You missed the point... the only 'objective' method of testing belief is action...
Peace be unto you
An athiest world = a better world.
- Thread starter answers
- Start date
You missed the point... the only 'objective' method of testing belief is action...
Peace be unto you
yeah, i'm really confused now--"word of mouth"? i'm pretty certain that the televangelists previously alluded to have at least at one point or another professed "belief" (by "word of mouth," that is); so how can they not be true believers?
I don't think the concept of 'original sin' is valid christian doctrine.... If you have anything in support of it please write in thread I made years ago:
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=38898
I would be interested to hear your comments and evidence for it.
Peace be unto you
What I am saying is that making a claim (by word of mouth) doesn't mean anything- but we can't challenge them and say that you're lying. Because 'belief' is something subjective....
One would call this 'hypocrites'- but for someone else to say someone else is 'hypocrite' is probably not correct because you don't know if the other person is really a believer or a hypocrite.... Its kind of like the 'belief of the heart' vs 'belief of the tongue'.... So the only 'objective' method of checking something is the actions.... But again an action doesn't make someone an 'atheist' or 'theist'- these could be temporal 'states'.... I was saying the moment of sin is a time when your belief is in that 'material' thing rather than God- so the moment of sin is a time of disbelief- its quite possible that right after that moment you have belief again.... Belief is dynamic its not static- You're a believer, your a non-believer- its not so rigid.
Peace be unto you
but this would hardly be adequate: belief in the supernatural does not necessarily presume belief in a deity--and there are indeed millions (probably hundreds of millions) who believe in the supernatural, and do not believe in a deity. and belief in a deity does not necessarily presume belief in a deity that controls human destinies--do the deists believe such? again, there are millions who believe in some sort of god or gods that do not control human destinies.
the notion of the supernatural is also a contentious one:
"an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe." one can go by the colloquial, largely consensual, usage (ghosts, gods, ghouls); or one can be persnickety--and many are. "existence" in what sense? and "order"?! does a concept "exist"? and if so, is not a concept "beyond the visible observable universe"? we musn't make the mistake of reification--or am i making the mistake of reification? must something be a "thing" in order to exist? of course, "things" exist within the visible observable universe (and we can be generous here with our definitions of "visible" and "observable" to include time and energy.); but few would argue that "concepts" exist within the v.o. universe, but rather, exist beyond the v.o. universe.
cogito ergo sum. what is this mysterious "i"? (implied in the translation) and are there others? in "occam's razor and ding an sich," we concluded that the strict empiricist would likely be a solipsist; so i guess not for him. in either case, i want to know what this "i" is.
and definition 2 is certainly wanting for clarity: "so as to appear to transcend the laws..." well, i've personally encountered many things which "appear" to transcend the laws of nature--but do they really? perhaps we should simply disregard definition 2, for it is clearly ridiculous. i shall write to the editors of every known dictionary immediately...
EDIT: i shall take this further and make known my belief:
the world exists through the understanding of dogs.
(original: durch den Verstand des Hundes besteht die Welt. feuerbach's slight rephrasing of a passage from the zend avesta, the text of the zoroastrians.)
would this be a "supernatural" belief? certainly, the world exists within the v.o. universe--but how is one to construe "through the understanding"? would the world not exist except via this understanding? there clearly seem (for some) to be some temporal issues here: dogs have only been around for roughly 12-15 thousand years, and i do believe that something existed prior that (IOW: i'm clearly not a creationist). so perhaps this is to be understood via language ala wittgenstein's "to imagine a language is to imagine a form of life", or heidegger's language as "world-building." again, we get into these sticky matters of "existence" and the "beyond."
i shall not reprint my 3,000 word rumination upon this cryptic passage, but simply leave it at this: i do not know if this belief is supernatural, so i cannot answer the question of the poll.
Last edited:
superstring01
Moderator
Atheism has nothing to do with it. Wealth does. Iceland has one of the world's highest rates of atheism as well. It's incidental. Education and wealth generally reduce a nation's fertility rate.
[It should be noted that I think a world of atheists will still be just as corrupt and destructive as a world of theists; people take their pathetic nature with them wherever they go or whatever religion they practice]
~String
786 said:
So all true believers are perfect and without sin?
Then explain this:
"There is no man that sinneth not"
1 Kings 8:46
Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?
Proverbs 20:9
For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
Ecclesiastes 7:20
1 Kings 8:46
Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?
Proverbs 20:9
For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.
Ecclesiastes 7:20
agreed. i'm not sure why this is such a complicated matter for so many.
Yes, atheism is only a symptom of common sense and rationality, not the cause.
i would largely agree with you here, though "common sense" is a vague notion: i am not sure how one could conclude that a deity exists through rationality--conceived as such:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality
but is rationality the sole epistemological by means by which you think and act? i don't think this is possible, when rationality is defined in this fashion.
and i think we must distinguish reason from rationality: douglas hofstadter and countless others (self-included) would not consider the above excerpt as adequately descriptive of how we reason. see several recent threads in the philosophy sub-forum.
The moment of sin is when someone is not a believer! Apart from that moment s/he could be a believer.
In other words there is no such thing as a 'believer' 24/7.... You are only a believer for the time you do not sin......... The moment when you are sinning, for that moment you are not a believer because at that time your faith is in 'material things'. (for which sin is committed)
So being a 'believer' is a dynamic state....... we go in and out of that state- its not a constant....
Peace be unto you
The moment of sin is when someone is not a believer! Apart from that moment s/he could be a believer.
In other words there is no such thing as a 'believer' 24/7.... You are only a believer for the time you do not sin......... The moment when you are sinning, for that moment you are not a believer because at that time your faith is in 'material things'. (for which sin is committed)
So being a 'believer' is a dynamic state....... we go in and out of that state- its not a constant....
Peace be unto you
I take it from your understanding of sin, one can't catch it like a flu virus being passed around? It's an individual thing.
The existence of something does not depend on anyone's belief. If sin exists, it exists.
What I understood from your 'flu virus' statement was that sin is a personal thing- that is that sin is yours and not transferred like 'original sin' concept of Christians.
Peace be unto you
