Atheism, theism and jelly beans

[James R]

Thus Spoke:

I’m picturing you running around like a madman with a jar of jelly beans, but you’re talking to theists, why is that, James?

It might save time later?

Tiassa might have a point, if only you’d listen.

Maybe you can translate for me.

Nietzsche’s madman is speaking to atheists rather than the theists. Why?

To think of God as dead is not to think of him as merely nonexistent.

I could be wrong, as I so often am, but perhaps Tiassa is suggesting that simple disbelief in deities is as childish as believing in them.

Perhaps the madman was suggesting that merely terminating the belief in a supernatural entity is the least of our concerns. It’s the framework that we should contend with. This quest for absolute certainty created an environment that still directs us in everything that we say, think, and do.

The madman was right. You can still smell the stench.

Delusional deniers…that’s what we are.

All very interesting, but not the topic of this thread. Perhaps you should start a separate one.

 

[James R]

davewhite04:

Anyone can do this part... believe there is a God, but few gentiles actually know what it means, faith, then knowing there is a God.

Gentiles? You think the Jews have the inside running on faith?

Do you think that faith is a valid path to knowledge? (There's still a thread on that topic somewhere on the forum.)

Just look at DNA & the red rain India, and DNA...

What am I meant to see when I look at those things?

..., yet you believe in aliens and/or chance.

Ah, another one who knows all about what I believe!

Have you ever thought to ask, rather than assuming?

I think faith is a much more useful attribute.

Useful for what purpose?

I do understand many people are weak in the faith department hence the creation of atheists/agnostics.

You have yet to convince me that faith is more valuable than skepticism.

 

[DaveC426913]

you believe that? great, whatever works for you.

So we're agreed; we all have our personal beliefs that work for us, without needing them to be objectively applicable to anyone else.

 

[davewhite04]

davewhite04:


Gentiles? You think the Jews have the inside running on faith?

Yes.

Do you think that faith is a valid path to knowledge? (There's still a thread on that topic somewhere on the forum.)

It depends how people translate it. Some set their boundaries by declaring a "mind of god", scientists i mean. good ones. If someone doesn't believe they have no boundaries.

What am I meant to see when I look at those things?

Ah, another one who knows all about what I believe!

It's not what you believe it's what you don't believe. So what?

Have you ever thought to ask, rather than assuming?

Useful for what purpose?

You have yet to convince me that faith is more valuable than skepticism.

You've either got it or you haven't. Same with skepticism. Always be skeptic.

EDIT: I cannot understand some questions, maybe rephrase them.

 

[James R]

I cannot understand some questions, maybe rephrase them.

It's okay. I can't understand some of your answers, either. Probably better to stick to the thread topic.

 

[davewhite04]

Yeah, i like jelly beans.

 

[davewhite04]

So we're agreed; we all have our personal beliefs that work for us, without needing them to be objectively applicable to anyone else.

Yeah, why not? Do you live in the USA, I guess yes but I don't like guessing!

 

[DaveC426913]

Yeah, why not? Do you live in the USA, I guess yes but I don't like guessing!

No way man. I won't even visit there till the Orange Oompaloompa is gone. (Also, you seem to have figured out the quote feature. )

 

[Jeeves]

No way man. I won't even visit there till the Orange Oompaloompa is gone.

Hey!! That's condemning people on the basis of their skin colour. The oompa loompas are honest, hard-working, talented people, and they would have a song about Trump the likes of which no late-show host can match.

 

[DaveC426913]

I apologize for besmirching the honest and hard-working people of Oompaloompa.

 

[Sancho]

Sancho likes jellybeans. everyone likes jellybeans.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Well sure, and in no small part because—





Thus I reiterate: By the time anyone is jealous of the guy who thinks God gives a damn how many jellybeans are in the jar, they're doing it wrong.

What an absurd comment to make, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the meaning of the word analogy.

 

[Slartibartfast]

James R:

Anyone can do this part... believe there is a God, but few gentiles actually know what it means, faith, then knowing there is a God. Just look at DNA & the red rain India, and DNA, yet you believe in aliens and/or chance. I think faith is a much more useful attribute. I do understand many people are weak in the faith department hence the creation of atheists/agnostics.

Atheists existed long before gods were invented.

 

[davewhite04]

Hey!! That's condemning people on the basis of their skin colour. The oompa loompas are honest, hard-working, talented people, and they would have a song about Trump the likes of which no late-show host can match.

Not much competition, in the US in anyway.

 

[davewhite04]

Atheists existed long before gods were invented.

Really... where?

 

[Slartibartfast]

Really... where?

Really... where?

Planet Earth. Ever been there?

 

[Jeeves]

Atheists existed long before gods were invented.

How could they have? There has to be an ism before it can have ists.
Before the invention of pipes, nobody was a smoker, but nor was anybody a 'non-smoker' - simply because the word would have had no meaning. Before the invention of gods, nobody was a theist or an atheist. It would mean the same as unchomulchingulist -
until somebody popularizes chomulchingulae, you can't identify with either side of the concept.

 

[DaveC426913]

Before the invention of gods, nobody was a theist or an atheist.

No, I checked.
Atheists can be defined as having a lack of belief in God or gods.
Therefore it is valid to say that, before gods came along, atheism was the default state.

It doesn't require knowing about a thing to not have a belief in it.
It doesn't require a label of a thing to exist for the concept to apply.

until somebody popularizes chomulchingulae, you can't identify with either side of the concept.

It doesn't require 'identifying with'. It doesn't even require knowing about it at all.

 

[Jeeves]

It doesn't require 'identifying with'. It doesn't even require knowing about it at all.

ism: A distinctive doctrine, system, or theory. ..

You may not believe a whole lot of things that have never yet been articulated, but you cannot be called not-yet-ist.

 

[DaveC426913]

ism: A distinctive doctrine, system, or theory. ..
You may not believe a whole lot of things that have never yet been articulated, but you cannot be called not-yet-ist.

Does a witch doctor have to identify as an herbalist to be labelled an herbalist?
Do ancient Fijians have to identify as cannibals to be cannibalistic?