some seem to have tried, especially concerning the Bible. But the results seem not to have been satisfactory enough to convince the scientific community.
 


 Take your time before you hand out generalized judgments regarding evidence. If you have specific research feel free to provide them as you wish. Even though I agree with the notion that the Old and New Testaments have questionable scientific validity in regards to certain phenomenon, I would be foolish to make a blanket statement without providing proof for my beliefs.
Copyright 2004 Seko
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 19:39
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

[ Take your time before you hand out generalized judgments regarding evidence. If you have specific research feel free to provide them as you wish. Even though I agree with the notion that the Old and New Testaments have questionable scientific validity in regards to certain phenomenon, I would be foolish to make a blanket statement without providing proof for my beliefs.
 
You are also free to show some irrefutable evidence from the Bible or other religious books of the existance of a divinity or other supernatural being.
Back to Top
Carcharodon View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 04-May-2007
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 479
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Carcharodon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 19:42

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 

But the point is it is not particularly associated with religion or in particular with Christianity. Where's the point of saying some Christians supported clavery, while others didn't, just as is true of most other religious and non-religious groups in human history?

 

 

It is one thing just to support slavery, that can anyone do, it´s another thing defending it with religious arguments. And as stated, most of the European slave traders where christians and in their ideology about slavery christianity was a part.

 

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Believing there is no God and no gods is a metaphysical position - i.e. it cannot be disproven.

 

Then all refutations of unproven statements is methaphysical.

  

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

It is actually. Believing in the scientific method is a metaphysical position.

 

If so then everything is methaphysical. If so this term have been diluted to the point of meaninglessness.

 

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 In that case the lack of belive in the tooth fairy is also metaphysical. Or the lack of believe in all sorts of fairy tales that people invents.

 

So everytime someone claimes something that noone can see or can prove, if one denys that claim one makes a metaphysical claim?

 

It seems that this discussion goes around in meaningless circles. Maybe it is better spending ones energy on more fruitful discussions.

 

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11-Jun-2009 at 20:54
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 

But the point is it is not particularly associated with religion or in particular with Christianity. Where's the point of saying some Christians supported clavery, while others didn't, just as is true of most other religious and non-religious groups in human history?

 

 

It is one thing just to support slavery, that can anyone do, it´s another thing defending it with religious arguments. And as stated, most of the European slave traders where christians and in their ideology about slavery christianity was a part.

That's only because most Europeans were Christians. Most European anything - whore, cutpurses, saints, benefactors, soldiers, merchants, tea-drikers, coffee-drinkers, wine-drinkers, goodies and baddies in general - were Christian. So of course most European slave traders were Christian. The idea there was anything wrong in principle with slavery only comes along pretty late in history.

Quote  

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Believing there is no God and no gods is a metaphysical position - i.e. it cannot be disproven.

 

Then all refutations of unproven statements is methaphysical.

Refutations no. Metaphysical statements can't be refuted: that's what makes them metaphysical statements. They can of course be denied, but denial of a metaphysical statement is itself a metyphysical position.
 
You cannot refute a religion. Or atheism come to that. Or that burgundies do better with game than clarets do, though you may think the latter to trivial to call 'metapshysical').

Quote   

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

It is actually. Believing in the scientific method is a metaphysical position.

 

If so then everything is methaphysical. If so this term have been diluted to the point of meaninglessness.

No it isn't. Metaphysical statements are statements that cannot be disproven (refuted). It's true that some people would hold that therefore metaphysical statements are meaningless, but I wouldn't go that far myself.
 
That I have an infarct in my left ventricle is for instance not a metaphysical statement because it shows up on nuclear screening (and wouldn't so show up if I didn't have one).

Quote  

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 In that case the lack of belive in the tooth fairy is also metaphysical. Or the lack of believe in all sorts of fairy tales that people invents.

 

So everytime someone claimes something that noone can see or can prove, if one denys that claim one makes a metaphysical claim?

If all you do is deny it, yes. But the issue is not whether it can be proven or not but whether it can be disproven. If you cannot disprove it, how can your denial of the statement be anything but metaphysical? Anything that can be disproven is by definition scientific, not metaphysical.

Quote  

It seems that this discussion goes around in meaningless circles. Maybe it is better spending ones energy on more fruitful discussions.

Certainly debating whether God exists or not is a pretty pointless affair. Of itself, what difference would it make to anything?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Snowy-Highlands
Status: Offline
Points: 5725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 02:32
Originally posted by EB EB wrote:


Because I am not making a negative claim. I am not saying that the higher powers do not exist, just that I have seen no sufficient evidence to believe in them. That's different than saying that they don't exist. You are saying that Allah exists, and I am asking you to prove it. You have not done so.

No I haven't, nor will I do so now. For two reasons;
1) I'm not trying to convert you.
2) I don't actually think your interested in proof.
Sure I could prove to you that God exists. I could prove it to you in the manner that I proved it to myself, but would this really change your mind? I don't think so. Its more likely you'll argue over semantics, or move the goal posts, or find an excuse to ignore the proof.
While you stand and demand proof from others I think its unlikely you'll ever find it. You'd have to go looking for it yourself.
You said eariler, "There is enough proof to fill all of the pages in the world? Then why does not Allah not actually show himself?", have you ever considered that God has in fact answered this question?

Say those without knowledge: "Why speaketh not Allah unto us? or why cometh not unto us a Sign?" So said the people before them words of similar import. Their hearts are alike. We have indeed made clear the Signs unto any people who hold firmly to Faith (in their hearts).[2:118]

I reckon its possible to have these arguments without using any of my own words, just by quoting from the Quran.
Originally posted by Carcharodon Carcharodon wrote:

You are also free to show some irrefutable evidence from the Bible or other religious books of the existance of a divinity or other supernatural being.

I'm sure you think that you could refute that the sea is wet.

Edited by Omar al Hashim - 12-Jun-2009 at 02:35
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Location: Snowy-Highlands
Status: Offline
Points: 5725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Omar al Hashim Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Jun-2009 at 02:33
Originally posted by CXI CXI wrote:

Ok, lets mathematically apply what you are proposing using a real world situation to see whether a majority of people would find it convenient to go along with atheist beliefs. As our sample case study, I will even use one of the most religiously disinclined of all nations on the planet: Australia. Australians on the census who put "no religion" amounted to 18.7% of the total. Unusually large by world standards.

This means that if we took 18.7% - 1 of the remaining 82.3% of the population and trapped them and the atheists exclusively together, then we could get 18.7% - 1 who would indeed fit your theory well. Which then leaves 63.6% + 1 of people who do not feel the way you do even in the slightest because they are all theists.

Of course in reality we know that the population mixes much more evenly than in the hypothetical above, and that atheists in virtually every facet of life are heavily outnumbered by theists. So really, whichever way you choose to look at it, the atheist perspective remains in the minority and adherence to it is almost never the convenient thing to do as you suggest.

I don't follow what your trying to do here.

But I would be very hesitant when suggesting that we can mathematically determine convenience, or the census data really reflects a nations religion, let alone who an individual mixes with.
Quote You claimed the book was religious. It certainly explores religion as a topic, but the book is not religious by its nature. It does not claim absolute truth, does not endorse any form of worship or faith, and fully leaves itself open to counter claims and alternative theories provided these can be backed up by superior empirical measure to the ones Dawkins has employed. So claiming it is "a religious book" is a total misnomer.

Your confusing the doctrine of a religion with the religion. The same can be said about most religious books written about Islam & Christianity. The Quran and the Bible are not the only religious books in Islam & Christianity. All your saying here is that the God Delusion doesn't claim to be a book of revelation.
I am claiming atheism is a faith, and the book does endorse atheism.
There is plenty of literature of which this book is a part from an atheist point of view, that teaches an atheist outlook on life, that has virtually no value whatsoever to the non-atheist except to learn what atheists believe. Empiricisim has nothing to do with the non-existance of God.
The non-existance of God is not a scientific hypothesis, referring to science is just to use peoples faith in science to justify faith in atheism. The two actually have nothing to do with each other.

Dawkins preaches atheism, and upholds atheist values, one of which is the idea that if superior proof is provided they'd change their beliefs.
Quote
Actually you did say that atheists had enforced duties. It was a point I noticed and had to specifically argue against because it is wrong.

My mistake then, I only meant to suggest that some behaviour is considered good [pious] to an atheist in the same way other behavior is considered good [pious] to a theist.
Quote
I still dispute that research funding and attractiveness of beauty products are a result of an ingrained atheist faith system as you claim. There is no cause and effect relationship between atheism and research funding and purchase of beauty products.

No thats not atheist faith, thats faith in science. They are not the same, but they are usually one way implicative.
Faith in Atheism => Faith in science; but,
Faith in science does not => Faith in atheism.

I brought up faith in science as one of the pious duties of atheism.

Mentioning science in ads works because of faith in science in the community [regardless of whether the faith is justified or unjustified]
Quote
My younger brother has a severe case of this, so I was actually pleased you brought this up. You claimed we have a 'cure' for ADHD. And that this established cure was not used, and so evidence of your claim we research because of faith based atheism. We don't have a cure, and so your claim is invalid.

Ok, I'll trust you know better than me then.
Quote I think the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan is a great example of where religion was used to motivate the people to go to war. Elites in the USA wanted the profits that would accrue from warfare and conquest, and so impressed on the people their religious identity as a means of convincing them that a religious 'other' stood as a rival to their belief system.

How this evidences your point about atheism and your claims that it is as potent a belief as theist systems are in controlling and motivating, I still can't see.

You just provided me with the example. The motivation worked equally well on atheist and christian alike. Its not like atheists showed any sort of resistance to fear from the religious 'other'.
Quote
It's been good chatting with you once again

Likewise.
"O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give the pledge to this Prophet"
~ Heraclius, Roman Emperor
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 678910>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.277 seconds.