Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Atheist Penelope
Saints:
--- Quote from: Surgoshan on 21 Dec 2008, 06:05 ---
--- Quote from: Saints ---It actually boils down to the spiritual being, well, spiritual.
--- End quote ---
*cough*
--- Quote from: Surgoshan ---The only remaining argument is that ... the supernatural is still, somehow, ineffably different. Why? Because.
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
Lawl, keep ignoring the question. It'll go away eventually I assume.
Saints:
--- Quote from: Dotes on 21 Dec 2008, 16:47 ---
--- Quote ---What makes you think people didn't reject the idea of god meddling in our fairs on an "hourly basis" 1000 years ago? And no...the idea that there might be a god isn't a scientific hypothesis. Science is the study of the physical world. It has little to do with something based entirely outside of the physical. Perhaps that's the reason many don't feel a need to find physical evidence of a higher power?
--- End quote ---
Please describe to me this world outside the physical.
--- End quote ---
So you want me to do something that is theoretically impossible since, being merely a human, the only way I perceive things is through the physical world?
The best I can do is to explain that if something does exist outside our ideas of things like time and space, then it's reasonable to assume that it would have other properties that we don't understand.
--- Quote from: jtheory on 21 Dec 2008, 16:33 ---
--- Quote from: Saints on 21 Dec 2008, 02:15 ---What makes you think people didn't reject the idea of god meddling in our affairs on an "hourly basis" 1000 years ago? And no...the idea that there might be a god isn't a scientific hypothesis. Science is the study of the physical world. It has little to do with something based entirely outside of the physical. Perhaps that's the reason many don't feel a need to find physical evidence of a higher power?
--- End quote ---
This has been said already, but the God that most people perform rituals to worship, pray to, curse and fear, is very obviously interventionist, or all of these actions would have no point. Anyone who says "please God, let me pass this test" believes that God intervenes, that God is actively listening to the plea, and that God might *change* his mind after listening to human prayer and thoughtfully considering, however much that contradicts the "omniscient" concept. (Variation: God had already decided, but he also already knew in advance whether you would pray or not).
I think it's important to focus these kinds of discussion on what actual people believe (you should discuss primarily what you personally believe to be true, for example, since that's what you've found most convincing -- and argue against what other profess directly, since that's what they can defend), because gesturing to "theologians" or "some people" gets murky very quickly (particularly when those people's definition of "God" varies hugely from the actual meaning under discussion).
--- End quote ---
There are many ideas about the judeo-christian god. Many that contend that he doesn't intervene nearly as often some believe. And that example doesn't contradict omniscience. Omniscience simply means that something is all-knowing.
And I'm not appealing to the beliefs of "theologians" or "some people". I'm appealing to the beliefs of a very large amount of people.
jtheory:
--- Quote from: Saints on 21 Dec 2008, 23:12 ---So you want me to do something that is theoretically impossible since, being merely a human, the only way I perceive things is through the physical world?
The best I can do is to explain that if something does exist outside our ideas of things like time and space, then it's reasonable to assume that it would have other properties that we don't understand.
--- End quote ---
I think you are just a hairsbreadth away from answering his question. As you say, we live in the physical world and that's the only way we perceive things. If something *does* exist outside of that physical world, such that we would not have any way to sense or describe it... well, that's that. We all agree, there may be amazing & strange things out there which we have no way to detect (yet, or possibly ever). Where we *disagree* is the step where you point to some version of the supernatural deity described in human religious texts and say that *this* is one of those things we cannot detect or sense in any way... but nevertheless you know it is there. Do you see why we want to know *why* you say it's there and *how* you know that? Human beings a few thousand years ago didn't have better methods of observing the physical world than we do now (obviously). Why argue that they had access to this inaccessible thing when we do not?
--- Quote from: Saints on 21 Dec 2008, 23:12 ---
--- Quote from: jtheory on 21 Dec 2008, 16:33 ---I think it's important to focus these kinds of discussion on what actual people believe (you should discuss primarily what you personally believe to be true, for example, since that's what you've found most convincing -- and argue against what other profess directly, since that's what they can defend), because gesturing to "theologians" or "some people" gets murky very quickly (particularly when those people's definition of "God" varies hugely from the actual meaning under discussion).
--- End quote ---
There are many ideas about the judeo-christian god. Many that contend that he doesn't intervene nearly as often some believe. [...] And I'm not appealing to the beliefs of "theologians" or "some people". I'm appealing to the beliefs of a very large amount of people.
--- End quote ---
I'll rephrase: put the best arguments forward. Here you talk about "many" vs. "some" and then "large amounts of people". If those "some" believe something that you feel is wrong for other reasons, it's not honest argument to use their beliefs to make your points. You know these different beliefs, and you've personally chosen the most convincing. Argue that. I'm just arguing my own viewpoint, not "what atheists believe" -- I can't argue against your personal viewpoint, though, because you haven't given it. It's a lot better to discuss with actual people, rather than debating what *other* people, not currently present, believe.
--- Quote from: Saints on 21 Dec 2008, 23:12 ---And that example doesn't contradict omniscience. Omniscience simply means that something is all-knowing.
--- End quote ---
Not worth a big tangent on a little point, but: if you are omniscient and you change your mind about something, you either:
* were wrong or unfair in your first decision, or
* got new information (so you weren't omniscient before)
So no, it doesn't contradict omniscience if you permit that God gets confused or angry & makes mistakes sometimes.
zmeiat_joro:
--- Quote from: Alex C on 17 Dec 2008, 15:16 ---Jens, he's saying they're not really living up to the label of Orthodox Christians, which is true.
--- End quote ---
I'm an Orthodox Christian and I'm also igtheist.
Jackie Blue:
Judeo-Christians who claim to *know* there is a God are missing the point entirely; doubt is a fundamental part of all forms of that branch of religion, which is why faith is inherent to the discussion. People who say "I *know* there is a God" are just as bad as those that say "I *know* there is not a God".
I have personally never met a Christian who actually thinks about their religion that says "I *know* there is a God"; in fact, even the most mainstream sermons in such churches are constantly asking "Do you BELIEVE in the Word?" or "Do you BELIEVE in God's love?"
Now, granted, sometimes people will say "I *know* that God loves me" but that is a subset of the fact that they only *believe* in His actual existence.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version