Atheism & Religious Beliefs

[mjw47]

There was nothing personal about it. I was merely remarking that it can be a vice, and that you may fall into it if you are not careful that is all. As for it not being a vice, I'd say you may want to get a different definition of what you cosnider to be a vice then - I'm not talking about just Dante's seven classical ones, although I think it could be be considered a special case of sloth

 

This post seems to have attracted the biggest bunch of semantic gymnasts ever brought together on the planet.

How the hell do any of you manage a conversation with normal people down the pub?

Whenever anyone makes a point about anything, do you immediately interrupt & point out that there are, in fact, many differing viewpoints with reference to the term used in the description of the head on that pint of beer?

Presumably you then proceed to reference Descartes & his views on the meaning of sentience.

 

Must be a laugh a minute being in your company of an evening.

 

As to the meaning of the word vice I mean it in the commonly accepted definition as something which is immoral & perhaps criminal.

And yes before you come back & correct me again I do appreciate that common usage has also given it a less pejorative meaning as in enjoying a drink or smoke.

None of which makes mediocrity a vice any way you view it.

[Obelix]

This post seems to have attracted the biggest bunch of semantic gymnasts ever brought together on the planet.

How the hell do any of you manage a conversation with normal people down the pub?

Whenever anyone makes a point about anything, do you immediately interrupt & point out that there are, in fact, many differing viewpoints with reference to the term used in the description of the head on that pint of beer?

Presumably you then proceed to reference Descartes & his views on the meaning of sentience.

 

Must be a laugh a minute being in your company of an evening.

 

As to the meaning of the word vice I mean it in the commonly accepted definition as something which is immoral & perhaps criminal.

And yes before you come back & correct me again I do appreciate that common usage has also given it a less pejorative meaning as in enjoying a drink or smoke.

None of which makes mediocrity a vice any way you view it.

 

Now whose coming across all personal hmm...?

 

However, at the risk of a tangent. I've highlighted the relevant part.

 

OED

 

Definition of vice

noun

[mass noun]immoral or wicked behaviour:

an open sewer of vice and crime•criminal activities involving prostitution, pornography, or drugs:

a mobile phone network is being used to peddle vice

•[count noun] an immoral or wicked personal characteristic:

hypocrisy is a particularly sinister vice

•[count noun] a weakness of character or behaviour; a bad habit:

cigars happen to be my father’s vice

•(also stable vice) [count noun] a bad or neurotic habit of stabled horses, typically arising as a result of boredom.

 

 

To wit, medocrity when you can be considerably better is certainly a vice.

[PaliRichard]

Derail here we come... Which attributes does God possess that can be tested for (or do we have evidence for) and how do we then connect them to a God concept without knowing what God is? (for the sake of argument lets go with the Abrahamic God for now).

 

jb

 

I'll deal with one part at a time, firstly how do we know, really know what anything is without having an abstract perception of it? If you've never seen a flag blowing in the wind and you came upon one you wouldn't know it was a flag, much less what country it represents.

 

Likewise if you don't have any idea of what the God is how can you form a philosophical position that you can't possibly know what God is. Its a self defeating position before its even began.

 

Secondly we can measure the evidence provided by those who do believe in God. You don't need to be able to define it to recognise its attributes. I didn't have a clue about the definition of air when I was a child but I could describe certain attributes of it. Non definability is not a pre requisite for non existence.

 

Likewise thrusts may say 'the Qur'an is evidence for God' so we can look at that, measure it with testable evidence and say that it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, therefore we can discount that particular version of 'God', whilest we have believers providing us with 'evidemce' of God we have a yardstick to go by.

 

The only way you can claim ignosticism as a valuable argument is if you are going to dismiss everyone who claims God exists without investigation simply because you claim that indefinability is a prerequisite of non existence.

 

I sincerely hope that was not your best attempt at a derail.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2013 at 12:37 ----------

 

Waldo.

 

See above for ignosticism.

 

I'll respond to the rest when I have more time.

[mjw47]

Come on mj, shed the chips. That was, in no way, a personal comment.

 

Regarding the accusations of pedantry and the earlier reference to semantics, it would seem somewhat pointless to enter into, or contribute to, a discussion using words which carried different meanings to different participants. You are still labouring under misconceptions regarding the meanings of a couple of words fundamental to the discussion and yet you still refuse to accept this, prefering to hurl insults such as in posts 30, 33 and 40 and accusations of pedantry and semantics, followed by a classic example of projection when you believed Obelix was insulting you!

 

You, also, showed no real acceptance when Richard explained how one can be atheist and religious simultaneously.

 

There'll be no real progress while you continue to adopt this stubborn standpoint which is a shame, not least because your development into an agnostic atheist, as you described earlier, was very similar to my own.

 

You can not be that obtuse. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt & assume that you are simply amusing yourself in the same way that I am & having a bit of a windup. Because if you are not, then you need to seek help as you appear incapable of reading & understanding simple English.

 

'There will be no real progress' what part of don't know, & not concerned in the least about not knowing, do you not understand?

 

Worrying about religious philosophy is, to me, tantamount to going fishing with no bait or hook.

You may have a lovely time, the day may be sunny, the river tranquil & the kingfishers displaying their beauty, but you are not going home with a fish.

 

So why not leave the inadequate fishing tackle at home & simply enjoy the day?

[Lockjaw]

Then why have there been wars, poverty, scarcity, ownership and competition.

 

 

Probably because these are all beneficial to the aims of the omnipotent being in question. The above factors are not evidence for the non-existence of a deity - you have fallen into the trap of judging from a human point of view.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2013 at 12:43 ----------

 

You can tell there is no higher being, as if there was, he wouldn't let absolute berks like you roam the planet.

 

How do you know?

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2013 at 12:46 ----------

 

You can not be that obtuse. I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt & assume that you are simply amusing yourself in the same way that I am & having a bit of a windup.

 

Ah, that old chestnut. Finally deign to have a look in the dictionary, did you?

[mjw47]

Now whose coming across all personal hmm...?

 

However, at the risk of a tangent. I've highlighted the relevant part.

 

OED

 

Definition of vice

noun

[mass noun]immoral or wicked behaviour:

an open sewer of vice and crime•criminal activities involving prostitution, pornography, or drugs:

a mobile phone network is being used to peddle vice

•[count noun] an immoral or wicked personal characteristic:

hypocrisy is a particularly sinister vice

•[count noun] a weakness of character or behaviour; a bad habit:

cigars happen to be my father’s vice

•(also stable vice) [count noun] a bad or neurotic habit of stabled horses, typically arising as a result of boredom.

 

 

To wit, medocrity when you can be considerably better is certainly a vice.

 

Please reread my post at 61 above. In particular, please take note of my comments regarding what a bundle of laughs it must be to find yourself

in the company of someone who dissects every word spoken in order to find a meaning which differs from the one which was obviously intended.

 

Then after you have done that, reread your own post above & have an attempt at imagining precisely what I thought of it.

[RootsBooster]

As to the previous poster who described me as 'arrogant' nothing could be further from the truth. My position is ' I do not know'. That is the exact opposite of arrogance.

This is where you keep falling down.

You keep telling us your position on what you know (or don't know), quite rightly you define yourself as agnostic (if you claimed you DO know, then you would be gnostic).

However, you think this makes you neutral in the realm of belief, it does not. What you know and what you believe are two separate things.

You either have a belief in a god or gods or you don't, so which one is it?

 

Example, while I am currently at work, I believe that my dog is in my house.

I do not know that he is my house though.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2013 at 13:15 ----------

 

Flawed? How so?

 

How can something have attributes, yet, cannot be defined? Surely those attributes would form part of a definition? Perhaps you mean simply that a full definition cannot be formed?

 

As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong, anyone), the ignositic position is that it's pointless to debate the existence of something (in this case, god), when we don't understand and cannot define what that thing is.

 

This 'god' is a very slippery customer. At one level a concept we hold within the rational mind, yet at another level, it points to something beyond the scope of the rational mind. So naturally, we cannot use rationality to approach it (and without rationality there is no thought form 'god').

 

The ultimate practical joke!!.

 

I don't know what you personally think Richard, or what Buddism has to say on the matter; but to my mind, spirituality starts when we stop engaging with the conceptualising process of the mind. Letting go of concepts like 'god'...

 

In this way, I think a lot of religious practice is actually the opposite of spirituality, because it encourages clinging to concepts.

 

Ignosticism is flawed because it assumes that as there are is no unified definition of god, speculation is pointless.

The problem with that is that every god which is believed in, has a definition. The definitions vary greatly between each believer, but each believer has their own definition of their god.

I've found that most people who play the ignosticism card are just agnostic atheists who don't want to be labelled as such and like to think they are above the subject. Much like mjw47.

 

I'm actually surprised he didn't latch on to your suggestion and fly the ignosticism flag, instead attacking you for it

[mikem8634]

Yes, I am fully aware of all of that, & have never tried to deny it's existence. I had the teachings of Thomas Aquinas explained to me by professionals in my youth.

What you & the rest of the massed ranks of the theological pedants do not appear to appreciate is that my position on all of this was explained in my first post. I am an Agnostic & therefore it has no meaning for me.

I have witnessed religion play an excellent role in comforting people on the loss of loved ones. Unfortunately for me, although the loved ones were mine also, it brought me no comfort whatsoever. Because of that, however, I tread softly where peoples beliefs are concerned,why should I attempt to persuade someone of the non existence of God if it helps them?

 

That sentiment does not apply where smartarses are concerned however, & I have no problem arguing the point with them at all.

 

The reason I am still on this thread is simple. My first post was, I thought at the time, the least contentious comment anyone could make on a thread headed 'Atheism & Religious beliefs'.

The simple statement that I was agnostic & therefore didn't know either way.

 

But no, someone saw the opportunity to show what an intellectual powerhouse they were in the field of theological semantics. Never one to walk away from confrontation, here I am.

 

As to the previous poster who described me as 'arrogant' nothing could be further from the truth. My position is ' I do not know'. That is the exact opposite of arrogance.

Arrogance would be stating that I did belief in God, or alternatively, did not believe in God, & expecting someone to accept either view when there is absolutely not a shred of evidence to PROVE either theory.

 

For that is all they are, despite thousands of years of philosophical debate, no proof.

 

Marcus Aurelius is the man for me when it comes to advice on how to deal with the possibility of there being Gods or no Gods.

 

You continue to miss the point like it's a long, lost relative. You can believe what you want to belive about god and religion - no problem. But when you are factually incorrect, as you are regarding terms of reference, you continue to be so whether you accept it or not.

 

Dismissing the philosophy of religion as theological pedantry and semantics is, sadly, both arrogant and ignorant.

 

I now notice that you are claiming to be amusing yourself and having a bit of a wind up as many have before once they realised the waters are, indeed, deeper than they first perceived but cannot admit they were mistaken.

 

That being the case I will leave you to amuse yourself.

[mjw47]

This is where you keep falling down.

You keep telling us your position on what you know (or don't know), quite rightly you define yourself as agnostic (if you claimed you DO know, then you would be gnostic).

However, you think this makes you neutral in the realm of belief, it does not. What you know and what you believe are two separate things.

You either have a belief in a god or gods or you don't, so which one is it?

 

Example, while I am currently at work, I believe that my dog is in my house.

I do not know that he is my house though.

 

No, I neither believe nor disbelieve in Gods. Because you, apparently, are unable to handle that concept does not mean that others are also unable to do so.

my view is pretty straightforward, until someone can prove the point either way, beyond doubt ,the juries out.

Should the Heavens open one morning & a fiery chariot emerge, my thoughts would be ' Oh look at that, those Theists were right after all, wonder which particular denomination gets the prize?'

 

On the other hand, should Science achieve an astounding breakthrough & prove beyond any doubt that no God exists then my thoughts would be ' That's going to upset a few people, wonder what all them Priests, Vicars,Rabbi's etc are going to do for a living now'?

 

Either way it isn't going to effect me as I had no dog in the fight.

Well, obviously, if it's the first result & the old fella's not best pleased with what we've been up to it might

[BEDROCK]

No, I neither believe nor disbelieve in Gods. Because you, apparently, are unable to handle that concept does not mean that others are also unable to do so.

my view is pretty straightforward, until someone can prove the point either way, beyond doubt ,the juries out.

Should the Heavens open one morning & a fiery chariot emerge, my thoughts would be ' Oh look at that, those Theists were right after all, wonder which particular denomination gets the prize?'

 

On the other hand, should Science achieve an astounding breakthrough & prove beyond any doubt that no God exists then my thoughts would be ' That's going to upset a few people, wonder what all them Priests, Vicars,Rabbi's etc are going to do for a living now'?

 

Either way it isn't going to effect me as I had no dog in the fight.

Well, obviously, if it's the first result & the old fella's not best pleased with what we've been up to it might

 

The Pope would be screwed then and all his hangers on would be out of a job