Athiests - Who cares

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think that all the different religions have pretty much the same thing in common though - the belief in the existence of a supernatural deity or deities.

But no matter what shape or form any such deity or deities might take, the fact remains that most religious ideas about them are wrong, since they contradict each other.

And given that we know for a fact that most of them are wrong, I see no reason to suppose any of them are right, in the absence of evidence or argument which supports one particular religion.

farmchoice

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Such grandiose verbosity, and yet nothing worth responding to.


"Gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing, more than any man in all Venice. His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff—you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them they are not worth the search."

The Merchant of Venice, Act 1, Scene 1.

game set and match to nozzferrahhtoo then.

Grayson

some of these posts are really really long.

One eyed Jack

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But no matter what shape or form any such deity or deities might take, the fact remains that most religious ideas about them are wrong, since they contradict each other.

Do they? I mean, I've already said I don't buy the "one true god" stuff and I explained why. I also said I don't even know if a supernatural deity does or doesn't exist, but I don't think all religious ideas about them are wrong or right. I think they're just different interpretations of the same phenomenon. How each person interprets and relates to these ideas and incorporates them into their own ideology is up to them. Some people just don't relate to them at all, and that's all good too. It's like you're asking me to argue the existence of God, when I've already said I don't know if he exists or not. I believe he does, and that much I can't explain to you why as I haven't got the scientific knowledge to be able to explain it to myself yet, let alone explain it to anyone else. There's nothing in science yet that I can relate to which would explain why I have this faith that I really didn't ask for. I like to think of myself as a rational person, and yet there is this thought process I find completely irrational, and I have yet to find a satisfactory explanation for it. Perhaps Sam Harris, someone who knows far more about neurobiology than I ever will, was onto something when he described religion as a mental illness. I'm not sure that would be a socially acceptable explanation though so I don't imagine that one appearing in the DSM any time soon

And given that we know for a fact that most of them are wrong, I see no reason to suppose any of them are right, in the absence of evidence or argument which supports one particular religion.

Well that's where our perspectives would differ - I don't see most of them as wrong, I see no reason to assume any of them are wrong or right, therefore I'm not going to make any argument that supports one particular religion over another. I don't see any particular reason to do that, unless I were someone with chips on his shoulders who decided that I was going to use religion to inflict harm and suffering upon other people. Not really my bag though tbh.

catallus

Well, i hope all of those soulless pagans know that there is still room in the infinite love and wisdom of GOD for them.

We should pity them in their wilful nescience; pride has eaten their humanity!

Philo Beddoe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Such grandiose verbosity, and yet nothing worth responding to.


"Gratiano speaks an infinite deal of nothing, more than any man in all Venice. His reasons are as two grains of wheat hid in two bushels of chaff—you shall seek all day ere you find them, and when you have them they are not worth the search."

The Merchant of Venice, Act 1, Scene 1.

A rather sad admission of defeat. You don't think even his response to your suggestion that science should be looking for a reason people have faith is worth responding to?

One eyed Jack

farmchoice wrote: »

game set and match to nozzferrahhtoo then.

Philo Beddoe wrote: »

A rather sad admission of defeat. You don't think even his response to your suggestion that science should be looking for a reason people have faith is worth responding to?

What's this about games and defeats? Lads it's a discussion site, I don't think it's worth responding to walls of waffle that fail to make any substantial point worth taking away and thinking about, no. The post itself, and the one that followed were simply barrel scraping at it's best when caught with their intellectual pants down around their ankles.

I'm not one for kicking a man up the arse just because I think I can. I'd sooner look to help him up than lord it over him for platitudes from the audience.

nozzferrahhtoo

Except none of how you are decribing my post is accurate. And the only one with the intellectual pants down is the one who copped out of the discussion through the use of dismissive and throwaway remarks about my post that lack any actual substance to them.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except none of how you are decribing my post is accurate. And the only one with the intellectual pants down is the one who copped out of the discussion through the use of dismissive and throwaway remarks about my post that lack any actual substance to them.

I don't wear any pants :pac:

Quite liberating when I don't claim to hold myself up as a rational, critical thinker who uses logic and reason to make my arguments, then abandons said way of thinking when confronted by the unexpected, only to resort to as I said, barrel scraping.

What else would you like me to do when your posts are lengthy obfuscation and waffle filled diatribes of utter nonsense?

Ain't nobody as they say, got time fo' dat.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't claim to hold myself up as a rational, critical thinker who uses logic and reason to make my arguments, then abandons said way of thinking when confronted by the unexpected, only to resort to as I said, barrel scraping.

And yet since you are the only one barrel scrapping, the lecture is misdirected. Nor have I abandoned any way of thinking anywhere on this thread. You are simply making this all up to dodge replying to a post you simply are not capable of replying to it seems.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What else would you like me to do when your posts are lengthy obfuscation and waffle filled diatribes of utter nonsense?

We will cross that bridge when we come to it. It has not occurred here. Do not conflate your inability to deal with my post with my inability to write one. No one else appears to have suffered as you have. Or as they say: Its not me, its you.

farmchoice

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's this about games and defeats? Lads it's a discussion site, I don't think it's worth responding to walls of waffle that fail to make any substantial point worth taking away and thinking about, no. The post itself, and the one that followed were simply barrel scraping at it's best when caught with their intellectual pants down around their ankles.

I'm not one for kicking a man up the arse just because I think I can. I'd sooner look to help him up than lord it over him for platitudes from the audience.

it didn't come across as that, it came across as throwing in the towel. the reply that nozferatoo gave was anything but waffle, anyone reading it can see that.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And yet since you are the only one barrel scrapping, the lecture is misdirected. Nor have I abandoned any way of thinking anywhere on this thread. You are simply making this all up to dodge replying to a post you simply are not capable of replying to it seems.

You gave me nothing worth replying to!

What part of that are you having difficulty with, and perhaps I could adumbrate it in such a way that you could parse it and map it and do whatever the hell else you want with it?

We will cross that bridge when we come to it. It has not occurred here. Do not conflate your inability to deal with my post with my inability to write one. No one else appears to have suffered as you have. Or as they say: Its not me, its you.

It's funny because it's true, but I see no reason to enlighten you. Instead I'll just get on with my day and leave you to your soapboxing.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You gave me nothing worth replying to!

And yet you replied all the same with a cop out throw away remark. As you continue to do here. If you can not reply or will not reply to a post, that is fine. No one is compelling you to. The cop out dodge of pretending this is due to the quality of my post however appears to be convincing no one but yourself so far.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's funny because it's true, but I see no reason to enlighten you.

Another cop out then. Because you can not do it, you simply pretend you are not compelled to or have no interest in doing so. We see this kind of cop out on this forum all the time. You are not the first.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Instead I'll just get on with my day and leave you to your soapboxing.

Ah good, another chance to test out "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of internet posting" which states that "The probability of another reply coming from a user increases in proportion to the number of times they indicate they will not".

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't see most of them as wrong, I see no reason to assume any of them are wrong or right, therefore I'm not going to make any argument that supports one particular religion over another.

It sounds as if we're talking about Jogging vs. Pilates: which one works for you?

But religion is not like an exercise regime. "I believe God exists" is a statement like "I believe Australia exists", not "I believe I'll find it easier to stick to Pilates than do Yoga".

And I believe Australia does exist, and God doesn't. These are questions about reality, with right and wrong answers.

One eyed Jack

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It sounds as if we're talking about Jogging vs. Pilates: which one works for you?

The Catholic Pilates...


Kneel, sit stand, chant, etc (Shamefully ripped from the A&A forum! )

But essentially yes, that IS what we're doing, is talking about two different things, from two different perspectives, so you're getting one concept - reality, works for you, grand; and I'm getting another - reality, plus a little something on the side, if you like. Jogging works for you, but Pilates being the competitive sport that it is, I have an artificial enhancement. I didn't ask for it, I know it's not reality, I didn't seek it out, but there it is, and I can either use it to have a positive influence on my life, or a negative influence. I tend to use it positively in the same way as anyone else uses mindfulness techniques and meditation and so on. They'll go to a gym for a yoga class and I'll go to a Church. It's not actually all that different really.

But religion is not like an exercise regime. "I believe God exists" is a statement like "I believe Australia exists", not "I believe I'll find it easier to stick to Pilates than do Yoga".

It totally is! Well, depends again on what works for you and what doesn't, but I find it a great mental workout. Just because I say I like yoga better than jogging doesn't mean jogging is going to disappear? It's under no threat whatsoever. "I believe in God", that statement itself is not threatening in any way, shape or form to anyone else. Now if I said it while holding a machete, I can understand why that might cause a few sphincters to tighten, but otherwise no, not really harming anyone, is it? We just relate to different things, differently.

And I believe Australia does exist, and God doesn't. These are questions about reality, with right and wrong answers.

I hardly need to quote you the line from Mythbusters about reality now, do I? If someone else is willing to accept that their reality is all that they can sense, and observe, and know, then that's A1 by me, but I'm just not willing to accept that standard for myself. I still wouldn't impose that upon anyone else though, but I do like to seek out people who i share common interests with, and that's where the community part of religion comes in.

Akrasia

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I also oppose any religious involvement in Government or education and I believe State schools should be secular. I don't agree with interference in private schools or interfering in parent's decisions in how they choose to raise their children with regard to their religious beliefs or indeed their absence of belief, or anywhere in between. I don't think the State should be allowed to impose at that level, and I don't see how it could be legislated for or policed either. That's not a secular State, that's getting into fascism, and I for one would oppose such a move. I don't think you'd gain much support for such an idea either tbh.

I think it's the opposite of fascist actually. Fascism was not a secular ideology. In the 20th century, fascism was deeply connected with religion and one of the tools of fascism was that the education system was used to essentially brainwash the children with the values of the fascist state.

I'm not saying that all religious schools are extremist, but some of them absolutely are. And as the state schools become more secular, private educational trusts are more likely to become more fundamentalist than they currently are. There are 'faith schools' in ur nearest neighbour in the UK which are little more than isolation units to keep children immersed in the religious and cultural practises of their parents.

If we are going to become an intercultural society, we should be pursuing inclusionary policies. it works both ways. Some Irish people send their kids to 'catholic schools' because they don't want their children to associate with 'immigrants' while some people from islamic and other religious backgrounds want religious schools to keep their children from being exposed to western values.

I think schools should be centers of inclusion and all children should be treated exactly the same. I think schools have a duty and a responsibility to teach children about inclusion and diversity and every single school should have intercultural policies that focus on assisting people from minority communities in making friends and getting involved in the school and the community.

Here's a recent article that mentions how young islamic people are feeling alienated and isolated from their peers.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/research-finds-irish-muslim-teenagers-face-isolation-and-racism-1.2069057

We can either continue walking blindly down the path of ghettoisation and alienation that we will inevitably find ourselves in, or we can make clear policy changes in favour of integration and secularisation in our schools.

By secularism, I mean that schools should not promote any individual religious ethos and all reasonable accommodations should be made to make children from all backgrounds feel equally welcome in the school.

Philo Beddoe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You gave me nothing worth replying to!

What part of that are you having difficulty with, and perhaps I could adumbrate it in such a way that you could parse it and map it and do whatever the hell else you want with it?





It's funny because it's true, but I see no reason to enlighten you. Instead I'll just get on with my day and leave you to your soapboxing.

This is genuinely annoying. Nozzferahtoo responded to your post in good faith (for want of a better word) and clearly put a bit of time into addressing each point you made. If you don't want to discuss the topic any further, or maybe just don't want to discuss it with him/her, why not just say so? Simply announcing that the post is nothing but waffle and not worthy of responding too is a complete cop out, not to mention insulting. As it is what you have done looks like a transparent attempt to exit from the conversation without losing face which has backfired badly.

El_Duderino 09

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

I see no difference, an attack on my ideas or beliefs is an attack on me as far as I'm concerned.

That's one of the saddest things I have ever heard. Does that mean any time someone offers you new information about something you hold as a belief, you take it as an attack on your self? How do you ever learn anything new?

Please say you misspoke.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's one of the saddest things I have ever heard. Does that mean any time someone offers you new information about something you hold as a belief, you take it as an attack on your self? How do you ever learn anything new?

Please say you misspoke.

On this topic I stand by my comment.

Akrasia

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

I see no difference, an attack on my ideas or beliefs is an attack on me as far as I'm concerned.

Then you are too far invested in your ideas.

I believe in secular humanism and scientific scepticism. If someone attacks the idea of secular humanism, I am confident enough to defend those ideas, if i can no longer defend the ideas, then I am open to the fact that maybe I was wrong and I should re-examine my position

What I don't do is take personal offence if someone attacks a political or ideological view that I hold. To me, that is a mark of insecurity, that you don't feel that your reasons for believing are robust enough to defend them, and you are worried that someone might put forward an argument that convinces you of something 'against your will'

Akrasia

Grayson wrote: »

some of these posts are really really long.

Yeah they are.

This is my second attempt at replying to this post. The first went on for 1500 words

catallus

When one's words are inspired by God the essence of the post serves as a balm for the self-inflicted wounds of the wanton ignorance of the damned.

One eyed Jack

Philo Beddoe wrote: »

This is genuinely annoying. Nozzferahtoo responded to your post in good faith (for want of a better word) and clearly put a bit of time into addressing each point you made. If you don't want to discuss the topic any further, or maybe just don't want to discuss it with him/her, why not just say so? Simply announcing that the post is nothing but waffle and not worthy of responding too is a complete cop out, not to mention insulting. As it is what you have done looks like a transparent attempt to exit from the conversation without losing face which has backfired badly.

If it helps your understanding, I spent nearly all day the other day on trying to figure out nozzferahtoo's earlier posts, because I really wanted to understand where they were coming from, I did this because like I said, I was genuinely interested in their opinion. I found logical fallacies and misinterpretations of my position and insinuations of personal attacks where there were none.

I wasn't trying to be a smart arse or "win a debate" or any of the rest of it. I was interested in having a discussion of ideas. I like to understand where those ideas come from, which is why I was asking questions, not simply because I wanted to get one over on anyone. That's unlikely to be conducive to reaching an understanding of each others perspectives.

I wasn't going to quote the whole post this morning just to say - "There's nothing in there that's even worth discussing, there's nothing new for me, and in fact most of it is just condescending waffle which I have no interest in dissecting in order to address positions I haven't expressed, etc". It can be very frustrating when you get the feeling that someone is basically fcuking with you for the lulz. I don't like it, I'm not sure anyone likes it, and so I responded in kind - we can all regurgitate waffle. Then nozzferahtoo decided to take a very underhanded swipe, grand, you may not have seen it, but I saw it, and the old adage - "What can you expect from a pig, but a grunt" came to mind. That's when I simply lost all respect for them, and couldn't take them seriously any more, and so chose to break off any engagement in any discussion with them.

I would like the discussion to continue, I haven't exited the discussion at all, I simply chose not to get side-tracked into a mud-flinging match where the two of us were hogging the podium like they do on those "existence of God" 'debates' you'll witness on YouTube as I don't believe they ever achieve anything only intellectual's massaging their inflated ego's while the rest of us actually live in the real world.

Akrasia

catallus wrote: »

When one's words are inspired by God the essence of the post serves as a balm for the self-inflicted wounds of the wanton ignorance of the damned.

I think Cattalus is trying to start a Word-off against nozzferrahhtoo.

Here's some advice, you're gonna need to make your posts
1. Much longer
2. Coherent

It's also a little bit sad that you think your words are 'inspired by god'.

El_Duderino 09

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

On this topic I stand by my comment.

Sad sad sad.

As a matter of interest how do you ever learn new things. If you arrive at a conclusion, which turns out to be wrong, do you have to endure great personal injury to change your mind?

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I found logical fallacies and misinterpretations of my position and insinuations of personal attacks where there were none.

Then by all means point either of these things out. You certainly have not done so thus far. Likely because they do not exist there in reality.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

most of it is just condescending waffle

Nope. That is just what you are declaring it to be to avoid answering any of it. And it would appear that no one here is buying it, except yourself.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It can be very frustrating when you get the feeling that someone is basically fcuking with you for the lulz.

Then simply stop imagining this occurring where it has not and hence frustrating yourself.

For example you expressed an interest in the neurological underpinnings of faith. I offered you some, you simply dodged and ignored it.

Eutow

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sad sad sad.

As a matter of interest how do you ever learn new things. If you arrive at a conclusion, which turns out to be wrong, do you have to endure great personal injury to change your mind?

Well he is a scientist, so you would think he should be open to new ideas. So, if he puts foward a thesis and his colleagues and those in his profession put foward ideas that contradict or challenge Nox's ideas, does he take it as an insult to himself?

El_Duderino 09

Eutow wrote: »

Well he is a scientist, so you would think he should be open to new ideas. So, if he puts foward a thesis and his colleagues and those in his profession put foward ideas that contradict or challenge Nox's ideas, does he take it as an insult to himself?

It's disappointing to hear Nox is involved in science. That's why there's the old saying 'science progresses one funeral at a time'. Some people are just more interested in their own ideas rather than finding the truth. It happens in reality.

Also Nox if you stand by your statement, do you see it as a failing or a character weakness? Or even something you would like to work on to rectify?

kylith

It'd be great if everyone who claimed to be a scientist had to provide their credentials as I simply don't believe that some of them are scientists. After all, it's the internet, someone can claim to be anything.

Hello, I'm the personification of the Goddess Bast and I can tell you for definite that Yaweh does not exist.

I'm a budgie who has learned to type.

I'm a sentient curling iron, and my opinion is therefore more valid because I'm a utensil.

I'm a scientist who has been sciencing since 1907 and you have to take my opinion seriously because of it.

Akrasia

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sad sad sad.

As a matter of interest how do you ever learn new things. If you arrive at a conclusion, which turns out to be wrong, do you have to endure great personal injury to change your mind?

I think we all suffer a little bit of bruised pride when we discover that we were wrong about something. There's as much pleasure in thinking you're right about something, as there is from actually being right about something.

it's actually a pretty powerful cognitive bias, the more locked in we are to one idea, the more it hurts if that idea is dismantled.

It's why we have 'fanboys' for everything from games consoles, to mobile phone platforms, to car manufacturers, to programming languages...

If the only programming language you know is 'Fortran' and you refuse to explore other alternatives, then you might think fortran is the answer to every programming problem.

Being a 'fanboy' for anything is an indication of immaturity. As painful as it is to be proven wrong, a mature adult will be able to see both sides of the argument and admit his errors and be open to new experiences.

strangel00p

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's disappointing to hear Nox is involved in science. That's why there's the old saying 'science progresses one funeral at a time'. Some people are just more interested in their own ideas rather than finding the truth. It happens in reality.

Also Nox if you stand by your statement, do you see it as a failing or a character weakness? Or even something you would like to work on to rectify?

Why would it be a character weakness or something to work on? A lack of faith could be interpreted in the same way.

El_Duderino 09

kylith wrote: »

It'd be great if everyone who claimed to be a scientist had to provide their credentials as I simply don't believe that some of them are scientists. After all, it's the internet, someone can claim to be anything.

Hello, I'm the personification of the Goddess Bast and I can tell you for definite that Yaweh does not exist.

I'm a budgie who has learned to type.

I'm a sentient curling iron, and my opinion is therefore more valid because I'm a utensil.

I'm a scientist who has been sciencing since 1907 and you have to take my opinion seriously because of it.

Your CV must be an incredible read! I take your point but I'm still fascinated to understand how someone would live if they took personal offence to every piece of new information which contradicts their belief

Maximus Alexander

I'm a scientician too.

nozzferrahhtoo

kylith wrote: »

It'd be great if everyone who claimed to be a scientist had to provide their credentials

It would and it wouldn't I guess. For example I never give my credentials on this forum at all. No one knows what my training or education actually has been.

The reason for this is I think a persons actual claims should stand for themselves. Their claim is either correct, or it is not. It is either supported by evidence or it is not. This is true regardless of how many letters, if any, a user has after or before they name. So when someone like nox claims to be a scientist, even when much of the reality would appear to suggest otherwise, I simply do not care. I think we need to evaluate what people say, not who they are when saying it.

That said, I do remember in my time here on boards.ie I had a run in with a guy determined to keep claiming he was an astro physicist. Over and over he kept telling people this was his background and we should listen to what he has to say.

Until the day he told us that the reason earth has gravity is because the earth spins. A mistake so fundamental there are 12 year olds doing the 101s of Science who could correct it. Very quickly making it clear that his claims to background were likely entirely fabricated.

But yes as you say, anyone can be claim to be anything on the internet. So my approach to this is never claim to be anything, and just let my arguments stand alone.

El_Duderino 09

strangel00p wrote: »

Why would it be a character weakness or something to work on? A lack of faith could be interpreted in the same way.

Taking offence to evidence which contradicts your belief would pose resistance to considering new information. If constitutes discriminating for or against evidence based on whether Nox happens to believe it already.

Hardly the best way to find the truth, and as a scientist, that should be kinda important and so maybe worth working on

Akrasia

strangel00p wrote: »

Why would it be a character weakness or something to work on? A lack of faith could be interpreted in the same way.

Whats so good about faith?

Sorry, Grayson, this is the kind of thing that causes long posts

Faith has more than one definition. Religious faith is belief in the absence of proof (or even evidence)

Most other uses of faith are (almost) synonyms for trust.

For example, faith in marriage. I have faith in my wife that she will stand by me through sickness and health etc. This faith is another word for trust and it is not 'without evidence'. I am only justified in having faith in my wife if we have a healthy trusting relationship.

Another type of faith, is good faith in business dealings. I trust that others will act in a trustworthy manner. It's is not absolute, and it requires that there is a reason to think that the parties are trustworthy. only an idiot would give a million euros to a guy on the street to buy a bridge he says he owns 'in good faith'.

kylith

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Your CV must be an incredible read! I take your point but I'm still fascinated to understand how someone would live if they took personal offence to every piece of new information which contradicts their belief

I'd show you my CV but it's written in scorch marks in the Budgeese language on papyrus, so it's a bit delicate.

I agree with your point, how anyone could claim to be a scientist and then take any bit of data that challenges what they must accept to be baseless beliefs as a personal affront is mind boggling.

seamus

catallus wrote: »

Well, i hope all of those soulless pagans know that there is still room in the infinite love and wisdom of GOD for them.

Can't tell if this post is an incredibly brilliant troll or hopelessly misguided.

Contrary to the narrow and bigoted Irish education curriculum that most of us had to suffer through, Paganism is a set of beliefs that involves far more ritualism and spiritualism than the current popular monotheistic religions.

The concept of a soul - or the very least of a life-force that exists outside of the flesh - is central to practically all flavours of paganism.

But Catholic Ireland would have us believe that pagans are godless devil worshippers (which is of course a contradiction in itself).

Eutow

Eutow wrote: »

Well he is a scientist, so you would think he should be open to new ideas. So, if he puts foward a thesis and his colleagues and those in his profession put foward ideas that contradict or challenge Nox's ideas, does he take it as an insult to himself?

No I don't, I do however treat my work separate to my beliefs.

Zubeneschamali

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

I do however treat my work separate to my beliefs.

This is how scientists can be religious: compartmentalization.

This is why taking offence is useful, too, it stops the trained, critical part of the mind from saying "Hey, they have a point!"

Grayson

Akrasia wrote: »

Whats so good about faith?

Sorry, Grayson, this is the kind of thing that causes long posts

Faith has more than one definition. Religious faith is belief in the absence of proof (or even evidence)

Most other uses of faith are (almost) synonyms for trust.

For example, faith in marriage. I have faith in my wife that she will stand by me through sickness and health etc. This faith is another word for trust and it is not 'without evidence'. I am only justified in having faith in my wife if we have a healthy trusting relationship.

Another type of faith, is good faith in business dealings. I trust that others will act in a trustworthy manner. It's is not absolute, and it requires that there is a reason to think that the parties are trustworthy. only an idiot would give a million euros to a guy on the street to buy a bridge he says he owns 'in good faith'.

It's ok

There's loads of work in epistemology looking at the definitions of knowledge. It's very hard to pin down what it means to know.
In the examples you give I'd substitute belief for faith but even then there's confusion.

I could say that "I believe in God". That would imply that despite evidence I believe in God.
I could say "I believe in climate change". In that case my belief would be based on the preponderance of evidence.

The problem is that words like belief and faith reflect our attitudes towards something, not necessarily why or how we ended up feeling that way.

Since there's no words we can substitute for the different meanings it means the dictionary has loads of different definitions. It means that you can have two people saying the same words but are actually speaking different languages.

the_syco

harrymagina wrote: »

Had a friend going around telling the whole local pub he is an athiest after a few jars.

How many paedophile christian brothers were atheist?

Peist2007

Eutow wrote: »

Well he is a scientist, so you would think he should be open to new ideas. So, if he puts foward a thesis and his colleagues and those in his profession put foward ideas that contradict or challenge Nox's ideas, does he take it as an insult to himself?

He takes it as an insult to himself of course, he has said it explicitly a few pages back. On another note, his "astronaut-dog" idea seems to have really gained legs.

Peist2007

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

No I don't, I do however treat my work separate to my beliefs.

What is your PHD in?

Peist2007

Peist2007 wrote: »

What is your PHD in?

Physics.

Baggy Trousers

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

Physics.

Sheldon?

Peist2007

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

Physics.

The mind boggles!

PopePalpatine

seamus wrote: »

Can't tell if this post is an incredibly brilliant troll or hopelessly misguided.

Contrary to the narrow and bigoted Irish education curriculum that most of us had to suffer through, Paganism is a set of beliefs that involves far more ritualism and spiritualism than the current popular monotheistic religions.

The concept of a soul - or the very least of a life-force that exists outside of the flesh - is central to practically all flavours of paganism.

But Catholic Ireland would have us believe that pagans are godless devil worshippers (which is of course a contradiction in itself).

Watch as he ignores your post and then pops up in a few weeks regurgitating the same old bollocks.

Akrasia

Corbin Silly Pan wrote: »

Physics.

Just out of curiosity, in a physics framework, which parts of the equations describe god?

You have the 4 known forces,
gravity,
weak nuclear force,
strong nuclear force (strong interaction),
Electromagnetism

Do you think that god is just the unification of these 4 forces?

If in a decade or two, we can formalise a testable and verifiable unification theory, where then will god be?

The only rationally defensible arguments for the existence of god (as opposed to arguments from 'because the book says so' or 'emotion' or 'personal revelation') are
1. The teleological argument (argument from design)
2. Cosmological argument (boils down to the first cause argument)

The teleological argument is a god of the gaps rabbit hole, where god has been retreating from personally designing every individual, to somehow deciding on the cosmological constant (and assorted fundamental values for physical forces) 14 billion years ago and then leaving the universe alone

It fails because it doesn't explain anything other than 'god did it' and because we have multiple plausible cosmological theories for how these constants could have either evolved, or been generated at random without the need for any sentient actor (god)

The cosmological argument also fails for the most basic and fundamental flaw. Proponents of this argument say the universe can not have caused itself, therefore god must exist. But they then engage in special pleading that god itself doesn't need a cause because he is 'A-temporal' or 'outside of time'. It's ridiculous that people can't see the gaping flaw in their logic. If it is possible that anything can exist without having a cause, why bother invoking god, why not just say that the universe itself has 'always' existed as an entity 'outside of time'?

Proponents of the cosmological arguments, appear to me, to be deliberately mis-using the big bang as evidence for god. The 'big bang' only describes the singularity that began our part of the universe. It says absolutely nothing about what caused the big bang. There are multiple theories that suggest that big bangs are not once off events, but are happening all the 'time'. But we simply do not know what caused the big bang, it is much more likely to be a natural event, than a supernatural one. It is much more likely to be an event triggered by physical laws of nature, than a choice by some supernatural, conscious being (for the simple reason that we know that physical laws exist so it's more parsimonious to postulate something we have evidence exists, than to invent out of thin air something for which we have absolutely zero information on)

spix

I think it goes something like this.

When you're in what you assume is a minority, you assume that other people assume that you're not, therefore you feel the need to tell them otherwise so you know they're not going to make this assumption.

That's what I assume anyway.

ps. Don't assume I said assume alot on purpose, cause I didn't.