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

Hotblack Desiato

Mathematics is also based on axioms, so is it a belief system too?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I suppose you could argue that a totally unstructured belief system can't really be described as a system at all, and that people who chose their beliefs completely at random every time an occasion arises for acting on or expressing a belief have no belief system. But I seriously doubt that such people exist. Everyone has some degree of system to their beliefs, even if it's only a principle of consistency. ("If I believed yesterday that a woman has the right to choose abortion, I should believe the same thing today, unless I can point to some reason for changing my belief.")

I guess that if you looked at the reason why most people will believe something to be true, without directly testing the veracity of that truth themselves, is that the information provided comes from a trusted source such as a parent, teacher or similar. These beliefs aren't formed systematically but on an ad hoc basis and I'd argue don't so much form a belief system as a dynamic and expanding knowledge base.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

I guess that if you looked at the reason why most people will believe something to be true, without directly testing the veracity of that truth themselves, is that the information provided comes from a trusted source such as a parent, teacher or similar. These beliefs aren't formed systematically but on an ad hoc basis and I'd argue don't so much form a belief system as a dynamic and expanding knowledge base.

I would agree.
The term 'system' would suggest there is a certain amount of codification, which would apply to most religious beliefs (the tenets being the system), and arguably at a stretch to some people's political beliefs (at the more ideological driven ends of the spectrum) but it's stretching it to apply the term to the majority of the beliefs people hold.

smacl

nthclare wrote: »

Is there any pagans in the Atheism and Agnoticism forum ?

Not a pagan but I'd a strong interest in philosophical Taoism at one point which has a corresponding emphasis in balance within the natural world. I also really used to enjoy reading various mythologies as a kid, and still do to some extent, but think of them as stories rather than gospel truth. Interestingly, I think there was a lot of paganism in the West of Ireland until relatively recently, but the pagans were also Catholics. I'm remember my granny from Sligo talking about banshees and various other bits of local pagan mythology in solemn terms while still going to mass daily. I've seen the same thing in Hong Kong where Catholic Hong Kong Chinese friends would also visit the Buddhist temple for spiritual advise and have various shrines to lesser household deities dotted around the house.

nthclare

smacl wrote: »

Not a pagan but I'd a strong interest in philosophical Taoism at one point which has a corresponding emphasis in balance within the natural world. I also really used to enjoy reading various mythologies as a kid, and still do to some extent, but think of them as stories rather than gospel truth. Interestingly, I think there was a lot of paganism in the West of Ireland until relatively recently, but the pagans were also Catholics. I'm remember my granny from Sligo talking about banshees and various other bits of local pagan mythology in solemn terms while still going to mass daily. I've seen the same thing in Hong Kong where Catholic Hong Kong Chinese friends would also visit the Buddhist temple for spiritual advise and have various shrines to lesser household deities dotted around the house.

And not forgetting the JFK pictures dotted around house's in Wexford lol

There's a pagan culture in The Burren, and they're great fun to be around.
We light bonfire's and have entertainment, kids, parents and grandparents all invited.
No rituals just a gathering.

The Burren college of art had an amazing gathering there last year...it was like a mini body and soul

smacl

nthclare wrote: »

And not forgetting the JFK pictures dotted around house's in Wexford lol

There's a pagan culture in The Burren, and they're great fun to be around.
We light bonfire's and have entertainment, kids, parents and grandparents all invited.
No rituals just a gathering.

The Burren college of art had an amazing gathering there last year...it was like a mini body and soul

Yes indeed. My sister got married on Fanore beach in a pagan ceremony and we got to see a fair bit of. Rap on the door at PJs at midnight with festivities in full swing with a shout of "Any admittance for Captain Mummer and his men?" followed by the straw boys coming in giving us some great entertainment. Fantastic craic and great to see this type of tradition alive and well whatever your beliefs might be.

Peregrinus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Mathematics is also based on axioms, so is it a belief system too?

No, because the axioms are not axiomatic beliefs. Euclidean geometry, for example, proceeds from axioms about parallel lines, etc, but makes no claim that parallel lines actually exist, or have any correspondence to reality. Whereas the axioms that underpin the scientific method are claims about the objectively real universe.

CramCycle

Getting flashbacks to Peanos Axioms.

smacl

CramCycle wrote: »

Getting flashbacks to Peanos Axioms.

Not something you'd want to say to quickly with a couple of pints taken

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

I guess that if you looked at the reason why most people will believe something to be true, without directly testing the veracity of that truth themselves, is that the information provided comes from a trusted source such as a parent, teacher or similar. These beliefs aren't formed systematically but on an ad hoc basis and I'd argue don't so much form a belief system as a dynamic and expanding knowledge base.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I would agree.
The term 'system' would suggest there is a certain amount of codification, which would apply to most religious beliefs (the tenets being the system), and arguably at a stretch to some people's political beliefs (at the more ideological driven ends of the spectrum) but it's stretching it to apply the term to the majority of the beliefs people hold.

I dunno. It's true that we initially inherit our beliefs, but a standard part of growing up is questioning the beliefs we have inherited, scrutinising them and then accepting some while rejecting others. But that process requires some standard against which to measure the beliefs we have inherited; some basis for for affirming or rejecting them. There's still a belief system at work there, even if it is not fully articulated, or not entirely coherent.

Obviously, we can hold inconsistent beliefs; in fact this happens all the time. That doesn't mean we don't have a belief system, since there's nothing inherent in the notion of "system" that requires it to be fully worked out, completely coherent, etc, etc; you can have more or less ordered systems, and that applies to belief systems as much as to any other kind of system.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I dunno. It's true that we initially inherit our beliefs, but a standard part of growing up is questioning the beliefs we have inherited, scrutinising them and then accepting some while rejecting others. But that process requires some standard against which to measure the beliefs we have inherited; some basis for for affirming or rejecting them. There's still a belief system at work there, even if it is not fully articulated, or not entirely coherent.

Obviously, we can hold inconsistent beliefs; in fact this happens all the time. That doesn't mean we don't have a belief system, since there's nothing inherent in the notion of "system" that requires it to be fully worked out, completely coherent, etc, etc; you can have more or less ordered systems, and that applies to belief systems as much as to any other kind of system.

I'd say a belief system, or system of beliefs, implies a degree of organisation and consistency. A broad understanding arrived at through experience and knowledge gathered over time is not necessarily systematic. If we have a quick look at the definition of system as would be applied to 'belief system' we see the following

MW wrote:

an organized set of doctrines, ideas, or principles usually intended to explain the arrangement or working of a systematic whole

I think it is quite reasonable that some people may not have a belief system using that definition of system.

CramCycle

smacl wrote: »

I'd say a belief system, or system of beliefs, implies a degree of organisation and consistency. A broad understanding arrived at through experience and knowledge gathered over time is not necessarily systematic. If we have a quick look at the definition of system as would be applied to 'belief system' we see the following



I think it is quite reasonable that some people may not have a belief system using that definition of system.

I was reading up on "system of beliefs" to get a definition on it, alot of papers seem to say as a human you have to have one but then they define what constitutes a ssytem of beliefs and in many of them, I don't have all the requirements. Best I could manage was that my choices might be considered to be based on an amalgamation of multiple systems of belief but I don't have a specific one by definition. None of them are religious though, most are moralistic and a few are percieved by me as beneficial for society or based on mutually assured destruction, depending on how you look at it.

pearcider

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Atheists do not believe there is a god or gods.
That is it.

To claim any otherwise is extremely arrogant imo, particularly as it has been pointed out that there is no common set of beliefs, no hive mind, no tenets.
There is just the lack of belief in the existence of a deity - or deities.

When an individual makes a statement they are speaking only for themselves - not from some imaginary 'atheist handbook'. You cannot extrapolate from any post here that 'this is what atheists believe.'

It is astounding that you cannot seem to grasp this one simple fact.

What is the point of this jibe at me when we are discussing the meaning of life and the universe itself? Talk about off topic? Who are you to define what atheism is or indeed where this discussion should go. You really are a tedious poster. You should mod yourself out of this thread. But before you go are you denying that atheists are just plain old materialists at heart?

Bannasidhe

pearcider wrote: »

What is the point of this jibe at me when we are discussing the meaning of life and the universe itself? Talk about off topic? Who are you to define what atheism is or indeed where this discussion should go. You really are a tedious poster. You should mod yourself out of this thread. But before you go are you denying that atheists are just plain old materialists at heart?

You are the one who made claims for how/what atheists think - something you have neither the right nor the experience to pronounce upon.

But then no one does. Because all that can be said with certainty is that an atheist does not believe in the existence of a god or gods.

I am not making any claims about atheists bar the above. Nor would I, as they are as diverse in their beliefs as there are grains of sand on a beach.

smacl

pearcider wrote: »

What is the point of this jibe at me when we are discussing the meaning of life and the universe itself? Talk about off topic? Who are you to define what atheism is or indeed where this discussion should go. You really are a tedious poster. You should mod yourself out of this thread. But before you go are you denying that atheists are just plain old materialists at heart?

Mod: Carded for personal abuse. This post also constitutes backseat moderation and trolling. Please do not post here again until such time as you've read and understood the charter. Any feedback by PM or to the feedback thread please, but keep it civil. Do not reply here, in thread. Thanks for your attention.

nozzferrahhtoo

pearcider wrote: »

But atheists still think we live in a clockwork universe. We don’t. We live in something far more mysterious and astounding than that.

It is always fun to hear other people tell me what or how I think.

Especially when they are wrong.

Should you wish to stop pretending to be psychic and sit back and listen to other people tell you what they think, rather than you inventing it on their behalf however, I can certainly tell you what I think.

I think we find ourselves living in a mysterious and awe inspiring universe, the majority of which we do not understand.

I think I would like to gather as much data as possible about this universe t best determine how this state of affairs came to be.

I think that of the data we have found so far, absolutely none of it suggests that the explanation for everything lies in the machinations of a non-human intelligent and intentional agent. Or "god" if you wish.

I think therefore than an explanation is currently not available, but hopefully is forthcoming in the future.

Bannasidhe

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is always fun to hear other people tell me what or how I think.

Especially when they are wrong.

Should you wish to stop pretending to be psychic and sit back and listen to other people tell you what they think, rather than you inventing it on their behalf however, I can certainly tell you what I think.

I think we find ourselves living in a mysterious and awe inspiring universe, the majority of which we do not understand.

I think I would like to gather as much data as possible about this universe t best determine how this state of affairs came to be.

I think that of the data we have found so far, absolutely none of it suggests that the explanation for everything lies in the machinations of a non-human intelligent and intentional agent. Or "god" if you wish.

I think therefore than an explanation is currently not available, but hopefully is forthcoming in the future.

The universe is indeed mysterious and awe inspiring, and we may never understand it.
I can accept that.
I can accept that there are limits to the human mind and there are some things that may simply be beyond our understanding.


I do not know how the universe came into existence. No one does.
But I don't feel the need to claim I do - unlike thiests.

What happens when we die? I don't know. No one does.
Where 'were we' before we were born? I don't know. No one does.
How did life begin? I don't know. No one does.

All we have are theories - and 'God did it' is just one theory, one with no actual evidence to support it. A Theory I don't buy.

Kaybaykwah

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The universe is indeed mysterious and awe inspiring, and we may never understand it.
I can accept that.
I can accept that there are limits to the human mind and there are some things that may simply be beyond our understanding.


I do not know how the universe came into existence. No one does.
But I don't feel the need to claim I do - unlike thiests.

What happens when we die? I don't know. No one does.
Where 'were we' before we were born? I don't know. No one does.
How did life begin? I don't know. No one does.

All we have are theories - and 'God did it' is just one theory, one with no actual evidence to support it. A Theory I don't buy.

Especially dubious are the claims that Evie Rosen was brought about from Adam Stein's ribs.

storker

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The universe is indeed mysterious and awe inspiring, and we may never understand it.
I can accept that.
I can accept that there are limits to the human mind and there are some things that may simply be beyond our understanding.


I do not know how the universe came into existence. No one does.
But I don't feel the need to claim I do - unlike thiests.

What happens when we die? I don't know. No one does.
Where 'were we' before we were born? I don't know. No one does.
How did life begin? I don't know. No one does.

All we have are theories - and 'God did it' is just one theory, one with no actual evidence to support it. A Theory I don't buy.

The old Dave Allen joke where the Pope says to the atheist; "You are like a blind man in a dark room, looking for a black cat...that isn't there." To which the atheist replies "With respect your holiness, you too are like a blind man in a dark room, looking for a black cat that isn't there...only you think you've found it."

pearcider

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is always fun to hear other people tell me what or how I think.

Especially when they are wrong.

Should you wish to stop pretending to be psychic and sit back and listen to other people tell you what they think, rather than you inventing it on their behalf however, I can certainly tell you what I think.

I think we find ourselves living in a mysterious and awe inspiring universe, the majority of which we do not understand.

I think I would like to gather as much data as possible about this universe t best determine how this state of affairs came to be.

I think that of the data we have found so far, absolutely none of it suggests that the explanation for everything lies in the machinations of a non-human intelligent and intentional agent. Or "god" if you wish.

I think therefore than an explanation is currently not available, but hopefully is forthcoming in the future.

There is no “explanation“ for anything in physics that’s the point I am making. We have an apparently physical world that upon closer examination isn’t actually physical at all. Furthermore our universe appears to follow mathematical laws that human brains have actually invented. This is the Greek philosophy of idealism which is a lot more compelling than anything you have offered. You atheists are confusing our apparently lawful universe with a meaningless void just because you disagree with the Catholic Church or something similarly ludicrous. But keep believing in nothing if it makes you feel better.

pearcider

storker wrote: »

The old Dave Allen joke where the Pope says to the atheist; "You are like a blind man in a dark room, looking for a black cat...that isn't there." To which the atheist replies "With respect your holiness, you too are like a blind man in a dark room, looking for a black cat that isn't there...only you think you've found it."

I don’t get this joke which I suppose is why I don’t get atheism. The Pope accepts Jesus Christ as our lord and saviour who lived in the Roman Empire was crucified and then rose from the dead. Even the most atheistic scholar cannot deny that this event was the most momentous in human history still echoing through the ages from the creation of astounding architecture like Sagrada Família or St Peters Basilica to the more mundane celebration of Christmas. Even the year 2020 is dated from His birth. The Bible has outsold all other books put together, was the first book printed and still sells 100 million copies per year. Christianity remains the largest religion with the greatest diversity of adherents. Nothing comes close to Jesus Christ.

Bannasidhe

pearcider wrote: »

I don’t get this joke which I suppose is why I don’t get atheism. The Pope accepts Jesus Christ as our lord and saviour who lived in the Roman Empire was crucified and then rose from the dead. Even the most atheistic scholar cannot deny that this event was the most momentous in human history still echoing through the ages from the creation of astounding architecture like Sagrada Família or St Peters Basilica to the more mundane celebration of Christmas. Even the year 2020 is dated from His birth. The Bible has outsold all other books put together, was the first book printed and still sells 100 million copies per year. Christianity remains the largest religion with the greatest diversity of adherents. Nothing comes close to Jesus Christ.

You can't seriously expect what the Pope accepts to carry any weight in this forum?

I could argue that Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb accepts that Muhammad was the last prophet as chosen by God, he lived in the 6th century, an event that changed the course of human history and still echos down through the ages from the creations of mathematics to astounding architecture like the Alhambra and the Taj Mahal. The Quran has sold over 800m copies in Arabic etc etc etc
But it doesn't matter what either the Pope or Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb accept - especially when their personal power derives from getting other people to go along with what they 'accept'.

Of course the leader of a religion accepts the basis upon which that religion claims it's legitimacy (at least publically) but that is not proof that the basis is legitimate.

Why do you accept what the Pope accepts but not what Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb accepts?

I accept neither.

And there are devout Christians who would also accept neither. And devout Muslims who would accept neither.

robindch

pearcider wrote: »

You atheists are confusing our apparently lawful universe with a meaningless void just because you disagree with the Catholic Church or something similarly ludicrous. But keep believing in nothing if it makes you feel better.

pearcider - you're in a forum where posters are expected to arguments a little more solid than whatever material populates a first-year religious syllabus.

Specifically, instead of telling your fellow-posters what they believe or don't believe, you might enquire - profitably it appears - as to what their beliefs actually are.

pearcider wrote: »

I don’t get this joke which I suppose is why I don’t get atheism.

If you don't get it - why not ask somebody to explain it then? Plenty of atheists find it quite funny and I'm sure they'll be happy to explain why.

CramCycle

pearcider wrote: »

There is no “explanation“ for anything in physics that’s the point I am making. We have an apparently physical world that upon closer examination isn’t actually physical at all. Furthermore our universe appears to follow mathematical laws that human brains have actually invented. This is the Greek philosophy of idealism which is a lot more compelling than anything you have offered. You atheists are confusing our apparently lawful universe with a meaningless void just because you disagree with the Catholic Church or something similarly ludicrous. But keep believing in nothing if it makes you feel better.

What?!? I don't think you grasp physics or mathematics. They have theorems and proofs. They are not invented, they are thought of in an attempt to explain the universe. They are often shown to be wrong at which point they are reassessed. If anything, and I speak for myself not "you athiests", I am very much of the opinion we live in a very lawful universe, just because you or I do not know the laws, does not mean they do not exist. As for meaningless void, meaning is granted by the people or person, it's nowt to do with the universe, and while important to us as a species, the Universe I imagine does not care and is incapable of doing so.

pearcider wrote: »

I don’t get this joke which I suppose is why I don’t get atheism. The Pope accepts Jesus Christ as our lord and saviour who lived in the Roman Empire was crucified and then rose from the dead. Even the most atheistic scholar cannot deny that this event was the most momentous in human history still echoing through the ages from the creation of astounding architecture like Sagrada Família or St Peters Basilica to the more mundane celebration of Christmas. Even the year 2020 is dated from His birth. The Bible has outsold all other books put together, was the first book printed and still sells 100 million copies per year. Christianity remains the largest religion with the greatest diversity of adherents. Nothing comes close to Jesus Christ.

The joke is really simple, the pope presumes the athiest needs an explanation and paints them like a religious person who just hasn't figured out what religion they are, where as the athiest holds a mirror upto the pope to explain in simple terms that he is talking about himself. The pope thinks he has found what he presumes the athiest is looking for. The difference is, both their hands are empty, the Athiest is OK with it and the Pope cannot deal with it.

robindch wrote: »

pearcider - you're in a forum where posters are expected to arguments a little more solid than whatever material populates a first-year religious syllabus.

A bit harsh, I am sure there are several decent religious study courses out there.

Specifically, instead of telling your fellow-posters what they believe or don't believe, you might enquire - profitably it appears - as to what their beliefs actually are.If you don't get it - why not ask somebody to explain it then? Plenty of atheists find it quite funny and I'm sure they'll be happy to explain why.

A flaw of the human condition is that most of us find it hard to see something in others that is not present in ourselves. hence why many religious people have a hard time believing that many athiests do not have a religious belief in any way shape or form.

Kaybaykwah

When I think of the major cataclysms and destructive as well as constructive events that occur in the Universe, I am not disappointed by my oncoming death.
I don't relish the thought, but I accept the
laws.of nature.

Religious folk are somewhat heartened by the fact that there is an afterlife. Our ancestors toiled and experienced short sometimes painful lives with the comfort of a reunion with loved ones. All of that admittedly necessitating the guise of a confoundingly benevolent and yet, uncompromisingly judgmental Lord. The inherent violence of humanity is somewhat eschewed by religious people lile that of the cosmos, and replaced by judgment in moral terms associated with a divinity, and therefore with divine law. That part of the God slash human equation was solved partly in the inelegant theory of man made god, transsubtantiation, transfiguration, ressuscitation that the Christians foisted upon us in two thoisand years of an evolving liturgy, with its concomitant sleights of hand.

Hotblack Desiato

pearcider wrote: »

There is no “explanation“ for anything in physics that’s the point I am making. We have an apparently physical world that upon closer examination isn’t actually physical at all. Furthermore our universe appears to follow mathematical laws that human brains have actually invented. This is the Greek philosophy of idealism which is a lot more compelling than anything you have offered. You atheists are confusing our apparently lawful universe with a meaningless void just because you disagree with the Catholic Church or something similarly ludicrous. But keep believing in nothing if it makes you feel better.

You don't understand either physics or mathematics, but that's OK, help is available

nozzferrahhtoo

pearcider wrote: »

There is no “explanation“ for anything in physics that’s the point I am making.

And it is an empty point really. It is known as the appeal to ignorance fallacy. The whole "You can not explain it, therefore this explanation I made up is credible solely because it is the only explanation on offer".

It is a weird but common notion, especially among theists, that credibility is attained merely by OFFERING an explanation, even if that explanation is wholly and entirely unsubstantiated in any way.

Again: We appear to be in a Universe.
Again: We do not know how this came to be and are working to find out.
Again: Nothing we have found so far suggests the explanation, whatever it turns out to be, lies in an intentional intelligent agent. Or "god" if you will.

pearcider wrote: »

Furthermore our universe appears to follow mathematical laws that human brains have actually invented.

You might want to take that one up with an actual mathematician because I have never once heard a mathematician claim we invented those laws. They claim we discovered them. Mathematics appears to me, the layman, to be nothing more than a language we use to describe what we observe about the universe.

pearcider wrote: »

You atheists are confusing our apparently lawful universe with a meaningless void just because you disagree with the Catholic Church or something similarly ludicrous. But keep believing in nothing if it makes you feel better.

And now you are right back to telling me what I/we think even though A) That is not what I think and I told you what I think above and you have ignored that in favour of going back to inventing what I think on my behalf.

But keep believing in the stuff you just make up, if it makes you feel better.

Marhay70

And we have yet to discover what, if anything, is on the other side of a black hole, that's when the real fun will start. Wish I could be around for the Boards discussion then.

magicbastarder

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You might want to take that one up with an actual mathematician because I have never once heard a mathematician claim we invented those laws. They claim we discovered them. Mathematics appears to me, the layman, to be nothing more than a language we use to describe what we observe about the universe.

there was a bbc4 series in the last year or two, presented by hannah fry, asking were the laws of maths discovered or invented. worth a look.

nozzferrahhtoo

Marhay70 wrote: »

And we have yet to discover what, if anything, is on the other side of a black hole, that's when the real fun will start. Wish I could be around for the Boards discussion then.

Well clearly it is going to be a reverse universe like in that Red Dwarf episode. And where all moral and ethical laws are exactly reverse. Such as..... NOT putting pineapple on your pizza will be for heathens.

Fourier

pearcider,

Although you are correct that at a certain level the world stops being materialistic, mechanical and mathematical you're going overboard and claiming what is true in the absence of those features.

Just because mechanical materialism is false doesn't mean idealism or religious views are true.
Just because the world stops behaving mathematically at a certain scale doesn't mean the mathematical laws we know apply in many cases are "invented".

As for what mathematics is, whether it's invented or discovered and related issues were explored at the start of the 20th century in the so called "Crisis in the Foundations of Mathematics". Unfortunately no clear answer has ever emerged as there is strong evidence against every current position.

storker

pearcider wrote: »

The Pope accepts Jesus Christ as our lord and saviour who lived in the Roman Empire was crucified and then rose from the dead. Even the most atheistic scholar cannot deny that this event was the most momentous in human history still echoing through the ages from the creation of astounding architecture like Sagrada Família or St Peters Basilica to the more mundane celebration of Christmas. Even the year 2020 is dated from His birth. The Bible has outsold all other books put together, was the first book printed and still sells 100 million copies per year. Christianity remains the largest religion with the greatest diversity of adherents. Nothing comes close to Jesus Christ.

For this atheist, one reason for lack of belief in any god is lack of evidence, the other main reason being too many things that just don't make sense. In this light, what the Pope or anyone else or how many of them do or don't believe something is irrelevant. That the rise of christianity has had a big impact on world history is true, but that also does nothing to prove whether its central tenets are true. For atheists all it means is that a lot of people believed something, and that changed history.

The Greeks and Romans with their gods changed the course of history too but that doesn't make them any more real. And assuming you don't believe in Zeus or Jupiter and their colleagues, then with regard to those gods, you do indeed "get" atheism. Everyone, even religious people knows of gods that they don't believe in. My don't-believe-in list just has one more god on it than yours.

Also, my experience of atheists is that they tend to place a higher value on reasoned argument than on mere claims, however confidently made and that's true of this atheist too. With this in mind, your paragraph contains one example of the appeal to authority fallacy (citing the Pope) , two examples of the appeal to popular opinion fallacy (references to the number of Christians) , one irrelevancy (the impact of Christianity) and one, er...slogan ("nothing comes close to Jesus Christ").

If you're interested in "getting atheism", then try reading your own paragraph back to yourself but substituting "God" with "Jupiter", "Jesus Christ" with "Apollo" and "the Pope" with "the Pontifex Maximus", and the impact of christianity with the impact of Rome, and then ask yourself just why you're not convinced by it.

pearcider

Fourier wrote: »

pearcider,

Although you are correct that at a certain level the world stops being materialistic, mechanical and mathematical you're going overboard and claiming what is true in the absence of those features.

Just because mechanical materialism is false doesn't mean idealism or religious views are true.
Just because the world stops behaving mathematically at a certain scale doesn't mean the mathematical laws we know apply in many cases are "invented".

As for what mathematics is, whether it's invented or discovered and related issues were explored at the start of the 20th century in the so called "Crisis in the Foundations of Mathematics". Unfortunately no clear answer has ever emerged as there is strong evidence against every current position.

Look out at the beauty of the new moon tonight and tell me it’s all meaningless and the feeling you get is simply the result of “neuronal spike trains“. Science basically gives no answers to the real questions but the atheists in here dismiss religion as if science has it all figured out. In fact all we’ve got are more questions. On the most basic questions, science is a dead end.

pearcider

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You can't seriously expect what the Pope accepts to carry any weight in this forum?

I could argue that Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb accepts that Muhammad was the last prophet as chosen by God, he lived in the 6th century, an event that changed the course of human history and still echos down through the ages from the creations of mathematics to astounding architecture like the Alhambra and the Taj Mahal. The Quran has sold over 800m copies in Arabic etc etc etc
But it doesn't matter what either the Pope or Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb accept - especially when their personal power derives from getting other people to go along with what they 'accept'.

Of course the leader of a religion accepts the basis upon which that religion claims it's legitimacy (at least publically) but that is not proof that the basis is legitimate.

Why do you accept what the Pope accepts but not what Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb accepts?

I accept neither.

And there are devout Christians who would also accept neither. And devout Muslims who would accept neither.

Comparing Jesus to Mohammed shows how wilfully myopic you are as I can only presume nobody is that ignorant of history too.

pearcider

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And it is an empty point really. It is known as the appeal to ignorance fallacy. The whole "You can not explain it, therefore this explanation I made up is credible solely because it is the only explanation on offer".

It is a weird but common notion, especially among theists, that credibility is attained merely by OFFERING an explanation, even if that explanation is wholly and entirely unsubstantiated in any way.

Again: We appear to be in a Universe.
Again: We do not know how this came to be and are working to find out.
Again: Nothing we have found so far suggests the explanation, whatever it turns out to be, lies in an intentional intelligent agent. Or "god" if you will.



You might want to take that one up with an actual mathematician because I have never once heard a mathematician claim we invented those laws. They claim we discovered them. Mathematics appears to me, the layman, to be nothing more than a language we use to describe what we observe about the universe.



And now you are right back to telling me what I/we think even though A) That is not what I think and I told you what I think above and you have ignored that in favour of going back to inventing what I think on my behalf.

But keep believing in the stuff you just make up, if it makes you feel better.

I haven’t made it up. The Bible is there. But you keep believing your own meaningless philosophy. I’m sure that will serve you well on your death bed.

pearcider

storker wrote: »

For this atheist, one reason for lack of belief in any god is lack of evidence, the other main reason being too many things that just don't make sense. In this light, what the Pope or anyone else or how many of them do or don't believe something is irrelevant. That the rise of christianity has had a big impact on world history is true, but that also does nothing to prove whether its central tenets are true. For atheists all it means is that a lot of people believed something, and that changed history.

The Greeks and Romans with their gods changed the course of history too but that doesn't make them any more real. And assuming you don't believe in Zeus or Jupiter and their colleagues, then with regard to those gods, you do indeed "get" atheism. Everyone, even religious people knows of gods that they don't believe in. My don't-believe-in list just has one more god on it than yours.

Also, my experience of atheists is that they tend to place a higher value on reasoned argument than on mere claims, however confidently made and that's true of this atheist too. With this in mind, your paragraph contains one example of the appeal to authority fallacy (citing the Pope) , two examples of the appeal to popular opinion fallacy (references to the number of Christians) , one irrelevancy (the impact of Christianity) and one, er...slogan ("nothing comes close to Jesus Christ").

If you're interested in "getting atheism", then try reading your own paragraph back to yourself but substituting "God" with "Jupiter", "Jesus Christ" with "Apollo" and "the Pope" with "the Pontifex Maximus", and the impact of christianity with the impact of Rome, and then ask yourself just why you're not convinced by it.

I love how atheists dismiss life, the universe and their own existence for a lack of evidence. As if it all just came out of nothing for no reason. Truly a mind bending position.

Bannasidhe

pearcider wrote: »

Comparing Jesus to Mohammed shows how wilfully myopic you are as I can only presume nobody is that ignorant of history too.

And yet you have utterly failed to answer why we should accept what the Pope accepts - even though millions of Christians do not - but not accept what Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb accepts even though millions of Muslims do.
And they all claim to worship the same God.

It's a puzzler.

Bannasidhe

pearcider wrote: »

I love how atheists dismiss life, the universe and their own existence for a lack of evidence. As if it all just came out of nothing for no reason. Truly a mind bending position.

Mod

pearcider. You have been warned several times that this forum expects discussion. Despite this you have persisted in telling posters what they think and generally soapboxing, frequently in an uncivil manner. You have obviously either not bothered to read the charter as you were requested to do, or you have decided to ignore it.
You have now given me no option but to sanction you. As you already received a yellow card it will be a red this time.
If you wish to discuss this take it to PM.

Yellow_Fern

storker wrote: »

For this atheist, one reason for lack of belief in any god is lack of evidence, the other main reason being too many things that just don't make sense. In this light, what the Pope or anyone else or how many of them do or don't believe something is irrelevant. That the rise of christianity has had a big impact on world history is true, but that also does nothing to prove whether its central tenets are true. For atheists all it means is that a lot of people believed something, and that changed history.

The Greeks and Romans with their gods changed the course of history too but that doesn't make them any more real. And assuming you don't believe in Zeus or Jupiter and their colleagues, then with regard to those gods, you do indeed "get" atheism. Everyone, even religious people knows of gods that they don't believe in. My don't-believe-in list just has one more god on it than yours.

Also, my experience of atheists is that they tend to place a higher value on reasoned argument than on mere claims, however confidently made and that's true of this atheist too. With this in mind, your paragraph contains one example of the appeal to authority fallacy (citing the Pope) , two examples of the appeal to popular opinion fallacy (references to the number of Christians) , one irrelevancy (the impact of Christianity) and one, er...slogan ("nothing comes close to Jesus Christ").

If you're interested in "getting atheism", then try reading your own paragraph back to yourself but substituting "God" with "Jupiter", "Jesus Christ" with "Apollo" and "the Pope" with "the Pontifex Maximus", and the impact of christianity with the impact of Rome, and then ask yourself just why you're not convinced by it.

It is interesting that you use Roman beliefs about the deities of Juniper and Apollo as evidence, while repeating many errors about the same deities.

storker

pearcider wrote: »

I love how atheists dismiss life, the universe and their own existence for a lack of evidence. As if it all just came out of nothing for no reason. Truly a mind bending position.

I suppose you imagine that this and previous comments prove some sort of mental superiority on your part. I'm afraid it's having quite the opposite effect. This atheist doesn't dismiss life, the universe or my own existence, I just don't accept one particular explanation for how they came about, because that explanation is based on mythology and not anything observable or testable. I don't like not knowing how everything came to be, but I can accept the situation without needing to fill the gap with a supernatural confort blanket.

storker

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

It is interesting that you use Roman beliefs about the deities of Juniper and Apollo as evidence, while repeating many errors about the same deities.

Given that they don't exist any more the the christian god it's hard to see how any errors can matter, but I'm happy to admit I'm not an expert on mythology. Feel free to point out the many errors I made.

Yellow_Fern

Bannasidhe wrote: »

And yet you have utterly failed to answer why we should accept what the Pope accepts - even though millions of Christians do not - but not accept what Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb accepts even though millions of Muslims do.
And they all claim to worship the same God.

It's a puzzler.

They do worship the same God. That is logically verifiable. Unless you are speaking metaphorically?

Many reasons could be listed as to why Christianity is a more compelling faith, from the intelligibility it gives to human and natural history to the strong historical basis of the historicity of the life of Christ as described in the Bible.

Yellow_Fern

storker wrote: »

Given that they don't exist any more the the christian god it's hard to see how any errors can matter, but I'm happy to admit I'm not an expert on mythology. Feel free to point out the many errors I made.

Clever debating trick. Trying to remove the universality of monotheism by referring to the 'christian god'. Is that deliberate?

pearcider

storker wrote: »

I suppose you imagine that this and previous comments prove some sort of mental superiority on your part. I'm afraid it's having quite the opposite effect. This atheist doesn't dismiss life, the universe or my own existence, I just don't accept one particular explanation for how they came about, because that explanation is based on mythology and not anything observable or testable. I don't like not knowing how everything came to be, but I can accept the situation without needing to fill the gap with a supernatural confort blanket.

It’s just common sense that existence is basically a supernatural phenomenon since human observation doesn’t even scratch the surface of physical reality never mind any other truths. Our current scientific knowledge is like a boy looking at a beautiful shell on the beach whilst the great ocean of truth lay undiscovered before us.

If anything it’s atheists who are convinced they are mentally superior usually because they’ve read a few books by narcissistic personalities like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris. Never mind all the real scientists before them like Carl Gauss or Max Planck who took the existence of a divine creator to be self evident.

storker

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Clever debating trick. Trying to remove the universality of monotheism by referring to the 'christian god'. Is that deliberate?

No, it's irrelevant. Why would I need to resort to debating trickery when the evidence supports my position? My arguments apply equally to the Judaeo-Christian and Islamic gods and all other gods that don't exist. I'm quite happy to acknowledge the universality of monotheism because tt makes no difference; the monotheistic god is as universally non-existent as it is specifically non-existent.

Bannasidhe

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

They do worship the same God. That is logically verifiable. Unless you are speaking metaphorically?

Many reasons could be listed as to why Christianity is a more compelling faith, from the intelligibility it gives to human and natural history to the strong historical basis of the historicity of the life of Christ as described in the Bible.

I am speaking as they both worship the god of Abraham - as do Jews.

And the Bible is not a primary source for the life of Jesus. It is, at best, a secondary source. One which contains many contradictions.
It is a historical document only in that it is very old. There is zero historical proof that Jesus existed.
This was comprehensively dealt with recently in another thread do I will save time and link you to the post https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113539059&postcount=435

Bannasidhe

pearcider wrote: »

If anything it’s atheists who are convinced they are mentally superior usually because they’ve read a few books by narcissistic personalities like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris. Never mind all the real scientists before them like Carl Gauss or Max Planck who took the existence of a divine creator to be self evident.

MOD
pearcider is taking a short holiday from this forum to enable him/her to read the Charter and consider what is meant by the following:

2. Respect the right of people to hold religious or irreligious beliefs which are different from yours. Forum moderators reserve the right to take action against posts or posters which they deem to be offensive or intended to inflame.

3. While posting of controversial questions to stimulate debate is acceptable, soap boxing, i.e constant repetition of a single viewpoint while refusing to entertain discussion on it, is both disruptive and annoying, and will not be tolerated. You are expected to contribute something other than placard proclamations.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054860288

I trust that should pearcider return s/he will do so in the spirit of open minded discussion where s/he will desist in telling others what they think and will instead listen and respond in a civil manner.

Do not discuss this in thread.

one world order

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am speaking as they both worship the god of Abraham - as do Jews.

And the Bible is not a primary source for the life of Jesus. It is, at best, a secondary source. One which contains many contradictions.
It is a historical document only in that it is very old. There is zero historical proof that Jesus existed.
This was comprehensively dealt with recently in another thread do I will save time and link you to the post https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=113539059&postcount=435

There is evidence outside the bible of Jesus existence and archeological discoveries back him up also. 11 of the 12 apostles suffered violent deaths, something a person would not do if he didn't believe Jesus was sent by God for mankind's salvation.

one world order

Richard Dawkins rules out the supernatural from any testing and deals only with the physical. He then presents his findings through mocking communication.

CramCycle

pearcider wrote: »

Comparing Jesus to Mohammed shows how wilfully myopic you are as I can only presume nobody is that ignorant of history too.

What a randomly unexplained statement, any chance you'd actually make a clarification rather than a statement.

pearcider wrote: »

I haven’t made it up. The Bible is there. But you keep believing your own meaningless philosophy. I’m sure that will serve you well on your death bed.

Lord of the Rings is there too, in fact I think I would enjoy the tales of people wondering on a great quest in my final hours, its a lovely book (set of).

pearcider wrote: »

It’s just common sense that existence is basically a supernatural phenomenon since human observation doesn’t even scratch the surface of physical reality never mind any other truths. Our current scientific knowledge is like a boy looking at a beautiful shell on the beach whilst the great ocean of truth lay undiscovered before us.

And there is the crux of it, you can either take the unexplained as supernatural or you can take it as unexplained. I choose the latter.

If anything it’s atheists who are convinced they are mentally superior usually because they’ve read a few books by narcissistic personalities like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris. Never mind all the real scientists before them like Carl Gauss or Max Planck who took the existence of a divine creator to be self evident.

I had to google Sam Harris. Dawkins, IMO, is a prat of the highest order with no ability to adapt his narrow knowledge set to society. Carl Gauss was a great mathematician, as was Planck but to insinuate their religious beliefs gives weight to theism is ludicrous. Gauss lived in a time where not following the norm was a dangerous thing but is well reputed to have not liked anyone who gave out about anothers belief, even if it differed from his own. Planck was well known to believe that miracles and the like did not exist, but were simply unexplainable at the time and eventually,they would be. Rumours that he turned to God as he came close to the end of his life are woefully misrepresented, in that he accepted the possibility but he certainly didn't subscribe to any one true god mythology.