You never did before, why should now be any different?
-
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(January 26, 2017 04:13 AM)
a good time to be more specific about the 'form of god' you lack belief in is that why you keep repeating yourself? Because you think it hasn't sunk in? That's cute
Well apparently the instance of me lacking belief in a deliberate and supernatural Cause of everything has not, at least. LOL
So when you said that deism can shade into something in which virtually everyone can accept a variant of, did you mean to stress 'virtually' so you could exclude yourself from everyone when it becomes convenient to do so?
I can accept the reasonable claims for a First Cause that is entirely natural, since for one thing we don't know all there is about the natural. Unfortunately there is not really too many other ways of putting this. One can, of course, make of 'god' anything enough to count as a 'deist' position. But, as has previously been discussed on this board in the same way I can claim a supermodel as my 'girlfriend' on flimsier and flimsier pretexts - even though there is no contact or knowledge of me by her whatsoever. But ultimately such a watering down and subjective process just renders 'girlfriend', like it would the idea of 'god', meaningless. Also, since it is reasonable to conjecture that a lot of people would see a deistic 'god' as still essentially a deliberate supernatural personality, even though I know Einstein at least is one famous exception, that would probably rule me out.
I am hanging onto your every word.
It is always nice to be appreciated.
In the case of a purported Cause, all that 'intelligence' boils down to is 'deliberate'.
Is that a disagreement with what I said?
Can't you tell? Does this mean you are no longer hanging on anymore?
Again with the credulity. If people believe because they want to, can it not be said that the reason those who don't believe is because they don't want to?
Well credulity is normally expressed as a over-willingness to believe
in
something without evidence, and not as an aspect of scepticism or doubt. Am I really being credulous to not have a belief, say, in unicorns especially when compared to with those fervents with faith that exist, making up the Unicorn Appreciation Society? There well may be a term to describe those who are very willing not to believe in something without evidence, but I am not sure credulity sits well here for what is, essentially, the implications of empiricism.
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000 -
Miscella — 9 years ago(January 27, 2017 03:49 PM)
incredulity
: The state of being unwilling or unable to believe something
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/incredulity -
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(January 30, 2017 03:23 AM)
I have no issues in being called incredulous, since that is perfectly in line with scepticism and doubt. Given the choice I'd rather, in fact, be known to take a good deal of convincing about the purported extraordinary than gullible in the face of what would be comforting, magical and childlike.
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000 -
Arlon10 — 9 years ago(January 30, 2017 04:12 AM)
what would be comforting, magical and childlike
I often see atheists here who think that fear is the reason people believe in god. The "truth" is too bleak and awful for their minds to bear so they create illusions not so bleak.
I have seen fear in atheists though and think they refuse to believe in god because the truth is too awful. The "truth" is beyond their abilities to predict and control and their minds cannot bear that, so they create illusions of predictability and control to comfort themselves.
It is also obviously fear atheists display when informed that they believe there is no god. The reaction is almost psychotic. Their minds cannot bear the truth that they only "believe" something and "lack" the ability to predict and control that merely believing implies.
~~
Matthew 15:14 -
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(January 30, 2017 04:28 AM)
fear is the reason people believe in god
Well, it is reasonable to observe that the wages of sin, the eternal punishment of hell & etc has featured quite prominently down the years.
I have seen fear in atheists though and think they refuse to believe in god because the truth is too awful.
It is interesting to consider, as you seem to here, that your God is too awful. In fact you have things back to front. The necessary existential angst gained through a grown-up recognition that the universe is random, largely cold, dark and 'empty', and that morality is human invention, is not nearly as comforting as a anthropomorphic supernatural purportedly offering reassuring eternal life and meaning.
It is also obviously fear atheists display when informed that they believe there is no god. The reaction is almost psychotic. Their minds cannot bear the truth that they only "believe" something and "lack" the ability to predict and control that merely believing implies.
A lack of belief in a deliberate supernatural is not contingent on belief that it does not exist. And scepticism and doubt are not really 'beliefs' 'in' anything, or one would be endlessly credulous since more things don't exist than do. But you have been told this before.
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000 -
Arlon10 — 9 years ago(January 30, 2017 04:42 AM)
Although I can be a veritable font of patience, I'll skip abruptly to a point here and note that it's my word against yours. There appear people on both sides who seem certain they are less afraid than the other side. If you imagine you can resolve that or change anyone's mind, good luck. I find it sufficient to note the quandary. Perhaps that's because I have less fear of losing after all.
A lack of belief in a deliberate supernatural is not contingent on belief that it does not exist
There you go again messing with definitions to avoid rather than to facilitate communication.
But you have been told this before
Your attitude is not as impressive as you might think.
~~
Matthew 15:14 -
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(January 30, 2017 04:54 AM)
note that it's my word against yours.
Indeed. But my words tend to agree with dictionaries, while some of yours require arguing with dictionaries, I recall.
There you go again messing with definitions to avoid rather than to facilitate communication.
Does one really
have
to believe there is no God then to lack belief in one? Where does that leave the standard definition of a soft atheist? Would you have to
mess
with it?
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000 -
Miscella — 9 years ago(January 30, 2017 11:13 AM)
I have no issues in being called incredulous
Good. Then you don't believe because you don't want to believe. That pretty much ends all of our little debates about the existence of God. Anything else you'd like to discuss? -
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(January 31, 2017 07:07 AM)
Then you don't believe because you don't want to believe
Incredulous : not willing or not able to believe something; showing an inability to believe something
http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/incredulous
Incredulous can also mean
unable
to believe, Miscella - such as in the case where there is no empirical evidence for something.
Unwilling
implies more of a reluctance even when, perhaps, there is reason. See the difference? But since as always along with other soft atheists I admit that, in the event, I could be wrong, then the former is more pertinent here. Of course, one still might insist that I really 'don't want' to believe in a particular god; but actually I can easily see how the idea of comforting and reassuring supernatural with a confirmed moral structure and reason to everything would be very attractive. Unfortunately 'want' to believe and 'able' to are just too far apart to make this possible, for me at least.
I hope that helps.
Also 'credulous' is more of a negative statement about someone than 'incredulous', which to me at least sounds fairly neutral. And you better believe it.
That pretty much ends all of our little debates about the existence of God.
Incredulity is still not a 'belief' Miscella, something out of which you always wish to make scepticism and doubt - which is generally the point of our 'little debates'. Sorry about that. But keep going.
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000 -
Arlon10 — 9 years ago(January 31, 2017 09:22 AM)
There are two very different things.
- There is no evidence.
- You believe there is no evidence.
You do not appear to understand that very significant difference.
Until you do you're wasting your time.
~~
Matthew 15:14
-
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 04:34 AM)
There are two very different things.
- There is no evidence.
- You believe there is no evidence.
You do not appear to understand that very significant difference.
Then show me the evidence Arlon, away from your regular personal credulity and the scripture being proof of its own supposed truths.
Until you do, you are wasting the time of everyone.
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000
-
Miscella — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 05:59 PM)
Incredulous can also mean
unable
to believe
Whether you're unable or unwilling is something only you know for sure. Problem is, if God exists, then He knows it too, and so if it's the latter, then you are
without excuse
, just as Romans 1 says. I can only hope that you hope you're not wrong. -
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(February 02, 2017 07:23 AM)
Whether you're unable or unwilling is something only you know for sure
Well spotted.
Problem is, if God exists, then He knows it too,
This assumes of course that 'god' is conscious - and I know we have had words on this being necessary in the case, say, of a creation which was not deliberate. But otherwise, well spotted again!
I can only hope that you hope you're not wrong.
You are naturally entitled to hope. That, after all, is what religion is all about at the end of the day, is it not? But since I am the only one chatting here (God being busy on the politics board recently) who knows for sure, and as you know that I always attest to the possibility of ultimately being wrong in lacking belief in your god, then it can reasonably suggested that I am
unable
rather
unwilling
. But will you be willing, or able, to accept that reasoning?
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000 -
filmflaneur — 9 years ago(February 06, 2017 04:37 AM)
Yes you have already said that. No need to repeat yourself. But it remains the case that, if someone admits that they could be wrong, it is more likely that they are unable, rather than unwilling, to believe. You'll just have to take God's, and my, word for that.
With only two weeks to go, can't you be a little more interesting?
I'm well aware that railing does no good
kurt2000 -
Tas-1010 — 9 years ago(January 27, 2017 04:57 PM)
setting things off
by accident
.
The resulting order
..
This is
too much!
(At least, you recognize there is order; but I'll bet you won't call it 'design', will you? Like you can really have order to the degree that is observed, without preparation and arrangement being behind it!)
www.jw.org
or
https://tv.jw.org/#en/home