|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bringing people back to God.
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Human nature being what it has evolved to be, with enough strong and basically good survivors to allow for the large number whose aim is to destroy others for a whole list of excuses to exist, it is inevitable that there will always be a mixture. However, the good that a lack of belief in any God/god/s could do is to enable people to understand that all the knowledghe, all the behaviours, all the good and all the bad is done by humans, entirely by humans. There would be no need for time to be spent (I wil refrain from using the word 'wasted' here) in acquiring all the gold and silver ware, rich vestments, palaces, planes, cars, etc etc for the leaders of religions and all the energy involved could be spent on education of young people, so they learn and understand the history and reasons for all religious beliefs; on providing clean water, and all the other good things we in the developed world are lucky enough to have; on better communication of the above; on finding ways to re-direct the violent, ddestructive nature of terrorists into more tolerant ways of behaving.
Also no need for poetry, for art, for beautiful music: can't explain it, therefore it isn't worth anything.
I think your ideas are morally bankrupt. If nothing matters then nothing is worth spending any time on other than myself in the here-and-now.
But, unlike you, I'm fully willing to allow and indeed encourage atheists in whatever way they need to be encouraged for the sake of human flourishing. Nothing is gained from me trying to "insist" that atheists become theists nor in me trying to have a rosy-tinted image of human evolution that says every other bugger will eventually give up all their stupid ideas and agree with me.
I suggest you might like to be rather more generous with people who do not agree with you.
quote:
Yes, I know that is an unreachable goal and that there are good people everywhere who do their best to work toward improving the life of others, but if they are doing it in the name of any god, or think there is any god providing any kind of back-up, then the parts of their minds that are used by this could be totally focused on the fact that human thinking is 100% of it.
This is utter gibberish. I can point to you to many people with deep faith who are totally committed to "improving the lives of others" because their understanding of the deity suggests that self-sacrifice is part of the deal.
Yes, there are also atheists that do stuff - but your thesis that only the non-theist has time to put into serving others is easily disproved.
quote:
Can you think of a reason why I should agree with your description of my thinking as ‘faulty’?!
I think most people of goodwill acknowledge that there is something positive in the alternative view - whereas it appears you are only interested in religion to the extent that it trains you in how to destroy it.
Your thinking is faulty because it is totally lacking in nuance. And actually any sympathy or goodwill in believing that there are people of faith who are not just deluded. Or somehow not using their brains properly.
quote:
Of course it is obvious that there is good in the ‘other positionin the same way that every single human has a genetic make-up which gives them a set of characteristics ranging from the horrible to the very good. Very few indeed are wholly reliant on themselves and do not need any other human being at all for any aspect of living from when they become independent until their death. After all, one of the main reasons for our species survival was the co-operation amongst groups of humans.
At this point, please imagine me saying the words of the woman who, at the end of several series of Morecambe and Wise shows, would advance from the back of the stage, fling them apart and say, ‘Thank you for coming to my little show,’ or, in this case, ‘reading my post’!
That's a pretty poor excuse for the things you've said. Totally lacking in any sense of generosity.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
I'm not aware of any scientific evidence that souls do not exist.
Are you for real? I'm not aware of any scientific evidence that proves there isn't a magical purple donkey living on one of the moons of planet Zingbo.
Sure, I'm for real. Aside from the fact that I don't think these are comparable predicates—SusanDoris said there have always been very large numbers of people who have believed that souls or spirits exist, and I'm not aware that very large numbers of people throughout history have believed that a magic purple donkey lives on a moon of planet Zingbo—the point is that SusanDoris was suggesting (and I am perhaps reading in from her other posts) that, unlike those people in the past, we now know that souls or spirits do not exist. I was simply saying that science has not proved what she presents as having been established.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
As the subject is at rather a tangent to this thread I have opened another to maybe direct our thoughts towards whether religion is pointless or not.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
It is the idea that if only everyone else saw things the way we do, everything would be fine and dandy, so let's insist on it which feeds terrorism. That includes militant atheism as well as any militant religious stance.
If only everyone would know God, the world would be a much better place. I believe that, but will always allow you to hold another opinion.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
In a last-ditch attempt to steer the topic back toward the OP. Fr Weber has made the best point. The most important thing is whether or not the central tenets (here we go…) of Christianity are true. If they're (basically) true, then the need to make those truths relevant seems a weird task indeed. If you see or hear the word 'relevant' anywhere near a church you can bet it will closely resemble daytime TV or some kind of gig of a bubblegum pop act.
K.
[ 22. March 2016, 13:00: Message edited by: Komensky ]
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Yes, I think we should all get back to having wars about territory, about oil, about resources.
<snip>
But atheism will solve all of that because human beings are all so wonderful and kind and good that we will live in a complete utopia where not one solitary person will ever think to themselves, 'I am better than that person' or, 'I deserve more than them.'
I did not intend to imply any of the above negative possibilities and I am sorry if you thought I did. Maybe the negativity is in you, not me.
I see that Boogie has started a new thread .
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
She is arguing that old, old, tired and weak argument that religion is the cause of all ill in society, that without it we would all be so much better, that atheism is a sort of solution in a non-solution sort of way.
Here again, you infer something I do not imply. I have never blamed religions, it is 100% the people who invent the gods, believe their claims and assertions, and make up the rules; some of those people tell others they must do this or that anti-social act because some god has ordered it.
Other people have of course encouraged their followers to do all kinds of good things because their God has orderd it.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I was simply saying that science has not proved what she presents as having been established.
But that's the old negative proof fallacy, isn't it?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
As the subject is at rather a tangent to this thread I have opened another to maybe direct our thoughts towards whether religion is pointless or not.
Thank you for saying. I'll leave this and join that.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Just a quick P.S. - thank you for your posts, Komensky
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I was simply saying that science has not proved what she presents as having been established.
But that's the old negative proof fallacy, isn't it?
Not on my part, no, because I am not asserting a proposition to be proven at all. It is you who have asserted, in essence, that unlike many people of the past, people now know that souls and/ore spirits do not exist. Yet you have not presented any evidence of how this is known.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I was simply saying that science has not proved what she presents as having been established.
But that's the old negative proof fallacy, isn't it?
Not on my part, no, because I am not asserting a proposition to be proven at all. It is you who have asserted, in essence, that unlike many people of the past, people now know that souls and/ore spirits do not exist. Yet you have not presented any evidence of how this is known.
Again, the burden of proof is on you. Pathetic try.
K.
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I think it could actually be argued both ways. This is one reason why we shouldn't feel that we can assert rules of debate and rhetoric.
There is no obvious steady-state position with regard to the existence of the soul, hence there neither sides (or both sides) can be said to be arguing the novel position which needs to be defended with evidence.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Susan;
quote:
Here again, you infer something I do not imply
No, you're quite right, you didn't imply it, you stated it in black and white.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Again, the burden of proof is on you. Pathetic try.
There is no burden of proof on me when I haven't set out to prove anything. I am under no obligation to prove that SusanDoris's assertion is wrong, but I am entitled to ask her the basis of that assertion.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I think it could actually be argued both ways. This is one reason why we shouldn't feel that we can assert rules of debate and rhetoric.
There is no obvious steady-state position with regard to the existence of the soul, hence there neither sides (or both sides) can be said to be arguing the novel position which needs to be defended with evidence.
I agree, more or less. I will admit I approached this with some recollection of previous threads, where it has been asserted that "of course, we know . . . ," with no basis for the assertion given other than "we know" and a general appeal to science. Perhaps it was not helpful for me to do so.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's utterly obvious that in the modern world and beyond many came to know that there is no supernatural realm. Or never knew that there was beyond the age of 6. They KNOW. Supernaturalism is very much a function of deprivation.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I was simply saying that science has not proved what she presents as having been established.
But that's the old negative proof fallacy, isn't it?
That was his point. And it applies as much to your argument as it does to his.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Supernaturalism breaks Occam's razor vertically.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
