ChurchMilitant.TV News 10-15

[smh_23]

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In my opinion, all theism and all atheism ends irrationally. That is, with something that it is beyond the finite human mind to comprehend. Perfection, atemporality, the infinite regress, uncaused causes: it all ends somewhere that is not truly comprehensible. Existence itself,in this way, is not truly comprehensible.[/quote]
What do you mean by atheism? The absence of belief or a belief in the absence of belief? [/quote]

I mean belief that there is no God. Atheism is a belief just like theism and pantheism and animism. And, just like all of those, it runs into the incomprehensible eventually. Well, Stephen Hawking thinks he comprehends a causeless effect, but I think he’s mistaken.

[zecarlo]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In my opinion, all theism and all atheism ends irrationally. That is, with something that it is beyond the finite human mind to comprehend. Perfection, atemporality, the infinite regress, uncaused causes: it all ends somewhere that is not truly comprehensible. Existence itself,in this way, is not truly comprehensible.[/quote]
What do you mean by atheism? The absence of belief or a belief in the absence of belief? [/quote]

I mean belief that there is no God. Atheism is a belief just like theism and pantheism and animism. And, just like all of those, it runs into the incomprehensible eventually. Well, Stephen Hawking thinks he comprehends a causeless effect, but I think he’s mistaken.[/quote]
Not necessarily. It doesn’t have to be called the incomprehensible but rather the not comprehended. Just because something is not understood does not mean it cannot be understood.

[smh_23]

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In my opinion, all theism and all atheism ends irrationally. That is, with something that it is beyond the finite human mind to comprehend. Perfection, atemporality, the infinite regress, uncaused causes: it all ends somewhere that is not truly comprehensible. Existence itself,in this way, is not truly comprehensible.[/quote]
What do you mean by atheism? The absence of belief or a belief in the absence of belief? [/quote]

I mean belief that there is no God. Atheism is a belief just like theism and pantheism and animism. And, just like all of those, it runs into the incomprehensible eventually. Well, Stephen Hawking thinks he comprehends a causeless effect, but I think he’s mistaken.[/quote]
Not necessarily. It doesn’t have to be called the incomprehensible but rather the not comprehended. Just because something is not understood does not mean it cannot be understood. [/quote]

I do not believe that atemporality can be comprehended by the temporal mind, or that infinitude can be comprehended by the finite mind, etc.

[Aragorn]

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:
Faith without doubt is fundamentalism. When you go from “I believe” to " I know" you no longer have faith. You can have doubt and still be rational. You can doubt the Theory of Relativity but you can, and may have to, defend that doubt using a rational argument. You can’t do the same with God. You could even argue that you shouldn’t even try.

[/quote]
You can’t defend the existence of God with a rational argument? Of course you can. It’s just that it’s philosophical in nature. Which, incidentally, doesn’t make it less rational than empirical methodology. They answer two different sets of questions, and in any case philosophy is the father of all sciences.[/quote]

Well, maybe you can but it won’t be a very good argument. All of the ones I have read may have been good at the time (long ago) but science ended up making them look silly. I don’t think anything that begins with, “God exists because…,” will, at its core, be rational. [/quote]

Again, you can’t say it’s an irrational argument just because you disagree with it. That’s ridiculous. To assert such is to assert that you have the final comprehensive say so on what is rational or non-rational, and that is just a tad presumptuous. There are a number of very brilliant theistic philosophers in today’s times–in fact, some of them hold the highest most prestigious chairs in the country at renowned Universities. Rationality is assessed on a different scale from “I like this” or “I agree with this” or “I disagree with this”.

You have a very skewed sense of what science does and doesn’t say about the existence of God. Here’s one very scientific dude who believes theistically (note that I have never made a claim on a specific religion’s view): Simon Conway Morris, Cambridge University. Vehement evolutionary defender, also praised by the late Stephen Jay Gould for his defenses. Also a big Christian who’s favorite author is GK Chesterton. Or you could look up Michael McConnell, director of Yale University’s Constitutional Law Center.

Basically I would not like your odds trying to tell either of these gentlemen they are not rational thinkers, to say nothing of some of the actual philosophers.

Look, it’s one thing to say you don’t believe in God. Cool. It’s another entirely to say that faith cannot be rational.

[KneeDragger_79]

The first scientists of the world were monks who developed science to prove the existence of GOD.

zecarlo wrote: It’s not about proof of existence. You can’t explain God in scientific terms. There may be things that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of doubt but they can still be explained by science. It’s about methodology not whether it is right or wrong. My comment about doubt was not directed toward rational or irrational thought but toward faith hence the fact it was a separate sentence.

[pittbulll]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In my opinion, all theism and all atheism ends irrationally. That is, with something that it is beyond the finite human mind to comprehend. Perfection, atemporality, the infinite regress, uncaused causes: it all ends somewhere that is not truly comprehensible. Existence itself,in this way, is not truly comprehensible.[/quote]
What do you mean by atheism? The absence of belief or a belief in the absence of belief? [/quote]

I mean belief that there is no God. Atheism is a belief just like theism and pantheism and animism. And, just like all of those, it runs into the incomprehensible eventually. Well, Stephen Hawking thinks he comprehends a causeless effect, but I think he’s mistaken.[/quote]

it could be said that Atheism is a lack of belief

[smh_23]

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In my opinion, all theism and all atheism ends irrationally. That is, with something that it is beyond the finite human mind to comprehend. Perfection, atemporality, the infinite regress, uncaused causes: it all ends somewhere that is not truly comprehensible. Existence itself,in this way, is not truly comprehensible.[/quote]
What do you mean by atheism? The absence of belief or a belief in the absence of belief? [/quote]

I mean belief that there is no God. Atheism is a belief just like theism and pantheism and animism. And, just like all of those, it runs into the incomprehensible eventually. Well, Stephen Hawking thinks he comprehends a causeless effect, but I think he’s mistaken.[/quote]

it could be said that Atheism is a lack of belief
[/quote]

Semantically, you could phrase it a thousand ways and still not have exhausted every possibility.

The point is that, philosophically, atheism is a faith-based (i.e., unprovable) belief. “There is no God” is one hell of a thing to say, and it requires a faith-leap of staggering breadth.

Agnosticism might better fit under the title “lack of belief.”

[florelius]

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
The first scientists of the world were monks who developed science to prove the existence of GOD.

zecarlo wrote: It’s not about proof of existence. You can’t explain God in scientific terms. There may be things that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of doubt but they can still be explained by science. It’s about methodology not whether it is right or wrong. My comment about doubt was not directed toward rational or irrational thought but toward faith hence the fact it was a separate sentence.

[/quote]

No.

You can however say that they where instrumental in developing the intellectual and academical traditions of the west wich empirical science grew out of, but the same can be said about the ancient Greecs and Romans, the arab caliphat etc.

[smh_23]

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
The first scientists of the world were monks who developed science to prove the existence of GOD.
[/quote]

No, they weren’t.

[Varqanir]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In my opinion, all theism and all atheism ends irrationally. That is, with something that it is beyond the finite human mind to comprehend. Perfection, atemporality, the infinite regress, uncaused causes: it all ends somewhere that is not truly comprehensible. Existence itself,in this way, is not truly comprehensible.[/quote]
What do you mean by atheism? The absence of belief or a belief in the absence of belief? [/quote]

I mean belief that there is no God. Atheism is a belief just like theism and pantheism and animism. And, just like all of those, it runs into the incomprehensible eventually. Well, Stephen Hawking thinks he comprehends a causeless effect, but I think he’s mistaken.[/quote]

it could be said that Atheism is a lack of belief
[/quote]

Semantically, you could phrase it a thousand ways and still not have exhausted every possibility.

The point is that, philosophically, atheism is a faith-based (i.e., unprovable) belief. “There is no God” is one hell of a thing to say, and it requires a faith-leap of staggering breadth.

Agnosticism might better fit under the title “lack of belief.”[/quote]

I posted this on another thread. I think it applies here.

The way I see it, there are five levels of belief/disbelief in gods.

The first is gnostic theism: “I am convinced beyond all possibility of doubt that God exists, and anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.”

The second is agnostic theism: “I believe that God exists, but I can understand why some people don’t. In my case, my faith is enough to convince me.”

The third is pure agnosticism: “There may be gods or there may not be. I don’t think it’s possible to know, so I won’t commit to either side of the discussion.”

The fourth is agnostic atheism: “I don’t believe that gods exist, but I can understand why some people do. In my case, I see no convincing evidence for their existence.”

Finally, gnostic atheism: “I am convinced beyond all possibility of doubt that gods do not exist, and anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.”

The first and fifth positions are exact mirror images of one another, and are irreconcilable as they are untenable. Ironically, they both require a lot of faith and very little critical thinking.

The second and fourth positions are not so different from one another, and indeed it is not unreasonable to expect that with some diligent study and introspection, a proponent of one position might migrate to the other side. In either direction.

As for the third position, well, that’s just a pussy cop-out.

Then of course is agnostic apatheism, in which you don’t know whether there are gods or not, but you can’t be bothered to give a shit about it.

[magick]

That’s a beautiful “chart” Varqanir.

[smh_23]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:
In my opinion, all theism and all atheism ends irrationally. That is, with something that it is beyond the finite human mind to comprehend. Perfection, atemporality, the infinite regress, uncaused causes: it all ends somewhere that is not truly comprehensible. Existence itself,in this way, is not truly comprehensible.[/quote]
What do you mean by atheism? The absence of belief or a belief in the absence of belief? [/quote]

I mean belief that there is no God. Atheism is a belief just like theism and pantheism and animism. And, just like all of those, it runs into the incomprehensible eventually. Well, Stephen Hawking thinks he comprehends a causeless effect, but I think he’s mistaken.[/quote]

it could be said that Atheism is a lack of belief
[/quote]

Semantically, you could phrase it a thousand ways and still not have exhausted every possibility.

The point is that, philosophically, atheism is a faith-based (i.e., unprovable) belief. “There is no God” is one hell of a thing to say, and it requires a faith-leap of staggering breadth.

Agnosticism might better fit under the title “lack of belief.”[/quote]

I posted this on another thread. I think it applies here.

The way I see it, there are five levels of belief/disbelief in gods.

The first is gnostic theism: “I am convinced beyond all possibility of doubt that God exists, and anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.”

The second is agnostic theism: “I believe that God exists, but I can understand why some people don’t. In my case, my faith is enough to convince me.”

The third is pure agnosticism: “There may be gods or there may not be. I don’t think it’s possible to know, so I won’t commit to either side of the discussion.”

The fourth is agnostic atheism: “I don’t believe that gods exist, but I can understand why some people do. In my case, I see no convincing evidence for their existence.”

Finally, gnostic atheism: “I am convinced beyond all possibility of doubt that gods do not exist, and anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.”

The first and fifth positions are exact mirror images of one another, and are irreconcilable as they are untenable. Ironically, they both require a lot of faith and very little critical thinking.

The second and fourth positions are not so different from one another, and indeed it is not unreasonable to expect that with some diligent study and introspection, a proponent of one position might migrate to the other side. In either direction.

As for the third position, well, that’s just a pussy cop-out.

Then of course is agnostic apatheism, in which you don’t know whether there are gods or not, but you can’t be bothered to give a shit about it. [/quote]

This is really good.

I might actually add two–one on either side of pure agnosticism. Not sure what to call them yet, but they would be described as “Come push to shove, I am agnostic, but I tend to lean in the direction of [theism or atheism].” Not because it’s so different from the others, but because it describes me, and I have thought too long and hard about this nonsense to be left in the cold without a category.

[zecarlo]

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
The first scientists of the world were monks who developed science to prove the existence of GOD.

zecarlo wrote: It’s not about proof of existence. You can’t explain God in scientific terms. There may be things that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of doubt but they can still be explained by science. It’s about methodology not whether it is right or wrong. My comment about doubt was not directed toward rational or irrational thought but toward faith hence the fact it was a separate sentence.

[/quote]
You are obviously so uneducated it would be pointless to argue with you.

[zecarlo]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Look, it’s one thing to say you don’t believe in God. Cool. It’s another entirely to say that faith cannot be rational. [/quote]
I don’t say the former but I do say the latter. If more religious people accepted the irrationality of their beliefs, the world would be a better place.

[dmaddox]

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Look, it’s one thing to say you don’t believe in God. Cool. It’s another entirely to say that faith cannot be rational. [/quote]
I don’t say the former but I do say the latter. If more religious people accepted the irrationality of their beliefs, the world would be a better place. [/quote]

According to you? The one who insults everyone…

[zecarlo]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Look, it’s one thing to say you don’t believe in God. Cool. It’s another entirely to say that faith cannot be rational. [/quote]
I don’t say the former but I do say the latter. If more religious people accepted the irrationality of their beliefs, the world would be a better place. [/quote]

According to you? The one who insults everyone…
[/quote]
Lighten up Francis. Besides, what does that have to do with religion and irrationality? It’s not like I’m going to blow someone up because I believe I know what God wants. I’ll take a few insults over the internet over a suicide bomber any day of the week.

[dmaddox]

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Look, it’s one thing to say you don’t believe in God. Cool. It’s another entirely to say that faith cannot be rational. [/quote]
I don’t say the former but I do say the latter. If more religious people accepted the irrationality of their beliefs, the world would be a better place. [/quote]

According to you? The one who insults everyone…
[/quote]
Lighten up Francis. Besides, what does that have to do with religion and irrationality? It’s not like I’m going to blow someone up because I believe I know what God wants. I’ll take a few insults over the internet over a suicide bomber any day of the week. [/quote]

So you are willing to lump all people that believe in God as terrorists? Good call there…

I will agree with you that Islam is a religion of hate and control.

[zecarlo]

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Look, it’s one thing to say you don’t believe in God. Cool. It’s another entirely to say that faith cannot be rational. [/quote]
I don’t say the former but I do say the latter. If more religious people accepted the irrationality of their beliefs, the world would be a better place. [/quote]

According to you? The one who insults everyone…
[/quote]
Lighten up Francis. Besides, what does that have to do with religion and irrationality? It’s not like I’m going to blow someone up because I believe I know what God wants. I’ll take a few insults over the internet over a suicide bomber any day of the week. [/quote]

So you are willing to lump all people that believe in God as terrorists? Good call there…

I will agree with you that Islam is a religion of hate and control.
[/quote]
I think you lack reading comprehension skills. I am talking about the religious people who don’t realize that with faith comes doubt otherwise it is no longer faith. In other words, the fundamentalists. Not all of them are terrorists in the traditional sense but choose to use their vote to…exercise their hate and control.

[dmaddox]

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Look, it’s one thing to say you don’t believe in God. Cool. It’s another entirely to say that faith cannot be rational. [/quote]
I don’t say the former but I do say the latter. If more religious people accepted the irrationality of their beliefs, the world would be a better place. [/quote]

According to you? The one who insults everyone…
[/quote]
Lighten up Francis. Besides, what does that have to do with religion and irrationality? It’s not like I’m going to blow someone up because I believe I know what God wants. I’ll take a few insults over the internet over a suicide bomber any day of the week. [/quote]

So you are willing to lump all people that believe in God as terrorists? Good call there…

I will agree with you that Islam is a religion of hate and control.
[/quote]
I think you lack reading comprehension skills. I am talking about the religious people who don’t realize that with faith comes doubt otherwise it is no longer faith. In other words, the fundamentalists. Not all of them are terrorists in the traditional sense but choose to use their vote to…exercise their hate and control. [/quote]

Again with the insults. I can play that game too, but I refuse to stoop down to your level.

It is not doubt, but questioning. I question why God does the things he does all the time, but I have Faith that he will take care of all of us.

So the hate and control that comes from the left is ok to vote for because you agree with it?

I am not for the Federal Government to legislate any morals, but the States can.

[Aragorn]

[quote]zecarlo wrote:

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Look, it’s one thing to say you don’t believe in God. Cool. It’s another entirely to say that faith cannot be rational. [/quote]
I don’t say the former but I do say the latter. If more religious people accepted the irrationality of their beliefs, the world would be a better place. [/quote]

Interesting. Nice talking to you.