ChatterBank0 min ago
Somebody answer this please...
129 Answers
I would love to have a faith, but these are some of the contradictions and difficulties I can't sort out. Help would be appreciated
RC and Muslim friends in particular are confident that they are following the "true path" and that everyone else is wrong.
In world war 1, priests on each side told the soldiers that "God is on your side"
Hundreds of religions promised life after death only if you were of their particular faith. For instance, Egyptian Pharoahs went to extraordinary lengths to ensure this.. were they successful, or was the religion one of the best con tricks of all time?
When the dodgy popes sold indulgences, did the purchasers get what they paid for?
I could go on, but you should have the idea by now...
Straight factual answers would be good, not copy & pasted chunks of gunge...
RC and Muslim friends in particular are confident that they are following the "true path" and that everyone else is wrong.
In world war 1, priests on each side told the soldiers that "God is on your side"
Hundreds of religions promised life after death only if you were of their particular faith. For instance, Egyptian Pharoahs went to extraordinary lengths to ensure this.. were they successful, or was the religion one of the best con tricks of all time?
When the dodgy popes sold indulgences, did the purchasers get what they paid for?
I could go on, but you should have the idea by now...
Straight factual answers would be good, not copy & pasted chunks of gunge...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by venator. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jomifl; (Imho) It is a mark of the genius of the man, that almost anything that can be said of him, the opposite is also true. Yes he could sometimes sound sad, but he could also be hilariously witty. He saw the atheist as being as dogmatic as the theist in their respective beliefs, - I can't fault him on that! - what do you think?
If I can jump in here, he's talking nonsense. Atheists don't hold 'beliefs', and as for them being 'dogmatic', they have a penchant for rationality but that doesn't automatically make them 'dogmatic'. Like many others, he makes the mistake of lumping atheists into a group but since the only thing they necessarily have in common is an absence of belief in supernatural gods, that is a very silly thing to do.
Naomi; Whether I say "I believe it is raining in Paris", or I say "I believe it is not raining in Paris", depends on what information I have received from the weather-charts, the positive and negative have nothing to do with it, that is what I believe. Whether or not it actually IS raining there is, by the way, a separate issue. As you say, "Think about it".
naomi24, //If there is nothing to believe there can be no belief.//
Have you forgotten about those who believe in god/s?
Khandro, //Whether I say "I believe it is raining in Paris", or I say "I believe it is not raining in Paris", depends on what information I have received from the weather-charts, the positive and negative have nothing to do with it, that is what I believe. Whether or not it actually IS raining there is, by the way, a separate issue.//
Your analogy (selectively?) ignores a third alternative.
There is a vast distinction between not believing in something (for which one has insufficient evidence to make a determination and draw a rational conclusion) and believing that something (ditto) is or isn't.
Hint: One is rational and one isn't. Can you guess which is which . . . and for extra points, which is the atheist?
Have you forgotten about those who believe in god/s?
Khandro, //Whether I say "I believe it is raining in Paris", or I say "I believe it is not raining in Paris", depends on what information I have received from the weather-charts, the positive and negative have nothing to do with it, that is what I believe. Whether or not it actually IS raining there is, by the way, a separate issue.//
Your analogy (selectively?) ignores a third alternative.
There is a vast distinction between not believing in something (for which one has insufficient evidence to make a determination and draw a rational conclusion) and believing that something (ditto) is or isn't.
Hint: One is rational and one isn't. Can you guess which is which . . . and for extra points, which is the atheist?
Khandro, People can say anything, what they say isn't necessarily true. If Nietzsche hated everyone and loved everyone then he was a schizophrenic sad git.
As for atheists being as dogmatic as theists, consider this, theists are by definition dogmatic as they believe in god without any evidence that he exists and will not change their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Atheists on the other hand have no belief in god so have no reason to be dogmatic about it. It appears that Nietzsche wasn't as clever as you would like to believe as his powers of reasoning seem to be flawed.
As for atheists being as dogmatic as theists, consider this, theists are by definition dogmatic as they believe in god without any evidence that he exists and will not change their beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Atheists on the other hand have no belief in god so have no reason to be dogmatic about it. It appears that Nietzsche wasn't as clever as you would like to believe as his powers of reasoning seem to be flawed.
St Peter, showing a new guest around Heaven.
Here we have the Jews, and over here the Catholics, and here the Muslims, and in this corner the 7th day Adventists..
They come to a high wall and the guest asks what is behind the wall.
St. Peter says," Oh, these are the Jehovahs Witnesses. They think they are the only people up here."
Here we have the Jews, and over here the Catholics, and here the Muslims, and in this corner the 7th day Adventists..
They come to a high wall and the guest asks what is behind the wall.
St. Peter says," Oh, these are the Jehovahs Witnesses. They think they are the only people up here."
////One is rational and one isn't. Can you guess which is which . . . and for extra points, which is the atheist?//
Err.. No.//
The term 'atheist' subsumes both those who do not believe that 'god/s' exist and those who believe 'god/s' does/don't exist. For the record, I happen to be amongst the variety of those that believe that no gods exist . . . but that's an entirely separate issue. The point I'm attempting to get across here is that belief, of any kind, is not necessarily implied by the term 'atheist', which by the way would not exist at all except to draw a distinction from theists, who are by definition believers in the existence of god's.
Essentially, not believing it is raining in Paris is quite different from believing it is not raining in Paris. Belief, (either way) apart from the knowledge and certainty that justify the belief, is without basis and therefore irrational.
Err.. No.//
The term 'atheist' subsumes both those who do not believe that 'god/s' exist and those who believe 'god/s' does/don't exist. For the record, I happen to be amongst the variety of those that believe that no gods exist . . . but that's an entirely separate issue. The point I'm attempting to get across here is that belief, of any kind, is not necessarily implied by the term 'atheist', which by the way would not exist at all except to draw a distinction from theists, who are by definition believers in the existence of god's.
Essentially, not believing it is raining in Paris is quite different from believing it is not raining in Paris. Belief, (either way) apart from the knowledge and certainty that justify the belief, is without basis and therefore irrational.
Khandro...semantics again. If I drop an object, my 'belief' that it will fall to the ground is based on experience which can be supported by physical theory and mathematics. Not only can it's fall be predicted but also it's rate of acceleration and velocity on contact with the ground, time after time.
'Belief' in god is supported by no evidence and there is no universal theory that explains the notion of god other than it being a figment of human imagination. Perhaps you should be more careful not to deliberately misunderstand posts, if indeed you do do it deliberately.
'Belief' in god is supported by no evidence and there is no universal theory that explains the notion of god other than it being a figment of human imagination. Perhaps you should be more careful not to deliberately misunderstand posts, if indeed you do do it deliberately.
