Of God and Leprecauns

  • Thread starter Mohaamad
  • Start date
  • #51
BoulderHead
Are you telling me that;

"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones that need help?" -Dan Barker
 
  • #52
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,549
8
Iacchus: Get a clue, man!

Boulderhead has clearly set out his position, and you keep twisting it around into a "belief system". That is called a straw man fallacy, and it does not belong in the Philosophy forum.

Either stop being difficult, or drop it. This is really dumb.
 
  • #53
2,312
0
Originally posted by BoulderHead
Are you telling me that;

"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones that need help?" -Dan Barker
Then maybe we are speaking about the same God? And yet all you're really conveying to me is that people are out of touch with life.
 
  • #54
2,312
0


Originally posted by Tom
Boulderhead has clearly set out his position, and you keep twisting it around into a "belief system". That is called a straw man fallacy, and it does not belong in the Philosophy forum.

Either stop being difficult, or drop it. This is really dumb.
Fair enough. I just didn't care to have three or four people ganging up on me for what seemed like an insignificant statement, otherwise I would have dropped it a long time ago.

But could you please tell me what the nature of belief is, and why it should not be included in a philosophical discussion? I'm beginning to get the distinct impression here, that Atheists do not in any way shape or form like to be called "religious."
 
  • #55
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,549
8


Originally posted by Iacchus32
But could you please tell me what the nature of belief is,

A belief is anything to which a person may give mental assent. Beliefs may be justified and factual (and thus be promoted to knowledge), or they may lack either justification or truth (and thus remain beliefs).

and why it should not be included in a philosophical discussion?

!!!

Because philosophy (speicifically, epistemology) is all about giving an account of justification of beliefs, and of determining their truth.

I really must get my "Whaddya know?" thread up and running again!

I'm beginning to get the distinct impression here, that Atheists do not in any way shape or form like to be called "religious."

Beginning to...? Everyone here has been shouting it at you, dude!

Atheists try to strip off all unneccesary beliefs, and they have total disdain for religion.
 
  • #56
2,126
0


Originally posted by Tom

Atheists try to strip off all unneccesary beliefs, and they have total disdain for religion.

As an Atheist myself I feel must say I perceive having total disdain for religion Is an unnecessary belief.
 
  • #57
2,312
0
Originally posted by Tom
Atheists try to strip off all unneccesary beliefs, and they have total disdain for religion.
But does this not become like the "holy cow" of religion, which is not to be touched? And, by making such a comment, are you not facing off "squarely" and asking for a confrontation? Or, would that be too much for a philosophical forum to handle? Is it out of audacity that Atheists say such things, merely to mock religion? Sounds to me like somebody needs to be taken down a notch or two.
 
  • #58
3,891
3
Originally posted by Iacchus32
From the thread, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2357" ...

Oh I see, you made "the inference" to mystery, but may not necessarily choose mystery over paradox either. Sorry ... Of course I don't know what else that leaves you with?

No, no, no, I was saying that - in that context - the word "mystery" suits Mohammed's need better than "paradox" (which, logistically, refers to self-contradiction).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #59
Tom Mattson
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,549
8
Originally posted by Iacchus32
But does this not become like the "holy cow" of religion, which is not to be touched?

I don't see your point.

You are mixing your metaphors here. The "holy cow" of the Bible was not something that represented "the untouchable", it represented "the disobedient". Check the book of Exodus.

And, by making such a comment, are you not facing off "squarely" and asking for a confrontation? Or, would that be too much for a philosophical forum to handle?

What the bloody blazes are you talking about?

First, I am not looking for a confrontation. In my mind, there is no confrontation to be had, unless you want to insist that God, Goddess, Zeus, The Easter Bunny, and the like are real (and even then, I would be loathe to get into a "confrontation", because I think those ideas are silly). And second, it is the religious person, not the atheist, who fails to meet the requirements of a "philosophical forum". As I said, here we are interested in justification of belief and discovery of necessary truths, not religious mumbo jumbo.

Is it out of audacity that Atheists say such things, merely to mock religion? Sounds to me like somebody needs to be taken down a notch or two.

There is no mocking going on here. I have disdain for religion because it is destructive on so many fronts. It leads to--among other things--bloodshed, ignorance, and dependence on clergy or the state (in a theorcracy).
 
  • #60
2,312
0
From the URLAT, https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2448" ...

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Originally posted by Zero
I know there are plenty of people here who consider themselves to be skeptical, but is there a common outlook for all of us? I personally see it broken up into at least two camps. One is the type who says 'that's nonsense' to most everything not accepted by science, and leaves it at that. The second group attempts to show reasons behind why an idea is wrong, and suggests alternate explanations and avenues of inquiry.

I don't know if I have a point, except to say that the first group is useless, and the second group may be useful in certain situations.
Are you asking anyone to argue in favor "of" religion? Because it sounds like you've already concluded there's no need for it. Except of course that it would be nice if we could somehow find a way to convince those poor deluded souls who haven't realized it yet, that it wasn't necessary.

I'm not even a religious person (spiritual perhaps?), and yet the problem is not religion, it's what people do with religion. And this is the key, because religion is so close to the core of what we are -- as "creatures of belief" -- that it's subject to so much exploitation. And indeed, this is what gives it bad name ... while also explaining the nature of addiction.

And, while there's no doubt a good percentage of people who go to church who are under such delusions, I don't think the solution would be to outlaw religion, because people still need their "fixations." Ironically, just like Prohibition! And yet if properly understood, religion can ultimately provide the means by which to overcome our "earthly fixations," and possibly "escape the Matrix" so to speak.

This I'm afraid is what science fails to understand, that people can't help but be this way, for they need time to mature and open their eyes to reality. And yet the problem with Mother Church, is that She becomes so possessive about the whole thing (again, the nature of addiction), that She won't allow Her little children to do grow beyond the need for Mother Church, and become independent "spiritual beings." But doesn't this sound like a problem with most parents?

So the problem is not religion (which isn't to say there aren't things which couldn't be addressed about "formalized religion"). The problem is to understand why we have the need for religion ... And hey, it might even be possible for Science and Religion to get together and bridge some of their differences. Now wouldn't that be something!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #61
1,736
0
Originally posted by Mohaamad
God is an logical extension, hypothesis, of what exist in reality.

I don't think that is true. 'God' is according to me an extention to a flawed concept of reality. It is stated over and over that the material world could not be infinite (without begin or end), and therefore God needed to exist in order to create a finite world. That is a logical conclusion, but based on a false premise. This can be shown, because the invention of God, does not reduce our initial problem of the world, being finite. Cause in the same way as the world had a begin, now God needs a begin, for the same reason. As this is not the case, in the minds of religious people, they therefore need to state that God itself was not created, but is infinite. But that shows therefore that our initial assumption (the world is finite) was a wrong concept, and we need to take the negation of the premise. The world is therefore infinite (has no begin or end).
 

Related Threads on Of God and Leprecauns

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
47
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
175
Views
17K
Top