Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled? |
Post Reply | Page <1 103104105106107 174> |
Author | ||||||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: September 01 2010 at 02:14 | |||||
M'kay, not as I how interpretted it based on how it was used by Lennon - (thisism, thatism, ism, ism, ism) - ie protesting against the proliferation of "isms" in society with no specific meaning itself (how do you differntiate between thisism and thatism?) since it is not the adherance to the ideology of "this". If it has a modern meaning then it's just another ismism.
Mathematics is not a "how" it is just a language - it describes things as a way of explaining them, but it does not result in anything. Mathematical coincidence is simply that - coincidence that two unrelated mathematical forumla yield a similar result (not the same result) so can in certain circumstnaces be used as a substitute (eg 22/7 is not pi, but for most things it's a good aproximation). Mathematics is not how or why anything came into existance, it is merely an obsevation that it has - I see no mathematical coincidence in these observations, but if they are it doesn't affect anything or change how those things came into existance. Describing grass as green or verdant are just different descriptions, neither are aproximations and neither change the colour of the grass to the observer.
No - I find that to be a wonder and thing of total and utter awe-inspiring joy. If it was the result of some creator-god I'd be a lot less impressed.
|
||||||
What?
|
||||||
Chris S
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: June 09 2004 Location: Front Range Status: Offline Points: 7028 |
Posted: September 01 2010 at 02:24 | |||||
.
EDIT: Dean's quote, sorry out of context.
No - I find that to be a wonder and thing of total and utter awe-inspiring joy. If it was the result of some creator-god I'd be a lot less impressed. [/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
OK, now thats perhaps the best answer I could have wished for. Still I do hope a creator is outthere somewhere, accountable or non accountable. Edited by Chris S - September 01 2010 at 02:26 |
||||||
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
||||||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: September 01 2010 at 03:19 | |||||
|
||||||
What?
|
||||||
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 11 2009 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 4006 |
Posted: September 01 2010 at 04:54 | |||||
Mike, that article is concerned with miracles in the naming of saints. The procedure for canonization was reformed in 1983 and its body renamed the Congregation for the Causes of Saints by John Paul II in 1988.
The first step is ''Beatification'' where the person is deemed blessed:
- sanctity - based on an historical account of the person's life, where the person has risen to the challenges of their time and shown heroic virtue.
- intercession - not only must there have been a miracle, the person must be deemed to have interceded to bring about the miracle.
- martyrdom - if martyred then there is no need for a miracle.
- purity of doctrine - the person's writings may be examined and should not show signs of heresy.
After beatification, another miracle is required for the final step to sainthood.
No longer a criterion for sainthood is ''incorruptibility'':
Now I'll grant that there may be other explanations for each of the above, for example the argument against ''great men/women'' that they were merely the product of their social setting, that an illness may be in remission, or the physical vs spiritual causes of incorruptibility (no longer a criterion, remember). However all criteria must be met, and the objections/doubts raised by the devil's advocate must be resolved...
|
||||||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: September 01 2010 at 05:14 | |||||
Yes, I've already agree that it's evidence that people believed in something, just not that it is evidence for what was being believed. For thousands of years everybody in Egypt believed that Ra was the Sun god - the scale of architecture of ancient Egypt could be seen as a measure of that strength of belief; the monuments of the ancient Britans such as Stonehenge and Avebury are evidence that the whole population of that area believed in something and did so for thousands of years (given the evidence of continuous linear use and development of the monuments). In Central and South American the indigenous religions were capable of motivating entire populations to produce some amazing art and architecture (eg Machu Picchu in Peru and Calixtlahuaca in Mexico). Hinduism is a polytheistic religion that is older than any existing religion and is believed by 1 billion people (I don't need to go into the scale and wealth of art produced by the Hindu's - it is self evident). The weight of all these examples is the same (whole pouplations for a long periods of time) and is not enough to distinguish one from another or to make any claim other than they believed in something that may or may not have existed.
If it isn't a good explanation then it isn't an explanation. Edited by Dean - September 01 2010 at 05:19 |
||||||
What?
|
||||||
Textbook
Forum Senior Member Joined: October 08 2009 Status: Offline Points: 3281 |
Posted: September 01 2010 at 05:55 | |||||
TheLlama: Let's say you are falsely accused of a murder, but your prints were on the murder weapon and you owed the victim a large amount of money and you had been near the scene. And let's say you were an ugly looking guy and spoke poorly and were black and did drugs and had a history of violent assault, but you did not commit this murder.
Thousands of people glancing over the details of this case over their papers or television or web browsing would come to a very solid and unshakeable belief that you were guilty.
You seem to be saying that this constitutes evidence that you are in fact guilty.
This is insane.
|
||||||
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 11 2009 Location: . Status: Offline Points: 4006 |
Posted: September 01 2010 at 05:56 | |||||
Dean, It's fascinating to think that we learned to use language in order to communicate, let alone develop complex systems of belief. I know the ''why'' of religion was discussed earlier in the thread, I just think your post above poses more questions about why, how, who, where, when etc.
Something you said a few pages ago about outlawing religions, and how they then pass into mythology. I just wondered how you ''make'' someone stop believing... it ties in with Mike's point that Christianity might easily have faded into obscurity... despite the Roman persecutions, why did Christianity endure? How did Christianity develop from being a minor Jewish sect, despite the persecutions? Mike often points to the promise of an ''afterlife'', but this idea wasn't exclusive to Christianity, was it?
|
||||||
Negoba
Prog Reviewer Joined: July 24 2008 Location: Big Muddy Status: Offline Points: 5210 |
Posted: September 01 2010 at 08:28 | |||||
Freak events often shape the course of history. Constantine's nominal conversion to Christianity at his deathbed was one of them. He never was a Christian in any way we'd recognize, but adopted his Roman ideas with new symbols.
|
||||||
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
||||||
Dean
Special Collaborator Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: September 01 2010 at 09:10 | |||||
Sorry Chris, you're gonna have to be more specific - what post and where in that post did I what I say pose these questions?
You make people stop believing by offering something more attractive in replacement (and is some cases, more attractive than death by burning). The early christian church did this by adopting the pagan feast-days and merging into the indigenous culture rather than trying to supplant it - this meant that the locals weren't losing anything by adopting the new religion - they could still celebrate Beltaine, Shamhain and Saturnalia and have a big party - it was just called Easter, Harvest Festival and Christmas - and they were given Sunday's off as well - win-win. The other "incentive" that christianity offered that the pagan religions didn't was that they were more "modern" and "progressive" and centered around humanity rather than spirituality and otherworldliness. Essentially, christianity to early medieval people was hip and with-it.
To gain insight into how christianity endured the Roman persecutions you have to first ask why the Romans were persecuting them in the first place - this wasn't standard procedure for Roman Empire - they normally assimilated others' religions into their own pantheon of gods, and where they couldn't, such as with the Jewish faith, they granted it special status and allowed them to continue unmolested as long as they paid tax. In the beginning christianity was just a faction of the Jewish religion, they saw it as an internal "problem" of the Jewish nation and of no concern to them. So for the most part they tolerated the early christians (Nero instigated the first round of persecutions but that was because the early christians in Rome were rebellious, not because he disapproved of their religion; Roman persecutions were not continuous and relentless during this period) and continued like that, with only sporadic outbreaks of small-scale localised persecutions, for the next 250 years. This was a crucial time for the new religion as it was when the christianity grew and spread more or less unchecked. It was during this period that christianity separated from the jewish faith and the early church fathers formulated what the religion would actually be and how the church would govern it - they were allowed considerable freedom and latitude within the Roman Empire to do this and it certainly wouldn't have happened under constant persecution.
The persecutions of the later period were caused by many reasons - the Romans now saw the the more organised and growing church as a threat - they were seen as sectarian, separatist, secretive, atheistic (a polytheistic view of monotheism), non-materialistic and disloyal - the normal Roman procedure with new religions was assimilation, but the jews and later the chistians were having none of that malarkey. None of these features fitted with the democratic and social nature of Roman life so the christians remained "foreign" outsiders. The church endured because it adapted and what didn't defeat it made it stronger, it had seen that the Romans feared what the church represented and they drew strength from that. Ironically that resulted in producing a religion that became more attractive to an emperor who wanted to control a vast population and the persecutions created martyrs, who became saints, and those saints made the religion appealing to those use to a polytheistic religion.
No, the afterlife wasn't exclusive to christianity, and it certainly wasn't central to the jewish faith, but it was (apparently) a key part of many religions. Burial rituals, which are common to most civilisations in one form or another and (if the archaeology is correct) to Neanderthals too, suggest that to many religions and cultures burial is more than just mourning the passing of dead, it is preparing them for life after death and their journey to the ancestors - viking ship burials, Celtic burial mounds, Egyptian tombs, etc. etc. all suggest this is the case. Whether that was central to the religion is another matter - burial tombs survive as evidence because they were designed to - no one gets buried in a tent simply because it won't last and no one wants that. We see the Egyptian religions as being cults of the dead because the tombs are all that survive - the day to day, hedonistic, life is for living stuff is long gone.
|
||||||
What?
|
||||||
thellama73
Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 29 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8368 |
Posted: September 01 2010 at 10:08 | |||||
No it isn't. In the scenario you describe there is a lot of evidence that I am guilty. You're confusing evidence with proof. If people believe something they have to have a reason for believing it. In this case, part of their reason for believing in my guilt is the fact that my fingerprints were on the murder weapon. They believe based on evidence, so belief itself is by extension a form of evidence. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with some of your assumptions though. Edited by thellama73 - September 01 2010 at 10:11 |
||||||
|
||||||
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: September 01 2010 at 10:27 | |||||
^ I agree - it's pretty solid evidence, assuming that "you had been near the scene" is confirmed by unbiased witnesses. You would probably be convicted - which never means that you are proven to be guilty, it simply means that a judge or jury found that your guilt can be seen as a fact beyond reasonable doubt.
|
||||||
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 27 2004 Location: Peru Status: Offline Points: 19557 |
Posted: September 01 2010 at 10:50 | |||||
No Mike, the process has been changed in 1983 by John Paul II...A Saint requires miracles, and the process is not simple at all
.
Even when there are posibilities of mistake (In normal trials 1,900 persons covicted to death have neem discovered innocent), with not one or two doctors. a panel of 5 DOCTORS or 5 Scientists with unanymous decision must exist.
No trial is as strict as this one.
Yes Mike, you know more than a panel of 5 PROFFESIONAL doctors and/or scientists...Sure Mike
Mike, some questions:
Mike, talking without knowledge, and making claims that you can't support is not only ignorance, but arrogant ignorance. Iván
|
||||||
|
||||||
thellama73
Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 29 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8368 |
Posted: September 01 2010 at 10:54 | |||||
Maybe you should stop using the term "Argument From Ignorance," Mike, since no one seems to know what it means and people insist on misinterpreting what you are saying.
|
||||||
|
||||||
The T
Special Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: October 16 2006 Location: FL, USA Status: Offline Points: 17493 |
Posted: September 01 2010 at 11:49 | |||||
Blessed by God are those who can READ...
|
||||||
|
||||||
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: September 01 2010 at 12:26 | |||||
You think that if I explained it again people would stop insisting to misinterpret it? |
||||||
thellama73
Collaborator Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 29 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 8368 |
Posted: September 01 2010 at 12:31 | |||||
No.
|
||||||
|
||||||
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: September 01 2010 at 12:35 | |||||
That's all very nice, but it doesn't mean that they proved a miracle. It simply means that they proved that they can't think of an alternative explanation. If they positively assert that there can be no other explanation than "miracle", then they are being dishonest - that would be like when an Atheists was claiming to know for a fact that no Gods exist.
I know that they can't possibly prove that there are no alternative explanations.
At least this time the Protestants reading this might side with me - or convert to Catholicism because of your convincing argument. |
||||||
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: September 01 2010 at 12:36 | |||||
Of course I know that the word "ignorance" will cause a knee-jerk reaction no matter what happens ... I'm like Black Adder in the episode with the actors, where he keeps saying "Macbeth". |
||||||
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member Joined: November 08 2008 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 5195 |
Posted: September 01 2010 at 12:37 | |||||
There he goes again with punctuated equilibrium. |
||||||
Negoba
Prog Reviewer Joined: July 24 2008 Location: Big Muddy Status: Offline Points: 5210 |
Posted: September 01 2010 at 12:39 | |||||
Yeah it's part of the way I think about the world. Good connection, not sure I made it directly myself.
|
||||||
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
|
||||||
Post Reply | Page <1 103104105106107 174> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |