• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

It really isn't possible is it?

little_monkey

little_monkey

atheist
Phasmid said:
Indeed he did... I'm not just talking about Christianity... they all have commonalities...
Click to expand...

In the grand scheme of things, society is in the hands of the leadership. The leaders have to lie -- also called the noble lie. People are just interested in entertainment, they're lazy and generally speaking, they are a bunch of morons. But to develop and control a society, the leaders have to be able to push the right buttons, to summon them to do things they would never do on their own -- like going to war, build the pyramids, okay translate that one into building an empire, etc. So the rules of laws, via history, tradition, religion, are there to ensure that society -- all of the poor suckers -- have some cohesion, discipline, a willingness to sacrifice for the greater good, and a belief of a semblant of justice. In fact, the ancient Greeks were closer to the truth -- they believe that the vast majority are slaves to serve the masters. In a democracy, you don't want to spread that truth -- it would create resentment and energize the slaves to revolt. So our dear leaders perpetuate the noble lie -- it often goes by the name of patriotism, or family values, or do the right thing, or Jesus loves you or Mohamad is God's messenger, blah-blah-blah.

inuff for now...
 
R

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
little_monkey said:
In the grand scheme of things, society is in the hands of the leadership. The leaders have to lie -- also called the noble lie. People are just interested in entertainment, they're lazy and generally speaking, they are a bunch of morons. But to develop and control a society, the leaders have to be able to push the right buttons, to summon them to do things they would never do on their own -- like going to war, build the pyramids, okay translate that one into building an empire, etc. So the rules of laws, via history, tradition, religion, are there to ensure that society -- all of the poor suckers -- have some cohesion, discipline, a willingness to sacrifice for the greater good, and a belief of a semblant of justice. In fact, the ancient Greeks were closer to the truth -- they believe that the vast majority are slaves to serve the masters. In a democracy, you don't want to spread that truth -- it would create resentment and energize the slaves to revolt. So our dear leaders perpetuate the noble lie -- it often goes by the name of patriotism, or family values, or do the right thing, or Jesus loves you or Mohamad is God's messenger, blah-blah-blah.

inuff for now...
Click to expand...
You see ripples and think you are observing the ocean depths.
 
Quagmire

Quagmire

Imaginary talking monkey
Staff member
Premium Member
Rollingstone said:
Part 2 first: I said it was so obvious it was kinda dumb to cite an example, but here goes: you can know scuba diving from a book or you can know it from experience. Whose knowlege is more certain as to what it is like? Do I not know what color is better than a colorblind person?
Click to expand...

I don't see what you're getting at here, or what this has to do with what we're talking about.

The topic is agnosticism, ie, "I don't know if God exists" not "I don't know God personally" or "I don't know this and that about God".

You analogy deals with the last two usages of the word "know", but not the first, ie, the relevant one.
 
Lux rationis

Lux rationis

Member
Dunemeister said:
I know that there's a Creator who is responsible for all that exists, that the Creator is ontologically distinct from creation yet intimately relates with it, that the creation is good and not to be despised, that he will eventually set the world to rights through the man Jesus, whom God has confirmed in this role by raising him from the dead. All this I know as surely as the red binder there.
Click to expand...

That is surprising. A reasonable person would have different levels of confidence based on mutual confirmability. Most people are inclined to be more certain about that which is reinforced by universal witness. No sighted person in the world would deny the existence of the red binder, if you showed it to them, and even the blind could confirm that the object is a binder (though they may have to take the declaration of color on faith). But as this thread shows, the Creator knowledge cannot be confirmed by even a majority of a random sampling of witnesses. If that doesn't inform your gradient of certainty about the two, you should seriously question the underpinnings of your epistemological dialectives.
 
Last edited:
rojse

rojse

RF Addict
Rolling_Stone said:
Nope.

While most believers and non-believers are conditioned to believe science, religion, psychology, and philosophy are the only tools and disciplines we have to guide us in the pursuit of the question of God's existence, they are really curtains that obscure the object of discourse. In this vein, agnosticism ignores the fact that nearly all the world's religions have “mystical” traditions that posit there is a mystery that underlies life and confounds the ego-mind, which sees only the ripples playing on the surface in the form of ideas and not the cause. An eye, the “mystics” tell us, cannot see itself: the eye, the source of our vision, is “heard,” “known” or “felt” by the seeing, not the seen. Seeking God, we fail because He is not found or discovered through intellection. Rather, He am only realized in oneness, unity, and wholeness.

Agnosticism is simply a way of saying there is insufficient reason to observe: agnostics see but do not see the seeing.

There is nothing new or mysterious about all this. I'm merely pointing to things that have been known for thousands of years and in many disguises. We all see through a “glass darkly,” but for some, the glass is so opaque as be uninteresting. Once an interest is acquired, however, the ego-mind will pound away until, feeling frustrated and somewhat distrustful, it gives up in its struggle to conceptualize the structure that underlies all of existence. Sometimes it walks away, sometimes it discovers suddenly and quite by accident that the door opens in the other direction. Sometimes, instead pounding and pushing at the door, it tries another tactic: it slowly and cautiously pulls, opening the door from within.
Click to expand...

Rather than the assumption of a God that is usually benevolent and has your best interests at heart, and all of the other complicated ideas to go with this, why not state that the widespread religious belief could easily be explained due to the fact that everyone experiencing God is a person, and therefore suffers from all the afflictions that most people suffer from - poor memory, poor perception, irrationality, and illogical assertations (myself included).
 
little_monkey

little_monkey

atheist
Phasmid said:
It's a step up from the shade of grey I was thinking of.
Click to expand...

It's true that some will use that image (of FSM) to mock religion. But the initial argument was to bring a point. I believe it was Bertrand Russell who started with his teapot image:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Link Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Phasmid

Phasmid

Mr Invisible
little_monkey said:
It's true that some will use that image (of FSM) to mock religion. But the initial argument was to bring a point. I believe it was Bertrand Russell who started with his teapot image:

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

Link Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

It's a fair point. I just get a sense that there's more too religion than meets the eye.
 
rojse

rojse

RF Addict
Phasmid said:
No, since there's documented evidence that it was a fabrication invented to mock religion.
Click to expand...

And you don't believe the questionable authorship and historical accuracy of the Bible is documentable evidence that Christianity was at least partially fabricated?
 
Jeremiah

Jeremiah

Well-Known Member
Phasmid said:
Agnosticism is the only logical stance with regards to religion. Discuss...
Click to expand...

Should I assume you mean an agnostic stance in regards to Abraham's god?

If that is so then it's quite clear that the existence of such a being is highly unlikely and non-existence is safe to assume. Being so an agnostic position is not a very reasonable stance. The other rational stance here (besides an atheistic one) is a theistic one. It is entirely rational to say "I know my mind says no but my heart says yes" then to proceed with faith in hand. I mean Abraham's god is quite obviously a contradiction of himself and inconsistent with the evidence on hand. He could only be accepted as a noteworthy possibility with faith. If not with faith or reason how does an agnostic explain his/her position?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top