Quizzes & Puzzles23 mins ago
Just a siily question really
33 Answers
Everyone welcome to answer this but IF there is a one true god(whatever religion or (Aethiesm) you believe in)
what act would it have to do in front of you for you to truly believe in it?
what act would it have to do in front of you for you to truly believe in it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by The Sherman. 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.
I'm a Christian, though, alas, not a very good one. I am not a fundamentalist, believing in everything in The Bible, just because it's there. I have many many doubts about loads of stuff written there. But I cannot imagine Life without a belief in a God who looks over me. Call is a grown-up version of an imaginary friend if you will, but I would be empty without my belief. I have friends who, although they don't actually believe in God themselves, believe that Society needs to have a mass belief in him/it in order to keep their moral fibre. Let's face it, Governments and police forces can't maintain law and order by themselves. If everyone believed there was a Divine Being, watching over them and ultimately making them accountable for their evil thoughts and doings, the World would be a much safer and loving place.
Has anyone seen Zardoz? A sci fi film that had a similar idea.
Has anyone seen Zardoz? A sci fi film that had a similar idea.
For the record, so that we are all speaking the same language, the term �atheism� in the most basic sense means �without / belief in a god�, be it one or many, none. An atheist is simply, one who does not believe in any god, end of story . . . ?
. . . Hardly! . . .
Atheism is the default position with which we are all born. Unless you come out of the womb (or an egg) declaring, "I am the son (or daughter) of God", until one has gained the capacity to believe in Santa Claus or the like they are without belief . . . in anything, real or imaginary whether they or it be born or unborn, dead or alive. Likewise dogs, trees and rocks are implicitly atheists as they too do not believe in a god.
When one asserts that no god can, does or has ever existed, then they have become a specific breed of atheist, an explicit atheist.
Agnostics also come in a variety of forms. Even an agnostic can be an atheist, as many are by virtue of not holding a belief in the existence of a god/s, although some choose to be theists (one who believes in a god or gods), in spite of (by definition) their primary belief that god's existence can not be known.
. . . Hardly! . . .
Atheism is the default position with which we are all born. Unless you come out of the womb (or an egg) declaring, "I am the son (or daughter) of God", until one has gained the capacity to believe in Santa Claus or the like they are without belief . . . in anything, real or imaginary whether they or it be born or unborn, dead or alive. Likewise dogs, trees and rocks are implicitly atheists as they too do not believe in a god.
When one asserts that no god can, does or has ever existed, then they have become a specific breed of atheist, an explicit atheist.
Agnostics also come in a variety of forms. Even an agnostic can be an atheist, as many are by virtue of not holding a belief in the existence of a god/s, although some choose to be theists (one who believes in a god or gods), in spite of (by definition) their primary belief that god's existence can not be known.
Theists, on the other hand appear to take the prize for the countless variety of shapes, sizes, colours and forms of their beliefs in god/s. Regardless of their preferred flavour, all theists are theists . . . by choice, a choice to regard reality in a specific way and to attempt to hold reality to a specific standard, often without (and typically in spite of) question or evidence . . . but I digress . . .
If this all seems academic there is an underlying importance in making these distinctions. Before we can productively examine the possible virtues of the beliefs one has adopted, no matter how unwittingly, we must know what those beliefs are, no less than the basis for them. In so doing the fault lines in the logic (or fallacies) with which they are attempting to support them often become readily apparent . . . which begs the question . . .
As important as it is for the sake of understanding and communication to define the terms one uses, who or what in reality are you referring to when using the term . . . �god�?
If this all seems academic there is an underlying importance in making these distinctions. Before we can productively examine the possible virtues of the beliefs one has adopted, no matter how unwittingly, we must know what those beliefs are, no less than the basis for them. In so doing the fault lines in the logic (or fallacies) with which they are attempting to support them often become readily apparent . . . which begs the question . . .
As important as it is for the sake of understanding and communication to define the terms one uses, who or what in reality are you referring to when using the term . . . �god�?
I don't understand chakka why you got me confused as an agnositic when i clearly said I dont believe in god?
also its highly hypocrytical to accuse someone of being patronising whilst also making patronising remarks on one's spellin don'y you think?
Anyway for the sake of argument a bloke walks up to you in the street claims he's Jesus (he obviously miscalculated where he was meant to land and ended up in in Britain)
"Hello chakka I am Jesus. Have you any questions my child?"
also its highly hypocrytical to accuse someone of being patronising whilst also making patronising remarks on one's spellin don'y you think?
Anyway for the sake of argument a bloke walks up to you in the street claims he's Jesus (he obviously miscalculated where he was meant to land and ended up in in Britain)
"Hello chakka I am Jesus. Have you any questions my child?"
sherminator, that's an easy one.
If he claimed to be Jesus he would have to prove it, and there is no way that he could, is there?
He couldn't offer his appearance as evidence because we cannot have any idea what Jesus (if he existed) looked like. We know how pious artists portray him but that means nothing; in real life he might have been short, fat, bald and pimply-faced. So what else could he offer?
Anyway, as naomi says, many people have made that claim. Has any rational person ever taken them seriously?
If he claimed to be Jesus he would have to prove it, and there is no way that he could, is there?
He couldn't offer his appearance as evidence because we cannot have any idea what Jesus (if he existed) looked like. We know how pious artists portray him but that means nothing; in real life he might have been short, fat, bald and pimply-faced. So what else could he offer?
Anyway, as naomi says, many people have made that claim. Has any rational person ever taken them seriously?
mibn2cweus, gosh, what a treat you have in store if you have read no Dawkins.
On the subject of evolution his The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable are superb. And anyone who even browses through the beautifully illustrated The Ancestor's Tale and comes out still doubting the validity of evolution must be brain-dead.
Unweaving the Rainbow is an engrossing account of all the beauty in nature and A Devil's Chaplain is a collection of essays which show his wide range of interests and knowledge and his humanity.
Having hinted at his atheism in some of the other books he tackles religion head-on in The God Delusion and leaves it in ruins - as witness the pathetic nature of the books written as 'ripostes'.
If all that gushing makes me sound as if I were his agent or his friend I am certainly not the former and, alas, have never met him or spoken to him.
On the subject of evolution his The Blind Watchmaker and Climbing Mount Improbable are superb. And anyone who even browses through the beautifully illustrated The Ancestor's Tale and comes out still doubting the validity of evolution must be brain-dead.
Unweaving the Rainbow is an engrossing account of all the beauty in nature and A Devil's Chaplain is a collection of essays which show his wide range of interests and knowledge and his humanity.
Having hinted at his atheism in some of the other books he tackles religion head-on in The God Delusion and leaves it in ruins - as witness the pathetic nature of the books written as 'ripostes'.
If all that gushing makes me sound as if I were his agent or his friend I am certainly not the former and, alas, have never met him or spoken to him.
We had a discussion some time back on whether or not Jesus would be recognised on his return. Chakka and Mibs may remember it too. Personally, I don't think anyone would recognise him. I don't imagine that, physically, he was anything like the image the artists portray, nor that his philosophy was anything like his biographers portray, or his followers believe. After hundreds of years of men messing with his reputation (poor chap), he'd have an impossibly mammoth task on his hands to convince anyone it was really him.
Chakka, I've just bought The Blind Watchmaker - haven't read it yet - I've read The God Delusion several times though.
Chakka, I've just bought The Blind Watchmaker - haven't read it yet - I've read The God Delusion several times though.
keyplus, all scientific principles are theories no matter how long they have been around, how well they are established and how much we depend on them in our everyday lives.
That electric current is a flow of electrons through a conductor is a theory.
But when a theory makes huge sense, is supported by mountains of evidence with not one grain of evidence counting against it, and with no reasonable alternative theory in sight, then it is reasonable to accept it as fact -
unless and until, of course, that counter-evidence emerges. Evolution is such.
In any case, the obvious meaning in what I said is that anyone who is not persuaded by the vast and fascinating evidence in The Ancestor's Tale must be brain dead.
Or, of course, so dominated by their religion that they are simply not allowed to be persuaded. I leave you to decide whether or not that is the same thing.
That electric current is a flow of electrons through a conductor is a theory.
But when a theory makes huge sense, is supported by mountains of evidence with not one grain of evidence counting against it, and with no reasonable alternative theory in sight, then it is reasonable to accept it as fact -
unless and until, of course, that counter-evidence emerges. Evolution is such.
In any case, the obvious meaning in what I said is that anyone who is not persuaded by the vast and fascinating evidence in The Ancestor's Tale must be brain dead.
Or, of course, so dominated by their religion that they are simply not allowed to be persuaded. I leave you to decide whether or not that is the same thing.
Latest Posts
Christmas In The Good Old Days
ChatterBank29 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles45 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles51 mins ago
Festive Dingbats 2024 C/D 6Th Jan
Quizzes & Puzzles126 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.