Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WBraun
climber
|
|
Every living entity by it's own desires has the free will to choose ......
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
and what is belief? i think it can be defined as the acceptance of something to be true that you have no way of knowing for sure on your own.
I think not.
By this definition a person believes they will live to 120 years. You have no way of knowing and people do live that long.
Believing is taking as true beyond question a premise for which there is either bad or no supporting data.
While I take issue with your definition I applaud your effort to define the terms we use. This is so seldom attempted and the failure invariably fractures unnecessarily the body politic.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
Believing is taking as true beyond question a premise for which there is either bad or no supporting data.
John, is believing then also taking as true beyond question a premise for which there IS
supporting data?
why did you eliminate this obviousness from your definition?
just curious
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Morals
The atheist will say "do this and it will be good".
Theist will say do not this because ultimately "God can see that this so called "good" will ultimately in the long run become not good and defective.
Thus the scientific method would be to test the two ......
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
you wouldn't propose to test something that wasn't testable...
that was in Feynman's video clip, but perhaps it was subtle, he referred to being able to ask a question, by which he meant how would you formulate a scientific question that was testable... how do you make a hypothesis based on theory.
at this juncture, there is not scientific test of the existence of God, unless you are proposing one...
...on this point I believe everyone agrees.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
See how much we gain from talking definition?
"Believing" is taking as true beyond question a premise for which there is either bad or no supporting data.
In the normal course, given data, we often use things as though they were true until such time as they are shown not to be true. Life is a continual process wherein understanding improves.
Belief is an altogether different phenomenon that assumes perfect knowledge. That assumption invariably fails to one degree or another.
(I was trying to be succinct.)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
There is God's message to test it against.
Whether you believe in God or not test it.
Feynman is not God nor Ultimate Authority on what is scientific.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The scientific method would be to explore all alternatives and test them.
Yes, then you better do them before you make stupid statements about me.
You'd be very surprised about Buddha if you actually did your so called scientific tests ......
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Guessing won't help you since that's all you seem to do here ......
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
At least I guess that's WBraun's best guess.
I'm not following you WBraun. I'm just showing you the mirror. How do you look?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Not till Ben Franklin has erectis homo human been able to bottle electricity. ONLY 160yrs. ago
Something that can not be seen. Yet EVERYONE believes its there! Even atheists. Because we can prove th theory. Ben believed in elect. before he could prove it or measure it. Took Faith! And he was rewarded. How much Faith do U have that electricity will come out of that outlet and power ur TV? Just because scientist can't prove the theory of the ability of Jesus's sacrificed blood to cover my blemishes before Gods eyes. So that I am able to approach Him and relate with Him. Since theres no proof, U won't take the first step. Thus U won't ever be able to see God. When U close ur materialistic eyes. And open ur heart. God will take the scales off and u'll see with spiritual eyes and He will delve U Great Wisdom!
Until then know the first five books of the NT. It took man ten thousand yrs to write the Bible. What else did they have to do? There was no TV.
Jus Pruvin
BB
|
|
P.Rob
Social climber
Pacomia, Ca - Y Que?
|
|
P.Rob,
If I could understand what your contention is, I'd respond. Are you saying that because we don't believe in a "transcendent Moral law giver" we atheists are necessarily immoral or amoral or both? Khanom, Ed , Norton
The post below is my post on the original post “Athiest’ (sic) thread. Hopefully this will bring some clarity.
Aug 25, 2012 - 12:48pm PT
My experience with the proclaimed and committed atheists in my life – this includes siblings with advanced degrees operating at a world class level in their respective fields –all real solid individuals. Enlightened self interest is how one of my partners describes it. These are People of veracity and above reproach. That said, anything militant is natural suspect in my mind. After all militant is just a catch phrase for fundamentalist reactionary ready to bludgeon anyone and anything that does not kowtow to their strict doctrine – an expected acquiescence if not we will shout louder and longer until you do prime directive – “resistance is futile….” Reciprocity & respect for the process should be foundational in any discussion in my opinion
Thank you to the proclaimed and committed Atheists on ST – even the shrill & whiney ones and you know who you are - for you help to promote ideas and discussions. Strength and encouragement to you all …………. For myself I do not have enough faith to be an atheist – please know I tried. In the end I give thanks to Darwin and praises to Gould! All power to Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris! In part due to your teachings I believe in God
“Men despise religion. They hate it and are afraid it may be true.”
Blaise Pascal
“Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed”
Blaise Pascal
Perhaps the following illustration – though crass – might help. Our use of paper money is a social agreement. Behind it, or what gives it value is nothing more than the collective agreement. Previously, our monetary system was based on the gold standard. Behind the paper, behind the collective social agreement, was something Transcendent – precious metal. The real value of money was not the paper but the transcendent worth of the gold backing the social agreement.
You all have brought up some great discussion points, but at this moment I do not have time to respond – my Daughter and her girlfriend are taking me out to dinner for my birthday – burgers, beer and small batch whiskey – maybe we can agree that might be the start of transcendence ;0)
The quote below is for your consideration
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”
― Richard Dawkins
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
I just watched most of movie IMAX: Hubble
I have to say... with more than an estimated 50 billion galaxies in the limitless universe...
I find it less likely that a god that spoke to complete illiterate nomads 2000 years ago totally man made. And I find it difficult to believe/imagine that other human beings who are semi intelligent could possibly believe that load of shite.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
How do U guys box (copy) past texts and move them to ur post? Whith an iPhone. I need help
Anyway;
NO! Science investigates theories! Things that don't exist until they say they do. The biggest mistake they've made is with carbon dating. If I slaughtered my cow yesterday. And put a t-bone in the microwave today. U'd say it's a month old. I'm saying CD has everything to do with heating and cooling. I could put a t-bone in the freezer and take it out in a year and U'd say its fresh.
God is everywhere! He's in me and even in U. To find Him turn around He's right behind U. To know Him read the Bible!
Definition of God Is Love! Can U measure the amount of love for ur parents? Or ur ice cream, or ur favorite route?
I bet if U asked the world at large; millions would tell U God is working Miricules in their mediocre lives everyday.
He is untestable with ur device of measurement.
IMO
BB
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
ok.
that's almost as good as weldit.
props
|
|
mouse from merced
Trad climber
The finger of fate, my friends, is fickle.
|
|
Tony, a gentle nudge. You are defining "faith."
Belief's much different, a la St. Thomas, who believed, so he claimed, only when he could physically inspect the wounds. Belief rather implies proof.
I think Dr. F is telling us lack of proof doesn't necessarily mean non-existent deities (let's be fair you Mid-East-Centrists), it just means it can't be proven they exist. I'm totally cool with that, yet I pray. It's private and that's all I wish anyone needed to say about this painfully drawn-out (yawn) discussion. No disrespect.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
IM AN IDIOT!
But like George Michaels says;
"BUT I GOTTA HAVE FAITH,FAITH,FAITH. BABY!"
IMO
BB
|
|
Psilocyborg
climber
|
|
Atheism is no more a belief system than abstinence is a sexual position
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
What's a troll?
I haven't seen that term in the Bible.
Have they been provin by science?
Jus being serious
BB
|
|
Tony Bird
climber
Northridge, CA
|
|
certain scientists seem to come full circle on atheism. fred hoyle was a famous one. another would be simon conway-morris, whom i've mentioned on other threads, who engaged in a rather lively debate with the late, more atheistic, stephen jay gould.
the granddaddy to that debate was pierre teilhard de chardin, whom those of protestant culture seem to prefer to ignore. conway-morris, in an email exchange i had with him, voiced concepts i was familiar with, but when i mentioned teilhard, he seemed to want to withdraw back into a cambridge-comfortable belief system which included the portraying of napoleon as the worst devil in history. i think it was stephen hawking, another cambridger, who made the statement that, once you learn its physical machinations, there isn't much left in the universe for a god to do. but hawking hasn't seriously considered a mulitiverse, nor the prospects of a kardashev scale.
i've come to suspect that teilhard, being a jesuit, may have gained much of his point of view, which he expressed in the paleontology of his day, sub rosa. his good friend, biologist julian huxley, declared that most of it was well over his head, but nowadays even the strictest of scientific cosmologists seem to be detecting the hand of engineering in our physical and biological evolution. panspermia becomes a legitimate speculation. i think hoyle's statement about the triple alpha process pertains as well to certain aspects of astronomy, biology, anthropology, archaeology and human history: the universe is a set-up job.
bringing it back on topic here, note the sherpa saying on the cover of this book:
the universe seems like a big thing. the dimension of time seems mighty lengthy, but unlike other dimensions, we don't seem to be able to travel backward in the opposite direction on it. contemporary physics gives us a new take on both of these items. it could well be a multiverse, not a universe. there could actually be parallel universes, there could be a number of other dimensions (aside to ed: how many dimensions do you, pardon the term, believe in? 3? 4? 5? 10? 11? even more? seems like a pretty important question), all of which could make it a hell of a lot more exciting--and complicated--than pretty pictures coming out of the hubblescope or the esoteric clues in the bible.
ah, wee sleekit mousie. faith, they told us, is what good little altar boys have, and we should never question divine authority. i was lucky to get through all that without some priestly hand on my shoulder beginning to grope lower. too many of those poor devils tried to follow the lead of st. thomas aquinas, who chased women out of his life with a candelabrum, working up an aristotelian system sister mary ignatius could explain, as long as everyone stays above the belt.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!