Maybe, except they're not used merely to describe behaviour. They're used to look down on behaviour. Eh, that weakling, he believes in God, must be a coward who is too scared of death. So if atheists look down on theists for such petty reasons - theists should be able to do the same. An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.The fear arguments actually work in terms of describing a lot of human behaviour. — TheWillowOfDarkness
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" - why don't you start from there?They don't need to agree. In this respect, they are ignorant of themselves. As for the point, it's about understandi the relationship of knowledge to faith. — TheWillowOfDarkness
There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your vain philosophy...I do: that's why it merely rehtorical. In faith, one hopes for God, for an unknown to turn out how they wish. In terms of an argument, it like saying: "I hope the coin turns up heads."
Some people complain faith doesn't give a reason for belief, but it's that's too kind. Faith doesn't even take a position on either the world or ethics. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope, because I won't marry her if i don't have faith in her. Faith is a pre-requisite for her faithfulness.Her faithfuness is entirely possible, despite your lack of hope. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Faith is hoping and acting on that hope. It's being committed.That's precisely why faith acts as a rehtorical enforcer. The world anyone hopes for gets attached to faith, creating a situation where people think faith is required to hope. — TheWillowOfDarkness
It does have something to do with truth, because if I don't have faith in her, I don't marry her, and thus there will be no truth of her being faithful to me.Which is why it's rehtorical-- faith is convincing you to marry her. It has nothing to do with with truth, nothing to do with describing her or her behaviour. — TheWillowOfDarkness
We were discussing faithfulness towards me though in this particular circumstance, I thought that was evident.To you, as you have refused to marry her. But that's your action, not her loyalty to her partner. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Your faith isn't just following God, it's your commitment to God. It's this commitment and the actions that follow from it that are the fruits.In the context of belief in God, this would merely mean you choose not to follow God. You would just marry some other belief instead. This is why it's particularly rehtorical-- you are demanding faith in God to get people to follow God. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Your faith isn't just following God, it's your commitment to God. It's this commitment and the actions that follow from it that are the fruits. — Agustino
Likewise, it seems to me that atheists wish theist's beliefs to be grounded in some fear of annihilation... — Agustino
Or do you mean to tell me that there are no psychological advantages at all in being an atheist? I freely admit there are psychological advantages in being a theist for example - reduced fear of death, ability to hope to meet loved ones again, and so forth. — Agustino
Well I think that your life clinging by the thread and doctors and others trying to save you is a medical trial, is it not? — Agustino
And prayer/meditation in an effort to develop a relationship with God doesn't count as investigating it? — Agustino
Who said God is (completely) "unknowable"? The unknown isn't necessarily also unknowable. — Agustino
The reason why most arguments end up this way is that people who don't believe will never agree with the reasons/explanations offered by those who believe, and will instead find any other possible explanation for them that they can. This is a silly game. Any fact can be explained in a multitude of ways. You choose to believe it a certain way, I choose to believe it a different way. There's nothing really to discuss, except share that one of us has faith and the other doesn't. — Agustino
Yes, the theist will say likewise.I don't think this is a wish of mine, but rather an observation. — Mayor of Simpleton
As the theist does not believe that death is the end, he has no reason to fear it. Quite simple. Don't you see how stupid all of this is? You caricature the theist, the theist can just as easily caricature you.My not believing in a theistic deity subsequently eliminates this "eye in the sky" authoritarian surveillance with the ability and licence for eternal judgement; thus no reason to fear. — Mayor of Simpleton
Yeah, describing them in a way that no theist would agree to them. I guess we should take that as clearly a fair description.This is not me criticising the notions of theistic beliefs as much as I am simply describing the beliefs. — Mayor of Simpleton
Because it's not up to them to decide when to leave the world. It's also immoral to desire to die sooner than your time, because it is disobeying God's will. Furthermore, you could add that since death is inevitable and its time is decided by God, there is no reason to wish for it, since whether you wish it, or you don't, it will come at its allotted time anyway.If this were the case, why don't these theistic individuals all wish to die? — Mayor of Simpleton
Because, at least until death, they will be separated from the loved one? They cry more for themselves than for the person who has died. Only the atheist is under the delusion that he's crying for the person who has died ;)Why do they cry at a funeral? — Mayor of Simpleton
How quaint that no theist describes Heaven in these terms, don't you think so? It seems quite evident to me that your dislike for authority is one of the main reasons behind your atheism - and yes, an emotional, not a rational reason, exactly as I have claimed before.my take is that it is a holy celestial North Korea — Mayor of Simpleton
Yes, moving from medical trial to clinical trial is called moving goal posts.The definition of a medical trial (or clnical trial) — Mayor of Simpleton
Medicine isn't so "clear-cut" that someone can just "practice medicine".Personally I would rather have a medical professional practice medicine if I were hanging on to life by a thread rather than conduct a medical (clinical) trial. — Mayor of Simpleton
No, being beyond comprehension does not mean unknowable, it simply means being (currently) unknown. The theists draw a distinction here and say that God is entirely intelligible, however, not entirely intelligible for finite human intellects. Definitely they don't claim God is incomprehensible in an ontological sense - only partly incomprehensible for the finite human intellect - the same way a black hole is incomprehensible.Every bit of theistic doctrine presents a god beyond comprehension (aka "unknowable") — Mayor of Simpleton
How uninformed this is. Unknowable creature(s) with reference to God >:O . God is creator, not creature. That is a fundamental tenet of theism, how peculiar that your attacks merely show your ignorance of that which you want to attack.unknowable creatures — Mayor of Simpleton
And who are you to issue warrants regarding what should be done and what shouldn't be done? The moral authority itself? Have you killed God to put yourself on the throne? See, that's the problem with your kind of atheism - you can't even issue moral injunctions. Once you undermine any and all authority, you undermine even your own self.Then these people of faith should finally have the good taste and stop arguing. — Mayor of Simpleton
It's not for the sake of making one feel better, it's simply because this appears evidently true to some. You can wake up and look at the splendor of the world and say "just happened by chance", not everyone can.Why insist there must be an organizing force for the sake of making one feel better? — Mayor of Simpleton
Yeah, I wish to ask you the same thing.Why dumb down investigation for the sake of having an answer to be consistant with a preconception bias? — Mayor of Simpleton
Just because Mr. Dawkins cannot reach up to the grapes does not mean they are sour."We constantly create false positives. We touch wood for luck, we see faces in toasted cheese, fortunes in tea leaves. These provide a comforting illusion of meaning. This is the human condition in our bewildering and complex world. (and) In the irrational mindset, if you believe in the mystical pattern you have imposed on reality you call yourself 'spiritual'." — Mayor of Simpleton
How do they place an end to investigation? Investigation, ie experiment, is what deals with the empirical realm. Theism deals with metaphysics. What does investigation have to do with metaphysics? Nothing. Metaphysics cannot stop any investigation, neither can any investigation change metaphysics. The two are independent.The problem as I see it is that many of the theistic notions lead to rather totalitarian forces that place an end to investigation. — Mayor of Simpleton
We always start with presuppositions which are not proven. Furthermore, there is no investigation (experiment) in metaphysics the way there is investigation in physics.Indeed, if you start with the answer prior to the investigation, then you have a bias that is unavoidable and will in the end be defended at all costs. — Mayor of Simpleton
What is there to investigate, in the sense of experiment? This is the wrong-headed approach from the very beginning. One needs to think through metaphysics, and identify the principles that are required to be accepted in order to make sense of ANY KIND of physics whatsoever. Then one needs to draw whatever conclusions there are to draw out of such principles. As for arrogance, the atheist is quite arrogant himself when, for example, he thinks the universe should be under some compulsion to follow its laws such that miracles are impossible.It has an extreme arrogance of certainity without ever making an effort to investigate. — Mayor of Simpleton
Right. The governance of society is a different subject than the attitude one is to have to other individuals. Live and let live is simply an attitude individuals should have with respect to one another - because there's nothing else they can do about each other. But I quite possibly believe that the good governance of society involves setting up a strong culture which enforces the virtues and religious practices which have always been essential for human communities through means such as education, social pressure, and so forth.Live and let live is one thing, but that is not written into any doctine of these theistic notions. — Mayor of Simpleton
Yes, moving from medical trial to clinical trial is called moving goal posts. — Agustino
No, being beyond comprehension does not mean unknowable, it simply means being (currently) unknown. — Agustino
How uninformed this is. Unknowable creature(s) with reference to God >:O . God is creator, not creature. That is a fundamental tenet of theism, how peculiar that your attacks merely show your ignorance of that which you want to attack. — Agustino
Ok, even so, what does that have to do with anything? First you make an unsubstantiated distinction between a placebo in a medical trial, and a placebo in a medical intervention - what reason do you even have to suppose there may be such a distinction? That's just the same level as thinking that eating grass might cure cancer, and we need to go out and test it - investigate it, as you love to say - to see if it really does. No we don't. Nobody does science like that. We have no reason to think eating grass cures cancer, and thus we have no reason to test it.Medical trials is laymans terms for clinical trials. — Mayor of Simpleton
Ok so? I fail to see anything that follows out of this. Does it follow that incomprehensible is unknowable? No, because what is incomprehensible today, may be comprehensible tomorrow - and thus can be known.No...
... unknowable means cannot be known. — Mayor of Simpleton
To be knowable to you means to be perceived directly using the five senses. That's not necessarily what being knowable is in the first place. The theorem of Pythagoras cannot be perceived directly for example. There is no physical theorem for you to touch or see. It is an object of the intellect. But this doesn't mean that the theorem doesn't exist either.Give me one example of a theistic god that is knowable; that which can be perceived directly — Mayor of Simpleton
First you make an unsubstantiated distinction between a placebo in a medical trial, and a placebo in a medical intervention - what reason do you even have to suppose there may be such a distinction? — Agustino
Yes and the empirical test concludes that there is actual benefit in its application to cure disease. It follows then that it should be employed in the practice.One is an emprical test to see if there is an actual beneficial application to the cure disease and the other is the actual practice employing tested medicine for the curing of disease. — Mayor of Simpleton
You're thinking too black and white. You may be on your deathbed and no "empirically tested" medicine is able to cure you for certain, however, some yet untried medicine (which by the way isn't the equivalent of the placebo, because the placebo has been tried before) may be able to give you a small chance. Would you go for the empirically tested medicine in that case?No offense here, but if I'm on my deathbed I'd prefer that the doctors use empirically tested medicines rather than use me as a test subject to see what happens to happen. — Mayor of Simpleton
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.