Originally posted by KellyJayAnd this is why I object to your earlier argument regarding faith. At one point, all faith is equal, now you are admitting that you are biased against some beliefs. The problem is that your reasoning is fundamentally flawed and when I show that it is, you will go silent and leave the thread, just to come back later with your 'all faiths are equal'.
I act as though I can go see the Eiffel tower and accept it as real it is in the
here and now, while I cannot go billions of years into the past to see if
anything at all is there let alone if some item is a billion years old.
Now explain to me why the fact that I could potentially visit the Eiffel tower has any relevance whatsoever to my current belief in its existence.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatI don't blame religion for most of man's issues, as much as I blame man.
It doesn't cause so much conflict as religion though, does it?
People tend to use whatever it is that they can to get what they want
or justify themselves in getting what they want, be it religion or some
other means of "setting a standard".
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadI do not claim all faith is equal, I claim that we are creatures of faith. I do
And this is why I object to your earlier argument regarding faith. At one point, all faith is equal, now you are admitting that you are biased against some beliefs. The problem is that your reasoning is fundamentally flawed and when I show that it is, you will go silent and leave the thread, just to come back later with your 'all faiths are equal'.
Now ...[text shortened]... lly visit the Eiffel tower has any relevance whatsoever to my current belief in its existence.
claim that if I have to take something on faith, that is what I am doing be
it for a strong cause or weak one. The thing you seem to have a hard time
with when it comes to how I view things is that I use the same word to
color well reasoned out beliefs as well as those things that could be nothing
but blind faith. I go silent and leave threads is because I no longer come
here like I used to, I don't play as much chess here, and I've limited myself
to just a couple of threads. I have a life, you can always bring something
back up to me to address if I have not do so to your satisfaction I don’t mind.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBut your discussion with LemonJello essentially showed that that is a trivial statement with little or no interest value - and not disputed by anyone.
I do not claim all faith is equal, I claim that we are creatures of faith. I do
claim that if I have to take something on faith, that is what I am doing be
it for a strong cause or weak one.
The thing you seem to have a hard time with when it comes to how I view things is that I use the same word to color well reasoned out beliefs as well as those things that could be nothing but blind faith.
Yes, that is where I have a problem. It is because you try to imply that because you can use the same word for them you can therefore dismiss them equally. Why else would you repeat the same rather trivial, mutually agreed claim every time the age of the earth comes up?
I go silent and leave threads is because I no longer come
here like I used to, I don't play as much chess here, and I've limited myself
to just a couple of threads. I have a life, you can always bring something
back up to me to address if I have not do so to your satisfaction I don’t mind.
Kelly
I understand, I too am not always a regular visitor here.
Well then, would you care to explain why the fact that I might in future visit the Eiffel tower has any bearing on the validity of my current belief in its existence?
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]If it is a trivial statement why bother trying to get me to change it? Since it
But your discussion with LemonJello essentially showed that that is a trivial statement with little or no interest value - and not disputed by anyone.
[b]The thing you seem to have a hard time with when it comes to how I view things is that I use the same word to color well reasoned out beliefs as well as those things that could be nothing but blind fa visit the Eiffel tower has any bearing on the validity of my current belief in its existence?
is trvial and our behavior is captured by the word faith why is it that it
seems to bother you? I could just as easy say these beliefs were
reasoned out, that says they were both done due to reason, but that does
not at all address how good the beliefs themselves are as far as being
factual or not. I say faith because I have to trust certain things to be true,
I also say faith, because in some cases I cannot take a simple trip to go
see if I'm right or not, and in some cases no trip or action can show me if
I'm right or not.
If a trip to the Eiffel tower isn't enough to show it is real I doubt anything
I say to you can make anything real to you.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBecause you repeat it so often, it appears that it is non-trivial to you and therefore I tend to assume you mean more than the trivial statement. Yet when a detailed discussion is made (such as took place in this thread) it turns out that you did not mean more than the trivial. So why keep repeating it?
If it is a trivial statement why bother trying to get me to change it?
I say faith because I have to trust certain things to be true,
I also say faith, because in some cases I cannot take a simple trip to go
see if I'm right or not, and in some cases no trip or action can show me if
I'm right or not.
And once again you have not actually answered the question. Please answer it this time:
Why does the possibility of a future trip to visit the Eiffel tower impact on your current certainty of its existence?
If a trip to the Eiffel tower isn't enough to show it is real I doubt anything
I say to you can make anything real to you.
Kelly
Quite so. But that is trivial. Neither of us would be fully convinced of its existence even after a visit. After all, we both agree that it is all a matter of faith. Or is it your claim that after your visit, it would not be a matter of faith? You have some experiment you would perform that would not be based on assumptions? Pray tell.
Originally posted by twhitehead"And once again you have not actually answered the question. Please answer it this time:
Because you repeat it so often, it appears that it is non-trivial to you and therefore I tend to assume you mean more than the trivial statement. Yet when a detailed discussion is made (such as took place in this thread) it turns out that you did not mean more than the trivial. So why keep repeating it?
[b]I say faith because I have to trust certain th You have some experiment you would perform that would not be based on assumptions? Pray tell.
Why does the possibility of a future trip to visit the Eiffel tower impact on your current certainty of its existence?"
[/b]I have told you repeatedly why, you just don't seem to get it!
I can, you can, go see the Eiffel tower, we may not go, but it is there to
see if we ever want to go. This is different from something we can never
see no matter how much effort on our part or anyone's part can confirm.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhitehead"Quite so. But that is trivial. Neither of us would be fully convinced of its existence even after a visit. After all, we both agree that it is all a matter of faith. Or is it your claim that after your visit, it would not be a matter of faith? You have some experiment you would perform that would not be based on assumptions? Pray tell."
Because you repeat it so often, it appears that it is non-trivial to you and therefore I tend to assume you mean more than the trivial statement. Yet when a detailed discussion is made (such as took place in this thread) it turns out that you did not mean more than the trivial. So why keep repeating it?
[b]I say faith because I have to trust certain th You have some experiment you would perform that would not be based on assumptions? Pray tell.
[/b]This is no different than the discussion on test results, the test results are
what I'd call the facts of the matter. Seeing the tower would be the data,
the end result of the test is it there or no. Again this is quite different than
saying something is true because X results means something in the
distant past may have occured one way over another. We cannot go back
and confirm we can only look at our test results and say they mean what
ever it is we are saying about them.
Kelly
I am atheist...and let me tell you that there is no third option...one can be theist or atheist. Some say that agnosticism can be the third alternative but that is not right...agnostics can be atheist agnostics or theist agnostics....they only believe that knowledge of supernatural/god/gods cannot be accesible to human mind, but they still must believe that either supernaturalgod/gods exist or supernatural/god/gods dosen't exists.
i disagree.
I'm an atheist (or maybe an agnostic with strong atheist tendency), but i really fee it's possible to be a true agnostc.
In fact that's what i was until recently (i have to say this forum helped me to become an atheist!)
What i was thinking before, as an agnostic was something like "i don't know if there's a god or anything divine, i just have no way to know (the bible or other nonsense books being of course no help)"
The same reasoning can be applied to aliens : do they exist?
you can be either
- alienist : many different degrees, from "i believe life exists outside from our earth" to our dear FIDE president "i know aliens, they're good friends of mine"
- an-alienists : i know there can be no other life in the universe
- alien-agnostics : it's possible that aliens exist or not, i just don't have any way to know, it's beyond my knowledge"
The third option being very distinct from the 2 others.
In my case i would be alien-agnostic, even though i think it's very likely that aliens exist somewhere, i can't be sure, so i'm an agnostic on this subject
Another way to show that is to imagine god is a colored ball in a hat :
- theist say :" this hat contains a ball (it's a green ball, says the muslim. no it's white of course says the christian. i don't know it's color say some others "(people who say there's a force beyond us that we don't know about)
- atheist says : "this hat is empty."
-agnostic says : "i can't see inside this hat so there could be a ball of any color, or nothing, i don't know!" (some saying it's very likely but having no proof, some others almost sure there's nothing, all of them being agnostics...)
Originally posted by danielnovacoviciSpeak for yourself mate. Personally I have no difficulty holding to a position that there may or may not be a god but that I lack sufficient evidence to believe either way. Agnostic enough for you?
I am atheist...and let me tell you that there is no third option...one can be theist or atheist. Some say that agnosticism can be the third alternative but that is not right...agnostics can be atheist agnostics or theist agnostics....they only believe that knowledge of supernatural/god/gods cannot be accesible to human mind, but they still must believe that either supernaturalgod/gods exist or supernatural/god/gods dosen't exists.
I don't see any use of having a god to worship. What good can it bring to me/us?
The christian god is evil, kills and destroys, we have to fear him, as we fear cancer and catastrophes. Other gods may be better, but the thought is the same, why do we need a god?
Everything happening in universe can be explained, everything follow the laws of physics, there is no need for explanations involving divine interaction.
If a god exists, then he doesn't do much to show himself. A shepherd shows himself for the sheep, a politicians shows himself for his electors, a teacher shows himself for his students. The christian god doesn't show himeslf at all.
So perhaps there is a god, a god who doesn't want to be known, to be seen, to be noticed. Okay, fine with me, doesn't bother me. But the kind of gods who people worship doesn't do nay good.
Does this make me an agnostic or an atheist? I don't want to be labelled, I don't want to hide myself behind an etiquette. I take responsibility of my own philosophy. So for me it doesn't matter if I am an agnostic or an atheist. I am who I am.
Originally posted by avalanchethecatOfcourse I speak for myself. I'm speaking of what or how I'm thinking about a topic, and this topic was how many on this forum are atheists and how many religious (a better word would be, indeed, theists). But if you are not sure what is your position about a subject, please step aside till you decide....till then, metaphoricaly speaking, you are 0, you worth nothing, you don't exist for this subject.
Speak for yourself mate. Personally I have no difficulty holding to a position that there may or may not be a god but that I lack sufficient evidence to believe either way. Agnostic enough for you?