7 Questions to ask

sbsquarepants

RichieO wrote: »

Do you ever have the slightest doubts about your truths?

Generally yes. There's very little if anything you can know for an absolute certainty. A lot of stuff you have to take on faith. (ooh, the f word;))

RichieO wrote: »

Is there anything in your life that you are 100% certain about?

Like Descartes, I'm certain I'm here
I'm fairly certain all this other stuff is here too.
I'm practically certain that my time existing as any sort of conscious entity will be finite.

RichieO wrote: »

Have you ever thought about why or how you can be certain?

I have.

RichieO wrote: »

Do you know the difference between truth, belief, fact, law, rule, theory and hypothesis?

I do.

RichieO wrote: »

Do you study the history of every science and religion ?

No.

RichieO wrote: »

How do you know if you are correct in your beliefs?

I don't.

RichieO wrote: »

Do you try to understand why others doubt or ridicule your beliefs?

No. I sometimes (rarely) try to understand why someone else holds their beliefs if I want to understand them a bit better - I couldn't care less if they doubt or ridicule mine. Sometimes being mocked for saying or doing something stupid actually helps you, spurs you on to learn.
I don't mind in the slightest when people disagree with me - if they have a good reason for doing so I try to always stay open to changing my mind, nothing is set in stone.
Nothing screams gobshíte louder to me than an unwillingness to change your views in the face of new evidence.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

The whole polytheism thing is a red-herring if you ask me. On a intuitive level it makes no sense. You'd have gods fighting it out to the death, power struggles, etc.

Your idea of "gods" sound an awful lot like a string of identically-shirted middle managers in a US corporate.

kelly1 wrote: »

You'd have to answer the question of where the gods came and who/what created them. Were any of these gods created by another? If so, the created one is not really a god.

But I thought it was ok for you to just "define" whatever gods you wanted in order to create whatever narrative you like the sound of.

I mean, that's what you do with your own god, so I'm assuming that you're quite happy to have other people "define" whatever solutions they want to as well.

kelly1

robindch wrote: »

I mean, that's what you do with your own god, so I'm assuming that you're quite happy to have other people "define" whatever solutions they want to as well.

Am I really so bad at explaining myself? Can you not even for a moment, take off the scientific hat and put on the philosophical one? Or did you consign that one to the bin as suggested by Mr. Hawking?

What exactly is your objection to the first cause argument?

Hotblack Desiato

kelly1 wrote: »

I could say something similar about atheists who have listened to only one side of the debate.

There can't be many of those in Ireland because we've had the other side of the 'debate' rammed down our throats our whole lives.

Because God, for the purposes of this discussion, is defined as the uncaused cause of everything that it not God. The starting point of the causal chain. Under that definition, it makes no sense to ask what created that God.

That's a rather convenient logical fallacy on your part.

kelly1 wrote: »

In that case you're bound to accept that space-time has always existed. infinite time to the past and future.

That's pretty much what the Steady State Theory postulated, but that's been long debunked.

Spacetime (or, at least, our spacetime) came into existence at the Big Bang which is a finite time ago. What happened before then, or even whether there was a 'before', is a matter of conjecture.

kelly1 wrote: »

What exactly is your objection to the first cause argument?

It's a non-answer. If everything has a cause therefore god, then what caused god?

It's just another turtles all the way down argument.

robindch

kelly1 wrote: »

Can you not even for a moment, take off the scientific hat and put on the philosophical one? [...]

What exactly is your objection to the first cause argument?

My objection to what you refer to as "the first cause argument" is that you have decided to "define" your own view on it as true.

Philosophically, that's about as convincing as crossing your fingers behind your back.

sKeith

RichieO wrote: »

These 7 questions I have asked myself and others, the number of different responses is truly amazing and if you can get honest answers it speaks volumes about yourself and others...

Do you ever have the slightest doubts about your truths?
Yes.

Is there anything in your life that you are 100% certain about?
No.

Have you ever thought about why or how you can be certain?
Yes.

Do you know the difference between truth, belief, fact, law, rule, theory and hypothesis?
I think so.

Do you study the history of every science and religion?
No.

How do you know if you are correct in your beliefs?
I don't have many beliefs and I definitely do not know if I am correct in any belief that I do have.


Do you try to understand why others doubt or ridicule your beliefs?
As above, I haven't really identified my beliefs and if I can't identify my beliefs then its going to be very hard for somebody to doubt or ridicule them.


opinions on
astrophysics - very interesting, try to keep as up to date as possible.
evolution - I'm fully onboard with evolution of the species.
special relativity - fully onboard with this also.

age of earth. approx 4½ billion years.

GritBiscuit

RichieO wrote: »

These 7 questions I have asked myself and others...

Do you ever have the slightest doubts about your truths?

What truths? The only truth I have is how unconvinced I am of other people's truths.

Is there anything in your life that you are 100% certain about

I love my kids, my extended family, my dog...and if I won the lotto tomorrow that Bentley Continental GT is MINE!

Have you ever thought about why or how you can be certain

I'd have to be convinced beyond a point that requires blind faith. There has to be something verifiable to hang a certainty on to that amounts to more than "I just know in my heart..."

Do you know the difference between truth, belief, fact, law, rule, theory and hypothesis?

I hope so...

Do you study the history of every science and religion?

Not professionally. I find both fascinating, religion as a neutral observer in a historical/anthropological way - I have zero interest in sermons or proselytizing.

How do you know if you are correct in your beliefs?

Outwith that which can be evidenced, I don't. I can think something more or less likely on balance given the available evidence - or lack there of - but that's about it...

Do you try to understand why others doubt or ridicule your beliefs?

All the time. I wonder about this faith thing that others have and can hold onto when life gets tough and wonder if I'm missing something - why didn't I hear the call or why I don't see what they do. Is there a god who only gave out a finite supply of faith? If he did and people ridicule me for the fact they got faith and I didn't, they sound even less Christian than I do.

RichieO

There are some very interesting answers to the questions, (and a few surprising ones) you can get some insight from them, but that's about all, I should admit one of my interests is 'why we think the way we do', and how much our basic beliefs (or non-beliefs) will influence how we think, and if there a pattern or trend in there, which can useful in determining what a persons motivation is, which maybe important in understanding more.

SKeith,
just from your answers, you favour the sciences over religion but seem to be waiting to be fully convinced in some areas, if you were bought up in a religion, you had a problem trying reconcile science with religion, like so many others, drifted away from theism… The 'no' answer on question 2 is a little surprising, as birth, change and death are pretty well 100% and the sun will rise and set (whether you observe it or not) at least in the foreseeable future, so not sure if you understood that question?

smacl

RichieO wrote: »

'why we think the way we do'

Pure conjecture, but I buy into the mix of genes and education line of thinking. Myself and my very lovely missus have always made a conscious effort to raise our kids to be inquisitive. This ranges from things like answering questions with questions to saying 'i wonder what lives under that rock' while out walking in the hills or on the beach. I'm very much of the opinion that we learn through experimentation rather than repetition, and think that to a certain extent we get taught how to think. In some ways I have a lot of respect for how Christianity at its core espouse kindness, which is a notion I'm happy to nick and pass onto my kids without all that God guff. At the same time I despise the very notion of dogma, and dislike most organised religions on that basis.

'scuse the waffle, first bottle of stout of the weekend had!

RichieO

smacl wrote: »

Pure conjecture, but I buy into the mix of genes and education line of thinking. Myself and my very lovely missus have always made a conscious effort to raise our kids to be inquisitive. This ranges from things like answering questions with questions to saying 'i wonder what lives under that rock' while out walking in the hills or on the beach. I'm very much of the opinion that we learn through experimentation rather than repetition, and think that to a certain extent we get taught how to think. In some ways I have a lot of respect for how Christianity at its core espouse kindness, which is a notion I'm happy to nick and pass onto my kids without all that God guff. At the same time I despise the very notion of dogma, and dislike most organised religions on that basis.

'scuse the waffle, first bottle of stout of the weekend had!

I agree, conjecture, best guess etc I don't know, I do try to find out, I don't mind being wrong or off track, or criticised, offended or labelled rightly or wrongly, that's how I learn and get others opinions....

Hotblack Desiato

smacl wrote: »

Myself and my very lovely missus have always made a conscious effort to raise our kids to be inquisitive.

Good for you. Our elder is an absolutely voracious reader and our younger was more or less born asking questions, it feels like hundreds a day sometimes

In some ways I have a lot of respect for how Christianity at its core espouse kindness

It claims to, but doesn't really. There's nothing kind about consigning people to hell for not worshipping the right god. In practice the actions of christians are very often influenced by the opposite of love, and with "god in their hearts" convincing them they're right, well...

Gandhi wrote:

The effect of Christianity upon India in general must be judged by the life lived in our midst by the average Christian and its effect upon us. I am sorry to have to re record my opinion that it has been disastrous. It pains me to have to say that the Christian missionaries as a body, with honourable exceptions, have actively supported a system which has impoverished, enervated and demoralised a people considered to be among the gentlest and most civilized on earth...

It is impossible for me to reconcile myself to the idea of conversion after the style that goes on in India and elsewhere today. It is an error which is perhaps the greatest impediment to the world’s progress toward peace … Why should a Christian want to convert a Hindu to Christianity? Why should he not be satisfied if the Hindu is a good or godly man?

There is nothing wrong with Christianity … The trouble is with you Christians. You do not begin to live up to your own teachings.

Akrasia

RichieO wrote: »

Do you ever have the slightest doubts about your truths?

What are my truths?
I suppose that's a doubt.

Is there anything in your life that you are 100% certain about?

Cogito ergo sum

Have you ever thought about why or how you can be certain?

Yes. Thats called epistemology. We can't be certain of much because it's always possible we are being deceived by others, or even deceived by ourselves. We have developed imperfect tools to verify facts and reason. It's basically the scientific method. But on ad ad hoc basis we can use methodological naturalism.

Do you know the difference between truth, belief, fact, law, rule, theory and hypothesis?

Yes. But i also understand that there are shades of grey and categorising things is an imperfect science

Do you study the history of every science and religion?

Of course not. There are thousands of religions and millions of historical figures in science worth studying. Nobody can study them all

How do you know if you are correct in your beliefs?

Knowledge is justified true belief. I believe my keys are in my pocket. I know by checking and finding them.
Where verifying truth is impossible, the most anyone can be is confident but agnostic, unless they're lying or deceiving themselves that is.

Do you try to understand why others doubt or ridicule your beliefs?

Yes, i ask them all the time to support their arguments. Most of the time they avoid these questions or fall back to an unquestionable private belief.

One eyed Jack

RichieO wrote: »

Do you ever have the slightest doubts about your truths?

No, I wouldn't consider something a truth if I had doubts about it's veracity. Until I'm certain, then it's a belief.

Is there anything in your life that you are 100% certain about?

Yes, plenty. It's quite a list, and even then if I were to attempt to list the things I'm certain about, I'm 100% certain that I wouldn't think of everything I'm 100% certain about.

Have you ever thought about why or how you can be certain?

Yes, and that's why and how I come to be certain of some things, sceptical of other things, and can dismiss some things as not even worth entertaining.

Do you know the difference between truth, belief, fact, law, rule, theory and hypothesis?

Without getting too philosophical about it, but each of those concepts can have different meanings depending upon context. For example when someone uses the phrase "my truth", I'm certain that what's likely to follow is unlikely to be an objective truth. It's an entirely subjective belief.

Do you study the history of every science and religion?

Christ no! :pac: If I come across something and I initially find it interesting, then I'll give some time and energy to studying it, like right now for example a couple of the people I work with are from India, so I'm leaning all sorts of interesting things about their religions and culture and so on. Same with my mates from other continents, countries and cultures.

Some of my friends work in science and medicine and while biology and physics have always interested me, I could never get into chemistry at all, I just seem to tune out, the material just doesn't hold my attention at all like the way biology and physics do.

How do you know if you are correct in your beliefs?

I don't, that's why I consider them to be beliefs and not facts.

Do you try to understand why others doubt or ridicule your beliefs?

It depends really, sometimes I'm interested in why someone else may doubt or ridicule my beliefs and I'll put up with it as long as I believe that I may come to understand why they hold their beliefs that I often doubt or find ridiculous. While I may find their beliefs ridiculous, I don't tend to waste time nor energy ridiculing other peoples beliefs. I tend to ignore them, as entertaining them means giving them an acknowledgement they aren't worthy of - I don't believe their beliefs have earned the right to be taken seriously.

smacl

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It claims to, but doesn't really. There's nothing kind about consigning people to hell for not worshipping the right god. In practice the actions of christians are very often influenced by the opposite of love, and with "god in their hearts" convincing them they're right, well...

Fair enough. I do find though that a lot of less zealous lay Christians tend to think of their religion as one of kindness and practise it that way. Whether this is a product of the religion or coincidental remains to be seen. I'm not convinced the burn in hell brigade are in the majority in this country or even close. What I find quite interesting is that the majority of those who consider themselves Catholic in this country will also openly reject dogma advocated by the RCC hierarchy that they don't agree with. This will undoubtedly become more pronounced as people stop going to church and lose contact with the church hierarchy.

RichieO

We should be grateful the Christians do NOT use the bible verbatim, there would be a lot of dead kids and gays, plus many very sore slaves....

One eyed Jack

RichieO wrote: »

We should be grateful the Christians do NOT use the bible verbatim, there would be a lot of dead kids and gays, plus many very sore slaves....

I dunno tbh. One of the things I often wonder about is like ok, religion creates handy in-groups and out-groups, but there are other means to create in-groups and out-groups such as the haves, and the have nots, or the many hundreds of other ways in which people judge people, either positively or negatively on the basis of whatever trait does or doesn't happen to take your fancy, so it could just as easily happen that just like there are people who exist who would want to use the technology available to us now to prevent people with downs syndrome for example from ever being born, it could just as easily happen that people could choose to abort a pregnancy if it was determined that the foetus was homosexual, or whatever other arbitrary reason you can think of yourself... I'm reminded of the kind of replies in the "how would you feel if your child were religious?" thread for that one :pac:

My point being really that if a person is indeed of a particular persuasion to want to inflict intolerable cruelty and suppression of dissent, giving themselves ultimate power over others and so on, there are an infinite number of ideologies they can twist, corrupt, adapt, to suit their particular purpose.

I'm just relieved Christianity for the most part gave up on the circumcision lark tbh! :pac:

Samaris

There are those things, Jack, just one of the easiest routes to a handy suppressive, unarguable power over others is abuse of religious teachings. You get to be "backed up" by a god. And because a lot of these religions pre-date States and the rest, they are old time abusive in their punishments and lack of tolerance for anyone that doesn't fit a preferred mold.

Nationalism is probably the next clearest in or out type divider, especially if only people of a certain colour, or a certain religion or a certain whatever are "allowed" to count as "in", regardless of whoever else is living peaceably as members of their state or country.

Panrich

I haven't read the whole thread but I'm an atheist and I LOVE pineapple on my pizza.

Samaris

Panrich wrote: »

I haven't read the whole thread but I'm an atheist and I LOVE pineapple on my pizza.

Lines drawn, gauntlet thrown down

(I'm a heretic who will put anything in the fridge on a pizza, in the long-standing tradition of student cooking.)

begbysback

Pherekydes wrote: »

My 7 questions:

• Will the Packers win the SB?
• Will Aaron Rodgers win the MVP?
• Will Stoke finish higher than 9th this season?
• Is pineapple ok on pizza, even for atheists?
• Is a jaffa cake a biscuit or a cake?
• Why can I not touch my toes any more?
• Is the meaning of life really 42?

Will the Packers win the SB?
Dunno I'm Irish

Will Aaron Rodgers win the MVP?
Dunno I'm Irish

Will Stoke finish higher than 9th this season?
Yes, now that they have Jese

Is pineapple ok on pizza, even for atheists?
No, its commonly believed that fruit should only ever been eaten with other fruit for the sake of the digestive system - this only applies to those atheists who have digestive systems.

Is a jaffa cake a biscuit or a cake?
Cake - its been proven that a jaffa cake goes hard when out of date, and biscuits go soft - therefore a jaffa cake is a cake, the clue was in the name all the time

Why can I not touch my toes any more?
You can, just sit in the lotus position

Is the meaning of life really 42?
Yes: (42=DB ) <=> (DB=Date Born & Date Buried) => meaning of life

Hotblack Desiato

Samaris wrote: »

There are those things, Jack, just one of the easiest routes to a handy suppressive, unarguable power over others is abuse of religious teachings.

That is not abuse of religious teachings.

It is THE use of religious teachings. Always has been, always will be.

antiskeptic

RichieO wrote: »

Do you ever have the slightest doubts about your truths?

No. But I've not many of them

Is there anything in your life that you are 100% certain about?

See above

Have you ever thought about why or how you can be certain?

Other than suppose it the product of the highest court of appeal in antiskeptic-land, not really. I'm a mechanical engineer so utilize fitness, elegance, economy, efficiency, structure etc. in my assessments of how things work. That which fits, is elegant, is economical and efficient, is well structured leads me to be certain about which of the posited options works best. The highest court of appeal can't necessarily explain it how it knows - any more than it can explain how it knows to track down the root cause of a problem in a engineering setting (outside of a plodding, stepwise analysis). But it does know it.

Do you know the difference between truth, belief, fact, law, rule, theory and hypothesis?

Yes, but these terms have fluid definitions. On man's truth is anothers fairytale.

Do you study the history of every science and religion?

I haven't studied the history of any science or religion

How do you know if you are correct in your beliefs?

See answer three questions back

Do you try to understand why others doubt or ridicule your beliefs?

I understand why others doubt and ridicule Christianity. I used to myself and see the same pattern/rational working in others which once worked in me.