La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Enough to do your noggin in, and the main reason I say I'm agnostic, because I'll never know for certain, and why I think that atheists like Dawkins are just as much 'faith' pushers as are religious fanatics Atheists like Dawkins are not faith pushers, whether you put that in quoatation marks or not. But they do push their stuff for very good reasons. One is because the chrisitianity is something to be rid of in society and the other is because christians are seeking to argue against the facts proved by science and seem to be doing well considering the ignorance of the masses they preach to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 The omnipotent being may well be a fool, but to have created all this suggests a certain level of intelligence. I have asked myself all the questions regarding our existence and the conclusion I am drawn to (repeat) that there has to be some presence that has always been there. I believe there has to have been something/someone there "from time immemorial" for all this to happen. That someone/something may well have been a fool to have produced something so flawed as we are now but maybe in the future all will be redeemed and it's part of the growing up process. Very little designed works perfectly immediately. VOR, I hope you don't think I am getting at you - its just you are about the only person vocalizing something which I think is very commonly believed, but something I disagree with and so wish to discuss more! Obviously, as we all admit, this is basically personal opinion and if you beg to differ that is fine by me, but I do wish to discuss your ideas that any first mover has necessarily to exist or has to be powerful, or intelligent, or a designer. I really don't see any reason for any of this and wonder if you can explain your thinking more - if its just your gut feel fine, but I do think such beliefs are common and are some of the main reasons why many people are deists, or have a hankering for Intelligent Design - VOR your posts seem to indicate beliefs in both of these ideas and hence my replies to you!............... I also really would like to understand more about your idea that the universe is designed with a purpose. How can we possible know, and how can we distinguish it from a purposeless universe? Especially as we have no idea what so ever of any of the motivations of any such creator - ok saying this will get the religious all wound up, but I simply find their claims to be able to see or recieve a revelation of these motives totally unconvincing. Anyway, I've gone on enough - am I making any sense? VOR you seem to see a reason for a creator, for it to be intelligent and for the universe to have a purpose. I don't have any of those hopes and can't even start to see how I can find them looking out into the universe as i see it. But my guess is that far far more people feel like you than me - I am trully foxed by that! And hence love trying to get people to talk about this sort of thing - an earlier attempt! Chinahand, no certainly don't think you are getting at me - it's a debate going on! My presumption of a supreme being may be part of a gut feeling, but at the risk of repeating myself, those that suggest there was a coming together of atoms cannot explain where those atoms came from etc. I certainly don't subscribe to the Adam & Eve thing but the idea of a being always existing is the only way I can get my head round how we came to be here. Unsatisfactory, I'll grant you but in the absence of evidence to the contrary I'll have to stick with it. After all many, if not all, civilisations and cultures have come to the same conclusion so I take comfort that I'm not alone. One thing though, I don't believe I have said anything to suggest that I believe the universe was created for a purpose. Possibly something I wrote in an earlier post led you to that conclusion but that was not my intention - maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Maybe this supreme being accidentally knocked over a test tube from their giant chemistry set, and woosh! here we all are! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 After all many, if not all, civilisations and cultures have come to the same conclusion so I take comfort that I'm not alone. Why do you feel it is the logical to believe in a supreme being? You haven't really explained. From how it seems when I read what you think, I don't think you have just realised that the only logical explanation is an intelligent force in isolation from the fact that others believe it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 After all many, if not all, civilisations and cultures have come to the same conclusion so I take comfort that I'm not alone. My presumption from what you say is that you have got this idea from other people or books. In other words, because you have heard that a Supreme Being had a made all there is, you feel that it is worth believing. I don't think you have just realised that the only logical explanation is an intelligent force in isolation from the fact that others believe it too. I only say that because it doesn't seem logical otherwise. Did you read my post? I explained my reasoning. The fact that others have reached the same conclusion independently of me, and me of them just gives me some comfort that I am not a lone nutter. Whereas you............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I am only interested in knowing some more about how you come to the conclusion of a Supreme Being some more. You mention it being logical. I would suppose that your reasons are based on more than just simply because people don't have answers to all your questions or just because you don't know what some answers are. The fact that others have reached the same conclusion independently of me, and me of them just gives me some comfort that I am not a lone nutter.Whereas you............... If you feel comfortable being one nutter among many then fair enough. Just interested in why you choose to be. I've never believed in God or any other force though used to wish he was real, so I am just interested in why others do. What do you mean 'whereas you', are you saying I am not a nutter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Oh no, you explained your reasoning and I think you are very honest about it. I am only interested in knowing some more about how you come to the conclusion of a Supreme Being some more. You mention it being logical. I would suppose that your reasons are based on more than just simply because people don't have answers to all your questions or just because you don't know what some answers are. The fact that others have reached the same conclusion independently of me, and me of them just gives me some comfort that I am not a lone nutter.Whereas you............... Have they? How do you know that since posting your thoughts that some other person might now think that belief in a supreme being is en entirely logical because you have said it is. That is what I am quite interested in, because I find it very hard to believe that you could have come to the conclusion that there is supreme being in isolation (i.e. not knowing that other people believe it too). If you feel comfortable being one nutter among many then fair enough. Just interested in why you choose to be. I've never believed in God or any other force though wish he was real, so I am just interested in why others do. Yes I'm quite comfortable being one nutter among many. If some weak minded individual chooses to "believe" in the existence of a supreme being because I have declared that I do, on a forum such as this (with all due respect it's not the New Scientist) then so be it. Although such a scenario seems highly unlikely, as likely as someone reading your scriblings, converting to the view that all policemen are bastards. It doesn't rule my life or anything. I just thought I'd offer my opinion as one does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Sorry, I did edit my previous post a lot. I know it doesn't rule your life or anything, just interested in how you come to have that belief. It just appears that however undefined that being that being may be, it seems to me that you could only have come to believe in such a being is because other people do. As for policemen, you do seem slightly annoyed by my post. I think it is good stance to take and very sensible. But I wasn't exactly saying that all policemen are bastards. Just that their line of work involves them in acts which are just plain wrong. If someone does something that is wrong then what am I to think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Sorry, I did edit my previous post a lot. I know it doesn't rule your life or anything, just interested in how you come to have that belief. It just appears that however undefined that being that being may be, it seems to me that you could only have come to believe in such a being is because other people do. As for policemen, I just make a good assumption that the police serve the law, therefore the work that they do cannot be seen to wholly good or moral. And police who carry out such work are involved in nasty stuff and that reflects on them. This seems obvious. Do you find my questioning to be very confrontational? Yes sometimes a little, but I suppose anyone would be affronted by the suggestion that they are not capable of reaching a position by virtue of their own reasoning process. I fail to see how that if say, only two people hold the same opinion/belief one must have influenced the other. There are a lot of people in favour of say capital punishment. Would you say that they have been egged on by each other and that they can't make their own minds up? The same applies to the anti capital punishment camp, or even the "couldn't give a stuff" brigade. There are there say basically three positions to hold. So you can't say that anyone holding any one of these views must have been influenced by the first person to declare that position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 I didn't say you weren't capable of making a decision based on your own reasoning. And I didn't say that for more than one person to hold a similar opinion that they MUST have influenced or instructed by another. Only that it would seem to me that you make are influenced by others ideas. It is why I am asking, do you think you would have come to conclusion of there being a creative being if nobody else believed in one? There are a lot of people in favour of say capital punishment. Would you say that they have been egged on by each other and that they can't make their own minds up? The same applies to the anti capital punishment camp, or even the "couldn't give a stuff" brigade. To a large extent I think that people are heavily influenced as to what to believe to be true, important, and even instructed as to how to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 e What’s wrong with this lot as examples of good morality? Don’t get into things that will do you no good. Don’t steal - wishy washy. If this commandment simply means kidnappign then it makes sense. But if it means property then it could mean that it is wrong to take anything from another person if it is legally classed as their property or seen to be their property. I don't agree with this, I don't think is moral. And the Torah advovates the selling of someone into slavery if they are caught and cannot pay back the amount. Does it not also mention that gentiles who steal must be given the death penalty? Don’t murder Don’t be jealous of what others have - What is wrong with covetting the things that others have? Should you be happy with your lot? Don’t break up a partnership - It is not breaking up a relationship that is mentioned, it is committing adultery. I don't think that should be a moral imperative. Why should marriage (which was certainly little more than a property contract then) be given credit as being a sacred and special thing? Anyway, aren't adulterers supposed to be stoned? Keep a bit of time for yourself on a regular basis Pay heed to what your parents tell you - as a moral imperative, it is not wise. Why should you always obey your parents? Why the assumption that they know best and are wise themselves? Mu understanding is also that a son who does not heed his parents words can be stoned. And that’s not even going into the New Covenant. Call me old fashioned, LDV, but I have several issues with your responses. Theft - Your reply is based on a supposition that no one has invested time and effort in securing these 'things' and so they are all up for grabs. This is the old 'all property is theft' argument. If you do not agree with the position that taking someone else's property is wrong, then the big bullies will take everything they want from the little man, without compunction. Now, the 'big bullies' could be corporates or local thugs, but you are really allowing the heavy weights to walk all over the ordinary person. There are a great many people who like property; particularly if it is someone else's and free. Jealousy - it is OK to be competitive, but not to be so jealous that you thieve, trick and bully your way to get what you covet. Adultery - simple imperative is not to break up a family unit that is important for the well being of the children. Is that a hard concept? Pay heed to your parents - it is not blind discipline, but an attempt to pass on the benefit of some hard learnt lessons without the pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Theft- my response is based on the supposition that what is qualified as theft is a legal matter. It is not that I disagree with the principle if it was a matter of allowing people to keep hold of their possessions and stop others from taking other people's possessions. However, in today's society the legal definition of theft has a lot to do with what is considered private property. I don't recognise that claim so it is tricky commandment to respect and recognise as moral. I would require better definition of what stealing means in order to be happy with this point. Jealousy of other's things - no it isn't right to thieve, trick, or bully. But why do you bring these things up? There are part and parcel of coveting things. You are just mentioning what some people might do if they want them. I think it is good that the poor and needy covet the things that may FOR EXAMPLE have been taken from them or claimed by the rich and powerful. Adultery - in the Jewish sense I think it makes sense. I don't think marriage is anything other than a property contract turned into some modern marketing gimmick for gushing wannabe brides and grooms who think it is what they should do. But it is not good to have sex outside of a relationship. However, the Christian version of this commandment is immoral in the sense that it forbids lusting after others, but this is a natural human response. And this sounds something like a thought crime. Honour your parents - I agree with what you say. The problem with this one is there is no mention of parents being good to their children. And also there is the false promise of land is this is obeyed, but no good reason why parents should be obeyed other than this promise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Theft- my response is based on the supposition that what is qualified as theft is a legal matter. It is not that I disagree with the principle if it was a matter of allowing people to keep hold of their possessions and stop others from taking other people's possessions. However, in today's society the legal definition of theft has a lot to do with what is considered private property. I don't recognise that claim so it is tricky commandment to respect and recognise as moral. I would require better definition of what stealing means in order to be happy with this point. Stealing means to remove or damage another person's property with the intention of permanently depriving them of it (note the removal and deprivation). Private property isn't a hard concept, it is the stuff that is in my possession that is not available to you to do with as you please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 That is the modern legal definition of theft. But what constitutes what would be stolen in those days the Ten Commandments (were scrawled BY MAN)? It was things like your cattle, your chattel slave, your produce, etc. Property today is codified by what you have purchased or what you have a legal entitlement to control or keep as your own. I don't recognise the modern legal form of property ownership. I am do not recognise that in the context of this idea of property that many people or organisations have a right to own that property. Possessions on the other hand I would class as things you have a justification to withhold and keep as your own - if stealing specifically referred to these things then I would agree. Overall it is well-eaming commandment, but too imprecise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted September 6, 2009 Share Posted September 6, 2009 Property = possessions. I don't see the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted September 7, 2009 Share Posted September 7, 2009 I believe it's just a book of good moral stories Not good morals! I believe we were all made by Galactus using the Power Cosmic. You mean the great Galactus from Marvel? Absolutely! What other God could there possibly be! DO NOT BUY A SURFBOARD FROM THIS BLOKE. His after sales service is crap, customer care nil and the terms and conditions are onerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.