Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Belief in "god" without a belief in religion

Options
13»

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    Why does it matter? You are making a false argument that is utterly irrelevant.

    It matters to me is all, it confounds my sense of reason to think of it otherwise. BTW you're giving off the exact same vibe as I get from theists when I suggest the Bible isn't the word of God.
    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    It's akin to someone who has only grown up around animals and living creatures who sees a plane and says, "because I know all things that fly have mothers, that flying thing in the sky must also have been born by a creature of the same type"

    Up until the invention of powered flight that was entirely true surely? Because the Wright brothers were creatures who gave birth to powered flight it still hold true to a degree. :)
    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    You are looking at what you know and using it to explain something you know nothing about. Please tell me you understand why this is wrong.

    But all I have is what I know, my conscious mind. I'm happy enough to trust it, does me no harm like. I know the universe to a degree because of what I've learned about it. It seems to me that your position is like a faith based refusal to trust your senses.


  • Options
    #63
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    god?

    That's what I call It. The only thing that has that quality so far as I'm aware. If you want me to even entertain the possibility It doesn't exist then I need to know of other things that have arisen without being caused to do so.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    also, even if you establish that the universe was created, how do you jump from that to worshipping a jewish guy who lived 2000 years ago?

    Er..I don't. Worshipping people isn't my buzz. The dead fella from Palestine said some pretty spot on things so far as I can make out. I blame God for that though, he certainly seemed to have a thing about It. And just look at the history of western civilisation that it has caused. Impressive stuff.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    And what do you know about how the universe began that the world's foremost scientists don't?

    Only as much as the average atheists do really. IMO the agnostics are the ones who come out of the cold application of logic looking the most sensible followed by the deists and the weak atheists and trailing behind there are the strong atheists and the theists.


  • Options
    #64
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    IMO the agnostics are the ones who come out of the cold application of logic looking the most sensible followed by the deists and the weak atheists and trailing behind there are the strong atheists and the theists.

    We seem to be heading for familiar ground here on the atheism/agnosticism definitions front: but being "agnostic" about something simply means that there is not enough information to make a judgement on it, aka "I don't know", which is the same position most "atheists" take on this topic, and certainly the position the posters who have replied to you have unanimously taken.

    See here for more:
    http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm


  • Options
    #65
    sink
    Registered Users Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine." - Werner Karl Heisenberg

    O'Coonassa you are making the Fundamental mistake of thinking that your evolved intuition is capable of intuitively grasping the nature of universe, when it is has only adapted to deal with everyday aspects of nature. No one understands Quantum Mechanics it only works when you put numbers and calculations down on piece of paper, if you sit back and try to imagine QM in your head all you'll get is a head ache. There are many aspects of physics which are just as incapable of being understood intuitively by the human brain, but yet the maths is as accurate as it can be.

    "If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics." - Richard Feynman


  • Options
    #66
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    '' Jesus was the son of God and he was alright ,it was just his disciples who were thick ''

    John Lennon

    I would have more belief in a ' God ' rather than the humans who claim to represent him and his intrests here on earth .

    Latchy


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    It matters to me is all

    Understandable, but it doesn't make it any more objectively correct.
    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    it confounds my sense of reason to think of it otherwise.

    Then don't think of it either way. It is a sight more injurious to yourself and others you profess this opinion to to claim knowledge of an event through logic and reason when not even the most logical or reasonable individuals would do so.
    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    BTW you're giving off the exact same vibe as I get from theists when I suggest the Bible isn't the word of God.

    The difference is I'm not telling you what is right, i'm telling you why you are wrong. I don't know how this Universe started and you don't either. Your default answer when asked how this Universe began should be "I don't know, but we have our best minds trying to figure that out" ;)
    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    the Wright brothers were creatures who gave birth to powered flight it still hold true to a degree. :)

    Sorry I don't wish to entertain an argument on semantics :)
    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    It seems to me that your position is like a faith based refusal to trust your senses.

    Not at all. I trust my senses, and know that an understanding of how this Universe came to be is not required for them to function. Sure, under my current level of knowledge I could hazard a guess, like you, about the start of the Universe, but what would be the point, does it make my life better to think that God created all this or not? No, imo, it doesn't, and I would only be guessing on my limited acquisition of information up to this point.

    There are plenty of aspects of this Universe that confound, confuse and are out of the bounds of our current understanding, trying to leap frog them and make up an explanation for the beginning of it all is foolish.

    It is okay to say "I don't know" icon14.gif


  • Options
    #68
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    Not at all. I trust my senses,

    Derren Brown would have something to say about that. (Amazing show, get it)


  • Options
    #69
    Goduznt Xzst
    Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    Derren Brown would have something to say about that. (Amazing show, get it)

    Just because I trust my senses doesn't mean I don't accept they can be fooled. Plus ahead of my trust in my senses is a distrust of mentalists ;)


  • Options
    #70
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Goduznt Xzst wrote: »
    Just because I trust my senses doesn't mean I don't accept they can be fooled. Plus ahead of my trust in my senses is a distrust of mentalists ;)

    Have you seen what he can do!?
    Never answering a pay-phone ever again...


  • Options
    #71
    zuroph
    Registered Users Posts: 11,097 ✭✭✭✭zuroph


    Derren brown can do a lot less than you think.

    stop stealing my thread with the same old proof/no proof debate. :p


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    O'Coonassa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭O'Coonassa


    Naz_st wrote: »

    See here for more:
    http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

    Thanks I read this from your link "In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn’t faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label “god” exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist."

    It took all the heart out of my argumentativeness lol

    I can't really be having a row with people who admit the possibility I could be right, it just doesn't seem right.


  • Options
    #73
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    That's what I call It. The only thing that has that quality so far as I'm aware. If you want me to even entertain the possibility It doesn't exist then I need to know of other things that have arisen without being caused to do so.
    Atheists don't argue that the universe arose without being caused to do so. In the vast majority of cases the answer you will get when you ask an atheist how the universe came to be is "I don't know". The choices are not "God" (whichever flavour people happen to believe in) or "the universe popped into being on it's own". There is also option C: we don't know because we don't know enough about the universe yet.

    The fact that we don't yet know how the universe came into being is not an argument for God. Just because someone claims to have an answer to a question doesn't mean their answer is right

    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    Only as much as the average atheists do really.
    So are you an atheist? I was under the impression that you weren't
    O'Coonassa wrote: »
    IMO the agnostics are the ones who come out of the cold application of logic looking the most sensible followed by the deists and the weak atheists and trailing behind there are the strong atheists and the theists.
    I wouldn't put them in that order tbh. Agnostics generally leave open the possibility for the Christian god, a hypothesis that is clearly invented in the desert 2000 years ago. Someone who rejects the illogical rather than leaving open all possibilities no matter how ridiculous is more logical imo. I'd pretty much agree with the rest of your list though.


  • Options
    #74
    marco_polo
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,077 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Yes, the answer it gave was 42

    On a philosophical note, can a quantum computer say no?


  • Options
    #75
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    marco_polo wrote: »
    On a philosophical note, can a quantum computer say no?

    Probably maybe.


  • Options
    #76
    Naz_st
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Naz_st


    marco_polo wrote: »
    On a philosophical note, can a quantum computer say no?

    Not only that, it can say "Yes" and "No" at the same time... :)


Advertisement