He Is Dead

[JudyHon]

Although I can see how you have formed your opinion on some things, you appear to contradict yourself from the get go.

You say that you are "not arrogant enough to believe in absolutes" and "talk in certainties". Yet you said the following, "Christian or any other faith is not based upon evidence." Dawkins even conceded that Jesus probably did exist.

Sorry, but there is no contradiction between acknowledging that you don’t know everything, and stating that by it's definition faith cannot be based on evidence or it wouldn't be faith. They are disparate points. Besides, you later state yourself that faith does not require proof, so not sure why you previously talked of evidence supporting faith - your words not mine.

I note also the contrast between my acceptance of the possibility of doubt and your unfounded certainty ‘Some of us already knew that, yes, largely by faith.’ To know anything by faith is a contradiction in my book. And the Bible is one big contradiction. This is the grating unsubstantiated certainty I spoke of.

Whether or not there was a conjuror or prophet called Jesus in some Roman Empire backwater who duped the locals has about as much to do with the price of fish as the existence of a supreme being.

Just because a human given divine powers would make a mess of things is also an irrelevance, and a lack of actual chaos does not indicate a ‘greater hand at play’. Such a conclusion does not follow at all, and seems like a leap of faith to me. That figures. It is again the flawed thinking that there must be some greater meaning where there is none. A ‘God of the Gaps’ which is diminished progressively as science advances.

I fail to see how scientific evidence led anyone to conclude a ‘governing intelligence’. Creationists spend their time hunting for evidence of a designer when biological evidence points the other way. From vestigial limbs to extreme flatulence points towards the unintelligence of design in my opinion.

I fail to see the relevance of Einstein either – as I recall he made it quite clear he was not a believer after many religious folk tried to infer that he was.

Enjoy

[Piamed]

Sorry, but there is no contradiction between acknowledging that you don’t know everything, and stating that by it's definition faith cannot be based on evidence or it wouldn't be faith. They are disparate points. Besides, you later state yourself that faith does not require proof, so not sure why you previously talked of evidence supporting faith - your words not mine.

I note also the contrast between my acceptance of the possibility of doubt and your unfounded certainty ‘Some of us already knew that, yes, largely by faith.’ To know anything by faith is a contradiction in my book. And the Bible is one big contradiction. This is the grating unsubstantiated certainty I spoke of.

Whether or not there was a conjuror or prophet called Jesus in some Roman Empire backwater who duped the locals has about as much to do with the price of fish as the existence of a supreme being.

Just because a human given divine powers would make a mess of things is also an irrelevance, and a lack of actual chaos does not indicate a ‘greater hand at play’. Such a conclusion does not follow at all, and seems like a leap of faith to me. That figures. It is again the flawed thinking that there must be some greater meaning where there is none. A ‘God of the Gaps’ which is diminished progressively as science advances.

I fail to see how scientific evidence led anyone to conclude a ‘governing intelligence’. Creationists spend their time hunting for evidence of a designer when biological evidence points the other way. From vestigial limbs to extreme flatulence points towards the unintelligence of design in my opinion.



I fail to see the relevance of Einstein either – as I recall he made it quite clear he was not a believer after many religious folk tried to infer that he was.

Enjoy

Unfortunately, I have no idea what your first sentence means but you stating definitively that "Christian or any other faith is not based upon evidence" is an attempt at achieving an absolute and certain statement.

You are correct, I absolutely stated that faith does not require proof; notwithstanding that, many believers are certain that their is proof running alongside their faith. One of the challenges is that many athiests believe that only empirical data consititutes proof. I previously drew your attention to that and used your own cited observer, Dawkins, to illustrate that many highly cephalised individuals disagree with your assertion.

Please highlight where you illustrated possibility of doubt versus certainty and absolutes. Yes, I did say that many of us knew by faith that God exists. You said that to know by faith is a contradiction. To what. Are you suggestion that include faith and knowing in a single sentence is oxmoronic? If so how so?

The analogy of Bruce Almighty was just that and was not meant to be taken literally. I stated that it was a lighter touch.

The God of Gaps theology is something I do not subscribe to. I Understand why you brought it up but is fundamentally flawed as far as I am concerned for some very obvious reasons. God does not disappear from view when previously unexplained phenomena are given natural explanations.

I understand that you fail to see certain things, this brings you into conflict with some of Dawkins recent sayings and those of Frew et al.

You fail to see the relevance of Einstein? Perhaps you are unaware of much of what Einstein said about God. To be honest so am I but I found some snippets. For example: Einstein, famously, said that "God does NOT play dice". On the face of it Einstein believed in God.

Whether he did or not means nothing to me as I have my faith; I bring him up to discuss with you. The key things uncertain about Einstein are related to which god was he talking about? Clearly, Einstein wasn't a polytheist, since he used the singular term "God", rather than the plural "gods". It is not unreasonable to deduce therefore, that he was a montheist. He also stated explicitly that he believed in God.

Regarding my last post, I note with interest that you rather conveniently ignored my questions and comments pertaining to Dawkins' change of heart and most particularly shied away from attempting to produce empirical evidence that God does not exist. Surely you have this. Of course I know you don't. I'm speak rhetorically. So, if not, given that you do not talk in absolutes or certainties, particularly of the unfounded variety, you must be open to the possibility that God exists. Di ba?

[JudyHon]

Unfortunately, I have no idea what your first sentence means but you stating definitively that "Christian or any other faith is not based upon evidence" is an attempt at achieving an absolute and certain statement.

You are correct,

Sorry but we are going round in circles here. I stand by my initial statements and don't think any of your criticisms diminish them.

I still think the possibility of a Christian God is so incredibly remote and the possibility that no such entity exists is almost certain - a ancient irrelevant fairy tale no more relevant than the Lock Ness Monster or Astrology. A useful mechanism for mass brain-washing that has perpetuated itself until recent enlightenment. I know what odds to bet on and I will stick with those, thanks.

I didn't bring up Dawkins as a champion, someone else did. I just pointed out one thing he said that I agreed with. That is why I didn't comment on other things he said. I note many of my comments were 'conveniently ignored' also.

I would love to navel gaze on this some more. But I am convinced I am right and you are wrong and that you are kidding yourself and clutching at straws - but that's your choice, so what's the point? I have a full time job, deadlines and an FLR application to get in asap, so those all take priority.

Feel free to continue trying to convert others to this outdated cause. Might want to work on the patronising tone though. I look forward to the day when religion is consigned to the scrapheap where it belongs and people don't need it as an emotional crutch.

PS I have seen the above quote from a couple of different sources:

Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

[Piamed]

Sorry but we are going round in circles here. I stand by my initial statements and don't think any of your criticisms diminish them.

I still think the possibility of a Christian God is so incredibly remote and the possibility that no such entity exists is almost certain - a ancient irrelevant fairy tale no more relevant than the Lock Ness Monster or Astrology. A useful mechanism for mass brain-washing that has perpetuated itself until recent enlightenment. I know what odds to bet on and I will stick with those, thanks.

I didn't bring up Dawkins as a champion, someone else did. I just pointed out one thing he said that I agreed with. That is why I didn't comment on other things he said. I note many of my comments were 'conveniently ignored' also.

I would love to navel gaze on this some more. But I am convinced I am right and you are wrong and that you are kidding yourself and clutching at straws - but that's your choice, so what's the point? I have a full time job, deadlines and an FLR application to get in asap, so those all take priority.

Feel free to continue trying to convert others to this outdated cause. Might want to work on the patronising tone though. I look forward to the day when religion is consigned to the scrapheap where it belongs and people don't need it as an emotional crutch.

PS I have seen the above quote from a couple of different sources:

Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."

It is rather unfortunate that you repeat your same misguided assumption that I want to convert someone. I have explicitly said otherwise several times. I drew attention to what I believe are profound inconsistencies in some, albeit not all, of your statements, assertions and citations. You have responded to some of my challenges and shied away from others. You suggest I have avoided some of yor questions. I can't see that having reviewed your posts but that is ok.

Anyway, although you have conceded that God might exist, irrespective of your perception of the odds, I reiterate that I do not and would not attempt to tell someone that their approach to religion is wrong. This all started as I felt that someone initially expressed his views in a potentially insulting way to what I and some others believe in and strive to life by daily. You do not see a believer of any demonination suddenly hijack a thread and dismiss all athiests and non-believers as brainwashed, followers of myths, fairy-tales, nonsense, etc. I think those that do believe expect a similar courtesy. Challenge and discuss by all means but ridicule and assign all of the world's troubles to believers

Anyway, subsequent to the intial attack, I drew a certain forumer's attention and yours to what I have already described above. I used the terms falwed, inconsistent, etc. You emulated their use and that is fine as they are critiques not insults. I hope you appreciate where I'm coming from. Any topic can be discussed by opposing parties so long as respect is shown. When we use terms like irrelevant, nonsense and fairy-tales, it is insulting and again, is inconsistent with your assertion that you do not speak in absolutes and certainties. I accept that you do not think so at all. fair enough.

If you have read some of my posts you will be clearly aware that most of my closest friends are of alternative religions and philosophical perspectives. When we discuss we stay on point and try to focus on only referring to what we can back up academically, that means qualitatively as well as quantitatively. We always find that irrespective of where our point of departure is, we have so much more in common that not. I learn from everyone I interact with and I thank you for what I have learned from you.

I do not know any set of moral codes that encourage people to be bad to each other whether religious or otherwise. So, in theory if individuals are following them as best they can it's obvious that we will find out we so much in common. One of the problems as i see it, is that so many, not all, unbelievers think that religion per se is bad and thus put up obstacles to alignment of our mutually good values, whereas you will see those with any type of faith saying that there is good in all of us irrespective.

I will say again, lest anyone fails to see it, what a proper practice of a faith does is bring like minded people together to encourage them in the development and practice of that faith. The church when used as I believe it is meant to be used, is simply a body of people following, as best they can, the same principles as God. It does not necessarily make them better than anyone else following alternative patterns.

Tolerance and understanding as always key. When I get the chance I read Islamic text, Buddhist, Jewish as well as some of the works of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, etc. I do not focus on some of the contemporary and would'be philosophers such as Einstein and Dawkins as I find them often a little less humble about their failings than the pre-renaissance ones. Rudeness and intolerance aside, everyone has something to contribute, in my opinion, to the understanding of our world and our place within it.

Peace and good luck with your deadlines and FLR application.

Cordially!