Thread: Respect vs. Blasphemy

Originally Posted by xman

Nope. Critical thought and open inquiry should be encouraged so that young minds can be properly equipped to come to informed, intelligent conclusions for themselves and be prepared to alter those conclusions in the light of new data.

Unfortunately that is not how it is in practice. In the modern humanist society they are not taught 'how' to think but rather they are indoctrinated into 'what' to think. Modern 'critical thinking' in practice is a joke, it is just a label that is 'used' to brainwash people.

Originally Posted by ENUF2

To know for certain that God exists, you don't have to know everything but you do have to know something - you must either know God personally or you must be aware of some evidence establishing His existence. To be unsure whether or not God exists, you don't have to know everything. In fact, by your own admission you don't know everything. However, to claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist - to positively assert a universal negative - you would have to know everything. To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.

Are you trying to confuse me or are you confusing yourself? Below I have inserted or deleted a few words and it makes just as much (or as little sense) as your assertions.

To know for certain that God does not exist, you don't have to know everything but you do have to know something - you must either know no God personally or you must be aware of no evidence establishing His existence. To be unsure whether or not God exists, you don't have to know everything. In fact, by your own admission you don't know everything. However, to claim to know for certain that God exists - to positively assert a universal positive - you would have to know everything. To be absolutely certain that God does exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

But it's not Christianity. You can be the most horrible person your whole life but if you accept jesus as your saviour before you die you get into heaven.

If you turly accept Jesus. Jesus' words were" Anyone who does not deny themselves pick up their cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me "
Personal opinion but I think there are truly very few "death bed" conversions. If someone has lived in their pride their entire life knowing "the day of Salvation is now" hoping to commit their dying breath to Christ they are self-decieved because it's not commitment it's surrender. Confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.Romans 10:9&10

Originally Posted by ENUF2

Ok, then let's call a philosophy ...

Very close ENUF2. There are a couple of clarifications which should be made however.

Personal knowledge of god(ess[e](s)), fairies or anything else is not acceptable as proof of existence since people's perceptions are fallible and not confirmable with one another. This kind of knowledge isn't certain knowledge and shouldn't be confused with such.

A belief is not quite the same thing as a position about them. I do not believe that god(ess[e](s)) certainly don't exist, but because none have manifested or can be tested for I adopt the position that there are none. I operate as though they aren't there because functionally they aren't. I don't pray to or preach about them, etc.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Unfortunately that is not how it is in practice. In the modern humanist society they are not taught 'how' to think but rather they are indoctrinated into 'what' to think. Modern 'critical thinking' in practice is a joke, it is just a label that is 'used' to brainwash people.

No it's not.

Just a little story that would make me guilty of blasphemy under new Irish law.

There is this guy, called Paddy who is accused of stabbing Murphy to death. All evidence (fingerprints, etc) is against Paddy. Passers-by who found Murphy's body, one being a doctor, all testify that Murphy was dead when they saw his body.

All passers-by passed by and when the police came to the spot where Murphy had been lying his body was gone. No one knows how this happened, Murphy's body was never seen again.

The judge asks Paddy why he still denies killing Murphy. Paddy replies: "Well, your Honour, I did stab him but I did not kill him. A few days after the stabbing he appeared to me when I and my friends were having a drink and shared a joint. The stab wounds were still visible, he told me and my friends he was the son of god and told me he had forgiven me." My friends John, Peter and Paul will testify they saw the resurrected Murphy as well. And indeed, John, Peter and Paul all swore on the Bible they saw Murphy and heard him say he had forgiven Paddy.

So why does the judge, who is a devote Christian, not believe Paddy and send him to jail but does believe what he reads in the Bible about Jesus' resurrection?

ENUF2 - But, for most atheists, it is *not* a position at all, let alone one held with conviction.

I don't get why this is so difficult to get through.

If I told you I saw Big Foot, you have no way of telling me I'm wrong, but you also have no way of proving I'm not. You would probably be in a state of suspended belief. You have no personal investment in whether I'm right or wrong, it's just until I PROVE to you that I'm right, you will not believe, because you have no reason to.

Now, cross-apply that to atheism.

Yes, there are "strong atheists" (as someone else defined) who believe that there is no god, but they are a minority.

I would like to see myself neither strong nor weak atheist as i do not really care if there's God(s) or not. Wouldn't change my life a bit. Question of faith is a question of belief. You can believe that your wife will love you forever or your car will start tomorrow. I have no disbelief. I just don't care; not my business. On the moment you start to claim that what you believe is right, please consider that there is a world full of religious people who see differently. maybe they are you major concern. Please feel free to start another crusade-

Originally Posted by ENUF2

Ok, then let's call a philosophy would that be a better term?

Let's look at a couple exerpts from all aboutphilophy.org.

There are two basic forms of atheism: "strong" atheism and "weak" atheism. Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Does "strong" atheism correspond with or contradict objective reality? Let's look at this question objectively. Suppose someone asks you, "Does God exist?" You could answer in one of three ways: "I know for certain that God exists" (assured theism), "I don't know whether or not God exists" (insecure theism, agnosticism, "weak" atheism and/or skepticism), or "I know for certain that God doesn't exist" ("strong" atheism).

To know for certain that God exists, you don't have to know everything but you do have to know something - you must either know God personally or you must be aware of some evidence establishing His existence. To be unsure whether or not God exists, you don't have to know everything. In fact, by your own admission you don't know everything. However, to claim to know for certain that God doesn't exist - to positively assert a universal negative - you would have to know everything. To be absolutely certain that God doesn't exist outside the limits of your knowledge, you would have to possess all knowledge.

Let's make this practical. Do you know everything? Do you know half of everything? Do you know 1% of everything? Let's be incredibly gracious and suppose that you know 1% of everything there is to know. Thomas Edison confidently declared, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything." Nevertheless, given the supposition that you know 1% of everything, is it possible that evidence proving God's existence exists in the 99% of everything you don't know? If you're honest, you'll have to admit that it's a real possibility. The fact is, since you don't possess all knowledge, you don't know if such evidence exists or not. Thus, you cannot be a "strong" atheist - you don't know that God doesn't exist.

Atheism vs. Theism
Strong atheism is a logically flawed position. Weak atheism, agnosticism and skepticism are all "I don't know" theological positions, with weak atheists subscribing to atheistic presuppositions, true agnostics "sitting on the fence," and skeptics capitulating to ignorance. Assured theists are the only ones who claim to know anything. What do they know? In the end it doesn't matter what you believe. What matters is what's actually true. You might not believe in gravity. Nevertheless, if you step off a tall building you are going to splat on the ground below. The existence of God has enormous implications for you and me, and prudence would have us make a full investigation of all the available data before putting our eternity in the care of any one belief-system. Ask yourself these types of questions: "How do I know something's true?" "What is the source of my information?" "Is my source absolutely reliable?" "What if I'm wrong?"



Using a literal interpretation then yes I am. But I will continue to say religion without relationship is worthless. The fundamentalism that I am speaking of is the attitude of those my Lord spent His time speaking against. Those are the one He called Hypocrites, and whitewashed tombs.
These people believe in their Religious law (They refuse to lower themselves to interact with "sinners" unless of course it's on their terms) rather than doing what we are suppose to do. Reaching out to the lost. These are the one Jesus was speaking about when He said "on that day many will say to Me Lord, Lord but I shall say away from Me you workers of iniquity for I never knew you. And these are the ones I will oppose because these are the ones we as followers get stereotyped with.

Originally Posted by MistressNomad

ENUF2 - But, for most atheists, it is *not* a position at all, let alone one held with conviction.

I don't get why this is so difficult to get through.

Because of the aforementioned stunted thinking most likely.

Originally Posted by xman

Believing in anything which is unobserved, especially those things which are unobservable, like what happens after death, is delusional.

That's not a definition of delusional. Delusional is a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence. So basically I'm asking how you know the idea of reincarnation and karma are false. What is the evidence against it?

Originally Posted by xman

Which is why Zen Buddhism is more philosophy than religion.

Well I agree with that.

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

That's not a definition of delusional. Delusional is a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence. So basically I'm asking how you know the idea of reincarnation and karma are false. What is the evidence against it?

AH! We do not 'know' with certainty any such thing, but to believe it without evidence is delusional. The burden of proof is on you making the claim to provide evidence, not me to disprove it. Because you cannot disprove the existence of an invisible, pink elephant floating in my living room does not mean I should entertain the notion that there is one.