14 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloI am not devaluing life!
it is well within your right to reject the nonsensical. you can even be 'Cocky' about it, and let all interested parties know just how nonsensical you think it is.
that said, if you were more open to the concept that there is fundamental difference between a person and those beliefs said person may hold, your outlook wouldn't be so warped, pessimistic, needlessly intolerant, and devaluing toward life in general.
I am not the person claiming that life of another person has "no value, no sanctity".
I am merely criticising blind faith in nonsensical ideas.
14 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by howardgeewell perhaps you can see my concern if i shed the following light on it:
I am not devaluing life!
I am not the person claiming that life of another person has "no value, no sanctity".
I am merely criticising blind faith in nonsensical ideas.
in your recent posts, you keep asking questions of the form 'how can i respect person x if person x holds some belief y that i think is nonsensical?'
i take the rhetorical nature of your questions to imply that you believe the following: if one believes y to be nonsensical, and if person x holds belief y, then that is sufficient cause for one to disrespect person x (as opposed to person x's belief in y or simply belief y itself). this sounds like some kind of definition for religious intolerance. at the very least, it is spitting in person x's face and devaluing his right to hold his opinion. if not rhetorical, the answer to your questions is that it is actually a very simple matter to still respect the person even though you do not respect his idea. it sounds like an intolerant attack on the person, not the person's idea. if this is not your rhyme and reason, please clarify because that is the way it reads to me.
"Until people realise that God does not exist, then there is no chance that everybody will see everyone else as equals."
the other source of my discontent lies with this quote. first, it seems to presuppose the nonexistence of god (a claim which i don't think you or anyone else has sufficiently supported, although i do subscribe to some arguments against certain gods, such as the general argument from evil which has a clear logical formulation). until you provide compelling evidence for this claim, why should everyone 'realise' it? second, you haven't shown compelling evidence that subscription to the nonexistence of god is a necessary condition for everyone to see each other as equals, which is what your quote suggests. third, you claim to be criticizing 'blind faith', but you also think everyone should accept your unfounded assertion that no god exists, an act which, given the absence of proof, would basically be nothing other than blind faith itself. fourth, even if everyone's adopting your unfounded claim that no god exists did in fact solve the intolerance problem, i still think a better solution is for people to believe what they feel they are justified in believing while also demonstrating mutual respect for other people. of course, your quote also says nothing of sufficiency in the sense that if everyone were to believe (or even know for sure) that no god exists, it does not logically follow that everyone would view each other as equals.
of course, if you can provide compelling evidence that no god exists, then everyone could in principle rationally adopt your claim and demonstrate mutual respect -- that would be a terrific solution. so why not first just demonstrate the evidence for your claim that no god exists?
IN SUMMARY: KELLYJAY WAS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT when he said this is a people issue, not necessarily a religion issue.
14 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloIf Adolf Hitler logged onto the RHP forum and started giving tirades about the superiority of the Aryan race, would we be required to respect his opinion? Or would we be required to remain cordial with Hitler even though we rejected his ideas? What about someone who advocated slavery? Or someone who praises the killing of infidels? Are all ideas worthy of a public forum? Are no ideas so heinous that they can clearly be shunned, with their practioners being ostracized?
i take the rhetorical nature of your questions to imply that you believe the following: if one believes y to be nonsensical, and if person x holds belief y, then that is sufficient cause for one to disrespect person x (as opposed to person x's belief in y or simply belief y itself). this sounds like some kind of definition for religious intole ...[text shortened]... a. if this is not your rhyme and reason, please clarify because that is the way it reads to me.
14 Jul 05
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettin reading this, i don't think you are being fair to my position. i think you are absolutely right that there is a line to be drawn to separate extreme cases when ideas are downright hostile and dangerous to others, particularly when execution of the ideas can cause devastation like in the case of hitler. my posts however were aimed at the more general case that i think howardgee was implying, namely that disagreeing with an idea is in itself sufficient to disrespect the person who holds that idea. it is not in itself sufficient. there must be other conditions to cause sufficiency, such as in the cases you mention. if i have misrepresented howardgee's stance, then i expect he will let me know.
If Adolf Hitler logged onto the RHP forum and started giving tirades about the superiority of the Aryan race, would we be required to respect his opinion? Or would we be required to remain cordial with Hitler even though we rejected his id ...[text shortened]... can clearly be shunned, with their practioners being ostracized?
so to answer your question, no, i am not a killer of babies and puppies.
15 Jul 05
1 edit
Sorry this reply has taken a while; I was trying unsuccessfully to locate my "God is an empty concept" thread.
Of course it is impossible empirically to prove that something does not exist. It could always be answered that you just have not looked in the right place. Especially when "GOD" has the property of being able to hide himself from all of our senses!
However is is possible to appeal to rationality and reason to deny the existence of God. For instance the argument from the existence of evil which you mention.
The problem with this approach is that rationality and reason are the very properties which God botherers lack!
Hence I am still waiting for an adequate response to my question: "How can an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God exist when there is suffering cause PURELY in his name (i.e. Spanish Inquisition)".
The only response given is the glib "There must be some reason for the suffering to be necessary which we cannot understand". Well excuse me, but I thought that actions are judged good/bad by what WE percieve. We cannot appeal to imperceptible causes to justify an evil act:
"Oh I am sorry, your honour but my seemingly unnecessary torture was justified by something I, you and everyone else can never know or understand" "Oh, that's OK then, you are absolved!"
But I digress.
The vast majority of believers are indoctrinated. Their belief system has been swallowed unquestioningly. This is why I will never respect them as much as an atheist. God Botherers are sheep.
I never made the claim that once religion is eradicated (inevitable with education and science), then all people will be viewed as equals and evil will disappear. Just that whilst religion exists all people will never be viewed as equals.
In the case of the suicide bombers consider this question:
How many of the suicide bombers so far have been atheists?
The answer I think you will find is 0. Yep, zip de doo dah.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by howardgeethank you for this clarification. i see much better now where you are coming from and my mind is much more at ease.
Sorry this reply has taken a while; I was trying unsuccessfully to locate my "God is an empty concept" thread.
Of course it is impossible empirically to prove that something does not exist. It could always be answered that you just have not looked in the right place. Especially when "GOD" has the property of being able to hide himself from all of o ...[text shortened]...
The answer I think you will find is 0. Yep, zip de doo dah.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
However is is possible to appeal to rationality and reason to deny the existence of God.
i agree that certain gods may be soundly rejected based on rational argument. for example, i also agree that the general argument from evil demonstrates that the god who is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect does not exist. with respect to the nonexistence of all conceivable gods, i remain agnostic.
The vast majority of believers are indoctrinated. Their belief system has been swallowed unquestioningly. This is why I will never respect them as much as an atheist.
i agree that believers are often very difficult to reason with and i am constantly appalled at their willingness to swallow arbitrary dogma. however, barring extreme cases such as those mentioned by rwingett above, i do not consider myself necessarily superior to them (the person) and i try to maintain respect for them even if i disrespect their ideas.
I never made the claim that once religion is eradicated (inevitable with education and science), then all people will be viewed as equals and evil will disappear. Just that whilst religion exists all people will never be viewed as equals.
i agree. as i mentioned above, your quote does not say anything of sufficiency in the sense that it does not claim that eradication of religion is a sufficient condition for all people to view each other as equals. however, i am still not convinced that the eradication of religion is a necessary condition either for all people to view each other as equals (which is what your quote claims). i still think there is a lot of truth in KellyJay's claim that it is not necessarily a problem with religion per se, but rather a 'people problem'.
How many of the suicide bombers so far have been atheists?
i have no idea, and i think it would probably be a hard question to research...not sure.
15 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJelloDo you have a test or reason that suggests God isn't real?
thank you for this clarification. i see much better now where you are coming from and my mind is much more at ease.
[b]However is is possible to appeal to rationality and reason to deny the existence of God.
i agree that certain gods may be soundly rejected based on rational argument. for example, i also agree that the general argument from ev ...[text shortened]... [/b]
i have no idea, and i think it would probably be a hard question to research...not sure.[/b]
Is it the evil that mankind does to mankind?
What is it that you see or don't see that suggests God isn't real?
Kelly
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayHe has already stated his reason for disbelieving in God: The argument from Evil.
Do you have a test or reason that suggests God isn't real?
Is it the evil that mankind does to mankind?
What is it that you see or don't see that suggests God isn't real?
Kelly
Do you understand this argument KellyJay? You won't find it in your bible!
Oh and don't trot out that tired out old line about God giving us free will; he cannot be omnipotent if he no longer has power over us.
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by howardgeeHaving power over someone does not mean that you will automatically
He has already stated his reason for disbelieving in God: The argument from Evil.
Do you understand this argument KellyJay? You won't find it in your bible!
Oh and don't trot out that tired out old line about God giving us free will; he cannot be omnipotent if he no longer has power over us.
use it to force your way. Well, you may, but that does not mean that
God would.
Kelly
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayhi KJ.
Do you have a test or reason that suggests God isn't real?
Is it the evil that mankind does to mankind?
What is it that you see or don't see that suggests God isn't real?
Kelly
Do you have a test or reason that suggests God isn't real?
that depends on what definition of 'god' you employ. for example, the General Argument From Evil (GAFE) defines god to be a being that is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect (of course, these attributes are also necessarily defined within the argument); the argument then goes on to show that it is sufficiently likely that no such god exists and that it is certainly reasonable and rational to hold the belief that no such god exists. of course, if the god you are speaking of does not explicitly fit the definition used in the GAFE, then the GAFE does not apply, and the GAFE would therefore say nothing of the existence of the god in question. however, if you are speaking here specifically about the christian god of the bible, then i would claim that he does fit the definition provided in the GAFE; as such, the GAFE demonstrates that the god depicted in the bible does not exist -- and this is a conclusion that i endorse.
in general, however, i do not believe there is any 'test' or sufficient reasoning to suggest that no gods exist. therefore, on the question of whether or not a god (or gods) exists, i remain agnostic -- i am not sure.
the general theist tries to use this to his advantage by saying that since one cannot prove that his god doesn't exist, it somehow justifies his belief in the existence of whatever specific god it is that he believes in. however, this line of reasoning is obviously a complete farce on the part of the theist. that is just not how reasonable belief systems are constructed. in particular, 'can we prove the non-existence of (any conceivable) god?' is not the question we should be addressing. the question we should ask is basically the one right next to your avatar -- 'why believe that?' that is to say, one cannot pretend that belief in god is anything other than arbitrary unless one can provide a compelling argument which consists of a logical conclusion that is drawn from sufficiently supported premises. i personally have never been able to construct such an argument, and what's more, to my knowledge, no one else ever has either. in light of this, the only reasonable stance is atheism, in which one abstains from holding a belief that he cannot support, namely the belief in god.
Is it the evil that mankind does to mankind?
at least in part, i could see how this would certainly factor in. for example, one premise of the GAFE is that there exists logically unnecessary suffering. it is reasonable to think that some of the evil between man and man provides a workable foundation for this premise.
What is it that you see or don't see that suggests God isn't real?
again, if you are talking specifically about the god of the bible, then the GAFE is what i see that suggests he doesn't exist. but, more generally, i don't think this is a relevant question. the thing we need to think about is the construction of a compelling argument that suggests god, or at least a particularly defined god, is real. if we can't come up with one, then the theist's position is untenable.
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, but God MUST stop us from doing evil if he can stop us, knows about it and is good.
Having power over someone does not mean that you will automatically
use it to force your way. Well, you may, but that does not mean that
God would.
Kelly
Do you understand the argument against God from Evil Kelly?
16 Jul 05
Originally posted by howardgeeThat's not playing by the thumpers rules. how dare you to have the nerve to tell god what he should do...etc etc all powerful....blah blah....hell,,,,yadda yadda hoodoo
Yes, but God MUST stop us from doing evil if he can stop us, knows about it and is good.
Do you understand the argument against God from Evil Kelly?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
17 Jul 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeThe reason the book of revelations is so stringent is because at the time, Christians heads were often being detached from their bodies. The message in the book of revelations was one of encouragement to Christians. I just define Christian as something very different to what others might. I don't remember the book of Matthew specifically talking about hell in regards to non- believers.
On the other hand, read the bible. Revelation is particularly string on casting into hell. Parts of Matthew do fairly well too.
I chose many years ago to reject god. I'll be furious if he gets me in the end just because I've behaved well.
18 Jul 05
Originally posted by LemonJellothat depends on what definition of 'god' you employ…
hi KJ.
[b]Do you have a test or reason that suggests God isn't real?
that depends on what definition of 'god' you employ. for example, the General Argument From Evil (GAFE) defines god to be a being that is omniscient, omnipotent, and morally perfect (of course, these attributes are also necessarily defined within the argument); the argument ...[text shortened]... d, is real. if we can't come up with one, then the theist's position is untenable.
[/b]
I don’t really care much what definition of ‘god’ you or anyone else
employs. It does matter that you know who you are talking about, so
when people in the O.T. were calling on God, they did so by the things
that God did, and why God did them. They were simply being specific
as to who they were referring to, it wasn’t a matter of understanding
how they defined God as much as who they were speaking to and
about.
I don’t assume I can describe God and do God justice, but I do believe
that God is real, that is to say real, alive, and active in the affairs of
mankind in both the physical and spiritual realm of God’s creation.
Look at the exchange between Moses and God when God was sending
Moses back into Egypt to bring out His people; when God sent Moses
to tell Israel that they were about to be lead out of Egypt, Moses who
was being assigned that task by God, asked God something
important.
Exodus 3: 13-15
13 Moses said to God, "Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, 'What is his name?' Then what shall I tell them?"
14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
15 God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.
This is what they knew, the little that God had revealed to them. God
is simply who God is, and at that time God was the God of their fathers
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Later when they get to know God they
start to discover other things about God, such as God is a provider so
they understood such as Jehovah-Tsidkenu, Jehovah-Jireh, or other
names as God revealed His nature to them.
Kelly
18 Jul 05
Originally posted by KellyJayI don’t really care much what definition of ‘god’ you or anyone else
I don’t really care much what definition of ‘god’ you or anyone else
employs. It does matter that you know who you are talking about, so
when people in the O.T. were calling on God, they did so by the things
that God did, and why God did them. They were simply being specific
as to who they were referring to, it wasn’t a matter of understanding
how ...[text shortened]... as Jehovah-Tsidkenu, Jehovah-Jireh, or other
names as God revealed His nature to them.
Kelly
employs.
'anyone else' includes yourself; so i infer that you don't really care much what your own definition of 'god' is. however, i think that you should care because if one cannot properly define the object of his debate, then he literally fails to know what he is talking about.
I am who I am.
if we interpret this in the manner you suggest as 'God is simply who God is', then we have yet another empty assertion that completely fails to provide any content to the concept of god. as i understand it through some of my readings, aquinas yielded the following interpretation of the verse which has reasonable acceptance among theologians: god is giving himself the name 'he who is'. aquinas argued that 'God is His own being...His essence is His being'. in other words, this interpretation says that god's essence (his whatness) is his existence (his thatness), and vice versa. this lack of existence-essence dichotomy makes god differ fundamentally from the things we know and understand (ie, for things within our comprehension, we can discuss what such things are independently of that such things are; but not so with this god described by aquinas).
translation: this definition of god as 'he who is' is just completely incomprehensible to man and fails to ascribe any knowable content to 'god'. if the theist cannot know his god; if he cannot ascribe unto him positive attributes that sufficiently outline a workable concept of god; then how is the theist supposed to rationally defend his belief in god?
note: the references to aquinas i read about in 'Atheism: The Case Against God' by George Smith, and in a couple of places i am paraphrasing some of Smith's remarks on the topic, which he touches on only briefly.