Was wondering when this would turn up. A real masterpiece of work she is.
Never met a woman who wasnāt instantly fascinated by me. Granted that fascination has ended legally 
Why isnāt it possible to do that? Why should an all powerful creator of the universe, who we are expected to worship and devote ourselves to, be impossible to verify?
How convenient.
Can you explain what you mean by reasonable faith, and how it differs from blind faith? I donāt see a difference. You still believing in something with no evidence.
No, that isnāt unreasonable. There are lots of scientists devoting their lives to this study in the hope of finding an answer for you. And they are getting closer everyday.
(Worth clarify that we have a good understanding of how consciousness arose, through evolutionary biology)
There are some aspects of realty we canāt fully explain - like how life emerged from chemistry (although we are are good way to understanding). But that is the great thing about science. We keep asking and we keep testing until we do understand.
God isnāt understanding. God is a full stop. A means of not asking the question. Itās a lazy and childish response to scientific inquiry.
I often wonder where weād be as a species if weād shed religion earlier. Like, why did it take until the mid 19th century to understand that we and all animals were descended from common ancestors. Evolution via natural selection is not a hard concept to understand, and itās fairly obvious when you think about it. The conclusion I reach is that religion holds us back. It prevents progress.
You can believe what you want, but until you can put forward some serious proof for this, donāt expect to be taken seriously.
My biggest complaint about religion is that it is given a deference and dignity it does not deserve.
You can say you believe in all kinds of magical, fantasy notions and be laughed at. But as soon as you describe it as a āfaithā and convey it the status of a religious, then it has to be taken seriously. Why?
1 Like
You arenāt engaging in good faith. Because despite having the point made to you several times now by several people, you will not - I think intentionally - consider the points
a) that while Stalin was probably an Atheist, nobody in the Soviet Union died in the name of Atheism.
b) The USSR under Stalin, while not religious in the sense you understand it, was deeply religious in the way it actually operated.
You just keep saying Stalin was an atheist. I mean, yeah probably - but there were people within his own inner circle who privately doubted that.
I already said that between 1917 and 1943 the Communist Party outlawed religion and persecuted practitioners. But then Stalin brought it back big time. The question is why. Some people within his command structure thought he might secretly be a believer. As I previously said, this is pretty unlikely. What is more likely is that Stalin knew full well that if he wanted to tighten his grip on power, it would be useful to have a state church with him at the centre.
By the way, I donāt think youāve offered much that proves Jesusā existence. I mean, as soon as you mention Josephus youāve shown an inability to understand a bare faced fraud. But as I, and others have said, this isnāt really the point. If there was a Jesus, was he the one who did the magical things in the bible.
I mean, to go back to my analogy, in a thousand years time you will be able to prove with absolutely no doubt that Harry Potter existed. There are Harry Potters in the phone book, there are records of people called Harry Potter everywhere. But is that a good reason to believe that what happened in the books is true?
Exactly my point from earlier. You can criticise my football team and make caricatures of our managers, Iām not going to resort to violence. That requires āreligionā that helpful peaceful thing.
I am sorry, it was a genuine mistake on my part. I copied from notes I had made over a decade ago not realising/remembering that I had originally copied them from Van Voorst.
It was not my intention to mislead the forum.
5 Likes
A different spin on it is humans are a mere spec in the history of time. If a modern man went back to biblical times he would likely be considered a god.
In another 1000 years who would bet against us being able to perform basically every miracle in the bible. Be it terraform a planet, clone someone that has died, or create a new life form.
Itās more of a philosophical argument but to quote Arthur C Clarke. āAny sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.ā
I personally believe something close to what Einstein said āI prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being,ā he said, āyou may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist.ā
I guess thatās why I fall in the middle when view both sides of argument. I view much of the bible as not meant to be taken literally. Stories intended for moral guidance. I fully believe science, but also accept limitations to my understanding. The infinitesimal small chances of life beginning on earth.
To an extent I admire people who are spiritual, not that I believe in any religion. A nuanced view I guess.
4 Likes
Would they be murder, slavery or advocating child rape?
I donāt believe thatās possible. You either believe in a god or you donāt. Thereās no middle ground. Whatever you define god as, it is or it isnāt.
1 Like
Sure you can.
Itās the very definition of being agnostic.
Agnostics neither believes or disbelieves the existence of god. In short the existence of a god canāt be known or knowable with any certainty.
4 Likes
A stance I disagree with. You believe a god exists or you donāt. Can you be unsure? Not in my book. But then thatās just my book and I donāt expect you to read it 
Many scientists are agnostic, because at its heart itās the most pure scientific approach to theology.
To be an Atheist is to state something does not exist. That in its self is a belief. No different to the belief there is a god.
You are putting your faith in a position, based on an absence of evidence. But a lack of evidence for god existing, is not evidence for a god not existing.
Think of my perspective of god like schrƶdingerās cat. The pessimists are says the cat is dead, the optimists are saying the cat is alive. The agnostic says there is no evidence supporting one theory or another.
5 Likes
Thatās where I am too. If not, Iād choose Pascalās gamble.
Wager
If god falls for it, itās not much of a god.
1 Like
No no no, to be an atheist is to reject the assertion that a god exists. Thereās a stratospheric difference. As per my OP, I canāt ever know that there isnāt a god under a rock on the 3rd moon of Jaglon Beta.
1 Like
Actually, I donāt think thatās strictly true. Agnosticism isnāt a middle ground between belief and disbelief.
Agnosticism is about what you can prove or what we know. If weāre intellectually honest, weāre all agnostic about god because we canāt prove it one way or another. Iām also agnostic about Nessie. I mean, I supposed there might be something in Loch Ness we havenāt found yet. But the idea of Nessie hasnāt got close to meeting its burden of proof, so while Iām Agnostic about Nessie Iām also Anessieist.
Whether you are theist or atheist is about your response to the question of god. A theist believes that there is good reason to believe in a god, and an atheist doesnāt.
Technically I am an agnostic atheist. I donāt know for 100% sure there isnāt a god, but I donāt think there is any good reason to think there is, lots of reason to suppose there isnāt, and so I donāt live my life as if there is.
Actually Iām an anti theist, I hope (particularly the Abrahamic god) doesnāt exist as heās fundamentally a monster. Finding St Peter at the end of life would be thoroughly disappointing. A little My Fry? Why not:
Thoughts from the religious?
I was asked this question once by a JW on my doorstep. āWhat if you died and found yourself in front of God demanding to know why you hadnāt believed in him.ā
I said āIād be fucking furious. Iād want to know why he had set up the universe to appear as if he didnāt exist and why he had gone to such lengths to fool me into not believe in him. Iād want to know why heād given people like me ability and tendency to want to understand the world rationally and objectively if he was just going to punish us for it.ā
3 Likes
To which the JW repeated something theyād heard in church every week for years. You can lead a horse to water but you canāt make it think. (Pratchett)
1 Like