Australian Politics Forum - Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?

Grey

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 5341
Gender: male

Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?
Reply #375 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 2:30pm

Quote:

Freediver which of these statements do you most agree with? :-

A) God exists.

B) I believe God exists.

Quote:

Freediver you're not answering the question.

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 11:15am:

You are correct Grey.

Well for someone whose done so much complaining about helian and I not answering your simple question, I have to say that's disappointing. I really feel you should lead by example. Not that the answer is unexpected. Grin

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 2^nd, 2011 at 2:36pm by Grey »

"It is in the shelter of each other that the people live" - Irish Proverb

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?
Reply #376 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 6:08pm

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 1:35pm:

So you can't have a 'Gnostic atheist'? Someone who believes and knows that God does not exist?

You're putting words into my mouth through semantics. You possibly could have a gnostic atheist as you put it, but Gnostic means something else. It's a defunct religious sect. I remember reading a post by somebody in another forum. He spoke about an out of body experience in which he was flying through the universe and because of that, he just knew that God doesn't exist. Personally I don't think that an OBE is evidence of anything apart from an overactive temporal parietal junction.

If you know something, I guess it follows that you must believe it, so believe is redundant in that case. The converse is not true. You can believe that it will be a beautiful day without knowing it. People who believe things without knowing them are often disappointed.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 2^nd, 2011 at 6:16pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?
Reply #377 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 6:12pm

Yadda wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 1:27pm:

muso wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 1:16pm:

- or the celestial teapot for that matter.
Bertrand Russell argued that although it is impossible to know that the teapot does not exist, most people would not believe in it. Therefore, one's view with respect to the teapot would be an agnostic "ateapotist", because while they don't believe in the existence of the teapot, they don't claim to know for certain.

LOL

It is a joy, to read some of these posts. Grin

OK. Just don't interpret Bertrand Russell's view as my own.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50574
At my desk.

Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?
Reply #378 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:23pm

Quote:

If you know something, I guess it follows that you must believe it, so believe is redundant in that case. The converse is not true. You can believe that it will be a beautiful day without knowing it. People who believe things without knowing them are often disappointed.

True, but the difference only refers to the reality. The distinction is external to the state of mind of the knower/believer. You are basing your definition of a person's views based on whether they are true, not what the views are. A sensible definition of a person's views can only refer to those views. You would not believe it was going to be a beautiful day unless you knew it to be true.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?
Reply #379 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:49pm

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:23pm:

Quote:

If you know something, I guess it follows that you must believe it, so believe is redundant in that case. The converse is not true. You can believe that it will be a beautiful day without knowing it. People who believe things without knowing them are often disappointed.

True, but the difference only refers to the reality. The distinction is external to the state of mind of the knower/believer. You are basing your definition of a person's views based on whether they are true, not what the views are. A sensible definition of a person's views can only refer to those views. You would not believe it was going to be a beautiful day unless you knew it to be true.

FD, No it doesn't. It's a commonly used phrase in English.

Google this phrase:

"Honestly, I don't know, but I believe"
About 238,000 results (0.55 seconds)

Let me just mark this post as the occasion where you dispute the cornerstone of Christian faith. That's what faith is all about:
"I don't know, but I believe"

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 50574
At my desk.

Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?
Reply #380 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:55pm

Quote:

That's what faith is all about:
"I don't know, but I believe"

Can't say I've heard it put that way before. I have heard the same principle explained other ways, just not with reference to knowledge. You have already conceded that knowing is effectively the same as believing. It isn't much of a stretch to go from there to equating believing with knowing.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?
Reply #381 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:04pm

muso wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:49pm:

Let me just mark this post as the occasion where you dispute the cornerstone of Christian faith. That's what faith is all about:
"I don't know, but I believe"

And (as if any Christian would need to be reminded) as John's Gospel reminds all Christians...

Quote:

24Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin,[a] was not with them when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord." But he said to them,(B) "Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe."

26Eight days later, his disciples were inside again, and Thomas was with them.(C) Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you." 27Then he said to Thomas, (D) "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe." 28Thomas answered him,(E) "My Lord and my God!" 29Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me?(F) Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Religion: A 21stC anachronism or mans salvation?
Reply #382 - May 2^nd, 2011 at 10:11pm

freediver wrote on May 2^nd, 2011 at 9:55pm:

Quote:

That's what faith is all about:
"I don't know, but I believe"

Can't say I've heard it put that way before. I have heard the same principle explained other ways, just not with reference to knowledge. You have already conceded that knowing is effectively the same as believing. It isn't much of a stretch to go from there to equating believing with knowing.

No. What I said was that if you know, it's reasonable to expect that you believe. However, If you believe, you may not 'know' in the normal sense of the word.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged