Agnostics...Immobile?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman So you're purposely being obtuse?

All this goes back to his stubbornness to allow an atheist to be one that lacks a belief. He wants lack of belief to be a belief, like lack of hair is hair. I it is stupid. I suspect he is well aware of how stupid it is but doesn’t have the honesty to admit it.

Starboy

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Starboy Since it is man made and since man can only exist here you still do not know if 1 + 1 = 2 everywhere in the universe. It is not as if there are not other kinds of math. And it is not as if mankind knows about all of them.

I don't care if there are other kinds of math. They're irrelevent to proving that our math is true anywhere in the universe.

Okay. What does any of this have to do with you little game of calling all statements beliefs? Is not a mathematical statement a belief? Isn't defining 1 + 1 = 2 as "true" a belief? Unless you are trying to back out of you silly statements by diverting the discussion. But fret not, it is only a statement therefore it is only a belief.

Any statement is a belief unless you can prove it's true.

You can prove math statements true.

Starboy[/quote]

[Starboy]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 Any statement is a belief unless you can prove it's true. You can prove math statements true.

Funny thing about that. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that there are mathematical proofs that say you cannot prove all "true" statements within a self consistent system based on the natural numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%F6del...teness_theorem

Quote by: Gödel’s Theorem In any consistent formal system that is sufficiently strong to axiomatize the natural numbers – that is, sufficiently strong to define the operations that collectively define the natural numbers – one can construct a true statement that can neither be proved nor disproved within the system itself.

So getting back to your 1 + 1 = 2 statement and your concept of "proof", it may not be as iron clad as you think.

Also if you try to take mathematics and make counting rigorous you discover what the mathematician/philosopher Bertrand Russell discovered and is known as Russell’s Paradox. This paradox is what lead to Gödel’s theorems.

And then there is Alan Turing. He is considered to be the founder of computer science. It is interesting to note that he was gay and was forced by the government of England to undergo treatment. During treatment he committed suicide. Anyway he approached the entire problem from computing. He was able to show that there is no solution to the Entscheidungsproblem, this is the challenge in symbolic logic to find a general algorithm which decides for given first-order statements whether they are universally valid or not.

So your idea of "proof" as some window to "truth" can be shown by the very "proof" that you seem to think is the key to the universe to be fundamentally flawed. And there are mathematical proofs to "prove" it.

Starboy

[walton]

Quote by: Agent007 In order to have a true purpose in life we must have absolute faith in some ideal, principle, or belief and we should not doubt these things that are closest to our hearts.

The problem that is not often enough noticed is that the ideal very often becomes corrupted during the fervor of faith. Example: Jesus teaches his disciples to pray that things on earth be like they are in heaven. John, one of Jesus' disciples, then visits heaven (Rev 19 & 22) where he attempts to worship an angel rather than God. The angel tells John that what he has purposed is wrong and why. So we learn that in heaven there is a candor regarding the worship of angels (messengers), yet when we look at Christianity it is impossible to find that any effort has been expended to use the information the angel gave to John.

Christians do not ask why Jesus says (Matt 8) that the man who does not worship him has a greater faith than the man who does. Christianity assumes that the man (Centurion of Capernaum) must have also worshipped Jesus and abandoned the required practice of worship of the SPQR ensigns. So an important answer to the prayer, how things are in heaven, is ignored and the practice of imitating the behavior of those, such as John, who don't know what they are doing replaces the ideal.

Faith then becomes blindly following the example of John, who turns the objective upside down. Instead of progressing toward making things on earth like they are in heaven, Christians would make things in heaven like they are on earth. The purpose becomes corrupted, yet the faithful are not aware of the need to revisit the purpose as it was in the beginning.

[Starboy]

Quote by: walton Faith then becomes blindly following the example of John, who turns the objective upside down. Instead of progressing toward making things on earth like they are in heaven, Christians would make things in heaven like they are on earth. The purpose becomes corrupted, yet the faithful are not aware of the need to revisit the purpose as it was in the beginning.

That sounds great but according to the mythology the only person involved in the entire affair that knew of heaven was Jesus and he didn't say all that much about it. So if people are to follow his example then what heaven are they supposed to make earth like?

Starboy

[walton]

Starboy,

My point is that an ideal or the core value of some "faith" may be corrupted without the participants taking any notice. Information (provided by the angel in Rev 19 & 22) which would be useful in measuring progress toward the goal of the core value statement (the Lord's Prayer) is ignored. Whether it was the third heaven, as mentioned by Paul in 2 Cor 12:2, does not matter. The examination of the information and the questions that would be a part of that examination are not found within the "faith" at least not since Origen.

The model you assume is Jesus. Why? Abraham is the person Jesus mentions as the center of the faith. If you are sitting with Abraham "in that day," according to Jesus, you are in the faith. Abraham is all doubt in the oral tradition. The God of Abraham does not approach him until Abraham has rejected the "faith" of his father and nation. In the stories Abraham mocks the faith of his father and king.

So my observation that corruption goes unnoticed, as illustrated by the Christian response to information that comes from their God and is absolutely true according to their scripture, is a good one. Jesus is not the only one who knows what the angel says when John attempts to worship the angel. Everyone who reads the book knows that it is the heaven disciples of Jesus want to go to that John visits and that John is doing there what people during the imperial Roman period did on earth regarding worship. There is a clear conflict between what John prays for and what his actions would result in. That conflict is not examined. So I say the problem is that the ideal often becomes corrupted without the faithful noticing or doing anything to restore the ideal. Christians since Origen was anathematized are at cross purposes with their God and think they are doing well.

[gem]

Quote by: Starboy All this goes back to his stubbornness to allow an atheist to be one that lacks a belief. He wants lack of belief to be a belief, like lack of hair is hair. I it is stupid. I suspect he is well aware of how stupid it is but doesn’t have the honesty to admit it. Starboy

The lack of belief isn't really a lack of belief, if it is a belief in the superiority of not being taken in by this gimmick or that. That oral tradition walton mentions is a solid example of doubt being a part of being faithful to the commandment "be perfect". Abraham would mock the Christian belief for the very reason walton identifies. People mistake faith for credulity all the time. Spinoza noticed this important fact.

[Starboy]

Quote by: gem The lack of belief isn't really a lack of belief, if it is a belief in the superiority of not being taken in by this gimmick or that. That oral tradition walton mentions is a solid example of doubt being a part of being faithful to the commandment "be perfect". Abraham would mock the Christian belief for the very reason walton identifies. People mistake faith for credulity all the time. Spinoza noticed this important fact.

You would have a point if he was not intent on dragging angels into it as if that buttressed his contentions any more than me dragging unicorns or leprechauns into it. If people want to be taken seriously then they best stop taking mythology seriously and start explaining their concept of moral action in terms of the explanative constructs of the twenty-first century. The Bronze Age is long gone.

Starboy

[tman_ndsu08]

Quote by: Starboy Funny thing about that. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that there are mathematical proofs that say you cannot prove all "true" statements within a self consistent system based on the natural numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%F6del...teness_theorem

If we start out assuming that a belief is true, then we don't need to prove it.

[Starboy]

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 If we start out assuming that a belief is true, then we don't need to prove it.

Is that a belief?

Starboy

[tman_ndsu08]

That's a rule of the inherent system by which we choose to communicate with.

[phishman]

Clearly tman_ndsu08 is not capable or willing to stop playing games. I went through this entire thread and all I can suggest is to ignore him; he makes no valid points for either side. Dont waste your time with his Sesame Street reasoning.

What I want to know, moustache, is the meaning of an afterlife. If I am hearing you correctly, you basically live in paradise forever. Are you saying the meaning is just to enjoy yourself for eternity? That seems kind of selfish, although I suspect you will go on to say you will spend eternity "worshipping Him" or "bask in his glory" or something like that.

This sounds an awful lot like being good so Santa Clause will bring you toys, but you will spend the rest of the year being good b/c you love Santa and are very grateful.

If God has the ability to do anything, why do you think he would care about humans? Knowing anything he makes is based on his will/ideas, and he knows everything, it would be kind of hard for him to challenge himself, no? And thats just boring, even for him I'm sure. Perhaps thats why he created mindless idiots to bother the rest of us and knock on our doors & force their stories on us.

[walton]

Quote by: Starboy You would have a point if he was not intent on dragging angels into it as if that buttressed his contentions any more than me dragging unicorns or leprechauns into it. If people want to be taken seriously then they best stop taking mythology seriously and start explaining their concept of moral action in terms of the explanative constructs of the twenty-first century. The Bronze Age is long gone. Starboy

Starboy,
The supernatural elements are necessary to the presentation of a problem, which in this case is the corruption of an ideal or core value. If I say, "John had ten apples and Bill and Ed each took four of John's apples," it would be silly for you to say that you don't like apples and that my math problem is flawed because it has apples in it. I don't believe that serpents are capable of speech, yet, in the story of the garden in Genesis, it is necessary to the story's point that someone ask one of the humans some questions. That someone cannot be another human nor can that someone be the creator of the humans. An important problem is presented for our consideration. Unless the serpent or some other non human creature speaks, the problem cannot be considered.

I am astonished that you would not see this. If we discuss madness (similar to the topic at hand) you would not allow Hamlet to be used in that discussion if you don't believe in ghosts?

[Starboy]

Quote by: walton Starboy, The supernatural elements are necessary to the presentation of a problem, which in this case is the corruption of an ideal or core value. If I say, "John had ten apples and Bill and Ed each took four of John's apples," it would be silly for you to say that you don't like apples and that my math problem is flawed because it has apples in it. I don't believe that serpents are capable of speech, yet, in the story of the garden in Genesis, it is necessary to the story's point that someone ask one of the humans some questions. That someone cannot be another human nor can that someone be the creator of the humans. An important problem is presented for our consideration. Unless the serpent or some other non human creature speaks, the problem cannot be considered.

The problem is the problem. The supernatural elements are part of a particular explanation of the problem. They are not the problem itself. However the fact is that for all but religion no one uses supernatural constructs to explain anything (not if they are sane). There are other explanations of the problem that do not use supernatural constructs.

I am astonished that you would not see this. If we discuss madness (similar to the topic at hand) you would not allow Hamlet to be used in that discussion if you don't believe in ghosts?

Sure, sure, we should use Hamlet to understand madness in the twenty-first century. And we should bleed people and start practicing medieval medicine.

Are you serious?

Starboy

[walton]

Starboy,

Yes I am serious. Oedipus complex is an example of mythological construct useful in modern psychology. Yikes

Very real problems have been described in ancient writings which often have supernatural elements in them. If you think that there can be any real value to a discussion that steers clear of any use of such in an examination that includes the possibility that religious ideals or core values can and do become corrupt (unnoticed by the participants), you are not thinking as well as you might.

[walton]

Starboy,

An atheist may hold to the principle of treating others as she would like to be treated herself.

The Rev. 19 & 22 account I used to illustrate a corrupted core value of a belief system has that same principle violated in it. John, as a disciple of Jesus, has learned to do unto others as he would have done unto him. When John attempts to worship the angel for the second time, he is violating that golden rule. The angel has already told John that what he is attempting is offensive.

If you leave out anything that is supernatural in a discussion that needs to touch on the failure of supernaturally charged systems of belief, you are allowing a pass for depravity among those who are all too often certain that they are right in what they do.

[tman_ndsu08]

An atheist may hold to the principle of treating others as she would like to be treated herself

Uhh...clearly you mean he and himself.

Remember, you can only discuss philosophy if you have a penis.

[snow cone]

Quote by: moustache A quote from "Life of Pi".... "Ill be honest about it. It is not atheists who get stuck in my craw, but agnostics. Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gethsemane. If Christ played with doubt, so must we. If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the Cross saying, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" then surely we are also permitted doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation." I Believe this sums up agnostics, "To choose doubt as a philosiphy of life, is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation." Do you view this as proper representation of agnostics? Explain.

But wait--
If there is too much doubt, then testing of all things must be complete. (Paul says in 1st Thessalonians "Test everything and hold on to the good.")

walton shows that the whole point of the Lord's Prayer is lost, if John's example is followed. walton's point is a good one. Believers may think that there is an excess of doubt because they have no interest in doing God's will - they pray for one thing and work at opposing it. Could anything be more obvious? John has failed a valuable test but the believers are going to hold on to the bad and call it good.

[Starboy]

Quote by: walton Starboy, Yes I am serious. Oedipus complex is an example of mythological construct useful in modern psychology. Yikes

Freud is passé. There is no evidence that Freudian therapy is any better than a placebo therapy.

Very real problems have been described in ancient writings which often have supernatural elements in them. If you think that there can be any real value to a discussion that steers clear of any use of such in an examination that includes the possibility that religious ideals or core values can and do become corrupt (unnoticed by the participants), you are not thinking as well as you might.

As long as it is recognized that it is mythology then fine. But the best way to understand mythology is to understand man. Mythology is a creation of man, man is not a creation of mythology.

Starboy

[Starboy]

Quote by: walton Starboy, An atheist may hold to the principle of treating others as she would like to be treated herself.

The golden rule is outmoded. There is a better rule, the platinum rule.

Starboy