You originally wanted me to explain why I believe Gods non-existence has further reaching implications than a fairies non existence. I did so by outlining 4 implications that Gods non-existence has for us. That is 1. meaning 2. value 3. purpose and 4. forgiveness. You agreed with point 1's implication. On this basis, I have concluded that I have shown why God's non existence has further reaching implications than that of a fairies since you have agreed with an implication of Gods non-existence which is not applicable to fairies.
How is life having meaning not relevant to anything? Maybe if your definition of "anything" only includes scientific method than I could agree. I'm at a loss to think of how meaning is not relevant to most, if not all, of life. Have I misunderstood you?
Because that conclusion we get to only really matters if it is the same as the objective moral values I am proposing. In other words, even if everyone arrives at the same conclusion via biological altruism this doesn't show that those values held to are actually "right" or "wrong". They are simply an aid to survival just like a weapon, athletic build or fertility. Right and wrong could have been completely different if our conditions for survival were different and so are arbitrary in this sense. It follows from this then that recognition of right and wrong is just an affront - an illusion - that prevents us from harming our own survival as a species.
Because all other forms of morality are only skin deep. They are arbitrary in one way or another.
Sure, just like morality, we can invent purpose for ourselves. However, just like morality, what this purpose is, is arbitrary. There is nothing beyond ourselves that really gives us any real meaningful purpose - it's a creation to entertain and make ourselves feel better about our existence.
That's right, and I agree that this goes some way to amending any loss that would occur in regard to forgiveness by giving up belief in God. The only difference I suppose, is that, at least under Christian doctrine, God has the authority to forgive sins in an ultimate sort of sense since he has already "paid the price" by dying in our place.
Ahh but Kwayera, don't you see the difference in this description and what you posted previously? I'll quote for you
In one you claim lack of belief and in the other you claim that God does not exist. I agree with you that you are an atheist if you "Do not believe a God exists" since a common sense reading of this entails a positive epistemic claim similar to, "I believe that God does not exist". I also agree that this entails a "lack of belief in the existence of God". However "a lack of belief in the existence of God" does not entail that one believes "that God does not exist" since as we have seen, agnostics, dogs, cats etc would be labeled as atheists under this definition.Kwayera said:
Ha ha, yeah very much so. This is why many people are labeled as trolls when they are simply expressing their opinions.
Ha haSure it can. It's the antithesis of a definition (theism), and I don't know about you, but I don't know of any theist cats
Well to be fair, I'm actually trying to avoid intellectual dishonesty by saying "I don't believe in God" and not having any proof to back that statement up (not that one can prove a negative, but you get the point) - that's why I say you can be both agnostic (I don't think we will ever know either way) and atheist (but on the balance of probability, I don't believe in God, as I don't believe in fairies).Ha ha
I wouldn't say that the antithesis of theism is lack of belief in God. The theist believes that God does exist, and so the antithesis to this position is the belief that God does not exist. Why does atheism need to be a middle ground when we have agnosticism? It's as though you want to claim to be an atheist, but don't like the epistemological responsibility of the claims that go with it, so instead try to dilute it until it indistinguishable from the agnostics own position.
Exactly my point!I would say that there are no theistic or atheistic cats. They lack belief in God in the truest sense.
So effectively what you're saying is: I don't see any reason for the belief in God, nor do I have any reason to disbelieve in God and so I regard myself as an agnostic that errs on the side of disbelief. One could always ask, why you err or on that side, but I am happy to leave it, as this makes your position a little more tenable - not to mention that it also means you are open to any proofs of God that you find warrant in believing (whether based in personal revelation, natural theology or a combination of the two). If you do agree with the implications of Gods non existence which I have listed, I would encourage you to keep your mind open in this regard - the theistic view is certainly my preferred world view (ignoring all the evidence) based on these implications.
Well, agnosticism is the only intellectually honest view (out of both theism and atheism); but when you consider that I apply atheistic agnosticism on the same level to things other than God, such as ye olde fairies, unicorns, ghosts, Santa Claus and Bertrand's celestial teapot, I think you'd find it a lot less flatteringSo effectively what you're saying is: I don't see any reason for the belief in God, nor do I have any reason to disbelieve in God and so I regard myself as an agnostic that errs on the side of disbelief. One could always ask, why you err or on that side, but I am happy to leave it, as this makes your position a little more tenable - not to mention that it also means you are open to any proofs of God that you find warrant in believing (whether based in personal revelation, natural theology or a combination of the two). If you do agree with the implications of Gods non existence which I have listed, I would encourage you to keep your mind open in this regard - the theistic view is certainly my preferred world view (ignoring all the evidence) based on these implications.
See, now that just annoys me. Putting aside the fact that I can't imagine myself believing in God, I really can't imagine myself adopting such a view as predestination.
And that's because the existence of a God is about as important to me as the existence of ghosts, that is, not very, despite all of your "implications". I don't give a rats' about implications.And so the circle begins again...
Edit*
I should probably explain a little more. Plug, ghosts back into our original conversation in place of "fairies" and I think you will find we end up at the same point.
Also should mention that I did not mean to imply that implications in this sense are reason to believe. All I meant to say was that implications are reason to make sure you have reason to believe!
Thought I might quickly drop a line and recommend some reading and alternatives to a Calvinistic pre-destined doctrine. As far as I can see there are four main contenders (views) in the Christian realm on Gods knowledge of the future and the reconciliation of freewill within that. You have Open-Theism (also called the Openness view), Calvinism, Arminianism and Molinism. I have linked the relevant wiki pages if you would like an overview.
Well, agnosticism is the only intellectually honest view (out of both theism and atheism); but when you consider that I apply atheistic agnosticism on the same level to things other than God, such as ye olde fairies, unicorns, ghosts, Santa Claus and Bertrand's celestial teapot, I think you'd find it a lot less flattering
You can ask why I err on the side of atheism, sure, and for that I'll offer up the same reason I am atheistically agnostic about the existence of say, ghosts: there's no objective proof for their existence, no scientific reason why they would or should exist, and I have no need to believe that they do exist. Ergo, I do not believe in ghosts; I do not believe in (any) God.
I don't agree with your "implications" as a whole because I don't think they're necessary for, well, anything really. Implications aren't a reason to believe, or disbelieve.
as a roman catholic i would not 'plug ghosts back into fairies' historically it was correct to make the sign of the cross saying 'In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' this practice continued for many years until the authorities deemed it to be slightly frightening and very unbelieveable hence the change to the Holy Spirit. Spirit sounding much more aweing and less 'scary' in a sense.And so the circle begins again...
Edit*
I should probably explain a little more. Plug, ghosts back into our original conversation in place of "fairies" and I think you will find we end up at the same point.
Also should mention that I did not mean to imply that implications in this sense are reason to believe. All I meant to say was that implications are reason to make sure you have reason to believe!
I think you missed the point.
Of all the people you could have quoted, you quoted that drugged up, no talent hooker?
