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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

24567…21

Comments

  • #52
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,776 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    KWAG2019 wrote: »
    Gibberish. Take it to church to be savored by the deluded.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Welcome to the A&A forum. Might I suggest The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins as a way of obtaining A&A Kindergarden qualifications?

    Mod warning: Both, less of the uncivil attitude please.

    @antikseptic, you've already had one card today, back seat modding will not be tolerated. You are hardly in a position to call anyone out on their A&A credentials.


  • #53
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    I find your pseudo intellectual posts quite condescending OP.


  • #54
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Janelle Mammoth Tournament wrote: »
    I find your pseudo intellectual posts quite condescending OP.

    I'll take the compliment in so far as one is likely to be given on this forum.


  • #55
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,476 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    That's patent rubbish. Very smart and reasonable people believe

    They believe, they do not know however.
    This is your category mistake (and another place of stalemate). I am not prepared to believe without evidence. It is precisely the evidence which brings about the belief. You are supposing you can see all, and in that all there is no evidence. I'm suggesting (well, the Bible is and I'm merely repeating it here) that you are blind.

    Throwing around insults saying people are blind, that their world view doesn't amount to anything etc. isn't going to get you anywhere here.
    A thought experiment: think what God would be like if he existed. Take the scale of the universe as your cue and use it to concentrate on might and intelligence. And consider the universe spoken into existence (i.e. the scale of the universe is a drop in the ocean compared to the scale of God)

    Now pop back out of the thought and consider how feeble the idea that God evidencing himself is limited to what you suppose it should be.

    I think the idea that the entire universe was created just for us by a theistic god who monitors our every thought and deed to be ludicrous. The immense scale you speak of just makes that idea even more ludicrous.
    Unfortunately, pride won't be an option.... *MEGA-SNIP*

    Yawn. Preaching is not discussion.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #56
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    They believe, they do not know however.

    I'm sure you believe in the theory of evolution. A theory so well established it is considered as known. Yet we know theories can be overturned. How can what is known not be known in the event of overturning? Well, it being a belief enormously undergirded unto it being known is how you know.

    You place too much emphasis on a word. And not the undergirding for the word.

    I'm happy to say that God might not indeed exist. That I could be a brain in a jar. And so to be accurate and precise, belief is a better word.

    But sometimes, as with ToE, when the belief is so well undergirded, we differentiate from commoner garden, less well undergirded belief. And say we know

    I know you won't like that. But that's your problem to solve


    Throwing around insults saying people are blind, that their world view doesn't amount to anything etc. isn't going to get you anywhere here.

    It wasn't intended as an insult. It's a fair point. If you are blind to something then you will act like a man who cannot see as far as those who can see are concerned

    How often are folk said to be deluded when the problem can be with you. You just assume its not. Assume a higher ground. When there is ni particular basis for doing so. Least of all showing so.

    You'll bang on about 'what about all the other religions' but it sidesteps the point. They too can be like you: supposing what they see is what can be seen and that all others are deluded.

    Not that I think other religions are deluded. There are many paths to the summit and both religionists and non religionists ,(such as atheists) can take it.

    You will mock (which isn't an argument) and stutter about the audacity of my ,(and those like me) saying we see so much better than anyone else (in that Jesus and not Zeus is the way). But isn't that what you and those like you say. That empiricism and rationalism is the way?

    Rather than call out your audacirty, I would merely stalemate by saying 'What's good for the goose'


  • #57
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    antiskeptic wrote: »

    Rather than call out your audacirty, I would merely stalemate by saying 'What's good for the goose'

    MOD

    antiskeptic, with respect this is a forum for discussion . It is not a forum for you to engage in some game where you view 'stalemate' as either desirable or an endgame. There are enough threads in this forum already where you have employed this tactic. Kindly either engage in discussion in good faith (pun intended) or go to another forum where such tactics are permissible.
    DO NOT comment on this warning in thread. If you wish to discuss it please do so via PM


  • #58
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,776 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm sure you believe in the theory of evolution. A theory so well established it is considered as known. Yet we know theories can be overturned. How can what is known not be known in the event of overturning? Well, it being a belief enormously undergirded unto it being known is how you know.

    You place too much emphasis on a word. And not the undergirding for the word.

    I'm happy to say that God might not indeed exist. That I could be a brain in a jar. And so to be accurate and precise, belief is a better word.

    But sometimes, as with ToE, when the belief is so well undergirded, we differentiate from commoner garden, less well undergirded belief. And say we know

    Interesting term 'undergirded' when applied to knowledge. You'd think a term like 'evidenced' would be more appropriate when not referring to a physical structure but then these are all arguments without evidence, much like the claim that your god is self evident to us all.

    Theory of evolution is our best evidenced understanding of how we arrived at where we are today. It gets revised as new evidence emerges and is fully open to being overturned in the unlikely event that better contradictory evidence becomes available.

    Religious belief by comparison is not evidenced, so why do people still believe and try to foist their beliefs on others? Jesus has the answer I'm sure, or maybe Mohammed. :)

    sunk.png


  • #59
    PHG
    Registered Users Posts: 475 ✭✭PHG


    I will try to come back to some of the points made earlier, but as a quick one.

    Considering there has been hundreds of thousands of religions since the time of man, what makes you so sure your one is the "true" one? The probability is no you haven't (if there was one).

    If you are allowed to repent, if you end up in the pearly gates why not spend your time doing other stuff instead of focusing on religion and just repent when you get there and they will open the gates?


    Now let us have a look at the church in all its glory.

    - Why can't priests marry? Them being unable to marry is relatively new. So this means likely a money issue where they do not want to pay a priests family member.
    - LGBT issues were only added to the bibles around 1400's, if memory serves correctly, why did God who is billions of years old only see this as an issue then?
    - How are all men born sinners like you say? I have seen plenty of babies and never seen them sin.

    Referring to your remark on believing the theory of evolution, of course we do, we can prove it. So referring to back to what I said, is it not more probable that God does not exist compared to the amount of religions and hedge your bets that way?

    Also, I have an issue with this subject and ruled by God. I came from my parents and do not bow down to them and neither should I. I respect them and they respect me, through love, kindness and calling me on my BS and stupidity when needed. In fact if a God is all knowing, understanding and merciful, they should not see you as a lesser being, or beneath them but as an equal!


  • #60
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    Interesting term 'undergirded' when applied to knowledge. You'd think a term like 'evidenced' would be more appropriate when not referring to a physical structure but then these are all arguments without evidence, much like the claim that your god is self evident to us all.

    Theory of evolution is our best evidenced understanding of how we arrived at where we are today. It gets revised as new evidence emerges and is fully open to being overturned in the unlikely event that better contradictory evidence becomes available.

    Religious belief by comparison is not evidenced, so why do people still believe and try to foist their beliefs on others? Jesus has the answer I'm sure, or maybe Mohammed. :)

    sunk.png

    I chose undergirded because the word 'evidence' is so problematic for you.

    The issue was blindness vs delusion. Now we've heard of delusion frequently enough on here. It's a possibility. Blindness in you is also a possibility

    You can describe what you see about evidence and what it leads to. I, who can see what you see, can partake in that realm of sightedness in the same way and draw conclusions as you do.

    But what you say about a realm I say I can see but you can't, is easily sidestepped by me. Of course you would say what you say. You can't see the evidence such as to arrive at conviction. Especially not since you are wedded to the way in which evidence must be approached*

    Projecting how convicion arises out of evidence of the empirical kind onto all manners of conviction is a leap. There is no reason all ways of arriving at a conviction through exposure to evidence need track that path.

    Me deluded vs you blind. Which is it? I don't see a way to resolve.

    Another case of 'Hello stalemate my old friend'?


    * which is why salvation must be of God. People are antagonistic and blocking and bent on their own way be done.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,776 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I chose undergirded because the word 'evidence' is so problematic for you.

    Far from it. It is yourself who has a problem with evidence, given your ongoing inability to find any to support your arguments. As such the sum total of what you've said amounts to unsupported speculation. Whether you'd rather call this girded speculation or faith based argument doesn't change this. Logical consistency in an imaginary realm doesn't make that imaginary realm any more real, your girders are as imaginary as what they support.


  • #62
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,783 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Understood. But the rubber duck aims to get the speaker to improve their explanation and improve their understanding of their code so as to objectively improve it such that it achieves the desired result: i.e. it works.

    There is no improvement to an explanation which will make an explanation work for you.

    But you aren't doing it for me, you are doing it for the rubber duck. The duck doesn't judge, it is not antagonistic, it is not me in any way, it is just a rubber duck.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    You presume rationality and sober assessment of the argument rules man. It doesn't. Not in my world view.

    Ok, so you admit that your worldview is not based on rationality or sober assessment and therefore is not going to be convincing to a not-already-believing third party. This brings us to the second question in the other thread:

    Why do you believe it?

    Yes, sure, you feel convinced of it, but that not is not because of objective rationing or logic, it is because of subjective feeling. Many other fundamentally contradictory theists claim the exactly the same way about their beliefs. Even some atheists might. You can't all be right. Maybe none of you are. So do you have something besides your subjective feeling that it is true? Or is your basis exactly the same, and therefore completely indistinguishable, from so many other worldviews?


  • #63
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    Far from it. It is yourself who has a problem with evidence, given your ongoing inability to find any to support your arguments

    Again, the problem can be with you. If you haven't the framework in which to appreciate then that's doesn't negate my position in any objective sense.

    Any more than any blindness negates an objective.





    As such the sum total of what you've said amounts to unsupported speculation. Whether you'd rather call this girded speculation or faith based argument doesn't change this. Logical consistency in an imaginary realm doesn't make that imaginary realm any more real, your girders are as imaginary as what they support.

    Again, you are not dealing with the key problem. You are in no way sidestepping the possibility that you are blind.

    You are merely pounding against the problem with various evidences concluded from the area we agree you have sight.

    But if that sighted realm has no bearing on a realm in relation to which you are utterly unsighted?

    There is no way to deal with the problem of the possibility of your being blind. Making assumptions as to your area of sight's ability to comment on where you may be blind is slightly foolish at this stage.

    Step back and consider how ludicrous it is. A kind of self declaration that your area of sight can comment on the whatever the whole might be. Or limit whatever the whole might be to what you can see. Both ludicrous.


  • #64
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,776 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Again, the problem can be with you. If you haven't the framework in which to appreciate then that's doesn't negate my position in any objective sense.

    Any more than any blindness negates an objective.

    Again, you are not dealing with the key problem. You are in no way sidestepping the possibility that you are blind.

    You are merely pounding against the problem with various evidences concluded from the area we agree you have sight.

    But if that sighted realm has no bearing on a realm in relation to which you are utterly unsighted?

    There is no way to deal with the problem of the possibility of your being blind. Making assumptions as to your area of sight's ability to comment on where you may be blind is slightly foolish at this stage.

    Step back and consider how ludicrous it is. A kind of self declaration that your area of sight can comment on the whatever the whole might be. Or limit whatever the whole might be to what you can see. Both ludicrous.

    The framework that I'm working in is reality, same as everyone else. The notion that not subscribing to someone else's irrational religious belief system, or random delusions for that matter, is tantamount to blindness is patently ridiculous. Perhaps you are blind for ignoring the return of He who cannot be named and prophesy that "neither can live while the other survives?"

    You seem to be unable to distinguish between sight and imagination.


  • #65
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    smacl wrote: »
    is tantamount to blindness is patently ridiculous.

    In my experience it is a common theist trope to claim to be able to "see" what we are "blind" to. It is not that they have no evidence, it is that we are blind and simply can not see what they can.

    The analogy to blindness is however a really poor one. You see when a person is ACTUALLY blind you can still evidence to them the existence of the things they can not see. You can evidence the existence of things like colour. You can evidence the existence of sight itself.

    So the analogy does not hold. When I tell a blind person they are blind, I can substantiate the existence of both sight, and the object they are blind to, in other ways. I can evidence the object they can not see exists. I can evidence sight exists. And I can evidence they lack that sense while I have it.

    Contrast this to the theist who can scream "blind" until he is blue in the face, but is entirely unable to substantiate the existence of that blindness, the sight, or the thing we are supposedly blind to.


  • #66
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,776 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    In my experience it is a common theist trope to claim to be able to "see" what we are "blind" to. It is not that they have no evidence, it is that we are blind and simply can not see what they can.

    The analogy to blindness is however a really poor one. You see when a person is ACTUALLY blind you can still evidence to them the existence of the things they can not see. You can evidence the existence of things like colour. You can evidence the existence of sight itself.

    So the analogy does not hold. When I tell a blind person they are blind, I can substantiate the existence of both sight, and the object they are blind to, in other ways. I can evidence the object they can not see exists. I can evidence sight exists. And I can evidence they lack that sense while I have it.

    Contrast this to the theist who can scream "blind" until he is blue in the face, but is entirely unable to substantiate the existence of that blindness, the sight, or the thing we are supposedly blind to.

    Agreed. Away from religion I've encountered something similar talking to people about film or music. e.g. someone claims a film is great, when asked why fluster and if pressed say something along the lines of "you just don't get it!". Basically, they've become invested enough in a subjective belief or preference that they're willing to assert it is an objective truth, but this doesn't bear close inspection. Furthermore, they'll happily shill the film to protect their point of view rather than back down. My take is that religious people out to save souls, as openly admitted by the OP in this thread, are basically doing the same.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    Agreed. Away from religion I've encountered something similar talking to people about film or music. e.g. someone claims a film is great, when asked why fluster and if pressed say something along the lines of "you just don't get it!". Basically, they've become invested enough in a subjective belief or preference that they're willing to assert it is an objective truth, but this doesn't bear close inspection. Furthermore, they'll happily shill the film to protect their point of view rather than back down. My take is that religious people out to save souls, as openly admitted by the OP in this thread, are basically doing the same.

    I wasn't talking about something we both agree is subjective.

    I don't really see an address to the sustance: delusion vs blind.


  • #68
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    The framework that I'm working in is reality, same as everyone else.

    That's a claim as to the extent of reality, i.e. you can see all there is to be seen in principle.

    Which is no different ro my claim (my extent merely extending beyond yours)

    How does that shift things away from stalemate?




    The notion that not subscribing to someone else's irrational religious belief system, or random delusions for that matter, is tantamount to blindness is patently ridiculous.

    I'm not asking you to subscribe. I'm asking you for a way to definitvely decide that its delusion and not blindness. Since you claim it is delusion and not blindness.

    Convenient. But lacking this far, in substance.

    How does one know they are blind to what they can't see, if what they can see has no connection to what they can't?

    (an optically blind person has connection to what they are blind to - via other empirical realm senses. But that connection need not be there. In that case blind is utterly blind)


  • #69
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Double post


  • #70
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    In my experience it is a common theist trope to claim to be able to "see" what we are "blind" to. It is not that they have no evidence, it is that we are blind and simply can not see what they can.

    Okay.
    The analogy to blindness is however a really poor one. You see when a person is ACTUALLY blind you can still evidence to them the existence of the things they can not see. You can evidence the existence of things like colour. You can evidence the existence of sight itself.

    Okay. What happens here is that one empirically based sense is out of action but the other four can still combine and inform about the empirical world, including about empirically evidenced blindness. 4 wheels on my wagon and I'm still rollin' along .. as it were.

    But if the blindness isn't about the empirical world then there are no secondary actors to prop things up. How would you convince someone with no senses that they had no senses?
    So the analogy does not hold.

    You can see that it does work when explained out. Now you'll doubtlessly have seen this last theist trope in response to your athiest trope response.

    What athiest trope response comes next? For I haven't seen it yet. It always appears to halt at stalemate in the delusion trope vs. the blind trope discussion

    (p.s. it would be more accurate to call it a biblical trope, since its all over the bible. That being the stone the theists lick the idea off. 2000 years to develop a trope response .. and counting)


  • #71
    Peatys
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Peatys


    Antiskeptic, why do you care what other people think?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Peatys wrote: »
    Antiskeptic, why do you care what other people think?

    Because I know the score. Because the upsides for folk are wonderful and the downside not so (even if opted for by a persons will). Because God, who is the wonderful behind the wonderful upside thinks it important. And I can see his point. Because God (for relational, intimacy reasons) invariably works on man through man). Because every "win" is a kick in the bollox to evil (which isn't an unenjoyable thing to inflict).

    Ultimately. Because you're worth it.


  • #73
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Peatys wrote: »
    Antiskeptic, why do you care what other people think?

    Great book btw (with a what instead of why)


  • #74
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Okay. What happens here is that one empirically based sense is out of action but the other four can still combine and inform about the empirical world

    Again, what happens is when I claim someone is blind I can evidence the existence of sight and the existence of the things they are blind to. When a theist tells me I am blind, he is just saying it and can not evidence it at all.

    Which is no small difference. Still not a SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning from you that a god exists. Just your being anti skepticism written on every post.


  • #75
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,776 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    That's a claim as to the extent of reality, i.e. you can see all there is to be seen in principle.

    Which is no different ro my claim (my extent merely extending beyond yours)

    How does that shift things away from stalemate?

    Reality is the quality or state of being real. Real is the opposite of imaginary, abstract or virtual. While in the context of the dynamic nature of human understanding this is a continuous spectrum rather than a discrete binary pair, all of your arguments and propositions lie in the realm of the imaginary. Even your stalemate is in an imaginary game of chess where you seem to fail to realise that you're the only one playing.


  • #76
    Fourier
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    Well the whole point you're making is "What if everybody is inherently irrational in a way that prevents them from reaching my conclusion and that conclusion is the correct one".

    Well then God would exist, be as you imagine he is and we'd be unable to realise that due to being too biased. It's contained in the definition of the scenario. That's it. It's not really a discussion, it's just a defining trait of a particular scenario.


  • #77
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,637 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Because I know the score. Because the upsides for folk are wonderful and the downside not so (even if opted for by a persons will). Because God, who is the wonderful behind the wonderful upside thinks it important. And I can see his point. Because God (for relational, intimacy reasons) invariably works on man through man). Because every "win" is a kick in the bollox to evil (which isn't an unenjoyable thing to inflict).

    Ultimately. Because you're worth it.

    You know the score?

    Ah here. You know the way you believe you’re doing some good by trying to reason with folks here? You’re actually doing nothing of any value or worth at all, to anyone but yourself.

    If you want to do good, go and do something with tangible results, something that matters in the real world. Because your god stories and make-believe, the notion that *anyone* is ‘worth it’ is just timewasting nonsense, serving no purpose other than to reinforce your notions that there is purpose beyond your own miserable existence.

    Hide from life if you want. Argue that you’re right and I’m wrong. Believe that. But I’ll get on with a life full of action and purpose, while you hide away from your own, favouring time spent on this pedantry over being a better person.

    Your god is yours. As loving as your imagination permits. As powerful as your deep, dark emptiness demands, filling that space with a strength you’ll only find in make believe.

    I think it’s pitiful to think you could ‘save’ a soul along the way when all you’re doing is slowly losing a part of what should be your own precious life with silliness and make believe.

    Pity. You have mine.


  • #78
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    JayZeus wrote: »
    You know the score?

    Ah here. You know the way you believe you’re doing some good by trying to reason with folks here? You’re actually doing nothing of any value or worth at all, to anyone but yourself.

    If you want to do good, go and do something with tangible results, something that matters in the real world. Because your god stories and make-believe, the notion that *anyone* is ‘worth it’ is just timewasting nonsense, serving no purpose other than to reinforce your notions that there is purpose beyond your own miserable existence.

    Hide from life if you want. Argue that you’re right and I’m wrong. Believe that. But I’ll get on with a life full of action and purpose, while you hide away from your own, favouring time spent on this pedantry over being a better person.

    Your god is yours. As loving as your imagination permits. As powerful as your deep, dark emptiness demands, filling that space with a strength you’ll only find in make believe.

    I think it’s pitiful to think you could ‘save’ a soul along the way when all you’re doing is slowly losing a part of what should be your own precious life with silliness and make believe.

    Pity. You have mine.

    Anyway. Back to our discussion. Delusion vs blindness.


  • #79
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    Reality is the quality or state of being real. Real is the opposite of imaginary, abstract or virtual. While in the context of the dynamic nature of human understanding this is a continuous spectrum rather than a discrete binary pair, all of your arguments and propositions lie in the realm of the imaginary. Even your stalemate is in an imaginary game of chess where you seem to fail to realise that you're the only one playing.

    "What I think is the spectrum of reality is the spectrum of realiity

    Fewer words smacl.

    Now getting beyond your belief system. For I know what your belief is long since.


  • #80
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Anyway. Back to our discussion. Delusion vs blindness.

    But surely as per your thread title his opinion matters?
    Bit rude to dismiss it like that no?
    Although pleasing to see you can be brief in your comments.


  • #81
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    But lacking this far, in substance.
    That would be an understatement.

    On a separate question - in the past, you've mentioned I think that you're an engineer who works in software. Do you approach your professional responsibilities as an engineer with the same nihilistic attitude with which you support your theological claims?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,476 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm sure you believe in the theory of evolution. A theory so well established it is considered as known. Yet we know theories can be overturned. How can what is known not be known in the event of overturning? Well, it being a belief enormously undergirded unto it being known is how you know.

    It's more than a bit much to be going on about theories being overturned by evidence, when your theory is only one among many thousands of them, and not one of them has any shred of evidence for them whatsoever.

    I know you won't like that. But that's your problem to solve

    Your claiming to know rather than to believe is entirely meh, it doesn't change what I think about your beliefs one bit. Congratulations on proving that one part of your 'knowledge' is wrong, however.

    It wasn't intended as an insult.

    Whatever about your intent, it implies that non-believers are lesser humans in some way.

    You will mock

    No.
    Wrong again.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #83
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,476 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Because I know the score.

    ...and we're back to empty assertion again.

    As Robindch has implied, I'm quite sure that you apply logic, reason and evidence in all areas of your day to day life - except one.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #84
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,637 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Anyway. Back to our discussion. Delusion vs blindness.

    Or in your case, blindness and delusion.


  • #85
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    JayZeus wrote: »
    Or in your case, blindness and delusion.

    MOD

    Less of this please. Restrict your comments to the post not the poster. Thanking you


  • #86
    LaFuton
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 784 ✭✭✭LaFuton


    i just read through most of this thread, out of genuine interest and alot of finely written articulate posts

    but it seems (imho} seems everyone is allowed to say there's no God, "imaginary" "make believe" even "nonsense" some of the words used

    calling the Holy Bible "folklore"

    nobody is pulled on asserting these with their certainty

    OP seems to get it for insisting he is a believer and like most believers its sorta a knowing feeling

    i think people should be more respectful of the faithful, (not the nutbag zealots obvz) but good folk like our old wans and grandparents

    especially in Ireland as Celtic Christianity was one of the finest and liberal iterations of faith, look it up folks, v interesting.

    peace
    (ex theology student who abandoned monkhood)


  • #87
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    LaFuton wrote: »
    but it seems (imho} seems everyone is allowed to say there's no God, "imaginary" "make believe" even "nonsense" some of the words used calling the Holy Bible "folklore" nobody is pulled on asserting these with their certainty

    Human language, like English, often works like this. We speak in certainties and absolutes even when not ENTIRELY certain or absolute. Often this is because that is how the language works.

    Often too it is because it is simply shorter and clearer to speak that way. It is easier to say "There is not god" than it is to say "I recognise the minute possibility there is a god, but also recognise that the quantity of argument, evidence, data and reasoning offered by theists to substantiate this idea to date is precisely and exactly ZERO. So we can and should operate under the functional premise there is no god in play here.".

    Rather than complain people are talking in certainties therefore, it is often more helpful to engage in discourse with them and unpack their beliefs and see what they actually think and feel and believe. You will very often find atheists like myself expand upon our position and be clearer and more descriptive of our actual positions on request. In contrast however you have seen that when we engage with our resident theist on the matter, no further clarifications, arguments, evidence, data, or reasoning is forthcoming. Just a restatement of his original assertions and a cloud of obfuscation.

    So in short no, I would not say with ABSOLUTE certainty that there is no good or the Bible is just a work of fiction. I say it with FUNCTIONAL certainty, given that there simply is no substantiation of any type that they are anything but fiction and imaginary entities.
    LaFuton wrote: »
    OP seems to get it for insisting he is a believer and like most believers its sorta a knowing feeling

    In fairness, though I have kept my interaction with the OP to a minimum intentionally, I think the reason he "gets it" from the other users here as you put it is not at all because he insists he is a believer. I think in fact if that was all he insisted, most users would have ignored him entirely.

    You are painting only half the actual picture here.

    No I think he "gets it" because he went one step further than this and derided the skeptic of his position too. Insisting they were just "making excuses" or were "being wilful" in their "denial", "lying" because we are "unruly, destructive and hateful", and that objections to his assertions are "truly erroneous, truly mad".

    Further he did not, as you put it, claim that HE knows that a god exists either. If you read the very title of the OP he was claiming WE already know it too. He was not at all insisting HE is a believer. He was insisting WE are. And I can see why that baited some responses from some users here.

    In contrast most users have been highly civil in response so it is interesting which way you admonish the thread for where respect should go. A string of invective against the skeptic exists in the OP which was NOT returned by the majority of users. An OP which is basically the 700 word manifesto version of the OPs chosen username. Your admoinishments in their selective bias therefore remind me of this.
    LaFuton wrote: »
    i think people should be more respectful of the faithful

    Nearly all users here already are entirely respectful of the faithful. They are just not respectful of the faith. Many here live by the mantra, phrased often differently but amounting to "Respect people, not ideas". We would even respect the "nutbag zealots" as you put it, because they are PEOPLE too. We just would not respect their ideas.

    Alas many people conflate the two. They see an attack on an idea, or lack of respect from an idea, to be the same as an attack on the person who HOLDS that idea. That is their error, not ours. We can certainly explain the difference to them but if they insist on clinging to the conflation all the time, and taking offence on behalf of their ideas, or the ideas of others.... then the fault and the blame is entirely their own.

    As for "old wans" I have more respect for them than that. I do not see old people as delicate little flowers requiring our protection and dancing on tip toe around their sensibilities. But strong experienced wise people who I can engage with every bit as robustly on interesting topics as I can anyone middle aged.
    LaFuton wrote: »
    especially in Ireland as Celtic Christianity was one of the finest and liberal iterations of faith

    You will have to clarify what you mean here as I am not sure what you feel elevates local iterations of the Christian faith over global versions. Especially when one looks at the horrors of the Catholic Religion and those perpetrated by the Catholic Church in it's name. Exactly what unique or particular local qualities do you think are interesting or relevant in this context?


  • #88
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,776 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    LaFuton wrote: »
    i just read through most of this thread, out of genuine interest and alot of finely written articulate posts

    but it seems (imho} seems everyone is allowed to say there's no God, "imaginary" "make believe" even "nonsense" some of the words used

    calling the Holy Bible "folklore"

    nobody is pulled on asserting these with their certainty

    OP seems to get it for insisting he is a believer and like most believers its sorta a knowing feeling

    i think people should be more respectful of the faithful, (not the nutbag zealots obvz) but good folk like our old wans and grandparents

    especially in Ireland as Celtic Christianity was one of the finest and liberal iterations of faith, look it up folks, v interesting.

    peace
    (ex theology student who abandoned monkhood)

    Mod: Welcome to the A&A forum. Please take a moment to read the charter and note there is a specific thread for feedback. As a rule of thumb here, respect is due to the individual poster but not their opinions or beliefs and we have no problem with robust criticism of ideas once it does not involve personal abuse

    From a personal point of view, those who look for respect of their belief system should start by according it to others. In this case the OP has come onto an atheist forum openly admitting that they are here to save souls. This is obviously disrespectful of the position held by most regular members of this forum and as such fully deserves the derision it is accorded.

    Christianity has a long tradition of trying to impose its belief system on others while writing off indigenous local belief systems as folklore. That many people of other traditions regard Christian mythology as nonsense and its traditions as folklore is hardly surprising nor something it is in any position to complain about. Personally I follow the secularist ideals of "freedom of religion" and "freedom from religion". If you want me to respect your religious beliefs, trying to ram them down my throat is the wrong way to go about it.


  • #89
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,510 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    LaFuton wrote: »
    i think people should be more respectful of the faithful

    As already pointed out, this is a atheist forum for the most part,

    Coming into the forum and referring to atheist as lesser human's isn't respectful.
    Try going into the motor forum and calling all motorist dicks and see what the reception is.

    As already pointed out, people have respected the OP but we sure as heck don't have to respect a story he choose to believe in as fact.


  • #90
    Fourier
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    You will have to clarify what you mean here as I am not sure what you feel elevates local iterations of the Christian faith over global versions. Especially when one looks at the horrors of the Catholic Religion and those perpetrated by the Catholic Church in it's name. Exactly what unique or particular local qualities do you think are interesting or relevant in this context?
    He means Christianity as practiced in pre-Norman Gaelic Ireland, which was more monastically oriented, scholastic and liberal than Roman Catholicism elsewhere. Many historians would agree with this description, but it's not really relevant as it was long gone by the time of our grandparents. In fact it was gone in the 1400s, so of very little relevance to the faith of any elderly people today.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Again, what happens is when I claim someone is blind I can evidence the existence of sight and the existence of the things they are blind to. When a theist tells me I am blind, he is just saying it and can not evidence it at all.

    Which is no small difference. Still not a SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning from you that a god exists. Just your being anti skepticism written on every post.

    That's a reiteration of something said already. Can we move on to what I said (and asked of you) subsequent to and in response to this?

    The blindness is complete sensory blindness to the realm being considered. No wheels on your wagon. How do you evidence a realm to somebody with complete sensory blindness?

    That is the question needing addressing.


    -


  • #92
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Fourier wrote: »
    Well the whole point you're making is "What if everybody is inherently irrational in a way that prevents them from reaching my conclusion and that conclusion is the correct one".

    I'm not quite sure what rationality has to do with it. There is nothing rational or irrational about the existence of a sense. A sense is something that feeds information to you regarding the environment you occupy. You can process that information rationally or irrationally and with greater or lesser rigour, intelligence. You can come to different conclusions about it.

    But we are talking about the sense - not the processing of the information.
    Well then God would exist, be as you imagine he is and we'd be unable to realise that due to being too biased. It's contained in the definition of the scenario. That's it. It's not really a discussion, it's just a defining trait of a particular scenario.

    The discussion centres around whether its possible to conclude (safely) whether delusion in me or blindness in you is at play. The conclusion on here is delusion in me. I'm querying how that is arrived at safely.

    So far, my bald claim appears to be countered by another bald claim (e.g. smacl's "the totality of reality is what I can see"). Which, you might agree is problematic. For we can all say that.


  • #93
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,830 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Human evolution will eventually dispose of religious beliefs.

    We've come from worshiping fire, the sun, the moon etc to worshiping nature, trees, rivers etc to myrids of imaginary celestial beings norse, roman, Greek, Egyptian... To worshipping individual beings ie mohammed, God, Haile Selassie etc...

    Eventually religion will descend to a simple understanding and realisation that projecting one's woes, or attributing one's successes, to a separate absent entity is illogical, non sensical and an abdication of personal responsibility.
    Religion will be viewed on the future as a crude means of controlling the masses, probably warranted originally, but ultimately a corrupt and logically bankrupt ideological system. And upon that realisation, religion will be consigned to the past as an embarrassing period of human history where we refused to acknowledge that us ourselves are ultimately responsible for what we do, say, think etc.

    Thankfully this evolution is already well underway


  • #94
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    But surely as per your thread title his opinion matters?
    Bit rude to dismiss it like that no?
    Although pleasing to see you can be brief in your comments.


    I have been speaking about blindness. Properly, spiritual blindness or blindness to a realm outside and enclosing the physical.

    The OP talks of man knowing and without excuse. Indicating he isn't blind (for blindness would be an excuse)

    An example of the intersect would be "God's law written on heart and the conscience accusing and defending his actions."

    An example of law written in heart would be feelings of compassion stirred when coming upon a scene befitting an expression of compassion. The law on heart produces compassion and the person is driven to act compassionately. Or they may not act so. They might suppress the compassion with some or other reasoning - and walk on by.

    The good samaritan parable is a case in point.

    Now, the person might be blind to the source of compassionate sense. They may suppose it the product of blind evolution (ironic that folk self-describe themselves as blind by attaching themselves to a process of production which itself is blind). Nevertheless they have sight within confines. They know what they ought do and why. And their 'opinion' (which can suppress what they know they ought to do) counts.

    It counts not only for the poor unfortunate having compassion bind his wounds. It counts for the person in the here and now (whose conscience will subsequently accuse or defend his actions) - their sense of self and what they are about and what they stand for, is constructed ?or destructed) so.

    It counts because it is a response to God's call to the person (for he is the source of the compassionate urge). A call which ultimately leads to a persons salvation or, if the call is 'in aggregate' denied and resisted, their damnation.

    Somewhere in the bible, when talking about the division of sheep and goats (diveded unto salvation or damnation) reference is made to "whatever you did unto these (the beaten traveller encountered at the side of the road) you did unto me". This references the fact that our responses to the sight we have in our day to day intersect and have significant weight in the realm we are blind to.

    Not that our binding wounds will save us on some scale of merit. The algorithm is more sophisticated than mere weighing scale. Nevertheless, our sight and reactions to it, are inputted into a salvation/damnation algorithm.

    Such that there be no excuse. So, opinions do matter in that way.

    Sorry I couldn't be more brief.


  • #95
    Bigboldworld
    Registered Users Posts: 179 ✭✭Bigboldworld


    Nobody can know either way with certainty that there is or isn’t a god, some take a leap of faith and believe others don’t. No living human being will definitively crack it, we’ll only know when we go and as people can’t come back and tell us what happens after we die then we’ll go on with this back and forth until the end of time.

    Both opinions should be respected as they both have merit, impossible to say which one is accurate.


  • #96
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Bigboldworld wrote: »
    Nobody can know either way with certainty that there is or isn’t a god, some take a leap of faith and believe others don’t. No living human being will definitively crack it, we’ll only know when we go and as people can’t come back and tell us what happens after we die then we’ll go on with this back and forth until the end of time.

    Both opinions should be respected as they both have merit, impossible to say which one is accurate.

    I would disagree with a leap of faith. Not least because that term (or the sense behind it) doesn't appear in the bible.

    Belief is a place arrived at even if blind to it along the way there. Once there, the evidence will be seen, in somewhat Aladdin's Cave measure. The faith exists and is sustained because of the evidence. Nothing less.

    Not talking a leap would be an excuse anyway. And there can be no excuses.

    "The void simply appeared to big to me m'lud. I reckoned I there'd be nothing to catch me, so I didm't jump"

    Such a system would tend towards saving those inclined to take a blind punt. The risk takers of this world.

    Blessed are the poor in spirit. Not blessed are the dare devilish.

    It is possible to say which one is accurate. You only have to be able to see why folk can't see it.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    Human evolution will eventually dispose of religious beliefs.

    We've come from worshiping fire, the sun, the moon etc to worshiping nature, trees, rivers etc to myrids of imaginary celestial beings norse, roman, Greek, Egyptian... To worshipping individual beings ie mohammed, God, Haile Selassie etc...

    Eventually religion will descend to a simple understanding and realisation that projecting one's woes, or attributing one's successes, to a separate absent entity is illogical, non sensical and an abdication of personal responsibility.
    Religion will be viewed on the future as a crude means of controlling the masses, probably warranted originally, but ultimately a corrupt and logically bankrupt ideological system. And upon that realisation, religion will be consigned to the past as an embarrassing period of human history where we refused to acknowledge that us ourselves are ultimately responsible for what we do, say, think etc.

    Thankfully this evolution is already well underway

    We worship ourselves (what with creating idolised versions of ourselves on social meedja). We worship consumption which feeds into self satisafaction and creating a self image (even if that involves buildings collapsing on the impoverished on the other side of the world). We create false images chasing after Audi's and BMW's anf Gucci handbags. We strain to be upwardly mobile and place huge value on status and position. We chase it so much so that wealth is accumulated to obscene degree. No amount is enough. We worship ourselves to the point where the planets climate and resources are strained beyond breaking point.

    We won't evolve for very long more following this trajectory. Our particular tower of Babel is wobbling badly.

    The point of false gods is always to permit worship of self. For so long as you can keep god in a box and assuage him with the few things he requires of you, you are free to do as you like.

    Which is what we like to be able to do. Do as we like. Self as god.

    There really isn't anything new under the Sun, when you zoom out. And our present day ways, seemingly so sophisticated, are as ridiculous as they ever were.

    The state of our planet underlines the point. A worship that destroys ourselves is beyond laughable. Far more stupid than any attempts previously made wrt self idolisation.

    Zoom out. Don't be fooled by the detail.

    Question for you. Name an age where folk didn't think they were at the most sophisticated state imaginable. Name a stage where folk didn't look back at ages previous and smirk at the seeming ignorance of peoples past.

    Do you suppose folk far future (assuming there is a far future) will consider us and shake their heads. What does that say about our actual sophistication present?


  • #98
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,776 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm not quite sure what rationality has to do with it. There is nothing rational or irrational about the existence of a sense. A sense is something that feeds information to you regarding the environment you occupy. You can process that information rationally or irrationally and with greater or lesser rigour, intelligence. You can come to different conclusions about it.

    But we are talking about the sense - not the processing of the information.

    Thing is, you claim to have a sense that other people don't posses and can't be evidenced. This is unusual as every other sense we posses can be evidenced. The obvious conclusion for someone that doesn't share your belief is that this claimed sense is something contained entirely within your own mind, akin to a feedback loop in an audio circuit. You might consider it real because it is real to you but that subjective position gives no one else any reason to suppose it is anything other than imaginary.


  • #99
    Fourier
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I'm not quite sure what rationality has to do with it. There is nothing rational or irrational about the existence of a sense. A sense is something that feeds information to you regarding the environment you occupy. You can process that information rationally or irrationally and with greater or lesser rigour, intelligence. You can come to different conclusions about it.

    But we are talking about the sense - not the processing of the information.
    Okay, but that changes very little. Just replace "inherently irrational" with "lacking appropriate sensory apparatus".

    It ends up the same. If true then we would lack this sense, which in the scenario is required to obtain the truth. Thus if we lack it then we don't obtain the truth. There is little else to say, that's just the set up.
    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The discussion centres around whether its possible to conclude (safely) whether delusion in me or blindness in you is at play. The conclusion on here is delusion in me. I'm querying how that is arrived at safely.
    Well many religions claim such additional senses being possessed by some. For example "Buddha-nature" or similar existential states in Buddhism.

    Now it would be possible to believe in such things if they accomplished something I could perceive without that being explicable via anything I directly perceive. For example if somebody used Buddha-sight to correctly diagnose and perfectly treat an illness medical professionals couldn't seven times in a row or similar. Or if two people with Buddha sight could be shown to be relaying messages to each other at a distance, by getting 3rd parties at each end to submit and confirm messages. Ultimately this is why I believe in things like electromagnetic radiation despite not being able to directly perceive it.

    However if you state that your additional sense can't even be verified without actually possessing it, i.e. you can do nothing to show you really have this sense. Then by definition if it exists we can't verify it, that's part of how we set it up.

    Again it's just a restatement of your scenario, there's no discussion. If there was such a sense and it could never be verified by people who lack it and it is required to obtain the truth, then in fact we couldn't access the truth. That's it.

    However since you are a human being just like us and you don't seem to be able to do anything with this "sense" beyond what anybody can do, I don't think there is any real reason to take this seriously.


  • #100
    _Brian
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,617 ✭✭✭✭_Brian


    Fundamental problem with society is trying to see things as black or white, making a statement and then trying to grade everyone as either agreeing or disagreeing with it.

    Actual life exists much more as varying shades of grey rather than black and white opinions.


  • #101
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Fourier wrote: »
    He means Christianity as practiced in pre-Norman Gaelic Ireland, which was more monastically oriented, scholastic and liberal than Roman Catholicism elsewhere. Most historians would agree with this, but it's not really relevant as it was long gone by the time of our grandparents. In fact it was gone in the 1400s, so of very little relevance to the faith of any elderly people today.

    If Gerald of Wales is to believed (our main source for pre-Norman Christianity in Ireland) the Gaelic Church was a hotbed of heresy and Ireland was pretty much still pagan due to the complete lack of proselytizing which was 'why' the Pope granted Ireland to the English crown.
    Gerald should be taken with a grain tablespoon of salt as he had skin in the Norman Conquest (he was a Fitzgerald) but we do know from references in Irish sources that, according to his worldview, he had a point.

    The Gaelic Church did not generally proselytize. For reasons that have never fully been explained it seems to have followed the North African Coptic model of isolation from the world and held the view that those who wished to join would come to them - no call for chasing them.
    However, it could also be very political. There were no great monastic communities in Ireland (the Normans brought those) so the not on a Rock out in the sea monasteries were generally under the patronage of the local clan and the head monk would be a member of the Derbfine (ruling class) of that clan.
    They were a pain in the hole as far as Rome was concerned. Always with the bicker bicker and quick to tell HQ when they disagreed.
    Interestingly they do appear to have believed in reincarnation. Several references to it in Irish documents.
    They prized intellectualism and artistic ability.
    They believed in robust discussion of scripture.
    And mixed monasteries were very common.

    As for being 'liberal' - well, that is a word with very modern connotations. It could be argued that Gaelic Ireland (and Scotland) were very 'liberal' societies.
    Debatable but when compared to those regions that had been conquered by the 'civilising' Roman Empire certainly seemed to have had less of a stick up their societal hole.

    Gaelic Ireland did have very very strict laws (not based on Roman Law or Church Law), and an aristocratic elite and they were also a sexually promiscuous secular society. Divorce was common.

    Nunneries were very rare - possibly because women had a great deal of legal rights as individuals, virginity was not 'prized', there was no concept of children being 'illegitimate', and - more importantly - women actually controlled a lot of the clan finances due to ending up owning the cattle (it has to do with the dowry system which I won't go into to here)

    But yeah - not relevant as the Vatican made sure the Gaelic Church was wiped out and replaced by a more orthodox set-up many hundreds of years ago.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement