Ormond Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Hopefully the battering this Aberdeen fan receives evens things out a bit. 'Tis not a point scoring exercise, surely? Or are you living by the eye for an eye mantra? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adamntg Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 So, I can't prove God doesn't exist and Scotty can't prove he does. The evidence supports my theory over his, in my opinion. Scotty only can't prove he exists because he doesn't. If he did exist you'd at least have a fair chance of proving it. It's proving a negative that is thorny. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Scotty only can't prove he exists because he doesn't. If he did exist you'd at least have a fair chance of proving it. It's proving a negative that is thorny. That's my point. If God did exist there'd be some provable testable evidence. Or maybe humans are just a bit insecure and need a plan even when none actually exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus_Young Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 No you are the one talking nonsense. No-one on this planet is borne believing in God. No-one in this planet is born with faith. This means you are effectively born atheist i.e. you are born without a belief in God. What you and others are confusing is when it is said people "become" atheist. You think that this means it is an acquired belief. It is not. It is simply rejecting the teaching and influence of others preaching faith and religion. Religion is an acquired belief. You are surely contradicting yourself there? If being an atheist is 'rejecting' something, that surely constitutes you making an informed choice? Being an atheist, to me anyway, is a conscious choice. It's based on the teachings of faith, which we either choose to accept, or reject. A newborn is incapable of that. If someone can't be born with a belief in god or gods, then surely they can't be born with no belief in them either? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 That's my point. If God did exist there'd be some provable testable evidence. Not if you factor in the concept of 'Free Will'. If God allowed Her existence to be confirmed through "provable, testable evidence", then the whole 'turning to God in an act of free will' malarky would be buggered. It'd be breaking the rules of the game... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Remember we're contemplating the universe with 3lb's of matter. That might not be sufficient, considering all the limitations of our senses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Not if you factor in the concept of 'Free Will'. If God allowed Her existence to be confirmed through "provable, testable evidence", then the whole 'turning to God in an act of free will' malarky would be buggered. It'd be breaking the rules of the game...Hence the term "blind faith ".If God existed and was omnipotent and omnipresent then surely he'd stop some of the suffering of the children on this world? If not then he can't be the ultimate judge of right and wrong. He can't find a paedophile sinful if he has allowed him to perpetrate his evil and not stopped it. Would you stand and watch a child being abused if you could stop it? That also would still allow the old free will to have been exercised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 If you believe that something is true without 'proof' then you have made a 'leap of faith'. You have leapt to the belief without having incontrovertible proof. This is faith, belief without total proof, and it can be faith in anything unprovable, the existence of God or the non existence of God, as neither can ever be proven. As for asking why if God exists does God permit the suffering of children, animals, anything...Maybe this world is not about God presenting you with perfection for your pleasure, maybe it is about presenting you with a world that is equally full of bad as it is good and then letting you find out who you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Hence the term "blind faith ". If God existed and was omnipotent and omnipresent then surely he'd stop some of the suffering of the children on this world? If not then he can't be the ultimate judge of right and wrong. He can't find a paedophile sinful if he has allowed him to perpetrate his evil and not stopped it. Would you stand and watch a child being abused if you could stop it? That also would still allow the old free will to have been exercised. You don't see the free-will issue in that? See thplinth's point above. I'm not arguing for the existence of god, interventionist or otherwise, I'm pointing out that both theism and atheism are positions of faith because neither can be proved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomtscotland Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 No you are the one talking nonsense. No-one on this planet is borne believing in God. No-one in this planet is born with faith. This means you are effectively born atheist i.e. you are born without a belief in God. What you and others are confusing is when it is said people "become" atheist. You think that this means it is an acquired belief. It is not. It is simply rejecting the teaching and influence of others preaching faith and religion. Religion is an acquired belief. You are surely contradicting yourself there? If being an atheist is 'rejecting' something, that surely constitutes you making an informed choice? Being an atheist, to me anyway, is a conscious choice. It's based on the teachings of faith, which we either choose to accept, or reject. A newborn is incapable of that. If someone can't be born with a belief in god or gods, then surely they can't be born with no belief in them either? First off the arguments I have made were in response to Scotty's assertion "atheism is still a faith-based belief system". I am arguing that we are not born with a belief in God and neither do we miraculously acquire a belief in God. Children are taught to believe in God - they do not have innate faith. If you subsequently reject religious teachings you are, as you argue, choosing to be atheist but this is also a return to the non-belief you were born with. As for this point you make - "If someone can't be born with a belief in god or gods, then surely they can't be born with no belief in them either?" ..it disnae make sense. Born without belief in something IS absence of belief period. A child reared free of human influence would never know of god or gods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flure Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 No he bloody hasn't! He doesn't feckin exist. Haven't you been reading my posts! Ek_Celt doesn't exist? Who's been keeping us up to speed with the Huddleboard all these years then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 A child reared free of human influence would never know of god or gods A child reared free of human influence would have no concept of language and therefore would be incapable of realizing the human potential for any form of higher thought. We think in words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flure Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 A child reared free of human influence would have no concept of language and therefore would be incapable of realizing the human potential for any form of higher thought. We think in words. Surely that's only because they are available to us? Did primitive man have no thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Surely that's only because they are available to us? Did primitive man have no thoughts? 'Higher' thought. These developed with language. Or do you think of concepts such as the existence or otherwise of god, or 'shall I make myself a tea or a coffee?' without the use of language? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Well if these concepts did not exist before language how did they ever come into existence. Who invented the words to allow them to think about God etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Well if these concepts did not exist before language how did they ever come into existence. Who invented the words to allow them to think about God etc? Can a concept exist before the language develops to express it? I suspect it goes hand in hand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wine bibber Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Atheism exists as a calculated belief as a consequence of the lack of evidence in the existence of God/Gods If there was no religious teaching/dictating to the young neither a belief in Gods and consequently Atheism would exist. Atheism is not a faith .It is learned behavior based on reasoned evidence.Faith is belief without the need for evidence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) Can a concept exist before the language develops to express it? I suspect it goes hand in hand. I find 'thought' using 'english language' very clunky and slow. I only do it when I need to formalize a thought for public expression. You are the same as is everyone on here. The language forces you articulate the thought, put it into words, but the thought is there waiting to be hewn. Edited March 9, 2015 by thplinth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RenfrewBlue Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Ek_Celt doesn't exist? Who's been keeping us up to speed with the Huddleboard all these years then? ??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I find 'thought' using 'english language' very clunky and slow. I only do it when I need to formalize a thought for public expression. You are the same as is everyone on here. I'm really not sure about that. I find it very difficult / impossible to separate the two once you get beyond a certain basic level. The language forces you articulate the thought, put it into words, but the thought is there waiting to be hewn. Again, I'm not sure. I get what you're driving at, but it's entering metaphysics, in my view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 Can a concept exist before the language develops to express it? I suspect it goes hand in hand. No it does not. The 'thought' (bad word) is there and then it is a struggle to find the language to express it, it can take me days. Before that it is not a thought. It is something more primordial. Conciousness is not an invention of the brain. The brain is an invention of consciousness. And this goes to the heart of this question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 No it does not. The 'thought' (bad word) is there and then it is a struggle to find the language to express it, it can take me days. Before that it is not a thought. It is something more primordial. Conciousness is not an invention of the brain. The brain is an invention of consciousness. And this goes to the heart of this question. I suppose I'm suggesting (based on nothing but running it round in my own head) that in that struggle to express it, you're actually creating the thought. It's a metamorphosis from 'feeling' (in which language plays no part) to 'thought'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angus_Young Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 First off the arguments I have made were in response to Scotty's assertion "atheism is still a faith-based belief system". I am arguing that we are not born with a belief in God and neither do we miraculously acquire a belief in God. Children are taught to believe in God - they do not have innate faith. If you subsequently reject religious teachings you are, as you argue, choosing to be atheist but this is also a return to the non-belief you were born with. As for this point you make - "If someone can't be born with a belief in god or gods, then surely they can't be born with no belief in them either?" ..it disnae make sense. Born without belief in something IS absence of belief period. A child reared free of human influence would never know of god or gods. I do agree with you on a lot of that, I just don't accept that we are atheists by default is all. At birth we can't believe anything one way or the other is what I meant by that last part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 I suppose I'm suggesting (based on nothing but running it round in my own head) that in that struggle to express it, you're actually creating the thought. It's a metamorphosis from 'feeling' (in which language plays no part) to 'thought'. This conversation we are having is the exact same as the chicken or egg which came first conversation. The answer is neither, the real question is what invented both at the same time. (If you say they both simultaneously invented each other, randomly, that is ok... ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redstevie007 Posted March 9, 2015 Share Posted March 9, 2015 This conversation we are having is the exact same as the chicken or egg which came first conversation. The answer is neither, the real question is what invented both at the same time. (If you say they both simultaneously invented each other, randomly, that is ok... ). http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_or_the_egg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.