Richard Dawkins's definition of "Faith" ....

Originally posted by Agerg
Hmm...you think by [b]no time machines that I refer to the notion that an object's perception of time cannot be different relative to another...and NOT that there exists no device such that one can go back and forth through time as one pleases?[/b]

Whadayathink ? .... remember you wrote time "machines" .....

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Whadayathink ? .... remember you wrote time "machines" .....

I'll help you out Ivanhoe...with respect to the popular defenition of time machine (such like those you find in Doctor Who etc...) I state that there exist no devices such that you can travel back and forth through time etc..

Originally posted by Agerg
I'll help you out Ivanhoe...with respect to the popular defenition of time machine (such like those you find in Doctor Who etc...) I state that there exist no devices such that you can travel back and forth through time etc..

It's all right, agerg .... it's all right ..... 😉

Originally posted by no1marauder
That approach is fine for the human experience but it really only applies to other humans. Was Hurricane Katrina "evil"? If there is an entity who takes a particular interest in the human condition, knew it would happen, could have prevented it but did not, then perhaps he is "evil". If it's occurrence is merely part of an impersonal Unity that has no foreknowledge or power to change what will be, than of course it isn't.

Does it only apply to humans? How do you explain the expressions of cruelty exhibited by humans toward, say, animals?

Originally posted by Halitose
But that proposition I accept to be true...I have resigned myself to the fact that I shall one day expire...wish I didn't have to but one day I shall. I am certain that I won't be bothered what happens to the universe afterwards...From your perspective however, finding out that you will not achieve eternal happiness in the loving embrace of God up in hea inability to accept the concept of a necessary (in the philosophical sense) being.

Uh... The theist will have spent a life of bliss, possibly (and often) happier than the non-theist; then when dead, the theist would of course be too dead to realise the incorrectness of his/her belief, while the non-theist would be too dead to even gloat -- there'd be no "I told you so".

We are talking about what one would have to lose if they learnt before death that their views were wrong...you have resolved this by stating how little you would be concerned if you were dead...it has been resolved incorrectly.

I apologise in advance if this turns out to be a rant, but this is a matter I feel passionately about due to the nature of the dialogue in this forum.

By the criteria you gave for finding a proposition compelling, how do you hold [b]anything to be true?! Your position is frankly absurd. I surmise that you are strongly non-atheistic if not atheistic, yet by your epistemological methodology, you should be nihilistic and not believe in anything!

You seem to be what I would call a "dishonest skeptic"; one who holds to his skepticism for intellectual (and often moral) expediency -- not out of an honest pursuit of truth -- often taking the intellectual higher-ground without realising how porous it often really is. [/b]

I disagree (not that you'd be surprised)...there are many things I believe in, but like you I don't believe in Santa Claus and his flying reindeer, Like you I don't believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. The reason for the concurrence between our beliefs at just this level is probably due to the fact that we both know that they are stories invented by humans for kids.

The difference between you and I however is that I see the Bible, Qu-ran etc... to also be stories invented by humans for humans, an important point being that many humanss are subjected to it at a young age where they lack the maturity to question it or their teachers and more often than not their peers would not back them up if they were to challenge it (regardless of their age)...All of your knowledge (about religion) has most probably arisen through what you have read, and what you have been told by your peers (where did they get their knowledge from?)
Much of my knowledge (as is much of yours) has also arisen through what I have read in books or been told by my peers (some of it like yours is what I have sat down and figured out logically too). However, amongst others there is a critically important difference between my (and others) knowledge of the world and your knowledge of God. What a person suspects to be true about the world can in many cases be validated (or refuted) through experiment.
I've never been to Germany, perhaps everone is lying to me and that there is no such place, the test however, is simple! can you guess what it is?...similarly many of sciences *theories* can also be tested.

What tests exist such that the validity of your assertion that God exists and that the Bible is true (whilst the Qu-ran isn't) can be found credible by such people as I...the answer is none. All I have to go on is a book, and people telling tales that defy even the most simple inferences we can draw from the physical universe we exist in.

btw for despite my lack of an explanation, the one offered by theists yields a contradiction...who created god? who created the place where he was when he created the universe?) then I may be inclined to give it some thought and respect.

Uh... you seem to have misunderstood the theistic arguments from causality -- only created phenomenon need a cause. God is by definition necessary and therefore uncreated. You may reject this definition of God, but then it is not due to the theist having posed a contradiction, but by your prejudice or inability to accept the concept of a necessary (in the philosophical sense) being.

God is *by definition* necessary and uncreated?..but then I could argue that FSM is necessary and uncreated, I could argue that magic pots are necessary and uncreated (Like you I just make the assertion without showing you why the assertion must be true...I don't seem to be burdened with any need to back it up with evidence)...It is very much a contradiction because despite this convenient little mouse hole, I can hit back with my own similar definitions that run counter to yours...Heck I could win many arguments with this methodology of yours! how about: I define zagswakjiggysahkob to be an entity that prevents God from ever existing in any form...it doesn't exist as you or anyone else would define existence...this entity is necessary and uncreated.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Does it only apply to humans? How do you explain the expressions of cruelty exhibited by humans toward, say, animals?

I'd say that cruelty is a human concept, but that it is objective one based on human nature.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'd say that cruelty is a human concept, but that it is objective one based on human nature.

One line won't suffice. Please flesh that out with its attendent issues.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
One line won't suffice. Please flesh that out with its attendent issues.

Ask and I'll answer. What part is unclear?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Ask and I'll answer. What part is unclear?

I'll give you the 'human concept' part, but what do you mean by the 'based on human nature' part?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'll give you the 'human concept' part, but what do you mean by the 'based on human nature' part?

I discussed this somewhat in the other thread. Humans are inherently predisposed to being helpful and cooperative to others i.e. to perform "good". When we see others acting in a contrary manner, we label this as "evil". Thus, the concept comes from humans but it has an objective basis (i.e. our nature) rather than being purely subjective.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I discussed this somewhat in the other thread. Humans are inherently predisposed to being helpful and cooperative to others i.e. to perform "good". When we see others acting in a contrary manner, we label this as "evil". Thus, the concept comes from humans but it has an objective basis (i.e. our nature) rather than being purely subjective.

So what we would normally call 'cruel' behavior toward an animal is not necessarily 'objectively cruel?' I'd buy it if we see similar action on the part of other animals.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So what we would normally call 'cruel' behavior toward an animal is not necessarily 'objectively cruel?' I'd buy it if we see similar action on the part of other animals.

I'm not sure I understand your question or what "similar action" you are referring to in other animals.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Go for Pantheism; you're part of the ultimate Unity and will some day return to it. It lacks the egotism of Christianity (where YOU get to exist forever more or less in this form) but it does provide an ultimate meaning (as much as Christianity, at any rate).

Goodness me ! Is this how you decide truth ...?..a bit of this a bit of that!!!...you sound like you are chosing a car or something. Maybe you should give Buddhism a try , I've heard it's 2 for the price of 1 at Walmart and you get a free head shave!! LOL

Originally posted by knightmeister
Goodness me ! Is this how you decide truth ...?..a bit of this a bit of that!!!...you sound like you are chosing a car or something. Maybe you should give Buddhism a try , I've heard it's 2 for the price of 1 at Walmart and you get a free head shave!! LOL

hmm...some of the Bible is true, some of it is allegorical...this too seems like a bit of this a bit of that!!! 😉

Originally posted by knightmeister
Goodness me ! Is this how you decide truth ...?..a bit of this a bit of that!!!...you sound like you are chosing a car or something. Maybe you should give Buddhism a try , I've heard it's 2 for the price of 1 at Walmart and you get a free head shave!! LOL

You're an intolerant retard, aren't you? Maybe the truth isn't as simple as your pea brain wants it to be.

EDIT: There are millions of Buddhists in the world and I'd rather listen to them anyday than be exposed to a self-righteous, loudmouthed, ignorant clown like you.