Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Farmer Geddon

I am not an Idiot:

Kate Smurthwaite tells it as it is.


Link


Quote:
If a judge convicted someone without evidence to their guilt because he had a deep personal conviction that they were guilty, that judge would uncontroversially be described as an idiot.

If a carpenter started cutting timber without measuring because he had a deep personal conviction that he had selected the right place to cut, that carpenter would uncontroversially be described as an idiot.

If a driver reversed into traffic without looking because he had a deep personal conviction that the road was clear, that driver would uncontroversially be described as an idiot.

And so on. Everyone here could make up their own examples. There are potentially an infinite number of them. Because there is only one area of "knowledge" where faith trumps evidence. Only one area where failure to check your opinions against reality is regarded as a virtue. Religion.


"It is wrong in all cases to believe on insufficient evidence; and where it is presumption to doubt and to investigate, there it is worse than presumption to believe."
-W.K. Clifford



Shrub Dweller

The question arises, why do people believe such things, things which run against the evidence or common sense ? Where have they got this from ?

One thing is true here, is that, they are starting with the conclusion and presupposition and then fitting the argument, evidence (?) and preconditions to suit their desired outcome. This surprizingly is a very common process in mankind (mainly unconscious) and which further begs the question, what evolutionary advantage does it impart on such a being as man ?
Boss Cat

Well there is a book about this, actually, whose title and author I've forgotten I nearly got it out of the library the other day but had too many already.  

Is faith is the new kid on the block, in human evolution (or animal come to that) or is it a dying remnant from earlier stages?  I gather that people with religious faith tend to have more kids, they're more successful in evolutionary terms, in this country at least.  Seeing as he is the topic of another thread Dawkins springs to mind; having two wives and one kid is not a massive evolutionary success is it, really.  But for all I know he might have kids all over the place.

I dunno, my friend says he's ugly, but I think he's hansome, especially for a bloke his age.  I quite fancy him myself, but at my age anything's not too bad.  Shame about his naff squeaky voice though.

I suppose in terms of evolutionary success bacteria have got us all beaten.  No faith, no reason, no science, no curiosity but they do all right.

Incidentally, according to the sole criterion references in the clip I'm an idiot.  Does she mean technically or was this vulgar abuse?
cymrudynnion

Re: I am not an Idiot:

Farmer Geddon wrote:
Kate Smurthwaite tells it as it is.


Link


Quote:
If a judge convicted someone without evidence to their guilt because he had a deep personal conviction that they were guilty, that judge would uncontroversially be described as an idiot.

If a carpenter started cutting timber without measuring because he had a deep personal conviction that he had selected the right place to cut, that carpenter would uncontroversially be described as an idiot.

If a driver reversed into traffic without looking because he had a deep personal conviction that the road was clear, that driver would uncontroversially be described as an idiot.

And so on. Everyone here could make up their own examples. There are potentially an infinite number of them. Because there is only one area of "knowledge" where faith trumps evidence. Only one area where failure to check your opinions against reality is regarded as a virtue. Religion.


"It is wrong in all cases to believe on insufficient evidence; and where it is presumption to doubt and to investigate, there it is worse than presumption to believe."
-W.K. Clifford



There is a chef I think in London he holds multiple Michelin stars in his kitchen he has no scales to weigh ingredients and no timers or clocks to guage the cooking. All done by by deep personal conviction and he gets it right every time. Check out Masterchef if you don't believe me
Farmer Geddon

I will do - once you give us a clue who this Chef is...

Actually ignore the rhetoric - what is this Chefs' name?
Pukon_the_Treen

Quote:
All done by by deep personal conviction and he gets it right every time.


It's probably experience, training and knowledge rather than a deep personal conviction.
Farmer Geddon

Well I was going for the; to be impressed if this miracle Chef, who has multiple Michelin stars, was in the only cook in the kitchen Pu.

Boss Cat

Experience eh?
Boss Cat

Incidentally, what kind of jurisdiction does Clifford live under?  I didn't know that  judges found anyone guilty or convicted anyone as such.  I thought they made decisions on points of law and sentenced when the jury had decided on guilt.  And I thought sentencing was according to existing legal guidelines, not personal gut feeling.
Shrub Dweller

Boss Cat wrote:

Incidentally, according to the sole criterion references in the clip I'm an idiot.
 You take something to be true and a fact without any proof ?

Quote:
Does she mean technically or was this vulgar abuse?

I would think both.
Shrub Dweller

Re: I am not an Idiot:

cymrudynnion wrote:
There is a chef I think in London he holds multiple Michelin stars in his kitchen he has no scales to weigh ingredients and no timers or clocks to guage the cooking. All done by by deep personal conviction and he gets it right every time. Check out Masterchef if you don't believe me


What's your point with regards to the clip ?

To your comment, so what ?
Shrub Dweller

Boss Cat wrote:
Experience eh?


Yes, experience. How do you think an artist paints a picture ? ....... Faith !  
Synonym

Re: I am not an Idiot:

Quote:
If a judge convicted someone without evidence to their guilt because he had a deep personal conviction that they were guilty, that judge would uncontroversially be described as an idiot.

If a carpenter started cutting timber without measuring because he had a deep personal conviction that he had selected the right place to cut, that carpenter would uncontroversially be described as an idiot.

If a driver reversed into traffic without looking because he had a deep personal conviction that the road was clear, that driver would uncontroversially be described as an idiot.

And so on. Everyone here could make up their own examples. There are potentially an infinite number of them. Because there is only one area of "knowledge" where faith trumps evidence. Only one area where failure to check your opinions against reality is regarded as a virtue. Religion.
Faith in a God isn't really analogous to those other situations. In those other situations we have past experience of what happens when people reverse without looking etc. It can be demonstrated that risks are being taken in these situations.

However the existence of a God has never been falsified and so it is not like doing something for which we have experience that driving without looking etc can lead to crashes.
Boss Cat

Oh gosh Shrub Dweller where to start?

No I don't take something to be true and a fact without proof.  I do however have beliefs and recognise them as beliefs; that is what, according the the woman on the link that makes me an idiot.

She used a very narrow definition to encapsulate what having faith is - on what authority I wonder?  Her own?  She's wrong.  There are many definitions of faith and even her interpretation of her choice was narrow. What about trust, what about fiducia?

So you, Shrub, think she was being literal when she used that as a definition of idiot and indulging in vulgar abuse at the same time?  Well, I don't think a serious debate is the place for vulgar abuse and she should really be able to make her point without it.  It's great in its place, vulgar abuse; that wasn't the place.  And if she meant this literally, well her definition is simply wrong.   I thought the word idiot refers to a specific retardation, having a very low mental age; perhaps someone here can be specific?  I might be wrong of course, but that's what I believe the word to mean.  Believe, there's that word again.  There's a lot of it about, eh?  At least I recognise a belief

Her definition of idiot was quite specific, wasn't it, doing something she does not do but that many others do do - she could come across as arrogant as well as narrow!

As for the quotation posted by Farmer, oh what rubbish!  I'm sure he and you can see through it really, and he's just been silly and provocative.  Apart from the fact that Clifford does not seem to understand what judges actually do - we've been into that - he seems to find it hard to understand some fundamental things about why they do what they do.   That ain't based on evidence or verifiable facts.  It's based on justice, on values and, well, beliefs; there they are again.  Murder is wrong: it might be frightening, it might make us all feel less safe but the reason it is a crime is because it is wrong.  It is wrong, that's a FACT, even if has never been or can never be proven or falsified.
cymrudynnion

Farmer Geddon wrote:
I will do - once you give us a clue who this Chef is...

Actually ignore the rhetoric - what is this Chefs' name?
Farmer, apologies have only just seen your response. The chef in question is alexis Gauthier and he is Head Chef of Michelin 3 star restaurant Gauthiers in London.
cymrudynnion

Re: I am not an Idiot:

Shrub Dweller wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
There is a chef I think in London he holds multiple Michelin stars in his kitchen he has no scales to weigh ingredients and no timers or clocks to guage the cooking. All done by by deep personal conviction and he gets it right every time. Check out Masterchef if you don't believe me


What's your point with regards to the clip ?

To your comment, so what ?
Shrub on each of the examples you gave you used the pfrase "deep personal conviction" followed by a comment they would be wrong to follow such a conviction. i am pointing out to you there is a 3 star Michelin Chef in London who I have named in response to faermer's post who does not use scales or timers relying on his deep personal convixtion.
genghiscant

I can saw a piece of wood perfectly square every time without using a pencil or tri-square. It's not about conviction, it's experience. It's because I've done it thousands of times.
Boss Cat

yes I must admit I did think the bit Farmer put in to back up Smurthwaite was flawed on many levels and the fact that hunches can be based on sound experience was one of them.  As you get used to doing things you can take short cuts.

The only reason I questioned the introduction of experience here was that atheists - well some of them - tend to discount experience.  I mean people might cite their experiences as reason for their faith and that is not allowed.

I use experience to justify my beliefs slightly differently.  Nothing otherworldly but it just works for me.
Shrub Dweller

[quote="Boss Cat:60055"]

Quote:
No I don't take something to be true and a fact without proof.  I do however have beliefs and recognise them as beliefs; that is what, according the the woman on the link that makes me an idiot.

Boss Cat

That is the definition of belief ; taking something to be true without any proof. And if you act and base your life on those beliefs then you are technically an idiot.

Quote:
She used a very narrow definition to encapsulate what having faith is - on what authority I wonder?  Her own?  She's wrong.  There are many definitions of faith and even her interpretation of her choice was narrow. What about trust, what about fiducia?

The definition of belief covers all forms of belief and faith. Faith in another person has to be based on fact and experience. That is how friendships grow because one has seen that this person acts in a predictable way which one likes and therefore trusts. It is when they don't act in a expected way that trust and faith dies.

Quote:
So you, Shrub, think she was being literal when she used that as a definition of idiot and indulging in vulgar abuse at the same time?  Well, I don't think a serious debate is the place for vulgar abuse and she should really be able to make her point without it.  It's great in its place, vulgar abuse; that wasn't the place.  And if she meant this literally, well her definition is simply wrong.

If all fails punch your point home strongly and when you are dealing with blind fools then a strong punch is required to open their eyes, hopfully.

As for your last 2 points you are wrong. It seemed to be the place and the right definition. What that guy said was absolute nuts. 


Quote:
I thought the word idiot refers to a specific retardation, having a very low mental age; perhaps someone here can be specific?  I might be wrong of course, but that's what I believe the word to mean.  Believe, there's that word again.  There's a lot of it about, eh?  At least I recognise a belief

The original definition, if I remember correctly, comes from Greek philosophy, so try looking it up.


Quote:
As for the quotation posted by Farmer, oh what rubbish!  I'm sure he and you can see through it really, and he's just been silly and provocative.  Apart from the fact that Clifford does not seem to understand what judges actually do - we've been into that - he seems to find it hard to understand some fundamental things about why they do what they do.   That ain't based on evidence or verifiable facts.  It's based on justice, on values and, well, beliefs; there they are again.  Murder is wrong: it might be frightening, it might make us all feel less safe but the reason it is a crime is because it is wrong.  It is wrong, that's a FACT, even if has never been or can never be proven or falsified.

Judges apply the law. They don't have a free hand to do anything they want, and can be overturned in appeal courts. Laws, by definition can not cover every minutae point and judges are there to apply the prevailing ethos of the society they are in, by being wise and using their common sense. However, today this seems to be a lost art, mainly because Labour brought in so many over blown and confusing laws.
Shrub Dweller

Re: I am not an Idiot:

Synonym wrote:
Quote:
If a judge convicted someone without evidence to their guilt because he had a deep personal conviction that they were guilty, that judge would uncontroversially be described as an idiot.

If a carpenter started cutting timber without measuring because he had a deep personal conviction that he had selected the right place to cut, that carpenter would uncontroversially be described as an idiot.

If a driver reversed into traffic without looking because he had a deep personal conviction that the road was clear, that driver would uncontroversially be described as an idiot.

And so on. Everyone here could make up their own examples. There are potentially an infinite number of them. Because there is only one area of "knowledge" where faith trumps evidence. Only one area where failure to check your opinions against reality is regarded as a virtue. Religion.
Faith in a God isn't really analogous to those other situations. In those other situations we have past experience of what happens when people reverse without looking etc. It can be demonstrated that risks are being taken in these situations.

However the existence of a God has never been falsified and so it is not like doing something for which we have experience that driving without looking etc can lead to crashes.

Not sure what you actually mean here. Which side of the camp you are cheering for ? How can you falsify a negative ? How can you have experience of something that doesn't exist ?
Shrub Dweller

Re: I am not an Idiot:

cymrudynnion wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
There is a chef I think in London he holds multiple Michelin stars in his kitchen he has no scales to weigh ingredients and no timers or clocks to guage the cooking. All done by by deep personal conviction and he gets it right every time. Check out Masterchef if you don't believe me


What's your point with regards to the clip ?

To your comment, so what ?
Shrub on each of the examples you gave you used the pfrase "deep personal conviction" followed by a comment they would be wrong to follow such a conviction. i am pointing out to you there is a 3 star Michelin Chef in London who I have named in response to faermer's post who does not use scales or timers relying on his deep personal convixtion.

And you have been told that it is due to personal experience. Like riding a bike, one gets to the point where one does not have to think about it it  becomes second nature as developed through that personal experience. It does not happen like magic or some god waves a wand and hey presto !!!!
Shrub Dweller

genghiscant wrote:
I can saw a piece of wood perfectly square every time without using a pencil or tri-square. It's not about conviction, it's experience. It's because I've done it thousands of times.

Have you actually made anything or do you just cut up wood ?
genghiscant

Quote:
Have you actually made anything or do you just cut up wood ?


I build roofs, floors, hang doors etc. That kind of thing.
Boss Cat

Completely disagree with you Shrub for the reasons outlined above - it would be boring for me to type them again or for you have to read them.  Absolutely foxed as to the purpose of the last bit you put about judges; not because I disagree, even about the sheer volume of legislation that is still being churned out.  It's just that, well, I kind of said that and I wonder why you tell me that and not the ignorant Clifford.

As for idiot, I thought it was to do with private citizens in ancient Greece and came to have a literal meaning to do with being mental retardation and a more vulgar use.  Isn't that true?   You think this was the place for it I don't but I thought it just seemed a bit of crass behaviour to me, but to you it seemed like some sort of devastating knock out blow - punch I think you said.  Perhaps you live in a more genteel world than mine!

Completely disagree about belief and faith but there you are.  I won't persuade you and your assumptions don't come anywhere near my experience of belief.  

Like Clifford, like everyone actually, my ignorance is limitless and my knowledge vanishingly small.  The difference is I know it.
cymrudynnion

Re: I am not an Idiot:

Shrub Dweller wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
There is a chef I think in London he holds multiple Michelin stars in his kitchen he has no scales to weigh ingredients and no timers or clocks to guage the cooking. All done by by deep personal conviction and he gets it right every time. Check out Masterchef if you don't believe me


What's your point with regards to the clip ?

To your comment, so what ?
Shrub on each of the examples you gave you used the pfrase "deep personal conviction" followed by a comment they would be wrong to follow such a conviction. i am pointing out to you there is a 3 star Michelin Chef in London who I have named in response to faermer's post who does not use scales or timers relying on his deep personal convixtion.

And you have been told that it is due to personal experience. Like riding a bike, one gets to the point where one does not have to think about it it  becomes second nature as developed through that personal experience. It does not happen like magic or some god waves a wand and hey presto !!!!
Second nature when compiling some of the most complicated dishes on the circuit knowing a Michelin Inspector could visit unannounced at any time? I disagree with you.
Synonym

Re: I am not an Idiot:

Shrub Dweller wrote:
Not sure what you actually mean here. Which side of the camp you are cheering for ? How can you falsify a negative ? How can you have experience of something that doesn't exist ?
The point I am making is that these other examples are not the analogues of faith in a God. Reversing without looking based on faith is not stupid because it is based on faith, but stupid because we know from experience that blindly reversing is a recipe for disaster. If however our experience of blind reversing was that the reverser always performed a safe manoeuvre and in addition some kid with cancer somewhere in the world gets cured, then we would not censure reversing without looking.

So the censuring of this kind of faith is based on experience of what happens when people carry out these actions of reversing without looking.

I do not see the analogue between this sort of thing and faith in a God. Where is the known equivalent of leaving behind a trail of dead and injured that is caused by the religious for being religious? Well, maybe when the person is an extremist, but the OP just talked about faith in God generically.

P.S. You can prove a negative just not directly. You need to prove a mutually exclusive positive.
cymrudynnion

Re: I am not an Idiot:

Synonym wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
Not sure what you actually mean here. Which side of the camp you are cheering for ? How can you falsify a negative ? How can you have experience of something that doesn't exist ?
The point I am making is that these other examples are not the analogues of faith in a God. Reversing without looking based on faith is not stupid because it is based on faith, but stupid because we know from experience that blindly reversing is a recipe for disaster. If however our experience of blind reversing was that the reverser always performed a safe manoeuvre and in addition some kid with cancer somewhere in the world gets cured, then we would not censure reversing without looking.

So the censuring of this kind of faith is based on experience of what happens when people carry out these actions of reversing without looking.

I do not see the analogue between this sort of thing and faith in a God. Where is the known equivalent of leaving behind a trail of dead and injured that is caused by the religious for being religious? Well, maybe when the person is an extremist, but the OP just talked about faith in God generically.

P.S. You can prove a negative just not directly. You need to prove a mutually exclusive positive.
Let me go back to my example, Fine Dining. Now this is something I don't experience at the highest level i.e. Central London or in places known to my favourite Chef, Michel Roux.
However how many of us can put together an acceptable meal if we do not weigh the ingredients and time the cooking of them? not many I would venture. Alexis does this everytime with help of his Faith
Shrub Dweller

Boss Cat wrote:
As for idiot, I thought it was to do with private citizens in ancient Greece and came to have a literal meaning to do with being mental retardation and a more vulgar use.  Isn't that true?

That is true that the hoi polloi use it in this vulgar form but the technical one is still used. 

Quote:
You think this was the place for it I don't but I thought it just seemed a bit of crass behaviour to me, but to you it seemed like some sort of devastating knock out blow - punch I think you said.  Perhaps you live in a more genteel world than mine!

It was a very correct assessment of the situation that is why I thought it was appropriate. It hit the nail on the head !

Quote:
Completely disagree about belief and faith but there you are.  I won't persuade you and your assumptions don't come anywhere near my experience of belief.
 
You don't know what my assumptions are or if I have any. What are these experiences you talk about ?

Quote:
Like Clifford, like everyone actually, my ignorance is limitless and my knowledge vanishingly small.  The difference is I know it.

I know my limitation and boundaries too.
Shrub Dweller

Re: I am not an Idiot:

cymrudynnion wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
There is a chef I think in London he holds multiple Michelin stars in his kitchen he has no scales to weigh ingredients and no timers or clocks to guage the cooking. All done by by deep personal conviction and he gets it right every time. Check out Masterchef if you don't believe me


What's your point with regards to the clip ?

To your comment, so what ?
Shrub on each of the examples you gave you used the pfrase "deep personal conviction" followed by a comment they would be wrong to follow such a conviction. i am pointing out to you there is a 3 star Michelin Chef in London who I have named in response to faermer's post who does not use scales or timers relying on his deep personal convixtion.

And you have been told that it is due to personal experience. Like riding a bike, one gets to the point where one does not have to think about it it  becomes second nature as developed through that personal experience. It does not happen like magic or some god waves a wand and hey presto !!!!
Second nature when compiling some of the most complicated dishes on the circuit knowing a Michelin Inspector could visit unannounced at any time? I disagree with you.

The human mind is an amazing thing. Just ponder on the ability of speech and how we form long unplanned dialogues that are pretty much grammatically perfect. Do we consciously think about every word and every sentence, putting all the right verbs and adjectives in place. No ! All we do is "feel" the kind of thing we want to say and it pretty much falls out. Observe yourself and see. That is how fast and how complex our brains are.

Compared to this preparing foods is a piece of cake  
Shrub Dweller

Re: I am not an Idiot:

Synonym wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
Not sure what you actually mean here. Which side of the camp you are cheering for ? How can you falsify a negative ? How can you have experience of something that doesn't exist ?
The point I am making is that these other examples are not the analogues of faith in a God. Reversing without looking based on faith is not stupid because it is based on faith, but stupid because we know from experience that blindly reversing is a recipe for disaster. If however our experience of blind reversing was that the reverser always performed a safe manoeuvre and in addition some kid with cancer somewhere in the world gets cured, then we would not censure reversing without looking.

So the censuring of this kind of faith is based on experience of what happens when people carry out these actions of reversing without looking.

I do not see the analogue between this sort of thing and faith in a God. Where is the known equivalent of leaving behind a trail of dead and injured that is caused by the religious for being religious? Well, maybe when the person is an extremist, but the OP just talked about faith in God generically.

I see what you are getting at but the reversing is not an issue of faith if evidence and facts are brought into it. It then becomes an issue of rational considerations of the likely outcomes of just reversing without looking. Considerations that can be shown to be true or have a probability factor attached to the event.

Where is the evidence and facts for God that can be presented for rational consideration ?

Quote:
P.S. You can prove a negative just not directly. You need to prove a mutually exclusive positive.

Could you provide an example of this, I don't really follow what is being said here.
Boss Cat

We all have beliefs and we all live by them.  I believe there is something else, that is nothing.  Others, you Shrub might be one of them, might believe that there is nothing outside of nature - time and space - and that there is a natural explanation for everything.  Some might be deterministic.  I believe that some things are good and that you should do them, whatever the personal - or wider - cost; others might believe that you should always do the thing that brings the greatest pleasure or immediate benefit.

It's all belief, I can't prove that mine are right, neither can you.  The onus of proof is on the one trying to persuade the other one.  I can live with your beliefs and don't want to change them - it you want me to change mine then bring on the evidence.

Oh, and I think people might have been stunned by stupidity or rudeness; it was not a knock out punch.  What a strange world you live in.  I'm not particularly bright but I am not technically an idiot.  But if you want to call me a name, feel free.  You wouldn't be the first, I doubt you'll be the last.
bnabernard

Here's faith, dont tell anybody just have faith they will find out.


bernard  
SceptiKarl

Boss Cat:

Quote:
I believe there is something else, that is nothing.


Err, you are aware that there is no such thing as "nothing". Even in the highest vacuum there are billions of virtual particles that spring in and out of "existence" every nano second? Check out the Casimir Effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect

Of course Boss Cat may be referring to a certain Jewish carpenter who managed to construct a whole universe at least 13.7 billion years old without the use of fig wood. I really don't know, he's so vague!
Boss Cat

That's why nothing is something else entirely.
SceptiKarl

Boss Cat:

Quote:
That's why nothing is something else entirely.



So your God is a virtual God who flits in and out of existence every few billionths of a second? A God whose total energy is equal to zero?

Well even I could believe in that God, - the one who has zero energy!

( Jesus will have to be very careful in the amount of energy He uses in sharpening His saw!)
Boss Cat

No I don't think so.  Can you explain why you think that?  Thanks.
SceptiKarl

Well Boss, you were the one who said:

Quote:
I believe there is something else, that is nothing.


I merely pointed out that even "nothing" is seething with virtual particles, and I pointed you to a well known phenomenum, the Casimir effect. At all times these virtual particles "obey" the observed laws of physics. Energy is borrowed and paid back continuously. If you extract energy from "nothing" the plates move, but as soon as you attempt to do anything useful with this energy it is repaid.

As a person who has more respect for the laws of physics than for religious claims about reality, I really can't accept that any God has an infinite amount of energy to do with as He wishes. Even the Bible has God resting on the 7th day! Why? Did He need to replenish His "infinite" energy field?

That's my take on "nothing", but please feel free to explain the "something else, that is nothing".

(Not too many long words mind!)
cymrudynnion

Re: I am not an Idiot:

Shrub Dweller wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
Shrub Dweller wrote:
cymrudynnion wrote:
There is a chef I think in London he holds multiple Michelin stars in his kitchen he has no scales to weigh ingredients and no timers or clocks to guage the cooking. All done by by deep personal conviction and he gets it right every time. Check out Masterchef if you don't believe me


What's your point with regards to the clip ?

To your comment, so what ?
Shrub on each of the examples you gave you used the pfrase "deep personal conviction" followed by a comment they would be wrong to follow such a conviction. i am pointing out to you there is a 3 star Michelin Chef in London who I have named in response to faermer's post who does not use scales or timers relying on his deep personal convixtion.

And you have been told that it is due to personal experience. Like riding a bike, one gets to the point where one does not have to think about it it  becomes second nature as developed through that personal experience. It does not happen like magic or some god waves a wand and hey presto !!!!
Second nature when compiling some of the most complicated dishes on the circuit knowing a Michelin Inspector could visit unannounced at any time? I disagree with you.

The human mind is an amazing thing. Just ponder on the ability of speech and how we form long unplanned dialogues that are pretty much grammatically perfect. Do we consciously think about every word and every sentence, putting all the right verbs and adjectives in place. No ! All we do is "feel" the kind of thing we want to say and it pretty much falls out. Observe yourself and see. That is how fast and how complex our brains are.

Compared to this preparing foods is a piece of cake  
You are obviously entitled to your opinion, other may disagree.
Boss Cat

Thanks for that, and to clarify my previous no that's not the God I believe in.  You say nothing does not exist in nature I think, is that right?  The Casimir effect might be well known - but not to me!  Which doesn't mean that I am doubting you at all, of course, just letting you know that I am pretty ignorant about physics.  But not relevant either.  You are talking about there being nature, the physical world, and nothing (that word again!) else, aren't you?  I mean that's what you believe, is that right?

As I said earlier, I believe there is something else, which by definition must be nothing, or no thing really.  It doesn't exist in nature.

If you want to prove to me that there is only the physical world and nothing else by all means do try, but I'm afraid if it involves understanding anything scientific beyond Amps times Volts equals Watts (Ivy Watts the electrician's girlfriend) I won't really follow it.  But I don't think this is about science, is it? It's about belief really, and that's quite different.
Leonard James

Morning Boss Cat,

I would be interested to know what it is that makes you believe there is something other than the physical world ... apart from emotional feelings, which are part of it.
Boss Cat

I believe in belief - even on the many occasions when I think this is all bilge isn't it? I believe in living life as though there is meaning, as though some things are good and some are evil, as if some things matter, as if there is justice (the real stuff, not the man made stuff, which is sometimes very good indeed,if I can use the word good to an atheist!) etc.

But sometimes I do believe it all; that seems to be my default position.  Why? Lots of things really.  Experience, not really my own (though I have had my moments), but other people's.  Linked to that I think the argument from numbers is not nearly as bogus as some say, in fact I think it bogus to dismiss it unthinkingly.

I can't rationalise a universe without God, to do that I'd have to do some double think (well it all has a natural explanation apart from the bit that doesn't quite fit when it all starts being ordered, but it all has a natural explanation) and I find that difficult to do with a straight face.  Then I can't rationalise why some things are good (and socially useful is something very different indeed - to me at least, I'm sure you think good = pro-social and don't have a problem with that: I do though) and some are evil and you and I both know it.

There is of course a strong emotional link too, I am made that way.  I like going into the silence and the dark and having a religion gives you more chance to do that.  Yes of course anyone can do that but most of us don't without some kind of group discipline; religion gives us that.

That just scratches the surface really, but that is a huge question you asked me and one that philosophers have filled tomes with without coming up with answers so I think you would expect much really, would you?  I'm sure I haven't convinced you, even my arguments were red hot- and they aren't, they aren't intended to be - I don't think you want to be convinced anyway; non belief can be as emotional as belief you know. Not necessarily a bad thing either.

But do you know, one of the things that I notice about these boards; there seems to be a far more deterministic attitude to science than there is generally.  Someone here a few weeks ago posted something along the lines of 'even Einstein has been proved wrong' and I thought WHAT?  Not how I understand it!  I mean Newtonian physics isn't wrong, is it?  I thought they still used it in bridge building!  As far as I know the researchers who are working on this want other scientists to help them find out more, to find out where and if they have gone wrong - they don't say 'we've proved Einstein wrong!'.

I don't know many scientists personally and those I do are not really cutting edge, though very clever and talented of course.  My scientific friends and acquaintances tend to be teachers and university lecturers or civil servants, some believers, some not.  But posters here often talk as though most things are known for certain and there are a few bits to fill in where desperate religios try to keep God and there won't be any room for God soon!  But my friends seem to look at science as a matter of marvelling at how little we do know and trying to discover islands of knowledge in the vast oceans of the unknown.

I know you have spent a lot of time putting together your theories of the universe without God; why do you believe them to be true?
genghiscant

In science there is no such thing as proof, only evidence.
Boss Cat

Yes.
genghiscant

Quote:
In science there is no such thing as proof, only evidence.


Quote:
Yes.


Although there is such a thing as overwhelming evidence.
SceptiKarl

Boss Cat:

Quote:
I can't rationalise a universe without God, .....


Whereas someone like me can't rationalise a universe WITH a God. Especially the Judeo/Christian God, and I include Allah. I mean, what the hell were they doing for 13.7 billion years? Playing cards with each other? Or just playing dice with the universe?

My life has plenty of "meaning" without resort to some fictional characters in other people's imagination.
Shaker

Boss Cat wrote:
I believe in living life as though there is meaning, as though some things are good and some are evil, as if some things matter, as if there is justice (the real stuff, not the man made stuff, which is sometimes very good indeed,if I can use the word good to an atheist!) etc.

Please tell me you're not seriously mounting the how-can-atheists-have-any-system-of-morality-without-God non-argument, pleeeeease.

Quote:
I think the argument from numbers is not nearly as bogus as some say, in fact I think it bogus to dismiss it unthinkingly.

It would be bogus to dismiss anything unthinkingly, though, wouldn't it? However, having thought about the argument from numbers I've realised that it's utter cack in every possible way that anything can be cack, as it says absolutely nothing, nothing, nothing about either what a god is supposed to be or evidence for the existence of the same. What do you find so impressive about it, about the sheer number of people who claim to believe in a given thing (and a pretty preposterous thing at that - though in saying so I may be getting ahead of the argument).
Leonard James

Boss Cat wrote:

I know you have spent a lot of time putting together your theories of the universe without God; why do you believe them to be true?

I didn't put together any theories at all ... I just came to the conclusion that the theory which included the Christian God was false. No loving, compassionate God could have started this universe ... the is too much cruelty and suffering in it that is not the fault of humans.

Furthermore, 'God' is quite unnecessary if you accept the fact that there are many things we don't know, and scientists are aware of that. The cause of the universe is one of them, and inventing supernatural forces to answer the question is no answer at all.
Boss Cat

Gosh.

First Genghis - are you suggesting that the overwhelming scientific evidence is that there is no God?  Well, you would probably know more than I do about science, I have to rely on authority on science.  For instance, I don't think that evolution is the best explanation for the development of life on earth because of any of my own research but because that's what I am told by people who have - and deserve - authority to do so.  But then, relying on authority I also notice that many eminent scientists, including in evolutionary biology, do not see a conflict at all between their religious belief and their science.  So if you think the evidence is overwhelming are you suggesting that you have seen things that say, Collins or Prance haven't?

Shaker - I am suggesting no such thing, the bit you highlight is a reference to how, in a secular public service words like 'good' are so clunkingly avoided.  That is my direct experience.  There was a touch of irony there - how far institutions that were originally Christian with a firm moral agenda have to go to distance themselves from any moral absolutism.   I am talking specifically of course about the Probation Service, it's the one I know about, but I am sure you find such things in education and social services, the wider criminal justice system etc etc (again originally founded, or reformed, on faith, Raikes, Barnardo, Howard).

In actual fact in my observation most people will have very similar moral values, partly to do with where and when they are living but also, I think to do with something deeper.  I have come across very few people who revel in evil even if they do some pretty disgusting things.  But I was only asked to explain my own position and that is that I cannot accommodate absolute moral values in anything but a theistic universe (though the nature of God is the next question here).  I don't expect everyone to share my difficulty here (though some do) and if you can rationalise it then tant mieux for you.  If you want to tell me why - and you might have a more original rationale than that normally put forward (social programming, genetics) - then please do.  I might not share it, but I would be interested to hear it (if it is original and fresh of course!).

As for the argument from numbers - well if you mean everyone thinks this so it must be true I am not saying that, that is very crude.  But if there are experiences that are pretty well common to humanity then I take them seriously.  I believed in loving relationships with partners long before I ever experienced one that was truly loving (and that wasn't until I was 40 despite one crap marriage) because I saw other people had them.  I do not share the passion for scientific discovery that others do, but I can believe it is something real and meaningful because people live by it.

So many people from so many cultures for so many millennia have tried to and still try to (including very sophisticated and clever people right now and in this culture) access the divine, something else; well I do not write that off.  Again no proof, not intended to be, but a brief explanation of why I often have a belief in something else or recognise that doing so is part of being human.  An atheist (Wilson) referred to the transcendent experience of being human - well, perhaps some feel that more deeply than I do. Feel free if you think that is cack - I think you would probably agree with the OP and think me an idiot anyway.  But if you want me to think like you then prove it - or at least give me some decent evidence.

Leonard, could you outline some of the evidence that led to your conclusion ?  The argument - and it is extraordinarily strong - that you put forward is emotional,  how horrible that things aren't things should be and it's not fair that it's not.   You might almost think there's such a thing as fairness, a way that love should behave!  It's a strong argument, the strongest perhaps, and an old one I think -Lucretius? not sure.  But in a way it works the other way with me; there is too much misery and suffering for there not be something else.  I'm not talking about afterlife here - how would I know? that's a distraction; but I am talking about this life having meaning.  

Two things; firstly if I believed there was no meaning I would have some difficulty, I think, in enjoying my own happiness while so many were suffering, a bit like I wonder how you could be happy in Heaven while so many were suffering eternal torments in Hell.  Secondly atheism seems strongest when things are good among people who are - well - comfortable (for me that is an emotional problem with atheism, it seems so smug; Dawkin's garden might be wonderful enough without fairies in it, others arent' so lucky).  If you only walk on the flat your leg muscles get flabby and weak.  If life is too easy then maybe your will atrophies, and maybe parts of you are undeveloped.  That's speculation though.

But then so is your bit that God is unnecessary when (because? not sure if you meant that) there are so many things we don't know.  I don't understand why thinking the cause of the universe was something outside of the natural order of things is 'no answer at all' (in fact I think Dawkins has suggested that Deism is a respectable position, hasn't he?). Surely we don't know nearly enough to know whether one thing is the answer and to dismiss another entirely?  That's belief surely?  Presumably you believe that everything has a natural explanation; why do you think that? I mean why come to that conclusion, if you prefer.  Unless you think 'there are lots of things we don't know so there can't be a God' is a good enough reason?  For you perhaps; that's fair enough.  But if you want to convince me - well, it doesn't.
genghiscant

Quote:
First Genghis - are you suggesting that the overwhelming scientific evidence is that there is no God?


No, I'm not suggesting any such thing. It's impossible to disprove the existence of something that only exists in some people's imaginations.

What provoked the post was that you said that you'd heard that "Einstein has been proved wrong". I just pointed out that in science there is no such thing as proof.
SceptiKarl

If Boss wants to play the numbers card, assuming he's a Christian, more people DON'T believe in the Christian God than do! About 2/3 of the world are NOT Christians. With the other religions the proportion gets higher.

Compared with believers atheists are currently a minority, but a sizeable one! And even that fact doesn't prove Christianity true!
Shrub Dweller

Boss Cat wrote:
It's all belief, I can't prove that mine are right, neither can you.  The onus of proof is on the one trying to persuade the other one.  I can live with your beliefs and don't want to change them - it you want me to change mine then bring on the evidence.

Except you haven't said what your beliefs are so I have no basis to even start.

Quote:
Oh, and I think people might have been stunned by stupidity or rudeness; it was not a knock out punch.  What a strange world you live in.

No, I maintain that it hit the nail on the head of the situation and the illogical position that that christain guy took.  

Quote:
I'm not particularly bright but I am not technically an idiot.  But if you want to call me a name, feel free.  You wouldn't be the first, I doubt you'll be the last.

I call you Boss Cat, is that OK ?
Shaker

Boss Cat wrote:
I was only asked to explain my own position and that is that I cannot accommodate absolute moral values in anything but a theistic universe (though the nature of God is the next question here).

Do absolute moral values exist and how do we know this? 

Quote:
in a way it works the other way with me; there is too much misery and suffering for there not be something else.  I'm not talking about afterlife here - how would I know? that's a distraction; but I am talking about this life having meaning.

Life certainly has meaning, if you decide to endow it with meaning: its meaning is whatever you decide it to be. This won't take away from the fact, and I do think it's a fact because I see absolutely no evidence to the contrary, that there's no such thing as any predetermined meaning of life (who would determine this?) and that existence is a blank slate which can be written upon (in terms of meaning and purpose, that is) however we will.

Quote:
atheism seems strongest when things are good among people who are - well - comfortable (for me that is an emotional problem with atheism, it seems so smug; Dawkin's garden might be wonderful enough without fairies in it, others arent' so lucky).  If you only walk on the flat your leg muscles get flabby and weak.  If life is too easy then maybe your will atrophies, and maybe parts of you are undeveloped.  That's speculation though.

It also doesn't provide any evidence that atheism isn't true and theism is. It's a purely emotional reaction.
Quote:
I don't understand why thinking the cause of the universe was something outside of the natural order of things is 'no answer at all'

Leaving aside the issue of whether the universe was even caused in the first place - which is a ball still very much up in the air - it's no answer at all because it says nothing at all. It doesn't make any kind of prediction or offer any kind of testable hypothesis whatsoever. You're entirely free to believe it of course, that goes without saying, but if you (a) assume that the universe was caused (and it is an assumption) and (b) place that cause outside of time and space, frankly you're in exactly the same sort of territory as positing that the universe was caused by a giant purple scampi called Simon. Facetious example of course but a serious point: one postulate in this field is exactly as good - or as bad- as any other.
Shrub Dweller

Leonard James wrote:
Boss Cat wrote:

I know you have spent a lot of time putting together your theories of the universe without God; why do you believe them to be true?

I didn't put together any theories at all ... I just came to the conclusion that the theory which included the Christian God was false. No loving, compassionate God could have started this universe ... the is too much cruelty and suffering in it that is not the fault of humans.

Furthermore, 'God' is quite unnecessary if you accept the fact that there are many things we don't know, and scientists are aware of that. The cause of the universe is one of them, and inventing supernatural forces to answer the question is no answer at all.

Lionman

Just suppose, many moons in the future, science managed to dot the i's and cross the t's and still found some little "grain" unaccounted for. What then ? Would some notion of God, or Life Force then become a real proposition ?
Leonard James

Hi BC,
Boss Cat wrote:

Leonard, could you outline some of the evidence that led to your conclusion ?

It's all around us. Everywhere you look you see half the living things on this earth having to hunt, kill and eat the other half in order to stay alive.

At first, I accepted what I was taught, that we cannot know the mind of God, that he knows what is best and has his reasons for everything. But as my ability to reason matured and grew stronger, I was no longer able to swallow that. I prayed to God to help me understand, but no help was forthcoming, and slowly my doubts overcame my faith.  
Quote:
The argument - and it is extraordinarily strong - that you put forward is emotional,  how horrible that things aren't things should be and it's not fair that it's not.   You might almost think there's such a thing as fairness, a way that love should behave!

There is, in my book ... try to avoid making anything suffer.  
Quote:
It's a strong argument, the strongest perhaps, and an old one I think -Lucretius? not sure.

I have no idea ... it's just the way I see it.  
Quote:
But in a way it works the other way with me; there is too much misery and suffering for there not be something else.  I'm not talking about afterlife here - how would I know? that's a distraction; but I am talking about this life having meaning.

That's an assumption which I see no reason for. Life, for me, is the result of abiogenesis and evolution, an electro-chemical chain of reactions.
Quote:
Two things; firstly if I believed there was no meaning I would have some difficulty, I think, in enjoying my own happiness while so many were suffering, a bit like I wonder how you could be happy in Heaven while so many were suffering eternal torments in Hell.

When you face up to it, and accept that that is how things are, it isn't difficult. You can then only live your life in the best way possible, and try to help those that are worse off than yourself. That is how I have lived my life, on the whole. 
Quote:
Secondly atheism seems strongest when things are good among people who are - well - comfortable (for me that is an emotional problem with atheism, it seems so smug; Dawkin's garden might be wonderful enough without fairies in it, others arent' so lucky).

And that is where human empathy comes in, and you do your best to right the injustice of nature. Most atheists I know do just that.  
Quote:
If you only walk on the flat your leg muscles get flabby and weak. If life is too easy then maybe your will atrophies, and maybe parts of you are undeveloped.  That's speculation though.

Some people are so short on empathy that they can't see their obligation to help others. Those are the ones who are best left with their belief if they can't be re-educated to consider others, otherwise things would get worse.

Quote:
But then so is your bit that God is unnecessary when (because? not sure if you meant that) there are so many things we don't know.

Yes, of course there are, and one of the biggest is 'what caused the universe'. To me, it is far more rational to look for a scientific, natural cause, because we know a few things about the natural world. By contrast we know of no evidence to suggest that anything supernatural exists.  
Quote:
I don't understand why thinking the cause of the universe was something outside of the natural order of things is 'no answer at all' (in fact I think Dawkins has suggested that Deism is a respectable position, hasn't he?).

I don't know what Dawkins thinks, my conclusions are my own
Quote:
Surely we don't know nearly enough to know whether one thing is the answer and to dismiss another entirely?  That's belief surely?  Presumably you believe that everything has a natural explanation; why do you think that? I mean why come to that conclusion, if you prefer.

I repeat ... we know the natural world exists and we know something about how it works. By contrast, our knowledge of the supernatural (if it exists) is zero, notwithstanding that many people believe in it. 
Quote:
Unless you think 'there are lots of things we don't know so there can't be a God' is a good enough reason?

No, if somebody comes up with some evidence for God, I shall immediately change my mind.
Quote:
 For you perhaps; that's fair enough.  But if you want to convince me - well, it doesn't.

Fair enough, we all have the right to come to different conclusions about the way things are.  
Leonard James

Hi SD,
Shrub Dweller wrote:

Lionman

Just suppose, many moons in the future, science managed to dot the i's and cross the t's and still found some little "grain" unaccounted for. What then ? Would some notion of God, or Life Force then become a real proposition ?

I'm afraid not ... I would just want them to keep on looking.

However, if any feasible evidence were produced that a supernatural force exists, then of course I would have to rethink.
Shaker

Leonard James wrote:
Hi BC,
Boss Cat wrote:

Leonard, could you outline some of the evidence that led to your conclusion ?

It's all around us. Everywhere you look you see half the living things on this earth having to hunt, kill and eat the other half in order to stay alive.

I feel duty bound to say, however, that as well as leading one to atheism this could - perhaps equally - lead one to a position of maltheism or dystheism: that's the belief that God exists but is not only not benevolent but actively malevolent - a cruel God, in other words, a position which, were I inclined to be a theist of any stripe, I would think has much more going for it in terms of evidence than traditional theism. There's an interesting discussion going on right now over at R&E about the debate between William Lane Craig and the English (atheist) philosopher Stephen Law: I haven't heard the debate yet myself but most people are agreeing that Law mounts a deceptively simple but eloquent and extremely powerful case against WLC's traditional omnibenevolent theism.
Leonard James

Shaker wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Hi BC,
Boss Cat wrote:

Leonard, could you outline some of the evidence that led to your conclusion ?

It's all around us. Everywhere you look you see half the living things on this earth having to hunt, kill and eat the other half in order to stay alive.

I feel duty bound to say, however, that as well as leading one to atheism this could - perhaps equally - lead one to a position of maltheism or dystheism: that's the belief that God exists but is not only not benevolent but actively malevolent - a cruel God, in other words, a position which, were I inclined to be a theist of any stripe, I would think has much more going for it in terms of evidence than traditional theism. There's an interesting discussion going on right now over at R&E about the debate between William Lane Craig and the English (atheist) philosopher Stephen Law: I haven't heard the debate yet myself but most people are agreeing that Law mounts a deceptively simple but eloquent and extremely powerful case against WLC's traditional omnibenevolent theism.

I see that, Steve, but as far as I'm concerned gods are out of the running until I see some evidence for a supernatural being of any kind.
Boss Cat

I agree with Shaker here, unusual, but I have often thought when I have heard arguments like Leonard's 'that sounds like dystheism to me'; a friend of mine who is almost aggressively atheist (and you can be aggressively theist too) was going on about how she didn't believe in God because of some religious attitudes to women and I toyed with the idea of suggesting that, but didn't because a) that would have led to a discussion about whether religions represent God and b) I thought she needed to talk more than listen on this occasion.

All the same, I do think Leonard's argument strong when considering a benevolent God, even if, as I say, I come to a different conclusion.  I'm not convinced at all by your reasoning Leonard, it seems almost tautological.  Your starting point seems to be an emotional response to the nature of God - but that's fair enough and that makes sense.  With you on the emotions, not on the rationality but different conclusion anyway.  I expect my argument seems pretty unconvincing to you.

I must admit SkepticKarl has done a fantastic job of reading my post and answering another.  Firstly I don't think he quite understood how I was using the argument of numbers and secondly did I mention Christianity in mine?  I thought I talked specifically about theism and the divine, didn't I?  Maybe I've forgotten what I actually posted and haven't gone back no time.  Perhaps he can show where I mention Christianity being right because there's a lot of Christians.   I am one, but I really can't see how what you are saying is at all relevant to what I posted.

Genghis apologies, you appear to have been backing up my original point about Einstein being proved wrong, not arguing with it.  I must have misread you.

Shrub, you know I am a theist, that's enough to make me an idiot in some people's eyes wouldn't.  But we'll disagree about whether calling names is good argument or not.
Shaker

Leonard James wrote:
Shaker wrote:
Leonard James wrote:
Hi BC,
Boss Cat wrote:

Leonard, could you outline some of the evidence that led to your conclusion ?

It's all around us. Everywhere you look you see half the living things on this earth having to hunt, kill and eat the other half in order to stay alive.

I feel duty bound to say, however, that as well as leading one to atheism this could - perhaps equally - lead one to a position of maltheism or dystheism: that's the belief that God exists but is not only not benevolent but actively malevolent - a cruel God, in other words, a position which, were I inclined to be a theist of any stripe, I would think has much more going for it in terms of evidence than traditional theism. There's an interesting discussion going on right now over at R&E about the debate between William Lane Craig and the English (atheist) philosopher Stephen Law: I haven't heard the debate yet myself but most people are agreeing that Law mounts a deceptively simple but eloquent and extremely powerful case against WLC's traditional omnibenevolent theism.

I see that, Steve, but as far as I'm concerned gods are out of the running until I see some evidence for a supernatural being of any kind.

Yes you're absolutely right - that's my position too: that's why I insterted the proviso were I inclined to be a theist of any stripe. I'm not and can't imagine ever so being, but if I was of the cast of mind where I took the existence of gods even remotely seriously, maltheism/dystheism would look like the better bet by far. Existence as we see it is incompatible with a God who is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good, hence the Riddle (it isn't) of Epicurus. One of those attributes has to go: you can have a combination of any two, but not all three simultaneously.
Leonard James

Quote:
...but if I was of the cast of mind where I took the existence of gods even remotely seriously, maltheism/dystheism would look like the better bet by far.

And I would be right behind you ... or in front of you, which ever you prefer.  
Shaker

You've been on the yellow pills again haven't you?  
Leonard James

Shaker wrote:
You've been on the yellow pills again haven't you?  

It's all in the mind, Steve.

Yellow? I thought they were blue!  
Boss Cat

So did I.  I agreed with Shaker earlier, now I agree with Leonard.

Don't want to make a habit of this but it's nice occasionally to agree on something.  Normal service will be resumed pronto however.

Maybe Shaker is thinking of bananas.
Farmer Geddon

Leonard James wrote:
Shaker wrote:
You've been on the yellow pills again haven't you?  

It's all in the mind, Steve.

Yellow? I thought they were blue!  


I think that is Viagra Len..

"Yellow pills" as I know them are an anti-anxiety drug frequently used for recreational use.  

But I believe Shaker is referring to a story by Rog Phillips - written in the late 50's where, if you took said pill, you feel that "reality practically shouts down any fantasy insertions."

I could be wrong though..
Leonard James

Hi Boss,
Boss Cat wrote:

All the same, I do think Leonard's argument strong when considering a benevolent God, even if, as I say, I come to a different conclusion.  I'm not convinced at all by your reasoning Leonard, it seems almost tautological.  Your starting point seems to be an emotional response to the nature of God - but that's fair enough and that makes sense.  With you on the emotions, not on the rationality but different conclusion anyway.  I expect my argument seems pretty unconvincing to you.

Well, I would be interested to hear the rational argument that reconciles a God of love and compassion with having created the cruel prey/predator system of life. That is the main stumbling block for me, though there are other anomalies, of course.
Boss Cat

I suppose I'm like most people, I like doing nice things for people, gives me a bit of a glow, give a bit to charity, a few bits of voluntary work, sometimes give up nice things to do something boring for someone else.  But it's not very much, is it?   And there is still so much misery and it seems so arbitrary, I don't even scratch the surface.  Can you really enjoy yourself knowing that innocent people suffer so much and that tyrants can get away with it for so long, maybe for ever?   I suppose I need to know there is justice somewhere.

As for your question, how can I believe in a loving God with such a predatory system, with such suffering.  Well, according to the Native American the wolf keeps the buffalo strong that's one of the many ways that people have and continue to rationalise this.  Something in that.  But  I can't help seeing, feeling, knowing that this universe is full of hope,  order, courage,  compassion, love; to me there is a benevolence behind it, it is bigger than me, separate from me and kind.

To you the universe might be a dangerous and frightening place.  Well, I can see that.  You might think it is indifferent, I don't, well this part of it isn't!  The way I see it the universe gave me life and nurtures me and keeps me alive.  It has a place for me and I will be part of it even after I am dead.

That's how I do it.  Don't expect you to for one minute or even to know what I'm on about.  But I do.
Leonard James

Quote:
That's how I do it.  Don't expect you to for one minute or even to know what I'm on about.  But I do.

Fair enough, BC, as long as you're happy with your belief that's all that matters.
Shrub Dweller

BC

Quote:
Shrub, you know I am a theist, that's enough to make me an idiot in some people's eyes wouldn't.  But we'll disagree about whether calling names is good argument or not.


But technically the woman in the clip was right. The fact that the term idiot has been turned into a rude put down by the masses doesn't change the fact of the truth of the situation. The guys comment came from the crazy idea of la-la land.
Shrub Dweller

BC

Quote:
Well, according to the Native American the wolf keeps the buffalo strong that's one of the many ways that people have and continue to rationalise this.


That sounds like evolution ; survival of the fittest.
SceptiKarl

Boss Cat writes:

Quote:
I must admit SkepticKarl has done a fantastic job of reading my post and answering another.  Firstly I don't think he quite understood how I was using the argument of numbers and secondly did I mention Christianity in mine?  I thought I talked specifically about theism and the divine, didn't I?  Maybe I've forgotten what I actually posted and haven't gone back no time.  Perhaps he can show where I mention Christianity being right because there's a lot of Christians.   I am one, but I really can't see how what you are saying is at all relevant to what I posted.


Thanks for the compliment! As you say, I may well have answered that old chesnut; that because lots of people believe in the Great Prophet Zarqhuon, that doesn't make him real! It's true, I am assuming that you are some sort of Christian. Please feel free to correct me. I think my assumption is reasonably well based because Christianity, in all its thousands of varieties, claims the largest number of theists in the world.
So I'm sorry if my post was irrelevant to what you posted, but as you say, it answered someone else!

Leonard James

Shrub Dweller wrote:
BC

Quote:
Well, according to the Native American the wolf keeps the buffalo strong that's one of the many ways that people have and continue to rationalise this.


That sounds like evolution ; survival of the fittest.

Yes, that's the nature of the beast, total indifference to suffering.

It is inconceivable that it could have been set in motion by a loving, compassionate creator god.
SceptiKarl

Boss Cat:

Quote:
As for your question, how can I believe in a loving God with such a predatory system, with such suffering.  Well, according to the Native American the wolf keeps the buffalo strong that's one of the many ways that people have and continue to rationalise this.


So for all the "personal" relationships with the creator of the universe, the point of evolution is to foster fierce competition between wildlife. The wolves v the bison! Individual animals die horrendous deaths, whether through predation or starvation. No doubt God has some short cut to animal heaven for suffering animals. It was the very competition between living organisms that made Darwin lose his Christianity. Why not you?
Boss Cat

Yes it sounds as though the Native Americans did get a grasp on evolution, doesn't it!  They called up the goddess who they believed was the spirit of the wolf, I think.  There never really has been a conflict between religious belief and evolutionary theories.
Boss Cat

No Karl, I did not say you answered someone else's post; I said you answered another post - and that was the imaginary one in your head.
Boss Cat

Shrub - I thought Ms Smurthwaite was calling anyone with faith an idiot, wasn't she? And if someone has ideas others consider odd would that mean they had a low IQ?  That's if she is referring only to the man in the clip (which I didn't think she was).

Just out of interest, because I can't really follow the point you are trying to make.
bnabernard

Animal worship stems from early post flood days when there were few humans and plenty of animals and insects.

The surviving post flood 'spirits' previously viewed in the flesh as gods needed transport and recognition.


however, get your stones here.

bernard  
SceptiKarl

Boss Cat:

Quote:
No Karl, I did not say you answered someone else's post; I said you answered another post - and that was the imaginary one in your head.


Well at least only the post was imaginary! Now just think what might have happened had I imagined an all powerful creator of the universe, who told me that I had to fly an aircraft into a building, or who told me that I had to kill witches and burn heretics! At least my imagination hurts no-one else!
Shrub Dweller

Boss Cat wrote:
Shrub - I thought Ms Smurthwaite was calling anyone with faith an idiot, wasn't she? And if someone has ideas others consider odd would that mean they had a low IQ?  That's if she is referring only to the man in the clip (which I didn't think she was).

Just out of interest, because I can't really follow the point you are trying to make.

From the clip, which I'm basing my views, it was just aimed at the man's comments. But this could be extended to a more general outlook. An idiot in the Greek form, from what I understand, is not someone who is neccesarily of a low IQ just someone who entertains dreamworld and fanciful ideas and notions.
genghiscant

Quote:
Animal worship stems from early post flood days when there were few humans and plenty of animals and insects.


What flood?
Farmer Geddon

bnabernard wrote:
Animal worship stems from early post flood days when there were few humans and plenty of animals and insects.

The surviving post flood 'spirits' previously viewed in the flesh as gods needed transport and recognition.


however, get your stones here.

bernard  


Morning Bern - one point though: If Mr and Mrs Noah and all the little Noahians had worshiped/slaughtered any of the animals from the ark to appeased God then that species would have ceased to exist - is that what happened to the Unicorns and Trolls?
cymrudynnion

Farmer Geddon wrote:
bnabernard wrote:
Animal worship stems from early post flood days when there were few humans and plenty of animals and insects.

The surviving post flood 'spirits' previously viewed in the flesh as gods needed transport and recognition.


however, get your stones here.

bernard  


Morning Bern - one point though: If Mr and Mrs Noah and all the little Noahians had worshiped/slaughtered any of the animals from the ark to appeased God then that species would have ceased to exist - is that what happened to the Unicorns and Trolls?
Can't comment on Unicorns farmer, but, I thought Trolls were alive and well surviving on the various Forums we have.
bnabernard

Farmer Geddon wrote:
bnabernard wrote:
Animal worship stems from early post flood days when there were few humans and plenty of animals and insects.

The surviving post flood 'spirits' previously viewed in the flesh as gods needed transport and recognition.


however, get your stones here.

bernard  


Morning Bern - one point though: If Mr and Mrs Noah and all the little Noahians had worshiped/slaughtered any of the animals from the ark to appeased God then that species would have ceased to exist - is that what happened to the Unicorns and Trolls?


   come on the duck, for a moment there I thought this one was going to get past you, I'll be back with me pink elephant,  any man of discernment know they exist  
Farmer Geddon

Ach - I've missed you Bern..   where the hell have you been??
bnabernard

Climbing mountains looking for the ark    

bernie  
Boss Cat

Bless you Karl, you got my little joke!  I toyed with the idea of making it more obvious.  I underestimated you.

Shrub - I thought the Greek roots were to do with the hoi poloi, but my knowledge of Greek philsophy and history is rusty and very limited.  You are probably right.  But if it were to do with having fanciful ideas - well, there would be some very interesting 'idiots'; some might call them creative geniuses!
Shrub Dweller

Boss Cat wrote:

Shrub - I thought the Greek roots were to do with the hoi poloi, but my knowledge of Greek philsophy and history is rusty and very limited.  You are probably right.  But if it were to do with having fanciful ideas - well, there would be some very interesting 'idiots'; some might call them creative geniuses!

Well, initially it would be a fine line between the two (idiots/geniuses) but time would separate the sheeps from the goats. Many who have been deemed fanciful dreamers have been proved correct later on, even after their deaths, but some still hark on about their delusions even after 2000 years has still not proved their position to be correct.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> Atheist chat
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum