Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Dicky Underpants on June 17, 2025, 05:43:33 PM
-
Filling in the stages of argument by which this is achieved - anyone like to try?
I know that conceding there is a necessary being in the first place is based on some pretty shaky reasoning (for me, and no doubt for quite a few others). But if the possibility could be conceded, how does one progress through all the possibilities to arrive at such a specific conclusion from all the theistic options available? I will cite just one which is the worst of all scenarios - the possibility that we are just here for the amusement of some megalomaniac tyrant who created us, without any hint of love at all. There obviously would have to be some possibility of love and beauty in the original mixture, otherwise the whole show would have long extinguished itself (it has of course been touch and go sometimes, as it seems to be right now).
Yet all the main world religions seem to have concluded that the supreme being is ultimately good, though with some remarkably different takes on what exactly 'good' is supposed to be. Far easier to sum up these matters of theodicy by dispensing with the idea of a necessary being all together. The vast panorama of evolution, filled with horror and pain, and on several occasions, near mass extinctions, are better explained by neo-Darwinian theses, than theological ideas, for me at least.
-
It makes as much sense to me as getting from ghosts to Caspar
-
Filling in the stages of argument by which this is achieved - anyone like to try?
I know that conceding there is a necessary being in the first place is based on some pretty shaky reasoning (for me, and no doubt for quite a few others). But if the possibility could be conceded, how does one progress through all the possibilities to arrive at such a specific conclusion from all the theistic options available? I will cite just one which is the worst of all scenarios - the possibility that we are just here for the amusement of some megalomaniac tyrant who created us, without any hint of love at all. There obviously would have to be some possibility of love and beauty in the original mixture, otherwise the whole show would have long extinguished itself (it has of course been touch and go sometimes, as it seems to be right now).
Yet all the main world religions seem to have concluded that the supreme being is ultimately good, though with some remarkably different takes on what exactly 'good' is supposed to be. Far easier to sum up these matters of theodicy by dispensing with the idea of a necessary being all together. The vast panorama of evolution, filled with horror and pain, and on several occasions, near mass extinctions, are better explained by neo-Darwinian theses, than theological ideas, for me at least.
Describing this as a necessary 'being' rather than a necessary 'entity' is already biased in terminology as be consider 'beings' to have certain attributes that 'entities' may not.
So firstly, and most obviously, the notion that there is something that is necessary and not contingent is not based on evidence and indeed there are plenty of plausible explanations that do not posit a necessary thing.
Secondly even if there is something necessary, why should this be a 'being' rather than an 'entity', with all the presumptions of attributes that are embedded in the notion of a being.
But even if we accept there is a necessary 'being' then would it be plausible that this being effectively is described (by humans) as basically being a super-human. The problem for those making this argument is that the christian god is exactly the kind of deity that humans would 'make up', particularly if they were doing so at a time when our understanding of the extent (both time and space) was incredibly limited and humans (wrongly) considered that the earth and human-kind were some kind of fulcrum around which the rest of the cosmos revolved.
So on this final point the question that christian theists need to ask is why would Jesus and the christian god have the slightest relevance to the vast, vast majority of the cosmos and for the vast, vast majority of the time this cosmos has been around (virtually all of which do not include humans). If not (and I would strongly argue the christian god as described has no relevance to virtually all of the cosmos as it is achingly anthropocentric) then back to the drawing board for you folks.
-
Dear Atheist Gentlemen,
Please! Please, I need more information, Megalomanic tyrant ? ghost to caspar ? and basically a super human ?
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Atheist Gentlemen,
Please! Please, I need more information, Megalomanic tyrant ? ghost to caspar ? and basically a super human ?
Gonnagle.
My point was that it seems an entirely pointless approach. it's like saying if we assume ghosts exist, then can we derive Caspar the friendly ghost from that. I think kmaking assumptions that you don't know how to provide evidence for is an utter waste of time.
-
Dear Atheist Gentlemen,
As you continue to not say what you think 'God' refers to, who the hell are these 'Atheists' of which you speak....?
And why the capitalisation, is there some club or organisation whose members you are addressing?
-
Dear Stranger than Fiction,
Since you will not have a discussion about what is the best attributes of being human, why should I try to answer your question, now away and take a chill pill, Meditation is great for calming the fevered soul 8)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Atheist Gentlemen,
Please! Please, I need more information, Megalomanic tyrant ? ghost to caspar ? and basically a super human ?
Gonnagle.
But I'd say that it would be for theists to explain what their 'God' is: what its characteristics are, and by what means they have confirmed these so that those of us who are not yet theists can check their workings.
As it stands, one reason why I am an atheist is that the term 'God', and all the Christian stuff that is part of that package: souls, salvation, saviour/Jesus, miracles, resurrection etc, I just can't take at all seriously since there is nothing to make me think any of it is remotely credible.
I understand that some people accept these things as being 'true' is a matter of religious faith, but I don't think that faith alone is sufficient grounds to take Christianity seriously.
-
Dear Gordon, old Chum,
Since it is you asking, let me try to answer one of your questions with a question, the question of miracles.
Do you think our Lord Jesus Christ was the only one performing miracles at the time, the short answer is no, miracle workers were two a penny.
But please remember who is typing this post, I am a Christian because of the man, not his miracles.
Gonnagle.
-
Describing this as a necessary 'being' rather than a necessary 'entity' is already biased in terminology as be consider 'beings' to have certain attributes that 'entities' may not.
I think the only thing claimed as a property that makes it into a being of the definition you are using is that it has volition and knows what it's doing but eliminating consciousness still leaves us with something not conducive to atheism
So firstly, and most obviously, the notion that there is something that is necessary and not contingent is not based on evidence
Firstly, so what? It is based on the argument from contingency, contingency which is evidenced a plenty. A contingent thing that needs no cause is an absurdity so those who say the universe is necessary or that it is something qithout volition are closer than those advocating a non contingent contingentand indeed there are plenty of plausible explanations that do not posit a necessary thing.
They are not without difficulties and you have already presented an absurdity
Secondly even if there is something necessary, why should this be a 'being' rather than an 'entity', with all the presumptions of attributes that are embedded in the notion of a being.
But even if we accept there is a necessary 'being' then would it be plausible that this being effectively is described (by humans) as basically being a super-human. The problem for those making this argument is that the christian god is exactly the kind of deity that humans would 'make up', particularly if they were doing so at a time when our understanding of the extent (both time and space) was incredibly limited and humans (wrongly) considered that the earth and human-kind were some kind of fulcrum around which the rest of the cosmos revolved.
So on this final point the question that christian theists need to ask is why would Jesus and the christian god have the slightest relevance to the vast, vast majority of the cosmos and for the vast, vast majority of the time this cosmos has been around (virtually all of which do not include humans). If not (and I would strongly argue the christian god as described has no relevance to virtually all of the cosmos as it is achingly anthropocentric) then back to the drawing board for you folks.
You are suggesting that God creates a being, the human or other beings which are conscious with attributes God doesn't know of. That makes him less than prime reason and shows one hasn't grasped the implication of necessary being.
The aloof God position seems to be based on a "What counts is size in this man's universe" How ridiculous. God could incarnate as Jesus and do countless other things any where in the universe at, for him, the same time.
-
Dear Gordon, old Chum,
Since it is you asking, let me try to answer one of your questions with a question, the question of miracles.
Do you think our Lord Jesus Christ was the only one performing miracles at the time, the short answer is no, miracle workers were two a penny.
But please remember who is typing this post, I am a Christian because of the man, not his miracles.
Gonnagle.
I don't think that these claimed miracles are in any sense 'true': dead people tend to stay dead, and one of the fundamental claims of Christianity is that Jesus 'rose from the dead': propaganda for Jesus, perhaps?
I don't believe that claim is remotely true, and it is telling to me that no matter how often I ask this particular question I get no meaningful reply: which is how Christians have excluded the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT?
I think that miracle claims are fantastical nonsense no matter who they are ascribed to and whether they involve walking on water or riding flying horses.
-
Dear Stranger than Fiction,
I've actually considered changing my screen name to that. :)
Since you will not have a discussion about what is the best attributes of being human, why should I try to answer your question...
We did have a discussion, and I still can't really see how, or why, we should rank human virtues. Nor have you explained the relevance.
...now away and take a chill pill, Meditation is great for calming the fevered soul 8)
Mind reader too? Is there no end to your talents!? People who are cagey about their beliefs, who then try to criticise 'atheists' are just comical as far as I'm concerned. Just having a little fun...
-
I think the only thing claimed as a property that makes it into a being of the definition you are using is that it has volition and knows what it's doing but eliminating consciousness still leaves us with something not conducive to atheism
Baseless assertion.
Firstly, so what? It is based on the argument from contingency...
...which you are (apparently) completely unable to turn into anything remotely logical or self-consistent.
-
I think the only thing claimed as a property that makes it into a being of the definition you are using is that it has volition and knows what it's doing but eliminating consciousness still leaves us with something not conducive to atheism
And there you have the problem in a nutshell. Surely the only criteria for something necessary is a cosmic sense is that it cannot not exist. Why on earth should it be conscious or know what it is doing (which is effectively the same) - that is effectively and disingenuously leading the debate towards the notion of god. And also falls foul of Occam as it adds an additional unnecessary step (consciousness) when all that is needed is something that cannot not exist.
So just for the sake of arguments, lets look at energy as the necessary entity - doesn't seem unreasonable as energy if considered not to be able to be created or destroyed but can change from one form to another. Also it is difficult to see how the universe can exist without energy. So for the sake of arguments, does energy meet your criteria of having 'volition and knows what it's doing' - of course it doesn't - it is energy. It may be absolutely required for something to have consciousness but it has no consciousness of its own. So you'd reject it (as your blinkered view means the answer must be god) as it isn't a necessary 'being'. But that would, of course, be nonsense as it, arguably, has all the attributes to be necessary.
-
Firstly, so what? It is based on the argument from contingency, contingency which is evidenced a plenty.
No it doesn't - it has pretty well no evidence to support it. Indeed it is only used to then argue a get out cause of its illogicality (infinite regress) as a (very poor) argument for god.
The point about the argument from contingency is that it takes a very anthropocentric view of looking at time as humans perceive it, rather than how it actually is. Once you consider time to be neither constant nor unidirectional then the whole notion of contingency crumbles to dust.
-
Baseless assertion.
It's based on definitions....which you are (apparently) completely unable to turn into anything remotely logical or self-consistent.
What is hard about "All contingent things are contingent on other things". Your stubborn arrogance seems to be preventing you from accepting definitions.
-
You are suggesting that God creates a being, the human or other beings which are conscious with attributes God doesn't know of. That makes him less than prime reason and shows one hasn't grasped the implication of necessary being.
No - I'm suggesting that humans (and specifically humans living in a particular time and place) create a god specifically imbued with the characteristic that are important to them, but in super-sized form. Despite the fact that human attributes have virtually no relevance in a cosmic scale, as they are only features of one species on one planet - therefore being features relevant in 0.000000 ..... 000001% of cosmic space and 0.0002% of cosmic time.
The christian god (and indeed pretty well all gods purported to exist) are exactly what you'd expect humans to make up. Bit like asking a child to draw an alien and almost certainly they'll take human-like features and expand them - so a figure will 8 arms and a thousand eyes and be evil/good/super intelligent etc etc despite the fact that arms and eyes, being evil/good/super intelligent might have actually no value or relevance for an alien existing in a totally 'alien' environment in another part of the universe.
-
It's based on definitions.
But it is based on definitions that are skewed towards an outcome you want in an unnecessary and biased manner.
The only relevant thing in a definition about something being necessary is that it is ... err ... necessary for something else to exist. In other words it cannot fail to have existed. To add in consciousness or having 'volition and knows what it's doing' is completely irrelevant and ... err ... unnecessary (see what I did there) to a discussion about whether things are necessary or not.
-
It's based on definitions.What is hard about "All contingent things are contingent on other things". Your stubborn arrogance seems to be preventing you from accepting definitions.
https://youtu.be/qJAVP7jP0bI?si=nfDmuNJP9dpAKC66
-
It's based on definitions.
Whose definitions of what?
What is hard about "All contingent things are contingent on other things".
Nothing. It's just that you continually collapse into a heap of silly contradiction and illogical drivel, when you try to describe the logic of a 'necessary entity'. I've never seen anybody make proper sense of it. One person (not here) actually admitted that the only reason he thought it must is exist was because he couldn't think of anything else...
-
I think the only thing claimed as a property that makes it into a being of the definition you are using is that it has volition and knows what it's doing but eliminating consciousness still leaves us with something not conducive to atheismFirstly, so what? It is based on the argument from contingency, contingency which is evidenced a plenty. A contingent thing that needs no cause is an absurdity so those who say the universe is necessary or that it is something qithout volition are closer than those advocating a non contingent contingent They are not without difficulties and you have already presented an absurdityYou are suggesting that God creates a being, the human or other beings which are conscious with attributes God doesn't know of. That makes him less than prime reason and shows one hasn't grasped the implication of necessary being.
Hello Vlad. You may have guessed that the question was primarily directed to you. Now NS thinks the whole question is pointless; nonetheless you seem to have managed to leap from one premiss to the other. Of course, we know that the original impetus in your life came from a profound conversion experience, so in a sense you must have worked backwards. Likewise Aquinas, who may be was simply brought up in the faith and sought philosophical justification for it (don't know his biographical details). Nonetheless, you have connected your experience with these philosophical investigations, and there must be some process of continual ratiocination to connect the original premiss with your present religious conviction - Christianity, and not only that but Anglicanism (which has as much to do with the sex life of Henry VIII as anything else). So, how does the original premiss lead to the final faith position?
(Typing with one finger on mobile, so not too fluent in expression here)
-
Hello Vlad. You may have guessed that the question was primarily directed to you. Now NS thinks the whole question is pointless; nonetheless you seem to have managed to leap from one premiss to the other. Of course, we know that the original impetus in your life came from a profound conversion experience, so in a sense you must have worked backwards. Likewise Aquinas, who may be was simply brought up in the faith and sought philosophical justification for it (don't know his biographical details). Nonetheless, you have connected your experience with these philosophical investigations, and there must be some process of continual ratiocination to connect the original premiss with your present religious conviction - Christianity, and not only that but Anglicanism (which has as much to do with the sex life of Henry VIII as anything else). So, how does the original premiss lead to the final faith position?
(Typing with one finger on mobile, so not too fluent in expression here)
Dear Dicky,
Yep! have to agree, you starting the Thread was totally pointless.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Dicky,
Yep! have to agree, you starting the Thread was totally pointless.
Gonnagle.
The pointlessness was and is the interminable argument about whether there is a necessary being/entity or not - a matter which has been thrashed to death here for years, including those years when you were absent. The matter always ends up vanishing up its own arse, and since it really can't be convincingly demonstrated, it will continue to vanish up its own arse. I thought I might add at least a little salsa to the arse gravy.
Have you decided on the nature of your 'necessary being' yet, and how you got to believe what you do - or are you just going to continue playing the strange melodies of your native woodnotes wild?
-
No - I'm suggesting that humans (and specifically humans living in a particular time and place) create a god specifically imbued with the characteristic that are important to them, but in super-sized form. Despite the fact that human attributes have virtually no relevance in a cosmic scale, as they are only features of one species on one planet - therefore being features relevant in 0.000000 ..... 000001% of cosmic space and 0.0002% of cosmic time.
The christian god (and indeed pretty well all gods purported to exist) are exactly what you'd expect humans to make up. Bit like asking a child to draw an alien and almost certainly they'll take human-like features and expand them - so a figure will 8 arms and a thousand eyes and be evil/good/super intelligent etc etc despite the fact that arms and eyes, being evil/good/super intelligent might have actually no value or relevance for an alien existing in a totally 'alien' environment in another part of the universe.
This makes good sense, and only involves the comparison of knowing what humans actually do and have done since they were capable of imaginative thought. What Vlad is asking people to believe is that we can extrapolate from the phrase 'necessary being/entity' that it must have certain qualities, and as you rightly point out, this goes way beyond requirements of Occam's Razor. How could any of us begin to delineate the essential qualities of that unknown power, let alone state that it must possess them? However, we do know certain supposed consequences of its supposed creative capacity - that the world is full of unimaginable suffering, and has been through the millennia - life working its tortured way through millions of years of evolution, with many a false start ("Oops! Silly me" says N.B. - "got that a bit wrong, have to go in a different direction").
And all to produce the crowning glory of the evolutionary process - Homo Sapiens (especially the Chosen Ones). As you say, pathetically anthropocentric.
-
My point was that it seems an entirely pointless approach. it's like saying if we assume ghosts exist, then can we derive Caspar the friendly ghost from that. I think kmaking assumptions that you don't know how to provide evidence for is an utter waste of time.
Gor blimey, guv'nor! That would mean that most of the verbiage on this forum should be ditched. Christianity exists, Caspar the friendly ghost does not. Conversations in thousands of posts here have been about whether the philosophical arguments for a necessary being/entity* are sound - I don't think they are, as many here don't, and that's where the real pointlessness lies. But that's the starting point - and beyond that the vast range of religious beliefs of humankind, which may have certain features in common, but nothing that suggests they might all originate in the same 'necessary being'.
*Professor D prefers the word 'entity' - this would seem to suggest conversations of this subtlety could only take place in English (or such languages that might be able to make that specific distinction) Maybe God is an Englishman, but drawing attention to this does certainly indicate the limitations of language, especially when attempting to delineate the characteristics of hypothetical entities/beings.
-
Gor blimey, guv'nor! That would mean that most of the verbiage on this forum should be ditched. Christianity exists, Caspar the friendly ghost does not. Conversations in thousands of posts here have been about whether the philosophical arguments for a necessary being/entity* are sound - I don't think they are, as many here don't, and that's where the real pointlessness lies. But that's the starting point - and beyond that the vast range of religious beliefs of humankind, which may have certain features in common, but nothing that suggests they might all originate in the same 'necessary being'.
*Professor D prefers the word 'entity' - this would seem to suggest conversations of this subtlety could only take place in English (or such languages that might be able to make that specific distinction) Maybe God is an Englishman, but drawing attention to this does certainly indicate the limitations of language, especially when attempting to delineate the characteristics of hypothetical entities/beings.
Since the equivalent to Caspar in my analogy is the Christian personal god, not sure why saying Christianity exists is relevant.
-
No it doesn't - it has pretty well no evidence to support it. Indeed it is only used to then argue a get out cause of its illogicality (infinite regress) as a (very poor) argument for god.
Contingency has plenty to support it, the argument from contingency is merely that contingent things have causes. An endless regress is inevitable if the premise is everything has a cause. But the argument from contingency does not say that.. An infinite regress is a solution to a different assumption, a dodgy one since we don't know everything and cannot rule out the possibility of a non contingent being or entity. A non contingent contingency is an absurdity
The point about the argument from contingency is that it takes a very anthropocentric view of looking at time as humans perceive it, rather than how it actually is. Once you consider time to be neither constant nor unidirectional then the whole notion of contingency crumbles to dust.
That is plain nonsense. You might as well say that about any argument or methodology.
How does even the change in the direction of time or it's rate affect cause and affect? Which you will note is cause and effect not cause then effect. I don't think you have followed this through.
-
My point was that it seems an entirely pointless approach. it's like saying if we assume ghosts exist, then can we derive Caspar the friendly ghost from that. I think kmaking assumptions that you don't know how to provide evidence for is an utter waste of time.
Yes, Philosopher Ed Feser himself says other arguments then come into play.
I find the great Internet atheist revelation that these arguments don't show God yet claim to is itself based on another argument,
Namely, high minded Christian philosophers and low minded backwoods literalist non questioning believers are interchangeable.
-
Gor blimey, guv'nor! That would mean that most of the verbiage on this forum should be ditched. Christianity exists, Caspar the friendly ghost does not. Conversations in thousands of posts here have been about whether the philosophical arguments for a necessary being/entity* are sound - I don't think they are, as many here don't, and that's where the real pointlessness lies. But that's the starting point - and beyond that the vast range of religious beliefs of humankind, which may have certain features in common, but nothing that suggests they might all originate in the same 'necessary being'.
*Professor D prefers the word 'entity' - this would seem to suggest conversations of this subtlety could only take place in English (or such languages that might be able to make that specific distinction) Maybe God is an Englishman, but drawing attention to this does certainly indicate the limitations of language, especially when attempting to delineate the characteristics of hypothetical entities/beings.
I think you are adding a subtlety to English that just isn't there. Ancient Greek with its dozen words for love and with it's
Homousions and homoiousions is far more intricate and able to handle more ideas that English with it's slippery use of euphemisms.
-
This makes good sense, and only involves the comparison of knowing what humans actually do and have done since they were capable of imaginative thought. What Vlad is asking people to believe is that we can extrapolate from the phrase 'necessary being/entity' that it must have certain qualities, and as you rightly point out, this goes way beyond requirements of Occam's Razor. How could any of us begin to delineate the essential qualities of that unknown power, let alone state that it must possess them? However, we do know certain supposed consequences of its supposed creative capacity - that the world is full of unimaginable suffering, and has been through the millennia - life working its tortured way through millions of years of evolution, with many a false start ("Oops! Silly me" says N.B. - "got that a bit wrong, have to go in a different direction").
And all to produce the crowning glory of the evolutionary process - Homo Sapiens (especially the Chosen Ones). As you say, pathetically anthropocentric.
How can any of us assess the attributes of such great a power, Dicky, sounds almost worshipful.
One thing we can say is that it is powerful, it's actual, it can't have come from nothing, was never therefore a potential, has nothing to influence it's actions and it has ultimate agency since it is the first in any ontological series etc.
-
https://youtu.be/qJAVP7jP0bI?si=nfDmuNJP9dpAKC66
Are you saying then contingent things are independent from other things for their existence?
-
Are you saying then contingent things are independent from other things for their existence?
No, I was saying your 'argument' was circular.
-
those of us who are not yet theists can check their workings.
You're not touching my workings.
-
No, I was saying your 'argument' was circular.
My definition was circular, yes.
Hopefully, that is corrected.
-
My definition was circular, yes.
Hopefully, that is corrected.
And your 'argument' was based on the definition. You said the statement was true because it was the definition
-
And your 'argument' was based on the definition. You said the statement was true because it was the definition
OK I had better give a better definition. A Contingent entity is one which is dependent on other entities for it's existence.
-
No - I'm suggesting that humans (and specifically humans living in a particular time and place) create a god specifically imbued with the characteristic that are important to them, but in super-sized form. Despite the fact that human attributes have virtually no relevance in a cosmic scale, as they are only features of one species on one planet - therefore being features relevant in 0.000000 ..... 000001% of cosmic space and 0.0002% of cosmic time.
The christian god (and indeed pretty well all gods purported to exist) are exactly what you'd expect humans to make up. Bit like asking a child to draw an alien and almost certainly they'll take human-like features and expand them - so a figure will 8 arms and a thousand eyes and be evil/good/super intelligent etc etc despite the fact that arms and eyes, being evil/good/super intelligent might have actually no value or relevance for an alien existing in a totally 'alien' environment in another part of the universe.
Dear Prof,
Well yes! Next time Stranger, Dicky or Gordon ask me to describe/define or what are the Characteristics of God, I simply say, see ProfDaveys post, sorted ;)
Gonnagle.
-
OK I had better give a better definition. A Contingent entity is one which is dependent on other entities for it's existence.
So presumably a necessary entity is one that another entity requires for its existence. So of course (as I keep pointing out until I'm blue in the face) entities can be both contingent (dependent on something else) and also necessary (something else is dependent on it). And there are plenty of examples of mutual dependence - in other words A is dependent on B and B is dependent on A. So each entity is both necessary for and dependent on the other.
So what you seem to be banging on about (incoherently) isn't necessity, but non-contingency, in other words whether there are entities which aren't contingent on anything else. Now that entity might also be a sub-set of the massive number of necessary entities (see above) or it could be non-contingent and non-necessary (in which case it would exist in complete isolation from everything else).
But how this has any relevance to consciousness or having 'volition and knows what it's doing' is beyond me. We know from real world examples that consciousness or having 'volition and knows what it's doing' and absolutely contingent processes - being contingent on all sorts of things e.g. evolution, molecular neurophysiology, energetics etc etc. So if we are looking for non-contingency consciousness or having 'volition and knows what it's doing' are definitely not the entities or attributes we should be focussing on.
-
No - I'm suggesting that humans (and specifically humans living in a particular time and place) create a god specifically imbued with the characteristic that are important to them, but in super-sized form. Despite the fact that human attributes have virtually no relevance in a cosmic scale, as they are only features of one species on one planet - therefore being features relevant in 0.000000 ..... 000001% of cosmic space and 0.0002% of cosmic time.
The christian god (and indeed pretty well all gods purported to exist) are exactly what you'd expect humans to make up. Bit like asking a child to draw an alien and almost certainly they'll take human-like features and expand them - so a figure will 8 arms and a thousand eyes and be evil/good/super intelligent etc etc despite the fact that arms and eyes, being evil/good/super intelligent might have actually no value or relevance for an alien existing in a totally 'alien' environment in another part of the universe.
Dear Prof,
Well yes! Next time Stranger, Dicky or Gordon ask me to describe/define or what are the Characteristics of God, I simply say, see ProfDaveys post, sorted ;)
Gonnagle.
So you admit God is just made up by humans and you are, in fact, an atheist. :)
Doesn't really explain why you keep having a go at your fellow atheists (or these mysterious 'Atheists'), though.
-
No - I'm suggesting that humans (and specifically humans living in a particular time and place) create a god specifically imbued with the characteristic that are important to them, but in super-sized form. Despite the fact that human attributes have virtually no relevance in a cosmic scale, as they are only features of one species on one planet - therefore being features relevant in 0.000000 ..... 000001% of cosmic space and 0.0002% of cosmic time.
The christian god (and indeed pretty well all gods purported to exist) are exactly what you'd expect humans to make up. Bit like asking a child to draw an alien and almost certainly they'll take human-like features and expand them - so a figure will 8 arms and a thousand eyes and be evil/good/super intelligent etc etc despite the fact that arms and eyes, being evil/good/super intelligent might have actually no value or relevance for an alien existing in a totally 'alien' environment in another part of the universe.
Dear Stranger,
See ProfDaveys above post, and okay I will be an Atheist for today ( capitalisation, sign of respect, I do respect some Atheists ) I am just an evolved Monkey, ook, ook, sorry, monkeys, eek eek.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Stranger,
See ProfDaveys above post, and okay I will be an Atheist for today ( capitalisation, sign of respect, I do respect some Atheists ) I am just an evolved Monkey, ook, ook, sorry, monkeys, eek eek.
Gonnagle.
You are an ape, rather than a monkey, but hey, I'm a believer, not a trace of doubt in my mind.
-
Dear Stranger,
See ProfDaveys above post, and okay I will be an Atheist for today ( capitalisation, sign of respect, I do respect some Atheists ) I am just an evolved Monkey, ook, ook, sorry, monkeys, eek eek.
Gonnagle.
No, no - we aren't just an evolved monkey, we humans are really, really, really special! How do we know? Well because the god we've made up is basically just a superannuated human and speaks only to humans, completely ignoring the rest of the cosmos (and even other species on this tiny irrelevant planet). And the god we've made up tells us we are special ... so we must be!
Yup, of course. :o
-
No, no - we aren't just an evolved monkey, we humans are really, really, really special! How do we know? Well because the god we've made up is basically just a superannuated human and speaks only to humans, completely ignoring the rest of the cosmos (and even other species on this tiny irrelevant planet). And the god we've made up tells us we are special ... so we must be!
Yup, of course. :o
Dear Prof,
How do you know he/she/it only speaks to humans, wait! no wait! you are not only a Prof but also a Doctor, Doc Dolittle I presume :P
But lets get serious, the word speak to us that's language, words, this is where we fall down.
While trees don't communicate in the same way humans do, they do have sophisticated ways of interacting and sharing information with each other. This includes using underground fungal networks, releasing chemical signals, and potentially even sensing sounds and vibrations in their environment.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Fungal Networks:
Trees connect through mycorrhizal networks, which are essentially underground fungal highways that link their root systems. These networks act as a communication system, allowing trees to share resources like water and nutrients, and even send distress signals to one another.
Chemical Signals:
Trees can release chemicals into the air or soil to warn neighboring trees of threats like insect attacks. They also use these chemicals to signal their needs and potentially even share memories.
Sound and Vibrations:
While trees don't have ears, research suggests they can sense sounds and vibrations in their environment. They can detect changes in wind speed and direction, and even the rustling of leaves, which can provide them with information about their surroundings.
Social Behavior:
Trees exhibit social behaviors, such as supporting their offspring and even showing care for their kin. They can recognize their relatives and provide them with extra resources through the fungal network.
Mother Trees:
Larger, older trees, often referred to as "Mother Trees," can play a crucial role in supporting the younger trees in their vicinity, sharing resources and even defense signals.
Hows Mrs Conifer doing over in the next valley asks Granny Oak.
Gonnagle.
PS: This is AI not wonderful wiki.
PS PS: Its the future Prof :o
-
See ProfDaveys above post, and okay I will be an Atheist for today ( capitalisation, sign of respect, I do respect some Atheists )
It's not respect to capitalise it because it implies we are an organisation or something. An atheist is just somebody who doesn't have a belief in any God or gods. That it, full stop, end of story.
-
Dear Stranger,
No you are an organisation, secret society with one aim, you are all out to get me, I know this because a Tree told me :P
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
How do you know he/she/it only speaks to humans, wait! no wait! you are not only a Prof but also a Doctor, Doc Dolittle I presume :P
But lets get serious, the word speak to us that's language, words, this is where we fall down.
While trees don't communicate in the same way humans do, they do have sophisticated ways of interacting and sharing information with each other. This includes using underground fungal networks, releasing chemical signals, and potentially even sensing sounds and vibrations in their environment.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Fungal Networks:
Trees connect through mycorrhizal networks, which are essentially underground fungal highways that link their root systems. These networks act as a communication system, allowing trees to share resources like water and nutrients, and even send distress signals to one another.
Chemical Signals:
Trees can release chemicals into the air or soil to warn neighboring trees of threats like insect attacks. They also use these chemicals to signal their needs and potentially even share memories.
Sound and Vibrations:
While trees don't have ears, research suggests they can sense sounds and vibrations in their environment. They can detect changes in wind speed and direction, and even the rustling of leaves, which can provide them with information about their surroundings.
Social Behavior:
Trees exhibit social behaviors, such as supporting their offspring and even showing care for their kin. They can recognize their relatives and provide them with extra resources through the fungal network.
Mother Trees:
Larger, older trees, often referred to as "Mother Trees," can play a crucial role in supporting the younger trees in their vicinity, sharing resources and even defense signals.
Hows Mrs Conifer doing over in the next valley asks Granny Oak.
Gonnagle.
PS: This is AI not wonderful wiki.
PS PS: Its the future Prof :o
Of course all sorts of species communicate with each other in all sorts of ways.
So why isn't the bible stuffed full of descriptions of god communicating with the myriad of other species on earth. And indeed why is the bible pretty well entirely silent on the 99.99999 ... 999% of the universe which isn't the earth.
The bible reads exactly as you'd expect if written by a tiny subset of one species (humans living in a small part of the eastern Mediterranean) at a particular blink of the eye in terms of time (around 1000 years). And where those people had no real understanding of their irrelevance in terms of cosmic time and space.
Effectively the bible is 'all about us' (i.e. humans living in the eastern Mediterranean about 3000-2000 years ago), which is a huge red flag if you want anyone to believe that it is describing an all encompassing god that should be equally relevant everywhere in the universe, at any time and to everything (living or otherwise). Rather it feels entirely made up by humans living in the eastern Mediterranean about 3000-2000 years ago.
-
Fair enough. But I'm still interested in finding out from those who believe in philosophical proofs for God how they then go on to justify their belief in the particular deity of their choice, out of all the myriad of options available. It comes as no surprise that the belief system many tend to adopt happens to be the dominant belief system of the country in which they live or were born, as has often been pointed out here.
One would have thought that people capable of the supposed sophistication of thought necessary to follow philosophical arguments (albeit ones which to me sound specious) might be a little more adventurous in their choice of religion. I'd have thought that Gnosticism fitted the actual known facts of existence better, for instance.
-
How can any of us assess the attributes of such great a power, Dicky, sounds almost worshipful.
One thing we can say is that it is powerful, it's actual, it can't have come from nothing, was never therefore a potential, has nothing to influence it's actions and it has ultimate agency since it is the first in any ontological series etc.
Worshiping great power? Well people used to worship the sun. I'm not into worshiping any 'great power', I'm simply conceding for the sake of argument that "the first in any ontological series" could be conceded to demonstrate this. Beyond this, anything else is wild extrapolation - including, as the Prof pointed out - granting it (as you do) consciousness, and many more wondrous characteristics besides. I bring you back to the brute fact of the evolution of life - do you honestly think this demonstrates that "It" had a bloody clue what it was doing?
-
Worshiping great power? Well people used to worship the sun. I'm not into worshiping any 'great power'
And yet people devote their lives and sense of awe to "The universe"I'm simply conceding for the sake of argument that "the first in any ontological series" could be conceded to demonstrate this. Beyond this, anything else is wild extrapolation
Thats wrong though. As first in the series there is nothing before it. There are no laws of nature or whatever to govern it or for it to blindly and unconsciously 'try out'. It, and it alone dictates the next ontological level. Since unconsciousness is then not possible it must be conscious and since it dictates it must have volition. There is nothing "wild" about that- including, as the Prof pointed out - granting it (as you do) consciousness
Davey seems here to be guilty here of the anthropomorphisation he accuses me of with time!", and many more wondrous characteristics besides. I bring you back to the brute fact of the evolution of life - do you honestly think this demonstrates that "It" had a bloody clue what it was doing?
Yes.As I have pointed out there is no context for it to stumble blindly in, no laws of nature. If there were, those would be be the necessary entity.
You should have also worked out that abstract necessities do not bring anything into being.
⁶
-
Thats wrong though. As first in the series there is nothing before it. There are no laws of nature or whatever to govern it or for it to blindly and unconsciously 'try out'. It, and it alone dictates the next ontological level. Since unconsciousness is then not possible it must be conscious and since it dictates it must have volition.
All you've done here is define this thing into existence based on what you imagine it should be like: but, existence can't be treated as a predicate (see Kant), so existence isn't like an ingredient you can just add into your recipe for 'God'.
-
Thats wrong though. As first in the series there is nothing before it. There are no laws of nature or whatever to govern it or for it to blindly and unconsciously 'try out'. It, and it alone dictates the next ontological level. Since unconsciousness is then not possible it must be conscious and since it dictates it must have volition. There is nothing "wild" about that
Unmitigated drivel. In order to have thoughts, be conscious, or make choices, you need time and time is a part of the physical universe.
-
All you've done here is define this thing into existence based on what you imagine it should be like: but, existence can't be treated as a predicate (see Kant), so existence isn't like an ingredient you can just add into your recipe for 'God'.
Anyone?
-
Anyone?
Did you not understand what I said?
You often mention 'ontological' so I'm surprised you don't seem to understand the point I made.
-
Did you not understand what I said?
You often mention 'ontological' so I'm surprised you don't seem to understand the point I made.
Sounds like you've been on the AI. Am I right in thinking that you think existence need not exist?
Our argument, by which I mean those who believe in a necessary entity, whatever it may be, Is that there is existence rather than non existence,there is a reason for that and that reason must have existed since non existence cannot do anything. So existence must always be except for things which are contingent.
-
Sounds like you've been on the AI. Am I right in thinking that you think existence need not exist?
Our argument, by which I mean those who believe in a necessary entity, whatever it may be, Is that there is existence rather than non existence,there is a reason for that and that reason must have existed since non existence cannot do anything. So existence must always be except for things which are contingent.
Nope - not AI: never used it.
It was good old fashioned reading you know, over many years - suggest you look at Kant before banging on about 'existence'.
-
Unmitigated drivel. In order to have thoughts, be conscious, or make choices, you need time and time is a part of the physical universe.
I am wondering whether that fails the Professor Davey test for unmitigated anthropocentricism.
Time in cosmic terms is to do with motion and change isn't it? Unless you are proposing some kind of eternal time not experienced by physical beings? Like the block universe you proposed whose static nature is also not experienced by physical entities.
Not that I'm absolutely against infinities, only physical Infinities.
-
Nope - not AI: never used it.
It was good old fashioned reading you know, over many years - suggest you look at Kant before banging on about 'existence'.
I shall read Kant and report back where he went wrong.
-
My apologies to Kant, he is correct, in my view and you are wrong.
Where you are wrong is you saw the word ontological and thought 'Ontological argument". We are of course making the Cosmological argument.
Kant's disapproval of the ontological argument of course has repercussions I think, for Hume and his successors like Oppy who said that we could conceive of things coming from nothing so it is possible.
-
My apologies to Kant, he is correct, in my view and you are wrong.
Where you are wrong is you saw the word ontological and thought 'Ontological argument". We are of course making the Cosmological argument.
Kant's disapproval of the ontological argument of course has repercussions I think, for Hume and his successors like Oppy who said that we could conceive of things coming from nothing so it is possible.
You still take the 'existence' of one asserted thing as a given.
-
Our argument, by which I mean those who believe in a necessary entity, whatever it may be, Is that there is existence rather than non existence,there is a reason for that and that reason must have existed since non existence cannot do anything. So existence must always be except for things which are contingent.
The universe has always been in existence, in the sense of 'at every point in time'. This is true, regardless of whether time is infinite in the past or not, because space-time is an aspect of the universe. There can't possibly be a time at which there was literally nothing because time is something.
I am wondering whether that fails the Professor Davey test for unmitigated anthropocentricism.
It's you who suggested this supposed 'necessary entity' was conscious and had volition. (https://i.imgur.com/htw8DF1.gif)
Time in cosmic terms is to do with motion and change isn't it? Unless you are proposing some kind of eternal time not experienced by physical beings? Like the block universe you proposed whose static nature is also not experienced by physical entities.
It's very difficult to avoid the idea of something like the 'block universe' given the relativity of simultaneity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity).
-
You still take the 'existence' of one asserted thing as a given.
No I've explained how a necessary entity exists and why and in what way it is necessary.
The alternative is for it to be a contingent thing and then we are entitled to question it's ultimacy.
-
The universe has always been in existence,
What then is it about it that has been observed to exist forever? in the sense of 'at every point in time'. This is true, regardless of whether time is infinite in the past or not, because space-time is an aspect of the universe. There can't possibly be a time at which there was literally nothing because time is something.
It's you who suggested this supposed 'necessary entity' was conscious and had volition. (https://i.imgur.com/htw8DF1.gif)
It's very difficult to avoid the idea of something like the 'block universe' given the relativity of simultaneity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity).
Again, what is it that exists at every point in time?
-
No I've explained how a necessary entity exists and why and in what way it is necessary.
No, you haven't explained it at all. All you've done is make some logically incoherent assertions about it that would make it indistinguishable from a brute fact.
Again, what is it that exists at every point in time?
Err... space-time for one.
-
No I've explained how a necessary entity exists and why and in what way it is necessary.
The alternative is for it to be a contingent thing and then we are entitled to question it's ultimacy.
It would be foolish to regard 'existence' as a predicate that is limited to the ontological argument alone: I cannot claim to have a third eye in my forehead and the only reason you can't see it is because it lacks the property of 'existence'.
Put simply, you cannot just presume 'existence' because it is convenient to do so.
-
It would be foolish to regard 'existence' as a predicate that is limited to the ontological argument alone: I cannot claim to have a third eye in my forehead and the only reason you can't see it is because it lacks the property of 'existence'.
Put simply, you cannot just presume 'existence' because it is convenient to do so.
Dear Gordon, Good Morning to you :)
No the only reason you can't see it is because you are thinking to literally.
In Buddhism, the third eye, also known as the "Eye of Wisdom" or urna, is a symbolic representation of spiritual insight and the ability to see beyond the physical world. It is not a literal eye, but rather a metaphor for a higher level of consciousness and understanding. This "eye" allows practitioners to perceive the interconnectedness of all things and to understand the true nature of reality, ultimately leading to enlightenment.
And now I am thinking ( it hurts Doctor :o ) is this a problem with the fundamental Atheist. example, they read the Bible like some fact checking book.
Gonnagle.
-
And now I am thinking ( it hurts Doctor :o ) is this a problem with the fundamental Atheist. example, they read the Bible like some fact checking book.
Gonnagle.
Nope - I think you've got that the wrong way around. It is christians, not atheists who seem to think the bible contains fact in relation to faith claims. And this isn't just the literal creation believing christians, but also those that would happily accept the creation story merely to be metaphorical, but still swear blind that Jesus actually performed miracles and was actually dead and then actually alive.
So I suggest you take up the notion of the bible being a 'fact' book with your fellow christians, not us atheists. I think we are perfectly content with the notion that the bible contains a degree of content which is broadly true (e.g. stuff about the cities and locations in 1stC Palestine), but that the miraculous faith claims aren't based on fact but on ... err ... faith, metaphor and myth.
-
I think you are adding a subtlety to English that just isn't there. Ancient Greek with its dozen words for love and with it's
Homousions and homoiousions is far more intricate and able to handle more ideas that English with it's slippery use of euphemisms.
I'll grant you ancient Greek, but the modern European languages would I think be pretty stretched to make such a distinction. 'Entidad' in Spanish is more likely to refer to a commercial business enterprise than the English equivalent. German gives you 'Dasein' which means 'being' or 'existence' but not 'a being'. Then you're left with Wesen or Ding, which refer to objects in the material world. Tools down, chaps! Let's continue the argument when we've learned Koine Greek; the Greek of Plato is a subsidiary option.
-
No I've explained how a necessary entity exists
No you haven't - and let's not forget you are actually talking about non-contingency not necessity (which we all accept exists and there are countless examples). You have completely failed to demonstrate that non-contingency exists.
... and why and in what way it is necessary.
Nope - complete fail on your part, compounded by the non-sense notion that consciousness and having 'volition and knows what it's doing' are key criteria for 'necessity (or rather non-contingency) when the evidence is clear that those attributes are contingent.
The alternative is for it to be a contingent thing and then we are entitled to question it's ultimacy.
Why is ultimacy relevant - except if you already have a pre-judged belief in a god that you are trying (badly) to shoe-horn some dodgy philosophical trope into trying to 'prove'. And you folks seem to have this all the wrong way around. Rather than fixate on the biggest, the most complex, the most sophisticated, the most ultimate (that way lies nonsense and infinite regress) the smart thinking is to focus on the simplest and most fundamental elements, as physicists tend to do.
-
Nope - I think you've got that the wrong way around. It is christians, not atheists who seem to think the bible contains fact in relation to faith claims. And this isn't just the literal creation believing christians, but also those that would happily accept the creation story merely to be metaphorical, but still swear blind that Jesus actually performed miracles and was actually dead and then actually alive.
So I suggest you take up the notion of the bible being a 'fact' book with your fellow christians, not us atheists. I think we are perfectly content with the notion that the bible contains a degree of content which is broadly true (e.g. stuff about the cities and locations in 1stC Palestine), but that the miraculous faith claims aren't based on fact but on ... err ... faith, metaphor and myth.
Dear Prof,
No! I have it 100% right, I think I have said it on this forum in a earlier incarnation of this person called Gonnagle that I would happily stand shoulder to shoulder with, lets say the more enlightened Atheist against the fundamental Christian, but the new Gonnagle will now say I will stand shoulder to shoulder with the, lets say more enlightened Christian against the fundamental Atheist.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
No! I have it 100% right, I think I have said it on this forum in a earlier incarnation of this person called Gonnagle that I would happily stand shoulder to shoulder with, lets say the more enlightened Atheist against the fundamental Christian, but the new Gonnagle will now say I will stand shoulder to shoulder with the, lets say more enlightened Christian against the fundamental Atheist.
Gonnagle.
Depends on what you consider to be 'fundamental Atheists' doesn't it really. Can't really think of an atheist equivalent of the Westboro Baptist church - can you? There certainly aren't any on here.
So really the question isn't where you stand re: enlightened Atheist against the fundamental Christian vs enlightened Christian against the fundamental Atheist, but between typical christian vs typical atheist.
-
Dear Prof,
Strawman :) somebody tell me that post is not a Strawman :)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
Strawman :) somebody tell me that post is not a Strawman :)
Gonnagle.
Why?
To be clear you are positing the notion of a 'fundamentalist Atheist' (note the capitalisation), without providing any definition or example as a straw man to compare with the enlightened christian. No such issue exists for fundamentalist christians as we have plenty of examples.
But my earlier point remains - that it is christians, rather than atheists, who use the bible as fact checking book - regardless of whether they are 'fundamentalist bible-believing' types, still accepting as fact (through faith) where there is no credible evidence.
-
Dear Prof,
Westboro Baptist church.
Gonnagle.
-
Depends on what you consider to be 'fundamental Atheists' doesn't it really. Can't really think of an atheist equivalent of the Westboro Baptist church - can you? There certainly aren't any on here.
So really the question isn't where you stand re: enlightened Atheist against the fundamental Christian vs enlightened Christian against the fundamental Atheist, but between typical christian vs typical atheist.
Dear Prof,
Just one other point, typical Atheist I will let the other typical Atheists answer that one. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Prof,
Just one other point, typical Atheist I will let the other typical Atheists answer that one. ;)
Gonnagle.
Well, I think the first thing we could say is that they'd be a typical atheist, not a typical Atheist. ;)
-
Well, I think the first thing we could say is that they'd be a typical atheist, not a typical Atheist. ;)
Dear Prof,
Fair enough, enjoy the rest of your day, I am off out to enjoy that rare phenomenon, Glesga sunshine ;)
Gonnagle.
-
No, you haven't explained it at all. All you've done is make some logically incoherent assertions about it that would make it indistinguishable from a brute fact.
Err... space-time for one.
You bang on about logical incoherence and then say that spacetime is composed of points and the whole of spacetime is at each point......in time.e!!!
The problem is wanting spacetime to be both composed AND a singular entity.
I think you need to clear a mess here and get what you are trying to say in some kind of order.
In any case, an entity which is singular and is without parts or components was proposed by philosophers centuries ago.
-
And now I am thinking ( it hurts Doctor :o ) is this a problem with the fundamental Atheist. example, they read the Bible like some fact checking book.
Gonnagle.
Hello Gonners,
I'm not sure quite what you mean by 'fundamental Atheist', but if it's what I think, I'd agree with the Prof "There certainly aren't any on here." The atheists I find on here are quite able to distinguish between poetic narrative, philosophical meditation and supposed and real history (Yes, the Bible does contain some of that, since the text has been corroborated by archaelogy). The greater part of the Bible's 'history' is probably fabricated though, for reasons I won't go into here.
I take issue with the Prof over the question of Myth, though, since he seems to take the word as simply meaning 'something untrue'. I accept, along with Karen Armstrong, that myth can sometimes impart deeper truths than any literal surface reading. But even this presents problems (perhaps we need a completely new thread on this). Let me take one obvious example: Genesis chapter 1 and the "Creation Days". Biblical literalists take these as being 24 days as per now. Now the style of the chapter is quite poetic, which might lead thinking Christians and atheists to speculate that the original writer never intended the word "Day" to be taken literally.
That's where the problem starts. We can't possibly know for sure what was in the original writer's head at the time. However, scholars have long identified this writer as the same old bore who wrote Leviticus (The Priestly writer), and this chap was absolutely obsessed with precise time intervals, hours, days and years, and much more anally retentive stuff besides. So perhaps he did mean the word "Day" to be taken literally here. He was reputedly of course 'inspired by God', and if so, he was wrong :)
Back to the Necessary Entity - has it become Christ yet?
-
Yes. As I have pointed out there is no context for it to stumble blindly in, no laws of nature. If there were, those would be be the necessary entity.
You should have also worked out that abstract necessities do not bring anything into being.
You are agreeing that the pain-filled aeons of evolution are all adumbrated in the original 'ontological level'? If I could ever believe that were so, then I would become an anti-theist again (I was one for a short time, as apparently was Gonnagle). Like Ivan Karamazov, "I'd give God back the entrance ticket". As it is, I remain a quiet atheist with a small 'a'.
-
Hello Gonners,
I'm not sure quite what you mean by 'fundamental Atheist', but if it's what I think, I'd agree with the Prof "There certainly aren't any on here." The atheists I find on here are quite able to distinguish between poetic narrative, philosophical meditation and supposed and real history (Yes, the Bible does contain some of that, since the text has been corroborated by archaelogy). The greater part of the Bible's 'history' is probably fabricated though, for reasons I won't go into here.
I take issue with the Prof over the question of Myth, though, since he seems to take the word as simply meaning 'something untrue'. I accept, along with Karen Armstrong, that myth can sometimes impart deeper truths than any literal surface reading. But even this presents problems (perhaps we need a completely new thread on this). Let me take one obvious example: Genesis chapter 1 and the "Creation Days". Biblical literalists take these as being 24 days as per now. Now the style of the chapter is quite poetic, which might lead thinking Christians and atheists to speculate that the original writer never intended the word "Day" to be taken literally.
That's where the problem starts. We can't possibly know for sure what was in the original writer's head at the time. However, scholars have long identified this writer as the same old bore who wrote Leviticus (The Priestly writer), and this chap was absolutely obsessed with precise time intervals, hours, days and years, and much more anally retentive stuff besides. So perhaps he did mean the word "Day" to be taken literally here. He was reputedly of course 'inspired by God', and if so, he was wrong :)
Back to the Necessary Entity - has he become a Christian yet?
I take it you are still waiting and haven't settled for"The Kalam doesn't prove God"(Who said it did?).
Given that a counter argument has already been put up on here namely "Surely mankind is too wee" for something as grand as God to worry about, let's start with that. Why does that necessarily follow?
-
Hello Gonners,
I'm not sure quite what you mean by 'fundamental Atheist', but if it's what I think, I'd agree with the Prof "There certainly aren't any on here." The atheists I find on here are quite able to distinguish between poetic narrative, philosophical meditation and supposed and real history (Yes, the Bible does contain some of that, since the text has been corroborated by archaelogy). The greater part of the Bible's 'history' is probably fabricated though, for reasons I won't go into here.
I take issue with the Prof over the question of Myth, though, since he seems to take the word as simply meaning 'something untrue'. I accept, along with Karen Armstrong, that myth can sometimes impart deeper truths than any literal surface reading. But even this presents problems (perhaps we need a completely new thread on this). Let me take one obvious example: Genesis chapter 1 and the "Creation Days". Biblical literalists take these as being 24 days as per now. Now the style of the chapter is quite poetic, which might lead thinking Christians and atheists to speculate that the original writer never intended the word "Day" to be taken literally.
That's where the problem starts. We can't possibly know for sure what was in the original writer's head at the time. However, scholars have long identified this writer as the same old bore who wrote Leviticus (The Priestly writer), and this chap was absolutely obsessed with precise time intervals, hours, days and years, and much more anally retentive stuff besides. So perhaps he did mean the word "Day" to be taken literally here. He was reputedly of course 'inspired by God', and if so, he was wrong :)
Back to the Necessary Entity - has he become a Christian yet?
Dear Dicky,
Oh the first Atheist ( only because it annoys your typical atheist ) to mention the Saintly Karen, and it was this Dear lady who first put me wise to the fundamental Atheist and this forum is awash with fundamental Atheists.
And yes maybe we do need a new thread, but just a quick reply to your post, the only words in the first chapter of Genesis you need to focus on are , "and behold it was very good" not the time span, a day, a year, a century, a millennia, an aeon "And behold it was very good".
Also and to help you along I have just dug out Karens wonderful small book " In The Beginning, a new interpretation of Genesis" because Dear Dicky you are allowed to do that, The Holy Bible is a living breathing document.
Gonnagle.
Stand by Gonnagle for a broadside from the fundies, man the guns Gonnagle :o
PS: Me an anti theist :o Must have been in my blue period, hey I am always in my blue period, come on you Gers 8)
-
Dear Dicky,
Oh the first Atheist ( only because it annoys your typical atheist ) to mention the Saintly Karen, and it was this Dear lady who first put me wise to the fundamental Atheist and this forum is awash with fundamental Atheists.
And yes maybe we do need a new thread, but just a quick reply to your post, the only words in the first chapter of Genesis you need to focus on are , "and behold it was very good" not the time span, a day, a year, a century, a millennia, an aeon "And behold it was very good".
Also and to help you along I have just dug out Karens wonderful small book " In The Beginning, a new interpretation of Genesis" because Dear Dicky you are allowed to do that, The Holy Bible is a living breathing document.
Gonnagle.
Stand by Gonnagle for a broadside from the fundies, man the guns Gonnagle :o
PS: Me an anti theist :o Must have been in my blue period, hey I am always in my blue period, come on you Gers 8)
Dear Gonners,
I have read it (as I have most of her books).
"And God saw that it was good" Well, I see it as a bit of a Curate's Egg. "Look, how wonderful" (Book of Job) - till you taste smell and see the rotten parts.
-
BTW, Gonners, if you get to cursing God (as you admitted to doing at one time) that would make you pretty much anti-theist, I'd say.
-
You bang on about logical incoherence and then say that spacetime is composed of points and the whole of spacetime is at each point......in time.e!!!
What!? How the fuck did you manage to read that into anything I said?
The problem is wanting spacetime to be both composed AND a singular entity.
I don't want that. However, as it appears to be a continuum, it's probably more like one thing than a composite. This just seems to be you pretending that you've posted something that would convince anybody that a 'necessary entity' cannot be a composite and then pretending that I'm claiming that the universe is the 'necessary entity'. Both are false.
I think you need to clear a mess here and get what you are trying to say in some kind of order.
(https://media.tenor.com/X0Gp-pqN2N4AAAAC/irony.gif)
In any case, an entity which is singular and is without parts or components was proposed by philosophers centuries ago.
And I should care about this because.....?
-
Dear Gonners,
I have read it (as I have most of her books).
"And God saw that it was good" Well, I see it as a bit if a Curate's Egg. "Look, how wonderful" (Book of Job) - till you taste smell and see the rotten parts.
Dear Dicky,
Curates egg! very drool ::) And Karen is not a fan either of the book of Job, anyway where were we, oh yes, fundamental Atheist ( or atheist, same difference ) but then your post goes right back into fundamentalist atheist mode, nevermind eh!
Gonnagle.
-
I take it you are still waiting and haven't settled for"The Kalam doesn't prove God"(Who said it did?).
Given that a counter argument has already been put up on here namely "Surely mankind is too wee" for something as grand as God to worry about, let's start with that. Why does that necessarily follow?
Misrepresentation of what the Prof was saying. Don't see the relevance of your first sentence to the post you were replying to.
-
Dear Dicky,
Curates egg! very drool ::) And Karen is not a fan either of the book of Job, anyway where were we, oh yes, fundamental Atheist ( or atheist, same difference ) but then your post goes right back into fundamentalist atheist mode, nevermind eh!
Gonnagle.
I'm sure your peculiar definitions mean something to you and make you happy. Pity the rest of us would like a little greater clarity.
-
What!? How the fuck did you manage to read that into anything I said?
I don't want that. However, as it appears to be a continuum, it's probably more like one thing than a composite. This just seems to be you pretending that you've posted something that would convince anybody that a 'necessary entity' cannot be a composite and then pretending that I'm claiming that the universe is the 'necessary entity'. Both are false.
(https://media.tenor.com/X0Gp-pqN2N4AAAAC/irony.gif)
And I should care about this because.....?
Doesn't the space time continuum merely mean that space and time are not separate entities. Your definition seems to point to a single thing rather than a range.
If all entities have something in common we come back to virtually the same issue. WHAT IS IT THAT ALL ENTITIES HAVE IN COMMON?
-
I'm sure your peculiar definitions mean something to you and make you happy. Pity the rest of us would like a little greater clarity.
Dear Dicky,
My peculiar definition, not mine, it was Karen's ( first name terms now, thinking of inviting her round for tea, lovely lady ) that lady just opened my eyes to a very simple truth, but then you have said you have read most of Karen's books, "The Case for God" the chapter is "Death of God" I suggest a re reading of this Chapter using that special tool that only Atheists are good at, Critical Thinking.
Now this is my peculiar definition, the fundamental Atheist reads the Bible just the same as the fundamental Christian, literally. The wonderful Karen Armstrong explains it a lot better than I can.
Gonnagle.
-
Now this is my peculiar definition, the fundamental Atheist reads the Bible just the same as the fundamental Christian, literally. The wonderful Karen Armstrong explains it a lot better than I can.
Gonnagle.
But there is a difference: the fundamental Christian may regard the Bible as being literally true whereas an atheist (I don't think there are fundamental atheists because not simply holding beliefs about Gods doesn't involve any real variations) won't see it as being documentary history in that some of the details in it are not remotely believable, plus its overall provenance is uncertain.
Some might see it as allegorical or poetic, I suppose, or an interesting document of middle-eastern societies in antiquity.
-
But there is a difference: the fundamental Christian may regard the Bible as being literally true whereas an atheist (I don't think there are fundamental atheists because not simply holding beliefs about Gods doesn't involve any real variations) won't see it as being documentary history in that some of the details in it are not remotely believable, plus its overall provenance is uncertain.
Some might see it as allegorical or poetic, I suppose, or an interesting document of middle-eastern societies in antiquity.
Then they would be committing the fallacy of modernity.
They also need to be clear that there is a more accurate version of history and evidence it.
Getting all that from just lacking belief in God or gods seems a tall order.
-
Doesn't the space time continuum merely mean that space and time are not separate entities.
That, and that it's 'analogue' rather than consisting of individual points. Associated with an uncountable infinity of points. Also known as continuum infinity, c = 2ℵ₀, where ℵ₀ (aleph-0) is countable infinity, the cardinality ('size') of the set of natural numbers, ℕ = {0,1,2,3,...}.
Your definition seems to point to a single thing rather than a range.
The General relativity view is that it's like a four-dimensional 'object'.
If all entities have something in common we come back to virtually the same issue. WHAT IS IT THAT ALL ENTITIES HAVE IN COMMON?
Not sure what you're getting at. Existence? (https://i.imgur.com/htw8DF1.gif)
-
That, and that it's 'analogue' rather than consisting of individual points. Associated with an uncountable infinity of points. Also known as continuum infinity, c = 2ℵ₀, where ℵ₀ (aleph-0) is countable infinity, the cardinality ('size') of the set of natural
Harambee bashem coquilion shakalak karaoke micordiati shibboleth Mani biltissiti onro canrol
The General relativity view is that it's like a four-dimensional 'object'.
And inescapably presented as a candidate for "Necessary entity"
-
But there is a difference: the fundamental Christian may regard the Bible as being literally true whereas an atheist (I don't think there are fundamental atheists because not simply holding beliefs about Gods doesn't involve any real variations) won't see it as being documentary history in that some of the details in it are not remotely believable, plus its overall provenance is uncertain.
Some might see it as allegorical or poetic, I suppose, or an interesting document of middle-eastern societies in antiquity.
Dear Gordon, Important matters first, I hope you kind Sir are taking care of your good self❤️
Of course there is a difference! the fundamental Atheist does not believe in God but you are just the same as the fundamental Christian.
This forum proves it.
The fundamental Atheist have done exactly want the fundamental Christians have done, dug their heels in.
There's more, so much more, time for a coffee :P check my emails and see what's happening in the real world :o
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Gordon, Important matters first, I hope you kind Sir are taking care of your good self❤️
Of course there is a difference! the fundamental Atheist does not believe in God but you are just the same as the fundamental Christian.
This forum proves it.
The fundamental Atheist have done exactly want the fundamental Christians have done, dug their heels in.
There's more, so much more, time for a coffee :P check my emails and see what's happening in the real world :o
Gonnagle.
Are you saying here that your definition of a fundamental atheists is that they don't have a belief on God? So for you all atheists are fundamental atheists? Presumably then all theists who have a belief in god, are fundamental theists?
-
Of course there is a difference! the fundamental Atheist does not believe in God ...
Surely some mistake Gonners - a person who does not believe in god is an atheist, not a fundamentalist atheist, let alone a fundamentalist Atheist (whatever that capitalisation means).
... but you are just the same as the fundamental Christian.
Nope, the point is the 'fundamentalist' part - it is typical to consider fundamentalist christians to be a sub-set of christians on the basis of their actions - e.g. Westboro Baptist church as an extreme. There is no-one on this MB who acts in a similar manner as those folk, nor can I think of anyone of an atheist persuasion who acts as the Westboro Baptist church people do on the basis of their atheism.
You wish to argue for an equivalence where none exists. Realistically the atheists here are best compared to a kindly and gentle vicar, who believes in god, but wouldn't have the arrogance to claim they know that god exists, who is happy to discuss the matter with others who clearly also wish to but wouldn't dream of forcing their views on others without that consent, and who wish merely to live their lives accordingly and without interference, but have no interesting in forcing their beliefs on others in terms of (for example) stopping them from engaging in their beliefs/lack of belief.
So if you are looking for a better term - how about 'mild-mannered atheists' - but always remember Henry the mild-mannered janitor!!
-
Are you saying here that your definition of a fundamental atheists is that they don't have a belief on God? So for you all atheists are fundamental atheists? Presumably then all theists who have a belief in god, are fundamental theists?
Dear Sane,
No most definitely not, not all Atheists are fundamentalists, but I have to say regarding this forum, where was the thunder, where was the outcry when the good Prof mentioned typical atheist
Gonnagle.
-
And inescapably presented as a candidate for "Necessary entity"
Drivel. As I keep saying, I think the argument from contingency is total bullshit and the idea of a 'necessary entity' is incoherent nonsense.
-
Surely some mistake Gonners - a person who does not believe in god is an atheist, not a fundamentalist atheist, let alone a fundamentalist Atheist (whatever that capitalisation means).
Nope, the point is the 'fundamentalist' part - it is typical to consider fundamentalist christians to be a sub-set of christians on the basis of their actions - e.g. Westboro Baptist church as an extreme. There is no-one on this MB who acts in a similar manner as those folk, nor can I think of anyone of an atheist persuasion who acts as the Westboro Baptist church people do on the basis of their atheism.
You wish to argue for an equivalence where none exists. Realistically the atheists here are best compared to a kindly and gentle vicar, who believes in god, but wouldn't have the arrogance to claim they know that god exists, who is happy to discuss the matter with others who clearly also wish to but wouldn't dream of forcing their views on others without that consent, and who wish merely to live their lives accordingly and without interference, but have no interesting in forcing their beliefs on others in terms of (for example) stopping them from engaging in their beliefs/lack of belief.
So if you are looking for a better term - how about 'mild-mannered atheists' - but always remember Henry the mild-mannered janitor!!
Dear Prof,
I think I have answered your post by replying to Sanes, but there you go again, strawman, mentioning the worst case, I am not equating the fundamental Atheist on this forum to Westboro.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane,
No most definitely not, not all Atheists are fundamentalists, but I have to say regarding this forum, where was the thunder, where was the outcry when the good Prof mentioned typical atheist
Gonnagle.
where is the thunder in my post?
-
Dear Prof,
I think I have answered your post by replying to Sanes, but there you go again, strawman, mentioning the worst case, I am not equating the fundamental Atheist on this forum to Westboro.
Gonnagle.
So what is a 'fundamentalist atheist'?
-
where is the thunder in my post?
Dear Sane,
Not your post, nice try ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Gordon, Important matters first, I hope you kind Sir are taking care of your good self❤️
Of course there is a difference! the fundamental Atheist does not believe in God but you are just the same as the fundamental Christian.
This forum proves it.
The fundamental Atheist have done exactly want the fundamental Christians have done, dug their heels in.
There's more, so much more, time for a coffee :P check my emails and see what's happening in the real world :o
Gonnagle.
For me the Bible has no relevance whatsoever, and plays no part in my life (and never has), so it's not a case of digging heels in but more a case of 'it really doesn't matter to me'.
However, some of those who do take it seriously seem to presume that what is important for them is equally important for everyone and no matter how much I treat it with disdain it hasn't gone away. Therefore I think I'm justified in making that clear - just as theists feel justified in claiming that the Bible is still relevant.
It may be that some atheists are more strident in their critique of Christianity but that doesn't imply that their atheism is fundamentally different from other atheists: all atheists simply lack a belief in Gods.
-
For me the Bible has no relevance whatsoever, and plays no part in my life (and never has), so it's not a case of digging heels in but more a case of 'it really doesn't matter to me'.
However, some of those who do take it seriously seem to presume that what is important for them is equally important for everyone and no matter how much I treat it with disdain it hasn't gone away. Therefore I think I'm justified in making that clear - just as theists feel justified in claiming that the Bible is still relevant.
It may be that some atheists are more strident in their critique of Christianity but that doesn't imply that their atheism is fundamentally different from other atheists: all atheists simply lack a belief in Gods.
Dear Gordon,
Lets try this, your software is giving me a hard time >:(
it really doesn't matter to me'. You could have fooled me old son.
just as theists feel justified in claiming that the Bible is still relevant.
Oh it is still very much relevant today.
It may be that some atheists are more strident in their critique of Christianity but that doesn't imply that their atheism is fundamentally different from other atheists: all atheists simply lack a belief in Gods.
Critique of there Holy book, which you refuse to try and understand.
Gonnagle.
-
For me the Bible has no relevance whatsoever, and plays no part in my life (and never has), so it's not a case of digging heels in but more a case of 'it really doesn't matter to me'.
However, some of those who do take it seriously seem to presume that what is important for them is equally important for everyone and no matter how much I treat it with disdain it hasn't gone away. Therefore I think I'm justified in making that clear - just as theists feel justified in claiming that the Bible is still relevant.
It may be that some atheists are more strident in their critique of Christianity but that doesn't imply that their atheism is fundamentally different from other atheists: all atheists simply lack a belief in Gods.
Gordon, do you not see the irony of not wanting religion forced down one's throat and being a principal contributor to a forum on religion and ethics?
-
The fundamental Atheist have done exactly want the fundamental Christians have done, dug their heels in.
This makes exactly no sense. What's a "fundamental (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fundamental) Christian", what's an "Atheist" (as opposed to an atheist), and what's a "fundamental (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fundamental) Atheist"?
Even if you meant fundamentalist (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/fundamentalist), that only makes sense of "fundamentalist Christian". Maybe these mysterious "Atheists" have traditional teaching or a holy book to believe literally in, but us ordinary atheists don't.
And as you have declared yourself to be an atheist again (#36 (https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=22604.msg904596#msg904596)), it makes even less sense, unless you've joined this mysterious Atheist organisation...
-
It may be that some atheists are more strident in their critique of Christianity but that doesn't imply that their atheism is fundamentally different from other atheists: all atheists simply lack a belief in Gods.
Here they are again, happy as can be, all good friends and jolly good company.
-
Dear Gordon,
Lets try this, your software is giving me a hard time >:(
it really doesn't matter to me'. You could have fooled me old son.
It doesn't, but for as long as it is a factor in society at large I'm as permitted to be negative about is just as theists are permitted to be positive about it.
just as theists feel justified in claiming that the Bible is still relevant.
Oh it is still very much relevant today.
But not to everyone.
It may be that some atheists are more strident in their critique of Christianity but that doesn't imply that their atheism is fundamentally different from other atheists: all atheists simply lack a belief in Gods.
Critique of there Holy book, which you refuse to try and understand.
Gonnagle.
It understand that it is largely ancient anecdote that mixes social history of a particular area with religious claims - there is nothing in it that I regard as being a serious proposition, so I don't see it as being either relevant or especially profound.
-
Gordon, do you not see the irony of not wanting religion forced down one's throat and being a principal contributor to a forum on religion and ethics?
No - I didn't say it wasn't interesting.
-
Gordon, do you not see the irony of not wanting religion forced down one's throat and being a principal contributor to a forum on religion and ethics?
You are going have to explain where the irony is there.
-
Dear Gordon,
Lets try this, your software is giving me a hard time >:(
it really doesn't matter to me'. You could have fooled me old son.
just as theists feel justified in claiming that the Bible is still relevant.
Oh it is still very much relevant today.
It may be that some atheists are more strident in their critique of Christianity but that doesn't imply that their atheism is fundamentally different from other atheists: all atheists simply lack a belief in Gods.
Critique of there Holy book, which you refuse to try and understand.
Gonnagle.
By digging your heels in by saying the bible is very much relevant today or by suggesting that Gordon refuses to try and understand the bible, does that make you a fundamental Christian then?
After all it was you who said:
The fundamental Atheist have done exactly want the fundamental Christians have done, dug their heels in.
:)
-
You are going have to explain where the irony is there.
Where do you think people who are likely to be pushing religion are going to be?
-
It doesn't, but for as long as it is a factor in society at large I'm as permitted to be negative about is just as theists are permitted to be positive about it.
But not to everyone.
It understand that it is largely ancient anecdote that mixes social history of a particular area with religious claims - there is nothing in it that I regard as being a serious proposition, so I don't see it as being either relevant or especially profound.
Dear Gordon, correct, but you are negative all the time.
there is nothing in it that I regard as being a serious proposition
Compassion, empathy, mans greed, injustice, mans inhumanity to man, but you don't see that, correction you don't want to see that, and I do apologise to old Dicky, his bait to bring out old Vlad has taken a different turn.
Gonnagle.
-
By digging your heels in by saying the bible is very much relevant today or by suggesting that Gordon refuses to try and understand the bible, does that make you a fundamental Christian then?
After all it was you who said:
:)
I don't think people are into treatises, treaties, or statements of intent, or articles of faith, or mission statements, or manifestos, or references, or foundational documents these days.
They just want it "all sorted".
-
Dear Enki,
Sorry I tried to post your whole post but it made no sense, not your post just when I hit the quote button :o
By digging your heels in by saying the bible is very much relevant today or by suggesting that Gordon refuses to try and understand the bible, does that make you a fundamental Christian then?
Fair question, am I a fundamental Christian, I don't think so, why? it has been explained to me why fundamental Christianity, the higher critique for what it is worth, and then along came Darwin, how dare they attack our Holy book, and so began fundamental Christianity, they dug their heels in, just like the fundamental Atheist.
Nope, not a fundie, simple Christian who follows the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ, or any other profound teaching, as long as it sounds a bit Christiany, sue me ✝️
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Gordon, correct, but you are negative all the time.
there is nothing in it that I regard as being a serious proposition
Compassion, empathy, mans greed, injustice, mans inhumanity to man, but you don't see that, correction you don't want to see that, and I do apologise to old Dicky, his bait to bring out old Vlad has taken a different turn.
Gonnagle.
There are plenty of sources that address all those issues that, for me, have greater value than the Christian Bible: philosophy, poetry and literature. Pretty much all the characteristics you mention can be found in the work of Dickens (and many others).
-
Where do you think people who are likely to be pushing religion are going to be?
Discussion isn't 'forcing down your throat'.
-
Dear Enki,
Sorry I tried to post your whole post but it made no sense, not your post just when I hit the quote button :o
By digging your heels in by saying the bible is very much relevant today or by suggesting that Gordon refuses to try and understand the bible, does that make you a fundamental Christian then?
Fair question, am I a fundamental Christian, I don't think so, why? it has been explained to me why fundamental Christianity, the higher critique for what it is worth, and then along came Darwin, how dare they attack our Holy book, and so began fundamental Christianity, they dug their heels in, just like the fundamental Atheist.
Nope, not a fundie, simple Christian who follows the teachings of Our Lord Jesus Christ, or any other profound teaching, as long as it sounds a bit Christiany, sue me ✝️
Gonnagle.
The thing is though the equivalent of atheist isn't Christian, it's theist, and in yerms of your theism you are, I think by your definition, though I'm still not totally clear on it, a fundamental theists.
-
There are plenty of sources that address all those issues that, for me, have greater value than the Christian Bible: philosophy, poetry and literature. Pretty much all the characteristics you mention can be found in the work of Dickens (and many others).
Dear Gordon,
Dickens, cheers old son :P Now stop giving me ammunition, I am perfectly capable of dealing with the fundies on my own.
Charles Dickens was a Christian, but of a broad and somewhat unconventional variety. While his family was Anglican, he displayed a dislike for certain aspects of religious dogma, particularly evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism. He is described as having "deep religious convictions". He was also known to have shown an interest in Unitarian Christianity. Ultimately, Dickens's religious views were complex and not easily categorized into a specific denomination.
Here's a more detailed look:
Broad Christianity:
Dickens's religious views were generally Christian, but not tied to any particular sect.
Dislike of Dogma:
He openly criticized certain forms of religious practice, such as evangelicalism and Roman Catholicism.
Unitarian leanings:
In the 1840s, he showed an interest in Unitarian Christianity.
"The Life of Our Lord":
Dickens wrote a book for his children about the life of Jesus, suggesting a personal engagement with Christian faith.
"A Christmas Carol":
This story, while not explicitly religious, has been interpreted as having a strong moral and Christian undercurrent, with the spirits potentially representing divine intervention.
Influence on his work:
Dickens's concern for the poor and marginalized, often reflected in his novels, can be seen as stemming from his broader Christian values.
My thanks once again to AI :o :o :o
Gonnagle.
-
But my point was that there are sources other than the Bible that portray the whole range of human behaviour. That Dickens had a Christian inclination doesn't really matter in that context of his writing being a source of descriptions of human nature.
Larkin wasn't religious but he still wrote 'Church Going'.
-
But my point was that there are sources other than the Bible that portray the whole range of human behaviour. That Dickens had a Christian inclination doesn't really matter in that context of his writing being a source of descriptions of human nature.
Larkin wasn't religious but he still wrote 'Church Going'.
Dear Gordon,
Inclination :o Yes that's what I have an inclination :o
As for Mr Larkin, lovely poem, thank you👍 glad he took his bicycle clips off in reverence.
Now back to fundamental Atheism, lets talk Hitchens, Mr angry Atheist.
Do you think fundamental Christians are angry?
Gonnagle.
-
Hard to say - I don't know any fundamentalist Christians to be able to give an opinion.
Some may be angry, or intolerant, I suppose - but then, anger and intolerance applies to all sorts of people and in relation to all sorts of topics about which people have strong feelings or an emotional attachment.
Our own dear city has instances of that.
-
Hard to say - I don't know any fundamentalist Christians to be able to give an opinion.
Some may be angry, or intolerant, I suppose - but then, anger and intolerance applies to all sorts of people and in relation to all sorts of topics about which people have strong feelings or an emotional attachment.
Our own dear city has instances of that.
Dear Gordon,
Correct, all sorts of people.
Now the favourite tactic of the Fundie Christian is cherry picking, God says this, God says that, disregarding all the rest of the Bible teachings, ring any bells Gordon!
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Gordon,
Correct, all sorts of people.
Now the favourite tactic of the Fundie Christian is cherry picking, God says this, God says that, disregarding all the rest of the Bible teachings, ring any bells Gordon!
Gonnagle.
Not really: that the Christian Bible contains such obvious nonsense in parts, lacks provenance, has been subject to uncertain translations, is largely anecdotal and where any mistakes or lies in it are beyond checking then, for me, it has no real value and I don't see it as a source of teaching or profundity.
Every time, though it doesn't happen to me often these days, I hear someone clerically inclined say anything along the lines of 'Jesus told us/showed us/taught us/etc' I consider that they cannot be certain of that even if they believe it themselves, or maybe it gives them a warm and cozy feeling: but, for me, since what Jesus allegedly said or did is indistinguishable from fiction, then it may as well be fiction.
Therefore - the Christian Bible really does mean nothing to me.
-
Not really: that the Christian Bible contains such obvious nonsense in parts, lacks provenance, has been subject to uncertain translations, is largely anecdotal and where any mistakes or lies in it are beyond checking then, for me, it has no real value and I don't see it as a source of teaching or profundity.
Every time, though it doesn't happen to me often these days, I hear someone clerically inclined say anything along the lines of 'Jesus told us/showed us/taught us/etc' I consider that they cannot be certain of that even if they believe it themselves, or maybe it gives them a warm and cozy feeling: but, for me, since what Jesus allegedly said or did is indistinguishable from fiction, then it may as well be fiction.
Therefore - the Christian Bible really does mean nothing to me.
Oh, Vienna.
-
Not really: that the Christian Bible contains such obvious nonsense in parts, lacks provenance, has been subject to uncertain translations, is largely anecdotal and where any mistakes or lies in it are beyond checking then, for me, it has no real value and I don't see it as a source of teaching or profundity.
Every time, though it doesn't happen to me often these days, I hear someone clerically inclined say anything along the lines of 'Jesus told us/showed us/taught us/etc' I consider that they cannot be certain of that even if they believe it themselves, or maybe it gives them a warm and cozy feeling: but, for me, since what Jesus allegedly said or did is indistinguishable from fiction, then it may as well be fiction.
Therefore - the Christian Bible really does mean nothing to me.
Dear Gordon,
Obvious nonsense! is this you at your miracles thing again? true fundieism ( my new word ) the fundamental Christian also thinks this, maybe I should not bother as you are displaying true fundieism.
Lacks provenance, the Holy Bible is probably the only book in existence that has been poured over, pondered, taken apart, looked at in fine detail and yet it still stands, why? well Gordon to the rescue again, anyone for Dickens, wait anyone for Shakespeare.
Uncertain translations, oh yes definitely give you that, fundie Christians and fundie Atheists alike. A rich tradition of Greek, Hebrew and Arabic mistranslation, I give you the word "Pistis" go off and research that one word, but you won't, why? because you are a fundamental Atheist, I am right and you are wrong says the fundamentalist, as he digs his heels in further.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Gordon,
Obvious nonsense! is this you at your miracles thing again? true fundieism ( my new word ) the fundamental Christian also thinks this, maybe I should not bother as you are displaying true fundieism.
Lacks provenance, the Holy Bible is probably the only book in existence that has been poured over, pondered, taken apart, looked at in fine detail and yet it still stands, why? well Gordon to the rescue again, anyone for Dickens, wait anyone for Shakespeare.
Uncertain translations, oh yes definitely give you that, fundie Christians and fundie Atheists alike. A rich tradition of Greek, Hebrew and Arabic mistranslation, I give you the word "Pistis" go off and research that one word, but you won't, why? because you are a fundamental Atheist, I am right and you are wrong says the fundamentalist, as he digs his heels in further.
Gonnagle.
I know what 'pistis' means: but for me it isn't enough, and that the whole 'faith/trust/conviction' thing just isn't sufficient grounds to take the Christian Bible seriously.
It may have a long history of social influence and power politics over many centuries, though that is waning where we are, but that tradition is, for me, unconvincing given its core supernatural claims, and I don't see it as being remotely authoritative.
If you are, like me, 'pistis free' then the Bible is just a curious old book.