Jesus Christ proof: Richard Dawkins in shock ‘archaeological evidence’ claim over Messiah

[Splinter]

What is time really.

So what is eternity in hell then, really. Are you questioning your gods punishment?

 

[saor]

I have already stated that the name/label of the type/kind of belief is arbitrary.

Someone that believes the bible to be true is not necessarily a Christian.
The point is that that particular belief is arbitrarily a religious belief, but is nevertheless a belief.
The belief that GOD does not exist is arbitrarily a religious belief, but is nevertheless a belief.

BTW - I am a non-religious Christian that despises religion.

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make, or why you feel this fact so necessary to be repeatedly illuminatimed. Because if what you say is true, then so what?

Suppose Dave reads the bible and one of two Dave's emerges:

1.) Dave1 believes such a God to be worthy of following in the way prescribed by church & scripture. Dave believes this God to be true.

2.) Dave2 believes such a God to be unworthy of following & implausible. Dave2 believes this God not to be true.

I was going to suggest the difference between Dave 1 & 2 is the fact that nothing flows from Dave2's belief that God isn't true, and use the fact that Dave1's belief in God being true does motivate action, but you know what? I see far less difference in good action between religious people and atheists, or between religious people of any faith. I don't mean in the context of global headlines, I mean in the context of people I interact with daily.

You're right: Not believing in God is a belief in the way believing in God is a belief. But then I'll put it to you that what's also possible, is that your belief in God being true is as moot a motivator as the belief that God isn't true. Both beliefs are as infertile as the other in being useful seeds for good.

Because what motivates us to be good - to care, to forgive, to share...this is found in the living of life. And anyone who claims a certain belief is required for good to emerge has been infected with a virus that's caused them to demarcate a particular space in which good can occur. And this is unnecessary. This is an unnecessary limitation placed on the reach of love.

Sometimes believers also need to look to their hearts. Is the God you believe in a God that resonates with your heart in your most connected of moments, or have you too shunned your heart?

And yeah. I know what follows is you could say something like God is God and who are you to impose your judgement & expectations on God and his nature. And this again is where some people depart and say **** it - I can't love & believe in such a God.

If the God you believe in doesn't align with your own visions of love & goodness, & you ignore that misalignment in favor of what you're supposed to believe...is that not blind faith? Faith is believing something you can't necessarily prove or point at but which you know to be true. But if God gave us hearts to see and we don't use that vision & turn instead toward the dark of prescribed beliefs, then such faith seems blind. Only evil would thus bind us.

 

[Arksun]

EDIT: dbl post

 

[Arksun]

Yep.. from what I've heard about the christian version of heaven, it'll be like sitting in church for eternity. *entertaining the idea of heaven being real* if I ever had the misfortune of winding up there, it'll take one day max before I start trying to claw my way out of there. I seriously cant think of anything more boring than jesus related activity. I would end up begging for oblivion.

However, the Muslim version of heaven sounds much more attractive. Shagging eternity away, where do I sign up?

 

[Packer]

Yep.. from what I've heard about the christian version of heaven, it'll be like sitting in church for eternity.

Yes, Christianity doesn’t make the cut, but I have analysed other religions as well. If you must be religious then I’ve found Buddhism is the most logical and coherent.

Analysis: I was christened Methodist (because Granny), my mom was a low-key Buddhist, young Irish friends of mine were Catholic and went to Catholic Sunday school so I was Catholic, the closest church to my boarding school was Church of England so I was Church of England, a girlfriend was Anglican so I was Anglican and in the army the kosher food was often better so I was Jewish. I have a smattering of Buddhism and Christianity. I am actually a rationalist but I guess the christening would count the most with God. So my bets are hedged in the Christian belief system. Trying to hedge my bets with Hindu Gods and Egyptian Gods together with Norse and Greek mythologies and Wiccan, Voodoo, etc it all becomes a bit much. I have idly speculated if Conan the Barbarian’s God (Crom) was particularly significant. But I thought it was best to quit while I was ahead.

 

[ForceFate]

It's possible as population levels only exploded around 1950 after mass farming as well as new modes of transport were invented which allowed food to transported in bulk quickly around the world. Most of these people who were born after 1950 are still alive.

Either way though, there's still billions that have died and heaven must be chaos.

Many people died ling before they reached adulthood.

 

[SaiyanZ]

Many people died ling before they reached adulthood.

You're a bit late. Best to read the whole thread before replying to random posts from way back.

 

[ForceFate]

You're a bit late. Best to read the whole thread before replying to random posts from way back.

I did. I meant to respond to a different post, not yours.

 

[saor]

Screw it, I don't feel like starting a thread for this...

There's a criticism of atheism that goes like: "You can't say with 100% certainty that God doesn't exist."

And for some time I've agreed with the sentiment, maybe even preferred the label 'agnostic'. And yet I don't know anyone who's agnostic about Santa. I've never had my atheist belief in Santa (that he doesn't exist) criticized for lacking critical thought or irrational attitudes. I don't even require 100% certainty that Santa doesn't exist, and part of that is because the idea of Santa has that quality of being something I can say doesn't exist & be an atheist toward.

Santa isn't real. God isn't real. Those all seem to follow coherently when placed horizontally as equally abstract objects. The stance of the atheist toward God is as natural as our stances toward Santa.

I'm curious whether people who accuse the atheist position of being flawed in its certainty, have themselves adopted agnostic attitudes toward Santa for consistency. I guess their position is that God deserves being considered differently, but such manufactured consideration cannot be imposed on other people.

A criticism of the atheist position requires a supporting argument for why your particular belief warrants being regarded differently than beliefs in Santa & ghouls.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Screw it, I don't feel like starting a thread for this...

There's a criticism of atheism that goes like: "You can't say with 100% certainty that God doesn't exist."

And for some time I've agreed with the sentiment, maybe even preferred the label 'agnostic'. And yet I don't know anyone who's agnostic about Santa. I've never had my atheist belief in Santa (that he doesn't exist) criticized for lacking critical thought or irrational attitudes. I don't even require 100% certainty that Santa doesn't exist, and part of that is because the idea of Santa has that quality of being something I can say doesn't exist & be an atheist toward.

Santa isn't real. God isn't real. Those all seem to follow coherently when placed horizontally as equally abstract objects. The stance of the atheist toward God is as natural as our stances toward Santa.

I'm curious whether people who accuse the atheist position of being flawed in its certainty, have themselves adopted agnostic attitudes toward Santa for consistency. I guess their position is that God deserves being considered differently, but such manufactured consideration cannot be imposed on other people.

A criticism of the atheist position requires a supporting argument for why your particular belief warrants being regarded differently than beliefs in Santa & ghouls.

The distinction is that God is presumably the explanation for the universe.

You have the problem of accounting for how it is that words can actually address reality in the first place. Long story short, God is the classical answer.

What did Nietzsche mean when he wrote, “I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar”?

Answer (1 of 9): I think User is on the money. But, I think what Nietzsche is saying here is even more radical than forming an analogy between language and religious belief, as two cases of similarly strengthed faith. He's positing a direct causal relationship. I.e: God, self, and world (truth),...

www.quora.com

Nietzsche's point is that we've mistaken the word "dog" for an actual category. There is no doginess, no "dog dna", just millions of beings in the act of becoming, all distinct. We can group them under a word for our convenience but we shouldn't take this to mean that there really is a form of a dog. Dictionaries, and for that matter all generalized knowledge, are not descriptions of things that are, but merely descriptions of human methods of shorthanding.

It's in language's nature to turn multiplicity into singularity, to turn this thing, and that thing, and this other thing, and that one over there, into one thing: "Dog". This is how knowledge is formed, how we move from becoming to being. It's impossible to form a grammatical sentence without the mention of at least one being, one static, universal object, otherwise communication would be impossible.

This connects up to Nietzsche's more general and constant critique of philosophies of singularity and being, which he asserts are all theological in character, because they all suppose a "suprasensible beyond" that condition the imminent multiplicity in front of us. It is this form of knowledge that is actually the target of his atheism, the world's religions merely being examples of this form of knowledge in action.

No God, no unification in science, either.

Is Being groundless, in your view?

Ground of being - Conservapedia

www.conservapedia.com

The ground of all being or foundation of reality is God, the uncreated, unbounded, self-contained, self-sufficient, self-consistent,[1] eternally self-existing Source of all existence, without beginning or ending, the Creator who through his Word (Logos) made and sustains in existence all created things in heaven and earth,[2] both the supernatural order or realm with its particular laws and operation and the subsumed[3] natural order or realm of spacetime with its particular laws and operation, included in the one reality of Being (see Ontology).

In the philosophical language of the archaic period in Greece (8th-6th century B.C.) arche (or archai) designates the source, origin or root of things that exist. Arche (Greek, ἀρχή) is a Greek word with primary senses of "beginning", "origin" or "source of action". (εξ’ ἀρχής [ex arches] : from the beginning, οr εξ’ ἀρχής λόγος [ex arches logos]: the original argument), and later "first principle or element", first so used by Anaximander (Simplicius in Physics 150.23[4]), "principles of knowledge" (ἀρχαί) (Aristotle Metaphysics 995b8). By extension it may mean "first place, power", "method of government", "empire, realm", "authorities" (in plural:ἀρχαί), "command".[5] The first principle or element corresponds to the "ultimate underlying substance" and "ultimate undemonstrable principle".[6] In ancient Greek Philosophy, Aristotle foregrounded the meaning of arche as the element or principle of a thing, which although undemonstrable and intangible in itself, provides the necessary conditions of the possibility of that thing.[7]

Ground of Being redirects in Wikipedia to this page, which is less clear:

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This description isn't bad though:

Classical theism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Classical theism is a form of theism in which God is characterized as the absolutely metaphysically ultimate being, in contrast to other conceptions such as pantheism, panentheism, polytheism, deism and process theism.

Classical theism is a form of monotheism. Whereas most monotheists agree that God is, at minimum, all-knowing, all-powerful, and completely good,[1] classical theism asserts that God is both immanent (encompassing or manifested in the material world) and simultaneously transcendent (independent of the material universe); simple, and having such attributes as immutability, impassibility, and timelessness.[2] A key concept in classical theism is that "created beings" (ie, material phenomena, whether sentient biological organisms or insentient matter) are dependent for their existence on the one supreme divine Being. Also, although God is wholly transcendent, he not only creates the material universe but also acts upon the material universe in imposing (or organizing) a Higher Order upon that material reality. This order was called by the ancient Greeks logos.

Classical theism is associated with the tradition of writers like Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, St. Anselm, Maimonides, Averroes and Thomas Aquinas.[2] Since the advent of the scientific revolution in the seventeenth century the principal of divine immanence as a central doctrine of classical theism (as traditionally held by all three of the major Abrahamic religions) began to be replaced among progressive thinkers with the notion that although God had created the universe in the beginning he subsequently left the universe to run according to fixed laws of nature. A common metaphor for this idea in the seventeenth century was that of the clockwork universe. This theological doctrine was known as deism and gradually became the default view of many of the influential thinkers of the eighteenth century enlightenment.

I don't agree with classical theism, but without it(or something similar) philosophical realism becomes unjustifiable, which is why atheists typically end up sawing off the branch they're sitting on. I can deny the reality of Santa Claus without doing this; can you say the same regarding denying the reality of the first principle?

 

[saor]

I can deny the reality of Santa Claus without doing this; can you say the same regarding denying the reality of the first principle?

Yes. Because I can't reason myself away from the position of regarding God the way I do Santa, in presumably the same way you couldn't reason yourself away from regarding Santa the way you do. The reason I can say the same is because it's not argument I'm suggesting, but more a report of the internal nature of the mental objects 'God' and 'Santa'. And my internal experience of those objects is that they occupy the same phenomenal space.

I don't know what gave rise to reality. And I don't need an explanation thereof. You're invoking this strange argument in which a lack of knowledge regarding existence & being demands that certain explanations of reality & being warrant being regarded differently to Santa because those explanations are about reality and being.

But that's just humans pointing toward the unknown & thinking that some explanation is better than none. And I'm totally fine with no explanation.

 

[Techne]

Denying Logos and denying Santa is now officially the same atheist lalaland .

 

[saor]

Denying Logos and denying Santa is now officially the same atheist lalaland .

No.
Denying human labels for Logos and denying Santa are the same thing.

 

[Techne]

No.
Denying human labels for Logos and denying Santa are the same thing.

Sure sure

 

[Splinter]

Screw it, I don't feel like starting a thread for this...

There's a criticism of atheism that goes like: "You can't say with 100% certainty that which God doesn't exist."

Forgive me, but I think I need to edit the above, in bold.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Yes. Because I can't reason myself away from the position of regarding God the way I do Santa, in presumably the same way you couldn't reason yourself away from regarding Santa the way you do. The reason I can say the same is because it's not argument I'm suggesting, but more a report of the internal nature of the mental objects 'God' and 'Santa'. And my internal experience of those objects is that they occupy the same phenomenal space.

I don't know what gave rise to reality. And I don't need an explanation thereof. You're invoking this strange argument in which a lack of knowledge regarding existence & being demands that certain explanations of reality & being warrant being regarded differently to Santa because those explanations are about reality and being.

But that's just humans pointing toward the unknown & thinking that some explanation is better than none. And I'm totally fine with no explanation.

It is contradictory to say that you don't need an explanation of what gives rise to reality, but still expect other people to give an explanation of anything at all. Reality is explicable or inexplicable; pick one, or explain how I've presented you with a false dichotomy.

 

[saor]

explain how I've presented you with a false dichotomy.

You said:

I can deny the reality of Santa Claus without doing this; can you say the same regarding denying the reality of the first principle?

The second part of that quote seems to imply that if I deny God then I 'saw off the branch I'm sitting on'. That's the false dichotomy. Because I can deny God (specifically the religious incarnations of God) without going near the branch. The falsehood is in assuming the branch and God to be equivalent things and expecting me to treat it thus by elevating the idea of God above ideas like Santa.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

You said:
The second part of that quote seems to imply that if I deny God then I 'saw off the branch I'm sitting on'. That's the false dichotomy. Because I can deny God (specifically the religious incarnations of God) without going near the branch. The falsehood is in assuming the branch and God to be equivalent things and expecting me to treat it thus by elevating the idea of God above ideas like Santa.

Ontology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In philosophy, being means the existence of a thing. Anything that exists is being. Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies being. Being is a concept encompassing objective and subjective features of reality and existence[1]. Anything that partakes in being is also called a "being", though often this usage is limited to entities that have subjectivity (as in the expression "human being"). The notion of "being" has, inevitably, been elusive and controversial in the history of philosophy, beginning in Western philosophy with attempts among the pre-Socratics to deploy it intelligibly. The first effort to recognize and define the concept came from Parmenides, who famously said of it that "what is-is". Common words such as "is", "are", and "am" refer directly or indirectly to being.

The notion that "is" somehow grasps the world is ultimately a theological assertion. You're effectively saying that you can have "is" while denying the reality of "isness", which is to say that you don't appreciate what Nietzsche meant when he, the self-styled anti-Christian, said that he fears we shall never be rid of God while we yet believe in grammar.

 

[Ponderer]

Screw it, I don't feel like starting a thread for this...

There's a criticism of atheism that goes like: "You can't say with 100% certainty that God doesn't exist."

And for some time I've agreed with the sentiment, maybe even preferred the label 'agnostic'. And yet I don't know anyone who's agnostic about Santa. I've never had my atheist belief in Santa (that he doesn't exist) criticized for lacking critical thought or irrational attitudes. I don't even require 100% certainty that Santa doesn't exist, and part of that is because the idea of Santa has that quality of being something I can say doesn't exist & be an atheist toward.

Santa isn't real. God isn't real. Those all seem to follow coherently when placed horizontally as equally abstract objects. The stance of the atheist toward God is as natural as our stances toward Santa.

I'm curious whether people who accuse the atheist position of being flawed in its certainty, have themselves adopted agnostic attitudes toward Santa for consistency. I guess their position is that God deserves being considered differently, but such manufactured consideration cannot be imposed on other people.

A criticism of the atheist position requires a supporting argument for why your particular belief warrants being regarded differently than beliefs in Santa & ghouls.

Good post.

"Santa isn't real. God isn't real. Those all seem to follow coherently when placed horizontally as equally abstract objects. The stance of the atheist toward God is as natural as our stances toward Santa."
It is easy to be fooled by false/flawed logic.
Not saying you are stupid.

The false/flawed logic be: Because Santa isn't real , GOD is therefore also not real.
Its a false equivalence.
Not every/all beliefs are true - its true that its a belief, but that belief does not make it (that belief) true.
Whatever is, is - whatever you believe to be true/false has nothing to do with what is.
Just because not every/all beliefs are true does not mean that no beliefs are true.
Just because Santa isn't real does not mean that GOD is therefore also not real.

BTW - everything you think you know is a belief.

 

[rietrot]

Denying Logos and denying Santa is now officially the same atheist lalaland .

I don't know what the obsession with Santa is and people entertaining the idea that Santa is somehow eqaul to a god. And that parents somehow giving their kids gifts as Santa somehow makes everything ever a lie.

It is a ridiculous strawman. The mythology around Santa stands on its own and it is just as real as anything else.