financialwar
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2012
- Messages
- 607
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
If you have to ask this stupid question, then you are pretty stupid.
Does God exist? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter MoonlightSonata
- Start date
Do you realise your answer gives absolutely no indication of which way you lean?
It seems you can't tell the difference between seeking the truth by asking others, and canvassing other people's opinions out of interest.
Do you have any actual arguments other than labelling someone 'stupid'? And what is it exactly that makes the question stupid?
financialwar
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2012
- Messages
- 607
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Let me rephrase, if you have to seek the 'truth', because you don't know the truth, you're pretty stupid.
What.
I could tell you my name is John. Is that the truth? You don't know, you have to seek it (presuming you cared of course, which in this example you obviously don't but the point is there). Therefore you're stupid? I don't think so.
Don't be so ignorant.
dan964
what
Apathy is really terrible.
so is pluralism.
so is pluralism.
Does that apply to every question?
If I don't know the truth about General Relativity, am I stupid for asking a question about it?
Or is there something particular to this question that makes one stupid for not knowing the answer?
If so, what makes this question different?
Not sure which comment that was directed at. But check these examples of pluralism and tell me how many you have issues with:
http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-pluralism.html
dan964
what
@braintic
Firstly, it was actually in response to financialwar
"If you have to ask this stupid question, then you are pretty stupid." which is a pretty apathetic remark, regardless of what view that person actually had.
Two, it is mainly religious pluralism that I reject. I have nothing wrong with multiculturalism, provided it is based on respect. As a result, I find diversity, multiculturalism, democracy, free speech etc. to be good things.
[1]
I have no problem with multicultural nations, provided there is respect, frankly their sometimes isn't. I have no problem with the freedom to express each other views, but frankly to say that each view is equal, is clearly misguided.
In fact diversity I strongly encourage, which is why that comment above I consider as apathetic. I have no problems particularly with cultural diversity (even if you call it cultural pluralism).
[2]
Pluralism, notably religious pluralism, does not provide what it claims it can offer:
And despite what pluralism ** may define itself, in practice it does not tend to be like this.
Most of the examples in that site are arguably examples “diversity” and/or “cooperation” not actually demonstrating pluralism.
A distinction needs to be made between diversity and pluralism. Particularly if diversity is seen as a problem that pluralism fixes, which can be the attitude held. I don't see diversity is a problem, and even if I did, I don't think saying that all cultures for example are the same is a viable solution (yet people do that with religious pluralism)
**religious pluralism, or though it can extend to other forms in a more limited context. Consider below:
For example a better philosophical definition of pluralism:
a. The doctrine that reality is composed of many ultimate substances.
b. The belief that no single explanatory system or view of reality can account for all the phenomena of life.
Particularly both of these definitions together lead to the inevitable conclusion, that each worldview is right, which in essence because of the differences, can lead to apathy or rejecting every worldview, except that of pluralism.
There is a logical problem in pluralism though:
A. Assume pluralism is true (philosophically)
B. As the definition of pluralism would state that no single explanatory system or view can account for all the phenomena of life.
C. Therefore pluralism cannot be COMPLETELY true, negating or undermining A,
hence a contradiction.
The only point for disagreement is then on the definition (B).
[3]
I have no problem with tolerance depending on how you define it.
1. To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others).
2. To accept or be patient regarding (something unpleasant or undesirable);
Unfortunately with the second definition particularly “acceptance”, many people often take it as an excuse, that UNLESS we agree with someone (particularly noticeable on ‘rights’ issues such as gay-marriage etc.), we are INTOLERANT of their position. I can completely disagree with one’s views, and still recognise and respect the differences.
[4]
[Religious] pluralism tends to blur the distinctions between worldviews or religions, either by saying in practice they are same (which they are not)
e.g.
“The moral law that we find in the Bible, especially the Ten Commandments, is quite similar to the codes of other religions and can be found in civilizations that pre-date the giving of the law at Mount Sinai. If religion is basically ethics - getting people to do the right thing - then why get uptight over the different historical forms, doctrines, rituals, and practices that distinguish one version of morality from another?”
"Maybe you’ve heard the analogy of the six blind men and the elephant. In this analogy, six blind men feel a different part of an elephant and come to different conclusions regarding what the elephant is actually like. One blind man grabs the tusk and says, “An elephant is like a spear!” Another feels the trunk and concludes, “An elephant is like a snake!” The blind man hugging the leg thinks, “An elephant is like a tree!” The one holding the tail claims, “An elephant is like a rope!” Another feeling the ear believes, “An elephant is like a fan!” The last blind man leaning on the elephant’s side exclaims, “An elephant is like a wall!” This is often used to illustrate a view known as religious pluralism. Like the blind men, no religion has the truth. Rather, all religions are true in that they accurately describe their personal experience and the spiritual reality they encounter, given various historical and cultural backgrounds. There are various types of religious pluralism, but one way to define it is as follows: “the view that all religious roads – certainly all major or ethical ones – lead to God or to ultimate reality (if you don't believe in God) or salvation.” This idea is commonly reflected in such statements as “All religions basically teach the same thing” or “All roads lead to the top of the mountain.”
It is this kind of pluralism that is problematic, because it actually IN PRACTICE does not recognise the differences between each worldview, i.e. fails to deliver on what it says it should provide.
Why? Because it says that all worldviews have some true or some merit and basically gain the same result, when there are clearly disagreements even contradictions if all were true to some degree.
You don’t have to look far for disagreements, just look at the disagreements between for example Buddhism and Judaism, or even between atheism (a secular worldview) and Christianity, or even between Roman Catholicism and Protestant Christianity. To say that all religions are the same is what is so terrible about religious plurality.
Firstly, it was actually in response to financialwar
"If you have to ask this stupid question, then you are pretty stupid." which is a pretty apathetic remark, regardless of what view that person actually had.
Two, it is mainly religious pluralism that I reject. I have nothing wrong with multiculturalism, provided it is based on respect. As a result, I find diversity, multiculturalism, democracy, free speech etc. to be good things.
[1]
I have no problem with multicultural nations, provided there is respect, frankly their sometimes isn't. I have no problem with the freedom to express each other views, but frankly to say that each view is equal, is clearly misguided.
In fact diversity I strongly encourage, which is why that comment above I consider as apathetic. I have no problems particularly with cultural diversity (even if you call it cultural pluralism).
[2]
Pluralism, notably religious pluralism, does not provide what it claims it can offer:
And despite what pluralism ** may define itself, in practice it does not tend to be like this.
Most of the examples in that site are arguably examples “diversity” and/or “cooperation” not actually demonstrating pluralism.
A distinction needs to be made between diversity and pluralism. Particularly if diversity is seen as a problem that pluralism fixes, which can be the attitude held. I don't see diversity is a problem, and even if I did, I don't think saying that all cultures for example are the same is a viable solution (yet people do that with religious pluralism)
**religious pluralism, or though it can extend to other forms in a more limited context. Consider below:
For example a better philosophical definition of pluralism:
a. The doctrine that reality is composed of many ultimate substances.
b. The belief that no single explanatory system or view of reality can account for all the phenomena of life.
Particularly both of these definitions together lead to the inevitable conclusion, that each worldview is right, which in essence because of the differences, can lead to apathy or rejecting every worldview, except that of pluralism.
There is a logical problem in pluralism though:
A. Assume pluralism is true (philosophically)
B. As the definition of pluralism would state that no single explanatory system or view can account for all the phenomena of life.
C. Therefore pluralism cannot be COMPLETELY true, negating or undermining A,
hence a contradiction.
The only point for disagreement is then on the definition (B).
[3]
I have no problem with tolerance depending on how you define it.
1. To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others).
2. To accept or be patient regarding (something unpleasant or undesirable);
Unfortunately with the second definition particularly “acceptance”, many people often take it as an excuse, that UNLESS we agree with someone (particularly noticeable on ‘rights’ issues such as gay-marriage etc.), we are INTOLERANT of their position. I can completely disagree with one’s views, and still recognise and respect the differences.
[4]
[Religious] pluralism tends to blur the distinctions between worldviews or religions, either by saying in practice they are same (which they are not)
e.g.
“The moral law that we find in the Bible, especially the Ten Commandments, is quite similar to the codes of other religions and can be found in civilizations that pre-date the giving of the law at Mount Sinai. If religion is basically ethics - getting people to do the right thing - then why get uptight over the different historical forms, doctrines, rituals, and practices that distinguish one version of morality from another?”
"Maybe you’ve heard the analogy of the six blind men and the elephant. In this analogy, six blind men feel a different part of an elephant and come to different conclusions regarding what the elephant is actually like. One blind man grabs the tusk and says, “An elephant is like a spear!” Another feels the trunk and concludes, “An elephant is like a snake!” The blind man hugging the leg thinks, “An elephant is like a tree!” The one holding the tail claims, “An elephant is like a rope!” Another feeling the ear believes, “An elephant is like a fan!” The last blind man leaning on the elephant’s side exclaims, “An elephant is like a wall!” This is often used to illustrate a view known as religious pluralism. Like the blind men, no religion has the truth. Rather, all religions are true in that they accurately describe their personal experience and the spiritual reality they encounter, given various historical and cultural backgrounds. There are various types of religious pluralism, but one way to define it is as follows: “the view that all religious roads – certainly all major or ethical ones – lead to God or to ultimate reality (if you don't believe in God) or salvation.” This idea is commonly reflected in such statements as “All religions basically teach the same thing” or “All roads lead to the top of the mountain.”
It is this kind of pluralism that is problematic, because it actually IN PRACTICE does not recognise the differences between each worldview, i.e. fails to deliver on what it says it should provide.
Why? Because it says that all worldviews have some true or some merit and basically gain the same result, when there are clearly disagreements even contradictions if all were true to some degree.
You don’t have to look far for disagreements, just look at the disagreements between for example Buddhism and Judaism, or even between atheism (a secular worldview) and Christianity, or even between Roman Catholicism and Protestant Christianity. To say that all religions are the same is what is so terrible about religious plurality.
Last edited:
I'm wondering why you take such issue with a mere point of view. Surely there can be no outwardly visible negatives to someone having pluralistic religious beliefs .... people who think all religions are equal are hardly going to fly planes into buildings. Although I believe people are misguided in having any religious belief at all, I would not be expressing that thought so forcefully (probably not at all) were it not for the negative impact of religion on society (terrorism, creationism, infant indoctrination, imposition of their particular brand of moral standards on others, .....). And that negative impact comes about mainly because people believe that their particular religious fantasy is the correct one. What exactly is the negative impact on society of religious pluralism? Who suffers?
I don't know what you mean by "The doctrine that reality is composed of many ultimate substances". When you say "reality", do you mean 'the universe'? And what is this 'ultimate substance'?
And that attempt at a 'proof' is utter nonsense. The whole point of pluralism is that it is NOT a "single explanatory system or view".
Let me apply that 'logic' to another 'proof':
Assume that the properties of light can be explained by a particle theory and a wave theory, and label these two theories "dualism".
A. Assume dualism is true
B. As the definition of dualism would state that no single explanatory system can account for all the phenomena of light
C. Therefore dualism cannot be COMPLETELY true, negating or undermining A,
hence a contradiction.
So apparently, everything we've learned in Physics is wrong.
And what is wrong with apathy, if it is apathy about something that is of no consequence to us, such as where we came from? It is a question that interests me, but the answer has no bearing on my day to day life, so who suffers if it doesn't interest everyone? If you're going to answer that one, please don't first assume the existence of a god in doing so, because then we are back to conjecture.
dan964
what
^^ @braintic
I take issue in pluralism, because it fails to deliver in what is promises.
I think it is just as assertive to say that "God is dead" as it is to say "God exists". The atheist or the theist both have burden of proof, while the agnostic does not (at least in Western culture). It is a bit of an assumption, but safe to make in these circumstances.
I was addressing religious pluralism.
Pluralism: They (the world's religion)are describing the same thing in radically different ways. Thus one should conclude that no individual religion has a corner on truth, but that all should be viewed as essentially equally valid.
Here is it rewritten in more detail, and the conclusion is different:
A. Pluralism* assume is true *religious pluralism (unless noted I refer to it as pluralism)
B. Pluralism states that no single system can be completely right.
C. So Pluralism as a result of (B) says that therefore if there is a reality, it is composed of all realities.
D: Therefore by saying that each religion is partially and equally true it is equally saying that each religion is partially and equally false.
E. Pluralism thus claims exclusivity saying that it is the only correct viewpoint
F: As a result, the principle of pluralism is questionable, in that it fails to deliver what it actually promises.
Have you heard of the elephant analogy? I am sure some can explain it better.
Basically 4 blind men are at different parts of the elephant (which they don't know what it is), one man feels the trunk and says it is like a snake , one man feels the tail and says a rope. One feels the legs and says it is like a tree, another feels the back and says it is like a wall. This is often how religious pluralism is presented. The problem with this is it is just as exclusive as the religions of the world, pluralism claims are false.
The real problem with religious pluralism is like communism, it assumes all religions are equal in the sense that each are equally valid/wrong, which is not the case. Each belief system has characteristic sets of beliefs.
Your dualism, although a reasonable example, and yes my logic was off, assumes that there isn't any other explanation that can possibly account for the dual-nature of light. Dualism technically states that these theories (two only) are wrong, while pluralism says all other viewpoints (possibly excluding itself) are wrong (not exactly the same thing).
Anyway. ttfn.
I take issue in pluralism, because it fails to deliver in what is promises.
I think it is just as assertive to say that "God is dead" as it is to say "God exists". The atheist or the theist both have burden of proof, while the agnostic does not (at least in Western culture). It is a bit of an assumption, but safe to make in these circumstances.
I was addressing religious pluralism.
Pluralism: They (the world's religion)are describing the same thing in radically different ways. Thus one should conclude that no individual religion has a corner on truth, but that all should be viewed as essentially equally valid.
Here is it rewritten in more detail, and the conclusion is different:
A. Pluralism* assume is true *religious pluralism (unless noted I refer to it as pluralism)
B. Pluralism states that no single system can be completely right.
C. So Pluralism as a result of (B) says that therefore if there is a reality, it is composed of all realities.
D: Therefore by saying that each religion is partially and equally true it is equally saying that each religion is partially and equally false.
E. Pluralism thus claims exclusivity saying that it is the only correct viewpoint
F: As a result, the principle of pluralism is questionable, in that it fails to deliver what it actually promises.
Have you heard of the elephant analogy? I am sure some can explain it better.
Basically 4 blind men are at different parts of the elephant (which they don't know what it is), one man feels the trunk and says it is like a snake , one man feels the tail and says a rope. One feels the legs and says it is like a tree, another feels the back and says it is like a wall. This is often how religious pluralism is presented. The problem with this is it is just as exclusive as the religions of the world, pluralism claims are false.
The real problem with religious pluralism is like communism, it assumes all religions are equal in the sense that each are equally valid/wrong, which is not the case. Each belief system has characteristic sets of beliefs.
Your dualism, although a reasonable example, and yes my logic was off, assumes that there isn't any other explanation that can possibly account for the dual-nature of light. Dualism technically states that these theories (two only) are wrong, while pluralism says all other viewpoints (possibly excluding itself) are wrong (not exactly the same thing).
Anyway. ttfn.
dan964
what
^^@Feynmann
To that I will quote
"We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all"
In all seriousness, a statement I can either presume (1) and/or (2):
(1) You believe that a belief in God is archaic or childish or plain stupid etc.
(2) You have not even bothered investigating the claims of religions.
It is statements as these that are just as assertive as saying "God exists"
Anyway you are entitled to your opinion, but i'll just disagree with it.
To that I will quote
"We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all"
In all seriousness, a statement I can either presume (1) and/or (2):
(1) You believe that a belief in God is archaic or childish or plain stupid etc.
(2) You have not even bothered investigating the claims of religions.
It is statements as these that are just as assertive as saying "God exists"
Anyway you are entitled to your opinion, but i'll just disagree with it.
dan964
what
@braintic
"Who suffers?"
Who would like a religious a-la-carte menu. Pick and choose the bits you want and throw out the bits you don't like.
"And that negative impact comes about mainly because people believe that their particular religious fantasy is the correct one. "
Are you not 'begging the question' that religions are all or at least fantasy? Does that not add to what I was saying.
There is equally negative impact that comes when people presume you must be wrong, because you are religious/believe in God, particularly
when the claim is made by people (not you in particular btw) who actually know nothing about each religion beliefs are.
"Who suffers?"
Who would like a religious a-la-carte menu. Pick and choose the bits you want and throw out the bits you don't like.
"And that negative impact comes about mainly because people believe that their particular religious fantasy is the correct one. "
Are you not 'begging the question' that religions are all or at least fantasy? Does that not add to what I was saying.
There is equally negative impact that comes when people presume you must be wrong, because you are religious/believe in God, particularly
when the claim is made by people (not you in particular btw) who actually know nothing about each religion beliefs are.
dan964
what
"Sceptics believe that ANY exclusive claims to a superior knowledge of spiritual reality cannot be true...In addition, their proponents believe they have a superior way to things...Therefore, there view is also an exclusive claim about the spiritual reality...If it is not that narrow to hold to this view, then there is nothing inherently narrow about holding traditional religious beliefs"
Not my 'statement', just a funny satirical picture, lol
As for my belief, I have failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, and so I naturally and rationally assume there isn't one. /end of 'statement'
As for my belief, I have failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, and so I naturally and rationally assume there isn't one. /end of 'statement'
dan964
what
"I was actually asking whether it would be irrelevant if God exists for those who don't believe he does." - from a previous page.
If the answer is no, then it has no bearing on your life.
if the answer is yes, then it should have some bearing, and if it doesn't, there should be some concern.
Q1: Does God exist? (objective, reality, RTP/RTDP)
Q2: Does person A believe God exist? (subjective, opinion/belief)
Option 1:
Q1 No
Q2 No
no bearing on your life
Option 2:
Q1 Yes
Q2 No
massive problems for person A
Option 3:
Q1 No
Q2 Yes
person A looks silly
Option 4:
Q1 Yes
Q2 Yes
person A does something with this
For example: I would be of Option 4 (or Option 3 if God doesn't exist)
For example: Braintic would be Option 1 (or Option 2 if God exists)
Basically I presume the burden of proof is always on the person who believe in something.
So if I believe in God, the burden of proof is to prove that my belief is grounded on the evidence
So If Fred believes not in God, the burden of proof is not to prove that his opinion is grounded in the evidence.
You cannot say for example that God exists or God does not exist (particularly the latter) if there is no evidence to verify your claim.
The problem, except with some evidence, usually historical (i.e. the account of Jesus life, death and resurrection), is verifiable. Christianity for example is verifiable. (the NT is more reliable, trustworthy than other writings such as biographies of Caesar or Plato), ask a historian, most of them will say that Jesus exists. The question is now how do we respond to him, is he a lunatic, a liar or is he telling the truth. (and no you cannot presume that God does/doesn't exist in answering this question)
, i'll let the other religions say whether they are verifiable or not.
If the answer is no, then it has no bearing on your life.
if the answer is yes, then it should have some bearing, and if it doesn't, there should be some concern.
Q1: Does God exist? (objective, reality, RTP/RTDP)
Q2: Does person A believe God exist? (subjective, opinion/belief)
Option 1:
Q1 No
Q2 No
no bearing on your life
Option 2:
Q1 Yes
Q2 No
massive problems for person A
Option 3:
Q1 No
Q2 Yes
person A looks silly
Option 4:
Q1 Yes
Q2 Yes
person A does something with this
For example: I would be of Option 4 (or Option 3 if God doesn't exist)
For example: Braintic would be Option 1 (or Option 2 if God exists)
Basically I presume the burden of proof is always on the person who believe in something.
So if I believe in God, the burden of proof is to prove that my belief is grounded on the evidence
So If Fred believes not in God, the burden of proof is not to prove that his opinion is grounded in the evidence.
You cannot say for example that God exists or God does not exist (particularly the latter) if there is no evidence to verify your claim.
The problem, except with some evidence, usually historical (i.e. the account of Jesus life, death and resurrection), is verifiable. Christianity for example is verifiable. (the NT is more reliable, trustworthy than other writings such as biographies of Caesar or Plato), ask a historian, most of them will say that Jesus exists. The question is now how do we respond to him, is he a lunatic, a liar or is he telling the truth. (and no you cannot presume that God does/doesn't exist in answering this question)
, i'll let the other religions say whether they are verifiable or not.
PhysicsMaths
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2014
- Messages
- 179
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2015
^
Yes, it is probable that a man named "Jesus" existed at that time and claimed that he was the son of God, HOWEVER
This is what Jesus supposedly did:
- Turn water into wine
- Feed thousands of men with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish
- Resurrect from the dead
So we must ask ourselves... is he legit?
Yes, it is probable that a man named "Jesus" existed at that time and claimed that he was the son of God, HOWEVER
This is what Jesus supposedly did:
- Turn water into wine
- Feed thousands of men with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish
- Resurrect from the dead
So we must ask ourselves... is he legit?
dan964
what
^
some people say yes, some people say no.
(he also claimed to be God, which is why the Jews wanted to kill him)
Some people dismiss that he can't be legit because he did that, sometimes (not always) do so on the basis of either:
(1) Science has either disproven
(2) Science can explain away the miracles OR
(3) Miracles just don't happen in nature.
(1) is a claim that has not be verified, and relies on (3).
(3) is a claim that is partially true in normal circumstances, yet does not account for "miraculous" exceptions.
which leaves (2) as a viable reason. But even if science can explain their miracles, does not mean they are not exceptional.
Anyway, TTFN.
some people say yes, some people say no.
(he also claimed to be God, which is why the Jews wanted to kill him)
Some people dismiss that he can't be legit because he did that, sometimes (not always) do so on the basis of either:
(1) Science has either disproven
(2) Science can explain away the miracles OR
(3) Miracles just don't happen in nature.
(1) is a claim that has not be verified, and relies on (3).
(3) is a claim that is partially true in normal circumstances, yet does not account for "miraculous" exceptions.
which leaves (2) as a viable reason. But even if science can explain their miracles, does not mean they are not exceptional.
Anyway, TTFN.
Last edited:
dan964
what
@Feynman
Satirical, yes
Funny, possibly
I respect your opinion.
I would say I have failed to find any good reason for NOT believing the God exists, but I don't assume there is one.
Atheists often complain that no evidence to disprove God, therefore God.
It is equally valid for a theist to complain, no evidence to prove God, therefore not God; on the basis that a theist believes there is evidence (mainly historical).
Anyway end of statement. No need to argue.
Satirical, yes
Funny, possibly
I respect your opinion.
I would say I have failed to find any good reason for NOT believing the God exists, but I don't assume there is one.
Atheists often complain that no evidence to disprove God, therefore God.
It is equally valid for a theist to complain, no evidence to prove God, therefore not God; on the basis that a theist believes there is evidence (mainly historical).
Anyway end of statement. No need to argue.
But that is EXACTLY what the vast majority of christians do.
Which is why there are so many varieties and sub-varieties of christianity, and why christianity is seen as such a joke amongst atheists.
Any no-one is able to prove which fiction is the correct one - it is ONLY a belief based on the thoughts that happened to be going through your head when you contemplated what the truth might be.
I doubt that any 2 christians on this planet agree 100% on their version of christianity.