|
Post by trubble on Apr 14, 2009 23:22:25 GMT
It's not a fair analogy because the bridge is in your mind.
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 15, 2009 0:41:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by beth on Apr 15, 2009 2:11:29 GMT
oh my eyes!!! I'm sooooo shocked! and, what, exactly, is your point?
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Apr 15, 2009 8:55:52 GMT
oh my eyes!!! I'm sooooo shocked! and, what, exactly, is your point? I always knew that Coutney Love was evil. Isn't the "horned hand" thingy an old Egyptian symbol anyway? When held to the light it renders evil helpless or some such balderdash. AH
|
|
|
Post by june on Apr 15, 2009 8:57:06 GMT
nice post beth. i also think that when you denigrate another's faith, you damage your own. so, in other words, if you see someone about to jump off a bridge, you should say nothing to them? You equate religion/faith to jumping off a bridge? That is a silly analogy Jumbo and you know it. Perhaps you ought to give your fellow man more credit - each chooses their own path and maybe, just maybe, they don't want you to steer them onto yours. They will have such as strong a conviction as you that they are RIGHT and following the TRUTH. Why not respect that?
|
|
|
Post by june on Apr 15, 2009 8:58:02 GMT
oh my eyes!!! I'm sooooo shocked! and, what, exactly, is your point? I always knew that Coutney Love was evil. Isn't the "horned hand" thingy an old Egyptian symbol anyway? When held to the light it renders evil helpless or some such balderdash. AH I loved someone was there who looked as if they were conducting and orchestra ;D
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 15, 2009 11:52:25 GMT
It's not a fair analogy because the bridge is in your mind. hardly. i'm not the one fixing to jump off a bridge
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 15, 2009 11:55:55 GMT
so, in other words, if you see someone about to jump off a bridge, you should say nothing to them? You equate religion/faith to jumping off a bridge? That is a silly analogy Jumbo and you know it. Perhaps you ought to give your fellow man more credit - each chooses their own path and maybe, just maybe, they don't want you to steer them onto yours. They will have such as strong a conviction as you that they are RIGHT and following the TRUTH. Why not respect that? because, even with the hassle that it causes me, i do realize, and accept, the fact that i have the moral obligation to try to instruct everyone in the truth, and keep them from following the wrong path. of course, i can only turn on the light for you, and show you where it is. i cannot, and would not were i able, to force you to open your eyes and see it. that is the choice each individual has to make on his own
|
|
|
Post by june on Apr 15, 2009 12:38:35 GMT
You equate religion/faith to jumping off a bridge? That is a silly analogy Jumbo and you know it. Perhaps you ought to give your fellow man more credit - each chooses their own path and maybe, just maybe, they don't want you to steer them onto yours. They will have such as strong a conviction as you that they are RIGHT and following the TRUTH. Why not respect that? because, even with the hassle that it causes me, i do realize, and accept, the fact that i have the moral obligation to try to instruct everyone in the truth, and keep them from following the wrong path. of course, i can only turn on the light for you, and show you where it is. i cannot, and would not were i able, to force you to open your eyes and see it. that is the choice each individual has to make on his own I must admit I do not understand what you see as the truth - I am very clear on what you see a not being the truth. ;D I feel you are on a fools errand but good luck to you if you really feel you need to educate the world!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2009 15:56:08 GMT
There is no evidence Jesus (of Bible fame) existed, so comparing to Appolo is quite sensible That surprises me June, because I thought all scholars - whether Christians or not - recognised that Jesus existed, even if they doubt all that is written about him in the bible.
|
|
|
Post by june on Apr 15, 2009 16:14:19 GMT
There is no evidence Jesus (of Bible fame) existed, so comparing to Appolo is quite sensible That surprises me June, because I thought all scholars - whether Christians or not - recognised that Jesus existed, even if they doubt all that is written about him in the bible. There are lots of people called Jesus in the world at the moment ;D, but no, there is no verifiable evidence from that time that the Bible Jesus existed. What you might get is a 'it is most likely he did' - which is a total cop out and based on much later statements made by people like Pliny - who have no more idea than we do. If you trust writings made 100/1000's of years later then you wouldn't doubt the bible in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 15, 2009 17:54:53 GMT
There is no evidence Jesus (of Bible fame) existed, so comparing to Appolo is quite sensible That surprises me June, because I thought all scholars - whether Christians or not - recognised that Jesus existed, even if they doubt all that is written about him in the bible. you don't have to accept the bible at all, although intelligent people do. the FACT is that he is a part of roman history, EXACTLY as was nero.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 15, 2009 17:58:41 GMT
because, even with the hassle that it causes me, i do realize, and accept, the fact that i have the moral obligation to try to instruct everyone in the truth, and keep them from following the wrong path. of course, i can only turn on the light for you, and show you where it is. i cannot, and would not were i able, to force you to open your eyes and see it. that is the choice each individual has to make on his own I must admit I do not understand what you see as the truth - I am very clear on what you see a not being the truth. ;D I feel you are on a fools errand but good luck to you if you really feel you need to educate the world! thank you. i am fully aware that there will always be those who choose to refuse to open their eyes and continue to stumble around in the darkness, and that is unfortunate. there are some however, who are intelligent enough to open their eyes and see the light
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Apr 15, 2009 18:44:14 GMT
How does one define validity?
In the world of science, truth is defined by the possibility of verifying or falsifying any given hypothesis. In the case of religious belief, that possibility simply does not appear to be open to us.
I am not prepared to call myself an atheist since that too appears to me to require too great a presumption of certainty on the other side.
The agnostic position is the only one that can be credibly maintained.
|
|
|
Post by june on Apr 15, 2009 19:13:29 GMT
I disagree - I find it very easy to say that it is all mumbo jumbo.
|
|
|
Post by mikemarshall on Apr 15, 2009 22:38:45 GMT
But that position is as impossible either to verify or falsify as the theistic hypothesis.
Where there is reasonable doubt, we may not dogmatise.
|
|
|
Post by june on Apr 16, 2009 19:50:52 GMT
But that position is as impossible either to verify or falsify as the theistic hypothesis. Where there is reasonable doubt, we may not dogmatise. But I don't have reasonable doubt. Based on evidence there is no supreme being. All that is presented as evidence is hearsay. As you can not prove the negative (you cannot prove there isn't) I have to base my rational decision on the positive - there is no evidence that there is. I apply the same logical thought process to the existence of Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy (whom also cannot be proven to not exist). ;D
|
|
|
Post by Liberator on Apr 16, 2009 20:23:09 GMT
I find the whole thing to be pointless because it always talks in terms of physical existence and the biblical god, who has acquired 'God' as a personal name, though all the evidence is that Christians used the term 'the god' in order to avoid this pagan personification. Emotions exist, metaphors exist, abstractions exist. None of them 'exists' in the physical sense argued about God. If we take the common formula God is Love are we going to argue whether love exists or not?
What the fundametnalist and the atheist will agree on that more mystical believers will not is to refuse to take such a staatement literally and re-intrpret it to suit themselves as God is a person who loves (discuss).
My parents once gave me proof that Father Christmas exists. As an 'interim' come-down I got the description that Father Christmas is the spirit of Christmas. Can we deny that an ideal spirit of Christmas exists whenver parents play Father Christmas?
In my view, early Christians realised that such an abstract concept of the deity (which already existed among 'Philosophers') was not going to work. The masses would want something more tangible to visualise, something to worship. So they gave them Jesus as the deity's visible 'face' just like the Emperor was the visible face of the Spirit of Romanity (and to some extent the Japanese Emperor still plays such a religious role as the Spirit of Japanity within Shinto. Worship the deity which is beyond all conceptualisation through the image of Jesus. They weren't expecting civilisation to collapse and the students to throw the masters out.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Apr 16, 2009 20:30:17 GMT
But that position is as impossible either to verify or falsify as the theistic hypothesis. Where there is reasonable doubt, we may not dogmatise. But I don't have reasonable doubt. Based on evidence there is no supreme being. All that is presented as evidence is hearsay. As you can not prove the negative (you cannot prove there isn't) I have to base my rational decision on the positive - there is no evidence that there is. I apply the same logical thought process to the existence of Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy (whom also cannot be proven to not exist). ;D you are entitled to your opinion, but, an opinion with NO basis in reality is not a choice one should wish to make. however, no one else is responsible for your opinion, so you live and die with your choice, as with EVERYTHING in the world. the consequences are yours alone, which is why i said that we should never try to force your eyes open
|
|
|
Post by june on Apr 16, 2009 20:57:24 GMT
But I don't have reasonable doubt. Based on evidence there is no supreme being. All that is presented as evidence is hearsay. As you can not prove the negative (you cannot prove there isn't) I have to base my rational decision on the positive - there is no evidence that there is. I apply the same logical thought process to the existence of Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy (whom also cannot be proven to not exist). ;D you are entitled to your opinion, but, an opinion with NO basis in reality is not a choice one should wish to make. however, no one else is responsible for your opinion, so you live and die with your choice, as with EVERYTHING in the world. the consequences are yours alone, which is why i said that we should never try to force your eyes open It is my lack of willingness to base my opinion on anything other than reality that means I could never believe in a holy spirit of any sort. However, I have no antipathy for those who gain comfort and succour from their faith and wish them all the best. We all find our own way.
|
|