I'm bringing hakootoko's thoughts over to another thread:

Interesting point. But I think I disagree. For example, there are numerous religions that have numerous documents to compare. The bible, book of morman, catholic catechism, koran, etc. Some actively do not have rules or conditions, allowing for whatever pleases them such as wicca.

So I think you could compare these written items against things such as archaeology, or known facts to see if true or not true.

While followers do not always agree, a follower doesn't actually need to be following before something is true or not true. Example, if something is true, even if someone does not follow that faith well, that doesn't make change the truth to a be untrue. Or vice versa, someone following a faith completely and perfectly does not make that faith true, if it is not true.


But the reverse of that is why assume that all things must follow natural? I think we can agree that there are more things in the universe we don't know about than we do know about. I've heard concepts that we know less than 1% of the information that exists in the universe.  That number cannot be made definitive true, but it seems reasonable that there is a lot we do not know, and cannot measure.

Remember in the other thread, where you speak of how people will look for supporting evidence, and ignore things that don't fit with their beliefs? I think you have stated two reasons for your stance that is likely not a solid reason to suggest that an active divine God does not exist.

Sure they are.

Everything which impacts the natural world can, in theory, be measured, if only by their impact on the natural world.

i.e. If a God can heal someone who would otherwise have died, it should be possible, at least in theory, to track the precise moment where his cells, or the bacteria in his body, or the chemicals that make up any of those things, suddenly start behaving differently than they ought to given all other measurable influences on their behavior.

My basic point is that I don't have to have evidence of absence. Until there is evidence of presence, the null position, which from a logical standpoint is the only reasonable point to start from, is not to assume the existence of deities until evidence comes along to suggest otherwise.

I think Kat addressed already by stating that not having the tools to measure this is not evidence that this is a reason to not accept there is God.

That does involve an assumption, right? In other words, if true, then we will see this through evidence. But if the assumption is wrong, that the logic that follows is not true. Agree, disagree?

To be sure, are you saying you don't know if there's a God, or you haven't been told evidence for God? To be sure, what would be considered evidence for God?

1. It is a reason until such tools have been invented.

2. It's an assumption only in the most basic aspect that, if something changes, we can see it change.

3. Here we come back to my original point. The problem of defining a satisfying concept of god for debate on whether or not it is real.

Ok, a theory then. An unproven theory, that requires a basic assumption to be a theory? Would that be fair or unfair to say that?

Right, I think this establishes though that it doesn't have to be true, only that if true, it's possible.

So, you don't know what you'd consider evidence for God? Uhm, how do you know if you've denied previous evidence then if you don't have any method for determining evidence?

Remember how in the other thread we discussed ideas of how we ignore evidence for positions we do not already hold? It seems like you are trying to hold a position of agnosticism.


Would you accept speaking of the future and then fulfilling it is not something a regular person could do? Would that be evidence that there is something greater than man?
This message was last edited by the player at 19:49, Sun 12 Aug 2012.

1. Depends on what we're trying to do really.

2. No, I'm really going to stick by the assumption that if things suddenly start behaving other than how their basic properties and their environment would make them, that is something we should be able to measure, at least in theory. Like if a room's temperature starts increasing without a source of heat from where the heat can come.

3. I'll agree that this is where things get a bit murky, but not terribly so. We're really answering a whole slew of different questions.

The bottom line is though, that as far as I'm concerned, I've not seen any evidence of any interference by anything greater than human. Not an omnipotent god, not an olympian style powerful-but-not-omnipotent god, not an olympian style demigod or a DC-comics style Superman. Not ghost, not even a human with an extra sense.

I'm not ruling out possibility of the existence of any of the above, they could, in theory, exist. But until such a time as their existence is proven, they remain 'unlikely' hypotheticals.

"Unlikely? Why would you hold that position? That position would be based on lack of evidence for an "unlikely scenario", right?

Would you consider knowing the future before it occurs as a sign that there is something greater than man? Or would you consider that men can know the future with accuracy?

It looks like you're not denying God, only denying that there is evidence for God. Was I right is saying that's an agnostic view?
This message was last edited by the player at 20:31, Sun 12 Aug 2012.

It's an agnostic view, yes. By the very definition, an omnipotent God could create a universe that seemed, in every way, as if there wasn't a god in it.

I consider myself an agnostic atheist. (don't believe in God, and don't believe it's the sort of question that we can answer definitively, at least not at our present level of understanding.)

My biggest gripe with the usual agnosticism stance is that they seem to think that it follows that just because the question can't be answered definitively, therefore it's a 50/50 split. It isn't, in my view. The existance of God, while possible, is extremely unlikely, to the point where I feel that I can confidently dismiss it until evidence to the contrary is submitted.

Would you consider knowing the future before it occurs as a sign that there is something greater than man? Or would you consider that men can know the future with accuracy?

An interesting view agnostic athiest. I find athiesm is a difficult position to hold. Essentially it takes faith to believe in something that does not have evidence for it.

Why do you deny God exists?

Firstly, atheism, not athiesm. It is to theism as agnostic is to gnostic or amoral to moral (linguistically speaking at least)

And I don't find it a difficult position to hold at all.

I deny god, because the existence of one is a fantastic claim, presented without fantastic evidence. Hence, it is not up to me to disprove it, but the ones presenting it to prove it. Burden of proof and all that.

So, it doesn't take faith. Just lack of belief.

It might require such if I were a gnostic atheist, cause then I would be claiming knowledge that I can't have.

Knowledge of the future? It would depend on how precise said knowledge was, of course. Men can predict elements of the future with great accuracy, or make vague statements that are bound to come true in some form at some point. "A great leader will arise and lead the nation to war", how could that not come true at some point?

Greater than man? Hard to say again.

I stand corrected.

Hmmmm. I get that reasoning to say that means you can't know something as true. But the logic doesn't follow that lack of knowledge means can't exist. Lack of evidence doesn't mean false, it means not proven. agree/disagree?



If you believe something is true without evidence, you call it .....?

A simple true false question to expand the idea.
I do not believe God exists. You may have a reason, and call it lack of belief. But lack of belief is the same as do not believe.

Example, do cats exist? Sure, they do. But if you had no evidence either way, do cats exist or not exist yet regardless? At this point, even with lack of evidence, the cats exist, or do not exist. You could say I do not believe they exist, you could even say they don't exist, but without evidence, that's a belief, not a lack of belief. If you say cats do not exist, because I lack evidence, that's really just a belief, not a lack of belief.

Agree/disagree?

This is new to me. Gnostic atheist, and Agnostic atheist.
I'm reading you mean one is based on belief, and the other lack of belief? Is that right? Why?

I'm trying to get something that you would say, yes this acts as evidence.

Let's try this, what would be evidence that a cat exists?

In reply to Trust in the Lord (msg # 242):

And you too Trust in the Lord were an atheist when you were born.

That is to say you were in not in the set of all things which have an active belief in a deity.

And you're also, if a monotheist, you have an active affirmative disbelief in all other gods.

By nature you have a much more untenable position.

Gnosticism refers to the idea of whether the existance of god can be known for a fact.

Gnostic Theist: "It is possible to know God exists for a fact, and I know that he does."
Gnostic Atheist: "It is possible to know for a fact whether God exists, and I know that he doesn't."

Agnostic Theist: "It is impossible to know for a fact whether or not God exists, but I believe that he does."

Agnostic Atheist: "It is impossible to know for a fact whether or not God exists, but I don't believe that he does."


Anyway, I find that you're trying to shoehorn my statements into boxes you have an easier time dealing with.

I agree that lack of knowledge doesn't mean that it can't exist, but I don't take that to give any special power to the statement that it does exist. The possibility exists that there is a god. I just don't see any reason to believe so until shown otherwise. Everything I know about the world tells me that it works perfectly fine without introducing the idea of a deity. That doesn't mean there CAN'T be one, but like I've said, I have no trouble assuming that there isn't until proven wrong.

While I know that cats exist, because I have seen them, I would face just the same difficulty convincing someone who came from somewhere where there had never been any. I could show them a photograph, but it could be a fake, I could show them a real live cat.

In the end, cats are different from gods in that their existence is a material claim that can be proven or disproven.

At the very least, you can define the subspecies of four legged mammals that would count as 'cat' and then scour the globe until you either found one, or confirmed that nowhere on Earth there were there any cats.

In essence, the difference is provability. Once someone has stated that there are cats, it's possible to test that theory. Not so with gods.
This message was last edited by the player at 23:18, Sun 12 Aug 2012.

I would call myself an Agnostic Theist - a term I had not heard before.  Interesting!

In reply to AtomicGamer (msg # 246):

The Atomic Gamer is very much correct.

The two classifications create a quadrant.

There is the question of Gnosis - Knowledge
and the set of things that have a belief in god and those that do not.

I too am an agnostic-atheist, but my agnosticism doesn't at all trouble me. I also see no particular value in "trying to know" .. and I"m even a hard agnostic, I'm not sure it can be know ...at least by some definitions of god.

Ahh, by that view, a chair is an atheist too. Seems kind of a non statement. It suggests atheist is a non choice.


I get that's the way you want to use it, but it is a bit confusing since going to the dictionary, you get a different definition.



I suppose a moot point if the word is explained though.



Fundamentally I agree that I have an active affirmative disbelief in all other gods, however, I do think following your logic, if true, that would only make me an atheist towards multiple gods. In other words, if your logic is correct, I don't see how it's more untenable position that atheist for God.

Could you explain why atheism is more solid for multiple gods than one God? Did I understand your concept correctly?

Ok. It does help to have these definitions. You're quoting these, could you show me a link where these are coming from? They are not matching up with dictionary form of atheist, theist, gnostic, agnostic.


Well I am trying to figure things out and use the same context. I am asking questions to verify if I am getting it. I think this is a good thing, agree, disagree?

ok.

But once they talk about the idea, they either believe it, or not. They can no longer lack belief about cats, since they have now made a choice.

Ever watch the show river monsters, or walking with dinosaurs? Before the episodes, you have lack of awareness of these exotic and ancient creatures. But after watching the shows, you either believed, or didn't believe these creatures existed. You no longer lack belief in these things after having them explained to you.

How do you know? You don't have any method you'd accept as proof. Why does it have to be material for evidence?

Why is it not possible to prove God or gods exist? Have you looked at all the evidence?


It looks like requirements require that you start from a position that has you believe God or gods do not exist first before you will consider the evidence? Agree/disagree?

Are you working from the position that I have a binary mind that can only process yes or no?

When you first hear about something, you can have any degree of belief in it's existence, from 100% yes, to 100% no to a perfectly equal "I have no inclination one way or the other."

It's like you're trying to use semantics to force the issue to be more black and white than it is.

First, I would say... exactly.  Being an atheist isn't a "choice" because it isn't a positive assertion of anything.  Any more than I made a "choice" to be an "a-borg" (I am in the set of things that do not have a belief in "the Borg")

Second, I have no problem with a chair being in that class. Though I do believe that's a trivial example. By it's nature, only though consciousness can one have a 'belief' it would seem.  But I do agree that a rock is ...in my camp :) Despite the claim by "Jesus" that the rocks would cry out if the people didn't. (And look how long their belief lasted :)




Yes, you're correct, this is not the common use of the words though convention but it is the most pure root meaning of the words. The standard dictionary, as opposed to a Philosophical or Technical dictionary, is very loose with words.

It's why there are legal dictionaries, scientific dictionaries, etc.



OF course.

I don't believe there is a god...
So, any claim of a god is addressed in the "same fashion" as any other.

You however, believe there is a god.
So now, any claim that there is a god ...of any stripe... would have a default position of being "believable" especially when the "evidence" offered are isomorphic.

To ignore the claims of say... believers in Ancestor Worship... who say, It makes me a good moral person.  I can feel the presence of my ascended ancestors.  I can beseech them and they speak to me.  They answer my requests when I come to them with the right supplications.  This tradition has existed for a very long time and very wise people have believed.  There are books, and the books tell me that the books are true and that so is ancestral worship...

...now, any of those claims could be made about the Bible g-d (with very slight tweaks) these are the reasons people give for believing.

BUT, at least a non-believer can say, if there is nothing but material and all it's random resultant noise, we would expect much of what we see in religious belief.  And, the similarities betray the high probability they're all untrue (because they couldn't all be true 100%)

But you, say, there is this "beyond the material" truth out there...  So, by what rational basis do you get to say the similar claims by other theistic groups is false?

My apologies Atom. I'm guessing you aren't responding to my questions because you don't like that I am asking questions that challenge the concept of them.

No offense intended. I can be straight forward, and enjoy discussing religion and philosophy.

If you ever want to continue or start over, let me know, I'll back off for now.

No, I'm not responding to them because you insist on guiding every conversation path down a binary yes or no road.

I've explained my position rather extensively, I'm happy to explain or elaborate further, but not if the only goal is to try to pin me into a phrasing of my position that I don't agree with.

Could you provide my a link to the more pure root meaning, because even the greek basis suggested it's origin meaning was "without God".



I'm not saying you can't use your own words, but just discussing the idea that the basis is on the root meaning is incorrect.





I still don't get why denying most gods makes less sense than denying all gods. I read this three times, and to be honest, it reads as saying that if you believe God is possible, then you have to accept all options are now open.

However, I don't see the logic.
God exists = any belief is possible.


I think the conclusion is incorrect. Just because they all cannot be true does not mean none are true. None of them have to be true, but they do not mean high probability they are all untrue. agree/disagree?



Actually you pointed out the answer how I can say others are incorrect. Because if in conflict, then it cannot be both true and untrue at the same time. The law of the excluded middle.

Jesus said
John 14:6 6 Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

There's no actual guesswork with Jesus. He said that through Him, and only Him can you get to God.

Right, it means without god.  Not "a disbelief in god"

Hence, the rock, you as a baby, and me as an adult.

And, I will say, that this is a broader issues as well.  Would you like to call me a "Bright" as Mr. Dennet would have you do?

Or, as applied to say Minister Malcolm X, when he would use the term "so-called Negro" while rejecting the term because of it's pejoritive.

I'm just saying that you read into "without god" as mean "with an active disbelief of"

I'm also "without elves" and I'm also agnostic on elves. I don't know that they don't exist.  But I am "a-elvish" as well, I'm without a belief in them.





That's not at all what I said, nor what you can say.
saying "God Exists" is begging the question.  It's not even what theists posit. They say, "I believe in it".

Further, I was pointing out that you probably have a "basis" for believing it.

Let's say your bases was ... Divine revelation.
Then how do you "ignore" the claim by another religious person of another religion to say, yes, but I had divine revelation.

Of if you said, "I can feel the presence of g-d" and they say, "yes, so can I." Now, you MIGHT be able to argue, that the critical element is not the "feeling of god" but that *YOU* feel it. Sure, that would at least give you some basis to reject the other claim, but it would also make it clear to you how pointless it is to evangelize or give testimony.

So no, I'm not saying... as you suggest

A
if A then B
therefor B

...I'm saying

if X than A (if such and such ...the X Factor... is true) than "I will believe in god"
X (such and such is true)

...therefor I believe in god.

I'm saying, what happens when that "god" just happens to be NOT yours...but the "reason X" is the same.

Let's make it VERY objective.

If there is a CREATION, there must be a GOD creator.
There is a creation.  Therefore, my god exists.

...could be 'said' (and more or less is said) but Xians, Muslims, and others.




First, dude (or dudette) you're doing that "yes / no" thing that's pissed off another reader.

However, in this case I completely agree :)  I also completely disagree that I said anything like that.

I said, that all of them cannot be true...by definition...by the rules of contradiction.  AND (and the and is important) that the vast majority all use the SAME evidence for their conclusion... THAT it is illogical (or worse a random guess?) to decide that any one of them is "right".

The part I would add, that I didn't go into is, that the evidence itself tends to be wholly irrational and non-conclusive. And that is why it reasonably appears to be untrue in all cases.  Especially when you identify the supposed qualities of g-d.




So let's just take one, According to Bhagavata Purana Krishna was born without a sexual union, by “mental transmission” from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki, his mother.

Your team mascot and Krishna were called both God and the Son of God. Both were sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man. Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity.

Krishna’s adoptive human father was also a carpenter. A spirit or ghost was their actual father. Krishna and your team mascot were of royal descent. Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star. Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled.

Your team fled to Egypt; Krishna’s parents stayed in Mathura.

Both Your Guy and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted. Both were identified as “the seed of the woman bruising the serpent’s head.”

Yours called “the lion of the tribe of Judah.” Krishna was called “the lion of the tribe of Saki.” Both claimed: “I am the Resurrection.” Both were “without sin.” Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine.

Both performed many miracles, including the healing of disease. One of the first miracles that both performed was to make a leper whole. Each cured “all manner of diseases.”

Both cast out indwelling demons, and raised the dead. Both selected disciples to spread his teachings. Both were meek, and merciful.

Both were criticized for associating with sinners. Both celebrated a last supper. Both forgave his enemies. Both were crucified and both were resurrected.

Your team - 1 to 33ish CE ... Visitor's Team - 3228 BCE

So, I ask you, which seems more likely, that all those featured matched, or that they were copied?  Which is more likely, Krishna is g-d as he claimed or that he is not?  And, how could you think it any more likely that your team is?

BTW, I'd prefer you not quote scripture at me, if possible, I don't mind if you reference, I will look it up. But I try to keep this debate space free of sacred texts lest people way I'm being rude.

You're kind of losing me. That's just the origin. Atheos- without God turned to atheism- disbelief of God. Atheos is only the origin of the word of atheism, and not the word that was used.

Could you link to the source you were using to mean root meaning again?  You mentioned philosophical or technical versus regular dictionary.

Since no one is linking to this source, I'm starting to believe it doesn't exist.


Ok, my mistake.

Agreed. But the question doesn't apply to a specific faith though. You're using the wrong question to determine an answer that does not apply.

Example, is Muslim true? Well if a creation has a creator, then muslim is true. Saying that is logical doesn't make it so. That applies whether you refer to christian, jew, wicca, etc.

The only thing you could apply the question, would be how do you know if there is a creator? By looking if there is a creation.


In fairness, I'm using agree disagree, which is questioning the poster to see ideas are being understood by both parties. By asking if they agree, or disagree, that allows for other party to state they do not agree, and therefore allows for words not to be stated as true that are not.

Second, in fairness, the other party that was "pissed" did not state yes/no questions were not welcome, and when it was obvious they were bothered, I apologized and backed off completely. What more should I have done?

Third, are you stating yes/no questions anger people and should not be encouraged on this board?

Respectfully, that seems like a weak stance to join in on the "pissed off" because someone asks questions on a board that allows for questions.

I apparently misread your statement then.

Though I question why you feel that the vast majority use the same evidence for their conclusion?




But the previous 7 children they had were just regular sexual union right?

Jospeh and Mary claimed a virgin birth, and Joseph was pretty upset with Mary, because even Jospeh knows that didn't make sense.


Well, I can't find son of god reference to Krishna, but let's assume that since he is a man, that made him a son at some point. As to Savior, it looks like krishna was a warrior that rescued his people in battle, unlike Jesus who is a savior for the eternal soul.  Krishna was part of a triad of gods, three gods, which is unlike a trinity, three who are one God.


No, Vasudeva was a nobleman, though he gave his son up for adoption to Nanda, a cow herd.

http://www.apamnapat.com/entities/Nanda.html
http://www.apamnapat.com/entities/Vasudeva.html

  I can't find this reference anywhere.


  Sure, Krishna born to a royal house, while Jesus born to poor people who were related to royal lines.
No reference to this could be found. Are you sure Krishna had these said of him?

 

Except Krishna's parents did not flee from King Kamsa, as he imprisoned them.
"4-5. What faults had he and his wife Devakî committed? Why that Kamsa the descendant of Yayâti, killed the six infant sons of Devakî? And for what reason did the God S’rî Hari incarnate Himself as the son of Vasudeva in the prison house of Kamsa?"

You kind of have to admit that's not all that similar, different actions, different places?

Not a compelling argument, since numerous people have done that, divine, royal, poor alike.

I'd have to say, it appears neither were identified as such.

I cannot find the reference to Saki
No, you made a mistake. Krishna was killed by a hunter, and then came back to life. Krishna didn't claim it.
  Except Krishna had sexual affairs.
ok.

No Krishna didn't.

I can't find reference to these to Krishna either.

What's a sinner in reference to Hindu?
Well Jesus did, but not Krishna.
I hope Krishna did forgive, but I can't find it. Krishna wasn't crucified, he was shot with an arrow. And according to the single witness, the hunter that shot Krishna in the foot, Krishna did resurrect.



Yes, about there.
Sure, that's the claim. Except there are no books that reference Krishna before the time after Jesus' death. I want to be clear, even the books that are older than Jesus about hindu mythology do not mention Krishna. And the only books that do reference Krishna are written after Jesus' life and death.

Hopefully, I have given you some food for thought. Did you really want me to answer these last questions? Because it seems rather clear that there's very little chance Jesus copied anything from Krisha.

Could you explain why posting scripture is considered rude in a chat board that focuses on religion?