RHP Spirituality Forum Q & A / 2015

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
A: Evolution by natural selection.

Q: How important do you think it is to respect the right of another person to follow his/her own spiritual path?

A. Very important, though that right does not extend to them bringing it to my doorstep uninvited. (Keep a faith, but please keep it to yourself).

Q. Are most people just agnostic?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
A. Very important, though that right does not extend to them bringing it to my doorstep uninvited. (Keep a faith, but please keep it to yourself).

Q. Are most people just agnostic?

A. That depends on what you mean by "Just Agnostic"

There are two fundamental questions you can be asked about your view on the existence of god or gods.

A) Do you BELIEVE that a god or gods exist.

B) And do you claim to KNOW that a god or gods exist.

And both questions have three fundamental answers.

For A) they are:

A1) Yes. I believe there is a god or gods. [theist]

A2) No. I have no belief in the existence of god or gods. [atheist: weak atheist]

A3) No. I believe that god or gods do not exist. [atheist: strong atheist]

And for B) they are:

B1) Yes. I know that god or gods exist. [gnostic: gnostic theist]

B2) No. I do not know if god or gods exist. [agnostic: agnostic theist, OR agnostic [weak OR strong] atheist]

B3) Yes. I know that god or gods do not exist. [gnostic: gnostic atheist]

Question A) is about belief, do you believe a god exists.
And this question [or rather your answer to it] determines if you are an atheist or a theist.

You are a theist if you give answer A1) and an atheist if you give either A2) or A3) as your
answer.
A2) being a weak [or implicit] atheist
A3) being a strong atheist

This is because a theist is a person who BELIEVES that a god or gods exist, and an atheist
is a person who is not a theist, and thus lacks a belief that a god or gods exist.

Question B) is about [claims of] knowledge, do you claim to KNOW that a god or gods exist.

If you answer B1) or B3) then you are a gnostic, someone who claims to know that gods do
or do not exist.
If you answer B2) then you are an agnostic, someone who claims not to know whether gods
exist.

If you answer B1) then you are a gnostic theist, as claiming to know that gods exist necessitates
believing that that gods exist [ A1) ].

If you answer B3) then you are a gnostic atheist, as claiming to know that gods do not exist
necessitates believing that gods don't exist [ A3) ].

If you answer B2) then you are an agnostic, but you could be an agnostic theist, if you believe
a god or gods exist but don't claim to know that they do [ A1) ]. OR you could be an agnostic
atheist, if you either lack a belief in gods [ A2) ], or positively believe that gods don't exist [ A3) ],
but don't claim to know that god or gods do not exist.

Agnosticism can also come in weak or strong variates***.

Some claim simply that they do not know [or that nobody knows] whether a god exists or not.
They are weak agnostics.
Others claim that it's not possible [for anyone] to know [now or ever] whether a god exists or not.
They are strong agnostics.


Agnosticism is thus seen as not a middle ground between theists and atheists, but as the answer to
a different question.

I would say that most people in the western world are indeed [usually weak] agnostics, in that as
either a theist or an atheist they wouldn't claim to know if a god or gods exist.
I would also say that just about everyone who identifies themselves as an agnostic is also an atheist.

It should also be noted that you can have different positions depending on which god concept or concepts
you are being asked about. You might be [for example] a gnostic atheist with respect to the FSM, but an
agnostic weak atheist with respect to Thor, an agnostic strong atheist with respect to the god of the bible.



***Weak or Strong here denoting the definitiveness of the idea, and not the strength of the position in
terms of how intellectually rigorous and/or backed up by evidence it is.

................


Q. Do you believe that it is possible to construct [at least one] good objective
secular moral system without needing a god or religion to base morality on?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
A. 394 Posts since January 7, 2015, suggests the "GF" thread has been quite popular.

Popularity does not keep your thread from being used by some people to further their own hateful agendas and to attempt to lend them legitimacy.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Popularity does not keep your thread from being used by some people to further their own hateful agendas and to attempt to lend them legitimacy.

So far this thread seems to be going quite well.

Originally posted by googlefudge
So far this thread seems to be going quite well.

Probably because the usage rates by those people I mentioned aren't the same here as they are in the GF (so far).

Originally posted by googlefudge
A. That depends on what you mean by "Just Agnostic"

There are two fundamental questions you can be asked about your view on the existence of god or gods.

A) Do you BELIEVE that a god or gods exist.

B) And do you claim to KNOW that a god or gods exist.

And both questions have three fundamental answers.

For A) they are:

A1) Yes. I believe th ...[text shortened]... ast one] good objective
secular moral system without needing a god or religion to base morality on?

A. Yes. If you accept the establishment principles of free will, marriage, family and military defense
of the national entity then you're in possession of the bedrock ethics "to base morality on".

Q. Ever wonder whether or not there's a supernatural conflict in the world between divine integrity and abject evil?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Popularity does not keep your thread from being used by some people to further their own hateful agendas and to attempt to lend them legitimacy.

Footnote: Suzi, I for one choose to let the small potatoes on this online forum conveyor delivery system go:

---> o o o o o lol At the very least people with divergent points of view are engaged in courteous conversation.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
A. Yes. If you accept the establishment principles of free will, marriage, family and military defense
of the national entity then you're in possession of the bedrock ethics "to base morality on".

Q. Ever wonder whether or not there's a supernatural conflict in the world between divine integrity and abject evil?

A: Not really. Divinity to me is a myth.

Q: Why do some atheists seem to want to form a bizarro-religion of sorts? I thought the best part of being an atheist is that none of this stuff need be a formal activity any longer.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Popularity does not keep your thread from being used by some people to further their own hateful agendas and to attempt to lend them legitimacy.

But didn't you yourself recently admit to waging your own "campaign" of hate against people you dislike and disagree with?

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Q: Why do some atheists seem to want to form a bizarro-religion of sorts? I thought the best part of being an atheist is that none of this stuff need be a formal activity any longer.

A: It goes back to primary school ~ the playground ~ two kids, arms over each other shoulders ~ the others stretched left and right, urging other kids to join ~ pacing slowly across the teeming tarmac ~ avoiding the swishing skipping ropes ~ dodging tennis balls ~ skirting the sand pit ~ the two note melody ~ "All join on for game of war! All join on for a game of war!"...

Q: Many Muslims believe that the very notion that "God" came down to Earth as a human being is both ludicrous and disrespectful [of God]. Do any Christians, ever, in moments of reflection and contemplation, think that Jesus as an inspired human makes more sense than Jesus as God incarnate?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
A. Yes. If you accept the establishment principles of free will, marriage, family and military defense
of the national entity then you're in possession of the bedrock ethics "to base morality on".

Q. Ever wonder whether or not there's a supernatural conflict in the world between divine integrity and abject evil?

Q. Ever wonder whether or not there's a supernatural conflict in the world between divine integrity and abject evil?

Nope.

A. Yes. If you accept the establishment principles of free will, marriage, family and military defense
of the national entity then you're in possession of the bedrock ethics "to base morality on".

What the Hell????

You seriously think that; Free will, Marriage, Family, and Military Defence of the National Entity
are the fundamental principles for basing a moral system on????

Ok, Lets take these in turn.

Free Will: It is by no means clear that any such thing actually exists. And for some meanings, likely
including the one you intend here, it is clear that it doesn't exist because such notions of free will are
both logically incoherent and not evidentially true.

I also see no reason why free will is required or a foundational principle in setting up a moral system.

Marriage: Marriage can be a good thing, or a bad thing. It depends on the circumstances, and we
judge whether it's good or bad in different circumstances by measuring it's pros and cons against a moral
system. It thus cannot be a fundamental elementary principle upon which a moral system is based.

Family: I don't even know what you mean by this. Family can be important, and it helps to have a good
one. But families can also be terrible, a thing that you have to escape from. This is not a founding principle
of a moral system because 'family' is not a principle in the first place.

Military Defence of the National Entity: What The Hell??? Ok, again, this is not a 'foundational principle'
of anything... It's a complex set of object and concept that can and does mean many different things to different
people in different circumstances. It's not clear that this is ALWAYS the morally correct thing to do, and again
we measure this against a moral system and thus this cannot be a foundational principle of a moral system.

Almost all of these are at best potential results of a moral system and not the foundational principles OF
a moral system.

A foundational principle would be something like "The Golden Rule", except something better than the Christian
version which is actually pretty rubbish... Something more like... "Treat others as they would wish you to treat them"
rather than assume that others always wish to be treated the same way you wish to be treated

Or simple statements [proven to be generally true] such as:
"Life is generally preferable to death"
"Comfort/pleasure is generally preferable to pain/suffering"
"Good health is generally preferable to bad health"
"Happiness is generally preferable to misery"

By using our ever increasing and increasingly accurate scientific information about what human beings need and/or
benefit from [and don't need and/or are harmed by] and the idea that we want to make a world that is as nice to live in
for as many people as possible, then we can create such simple foundational principles and their relative significance
and use THOSE as the foundations for a moral system.

So my questions back to you [and specifically you, although I am interested in others answers also]:
[b]
Q1. Do you now accept and realise that the "establishment principles" you listed in your answer to me are not in fact
foundational principles of morality [of any kind]?

Q2. Do you still accept that a valid secular moral system can be created without any reference or need of god/s?

Originally posted by FMF
A: Maybe a combination of the English, French and American revolutions. The Russian Revolution has come and gone, its proffered template vanquished, its "profound effect" limited to the C20th.

Q: What more ghastly and depraved notion has the human imagination conjured up than the torturing of billions of people in burning agony for eternity for a thoughtcrime?

A) The ghastly and depraved notion that people imagine that God didn't send His son to suffer the punishment for their sin and die because of it, and then rise from the dead according to the scriptures. An even more ghastly and depraved notion are the ideas that people conjure up when they misrepresent what God's Word actually means by what it says. For example; "burning in agony for eternity".

Q) Is it not presumptuous to assume that a mere mortal can question the clear message of Jesus Christ and contradict His teachings with impunity?

Originally posted by CalJust
By the power vested in me, I absolve you from all guilt due to erroneous belief. You will not burn in hell, I guarantee it.

The good news, however, is that you DO share the same God as these people - and in fact, as all people. It is just that some draw their own caricatures of what they think their god is. Sort of putting the Infinite into a mental box of their own creation.

Which, obviously, doesn't change anything about god at all!

Why can't you conform your comments to the thread outline?

Originally posted by googlefudge
A. That depends on what you mean by "Just Agnostic"

There are two fundamental questions you can be asked about your view on the existence of god or gods.

A) Do you BELIEVE that a god or gods exist.

B) And do you claim to KNOW that a god or gods exist.

And both questions have three fundamental answers.

For A) they are:

A1) Yes. I believe ...[text shortened]... one] good objective
secular moral system without needing a god or religion to base morality on?

Q. "Do you believe that it is possible to construct [at least one] good objective
secular moral system without needing a god or religion to base morality on?"

A) No. Human originated moral systems degenerate as evidenced by history, and only a moral code instituted by the creator of mankind can have an authoritative restraining effect on human immoral behavior.

Q) Is it not assumed by atheism that one is without volition and therefore lacks the capacity to exercise true autonomy, which logically is required to establish his own moral code?

Originally posted by josephw
A) The ghastly and depraved notion that people imagine that God didn't send His son to suffer the punishment for their sin and die because of it, and then rise from the dead according to the scriptures. An even more ghastly and depraved notion are the ideas that people conjure up when they misrepresent what God's Word actually means by what it says. For exam ...[text shortened]... ortal can question the clear message of Jesus Christ and contradict His teachings with impunity?

Q) Is it not presumptuous to assume that a mere mortal can question the clear message of
Jesus Christ and contradict His teachings with impunity?

A. No, in fact it's mandatory for any functioning moral agent.

Any decent and viable morality must be objective and not subjective.

Any morality based upon the word of a being of any kind is by definition subjective.

Thus any objective moral system will not be based upon the word of any being [including gods] and
thus the words/actions of any and all beings can be measured against that objective moral yardstick.

The mortality, or otherwise, of the being doing the questioning is irrelevant.

Q. Are you really and truly telling us that the idea of people lacking belief in, or disbelieving your
religion, is a WORSE notion than an ETERNITY of suffering for BILLIONS of people?????

If so, then you truly don't know the meaning of the word morality.