T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Alex,
So you agree that the God notion is just human mythos!! My first convert !!![Stick Out Tongue :p :p]()
![Wink ;) ;)]()
![Roll Eyes :rolleyes: :rolleyes:]()
So you agree that the God notion is just human mythos!! My first convert !!
I find it interesting that you immediately assume faith is blind. My faith is not at all blind, it's soundly reasoned, and well informed, entirely consonant with the Western philosophical tradition, and reasonable according to many aspects of Eastern philosophy, as well.You could go around with the blind faith ...
Once again your presumption that faith is necessarily blind — For this reason alone I think your arguments are founded on faulty data, or put another way, you are blind when it comes to matters of faith?Such blind faith would be no different to a belief in God.
Nonsense. It's more honest than your equating Santa Claus with a Deity, and it's way more honest in not being founded on supposition.To be frank I find this argument that you cannot disprove God an extremely dishonest one. It is a fudge not a valid argument.
I find it interesting that you immediately assume faith is blind. My faith is not at all blind, it's soundly reasoned, and well informed, entirely consonant with the Western philosophical tradition, and reasonable according to many aspects of Eastern philosophy, as well.
Oh my, is he touted as an example of a successful pedestal worthy atheist??History does have its examples of trying, Mao's cultural revolution for example.
Oh my, is he touted as an example of a successful pedestal worthy atheist??History does have its examples of trying, Mao's cultural revolution for example.
You isolate my words from the context in which they were delivered and you can argue the point as you do. Remove context though and everything is meaningless.I find it interesting that you immediately assume faith is blind. My faith is not at all blind, it's soundly reasoned, and well informed, entirely consonant with the Western philosophical tradition, and reasonable according to many aspects of Eastern philosophy, as well.
Once again your presumption that faith is necessarily blind — For this reason alone I think your arguments are founded on faulty data, or put another way, you are blind when it comes to matters of faith?
How so? The symbolic and cultural parallels between God and Santa are strikingly obvious. At least obvious enough to stimulate this debate. The question is an honest one. One that is challenging to the believer as it has within it that there is a possibility that the 'grown ups" God is just as fictional as Santa Clause. Such a possibility can make the believer uncomfortable just as the child being ribbed by his peers for believing in Santa is uncomfortable, angry, defensive. Woops...another parallel!!Nonsense. It's more honest than your equating Santa Claus with a Deity, and it's way more honest in not being founded on supposition.
Thomas
Sorry but I refute this out of hand. If there were a lack of evidence because nobody had ever bothered to look then I would agree. But the fact is every claim of evidence made by any religion down through the ages has been investigated and proven false. It is not just lack of evidence, it is much more than that.Lack of evidence does not prove anything one way or another. It may just mean that our understanding of how to get at the truth is faulty.
Thomas brother, in January 1997 discover magazine reported there were astronomers that had come to a conclusion that a dozen planets were orbiting distant stars..
"So far the new planets are known only from the way their gravity perturbs the motion of the parent stars."
So the astronomers, the visible effects of gravity constituted a basis for believing in the existence of unseen heavenly bodies..... And this is just related evidence not direct observations, but this is adequate for those scientists and many others to accept these conclusions...
I was just reading the details about this and saw your post and thought, hey to a degree that is how faith works right?
I can understand faith and I can understand doubt but for me the only answer to genuine critical enquiry dispels the former and confirms the doubt. I do not mean that it blows the essence of spirituality out of the water but a quick analyses and weighing of the facts means no one can truly have complete faith and be wholly sane. So this as I understand it is exactly the position a child is put in when he discovers the Christmas presents in the closet. He cannot go on believing what he has proof of is a lie.
I think you're saying that once you deconstruct the mythology there is no reality of G-d. This does not follow.I saw today a database of 4200 different religions and their splinter groups. 4200 different groups that believe they have the truth and that others are, at best, misguided. What does critical enquiry of that fact say other than people make it up, not A God
The reality of G-d is not dependent on the adequacy of religions.Everywhere we look we can see people making it up as they go along. I submit this is no different and just as much a myth as Santa Claus.
We were talking about the existence of G-d. It makes no sense to apply an empirical standard of evidence to a matter of faith. Wrong level of analysis.Sorry but I refute this out of hand. If there were a lack of evidence because nobody had ever bothered to look then I would agree. But the fact is every claim of evidence made by any religion down through the ages has been investigated and proven false. It is not just lack of evidence, it is much more than that.
Bit of a cheap shot Wil, dont you think? Or do you really think I am a reincarnation of the Buddha Mao?Oh my, is he touted as an example of a successful pedestal worthy atheist??
When have I ever insisted what you do or dont believe? I come here to talk about belief and make my point based on my own perspective of things. I am not proselytising, I have no agenda that I am promoting. All I do is discuss from the point of view of an atheist. Or do you think an atheist has no right to discuss religion and belief? Do you think that religion and belief have no impact on my world because I am an atheist? Must we all sing the same song to sit round this campfire?So it is fine if you don't believe. But why do you insist I am not allowed to?
We were talking about the existence of G-d. It makes no sense to apply an empirical standard of evidence to a matter of faith. Wrong level of analysis.
The reality of G-d is not dependent on the adequacy of religions.
Can atheists believe in reincarnation? No you brought up Mao, I thought as an example in response to Operacast, I was trying to clarify, totally confused as to your assertion.Bit of a cheap shot Wil, dont you think? Or do you really think I am a reincarnation of the Buddha Mao?
When have I ever insisted what you do or dont believe? I come here to talk about belief and make my point based on my own perspective of things. I am not proselytising, I have no agenda that I am promoting. All I do is discuss from the point of view of an atheist. Or do you think an atheist has no right to discuss religion and belief? Do you think that religion and belief have no impact on my world because I am an atheist? Must we all sing the same song to sit round this campfire?
Tao
I agree religions are man made. They could be divinely inspired, but they are translated, written down, through the mind of man, and hence distorted in that process. I believe that is what N-N is referring to, you can tear apart the scripture and find man's failing in describing the undescribable.Then what are you left with?NettiNetti said:The reality of G-d is not dependent on the adequacy of religions.
imho we don't need to all sing the same song around the campfire.
Actually no. It's the distinction between metaphysics and physics.Only a theist would make such a statement.
Why would the empirical standard for studying individual natural phenomena apply to metaphysics? How do you put the unitary structure of the Universe into a test tube? Like I said, makes no sense.One rule for faith...another for logic.... you really think that valid?
You're left with the conclusion you had already drawn when you started this thread.Then what are you left with?
or language, or cadence, or the same verses...but yes, I hear you, the same song.I'd say they are all singing the same song.... Just not in the same key.![]()
I would posit that the vast majority of atheists, myself included, play along with Santa Claus and halloween. An atheist can do so by removing, very easily, any religious connotations.You can dismiss it all if you so choose. For me, I'll play.