Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    Do you believe that Jesus was a special man in any way or 'just some random human'?
    What is special supposed to mean here?

    He was a man who defended women who had committed adultery and hung out with prostitutes, because he was compassionate and essentially saw them as human beings, which was radical at the time. And if he didn't do these things, whoever wrote them down stuck their neck out to do so and effectively aligned themselves with his radical views on women. Which is cool.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    theory (countable and uncountable, plural
    theories)
    1. (obsolete) Mental conception; reflection, consideration. [16th-18th c.]
    2. (sciences) A coherent statement or set of ideas that explains observed facts or phenomena, or which sets out the laws and principles of something known or observed; a hypothesis confirmed by observation, experiment etc. [from 17th c.] [/b]
    Thank you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    You can read Hebrew and Greek?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    No but obtained multiple translations of both.

    Maybe one day!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    What is special supposed to mean here?

    He was a man who defended women who had committed adultery and hung out with prostitutes, because he was compassionate and essentially saw them as human beings, which was radical at the time. And if he didn't do these things, whoever wrote them down stuck their neck out to do so and effectively aligned themselves with his radical views on women. Which is cool.
    Special as in being naturally different from other human beings and as having abilities that other humans don't have. For example, Christians believe that Jesus never committed a sin in his life, do you think this is true?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    Special as in being naturally different from other human beings and as having abilities that other humans don't have. For example, Christians believe that Jesus never committed a sin in his life, do you think this is true?
    He was remarkable in many of his progressive ideas. Atheists will generally not believe in an objective concept of "sin" so in such a case no, Jesus did not commit a sin in his life, but nor has anyone else in my opinion anyway.
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by YesAllMen)
    I suggest you follow your own advice here. Huxley never defined agnostic in this sense, and was often critical of the subject of atheism itself. Most modern dictionarys define the definition like that and the more relevant sources (for example the IEP) follow my definition too. See here:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosop...theism/cs2qkka

    Of course it's enough. Sorry, but the relevant experts disagree with you on here and you've done nothing to discredit the literature that's gone into this.

    There are also other relevant experts that disagree with that (myopic) definition of agnosticism. George H. Smith and Anthony Flew for example.
    Agnosticism is not simply a third option for those who do not wish to identify as atheist or theist.

    Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), meaning "without", and γνῶσις (gnōsis), meaning "knowledge")
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    No, because an agnostic atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god (atheist), but who is sensible enough to admit that he/she cannot be 100% certain that there is no god.
    So an atheist is not sensible enough? (only kidding with this one)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    I'm not an athiest, but I'll take a stab at the what I think an atheist would say and then see how close I get when atheists actually answer.

    Most atheists will be committed to some sort of naturalism or materialism and argue that the origin of life was a natural process. They may refrain from saying exactly how the first cell originated due to the distance science has to go yet, or they may allude to some of the more promising theories such as the RNA world hypothesis.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Lol thanks mate. But this is a bit too vague for me. No offense.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    I asked a question,
    As it is religious folks who assert a positive, it is up to them to prove their claim. Your question is the equivalent of "how can you be 100% sure that an invisible rainbow-coloured flying elephant does not exist?". Probably even worse than that, as you fail to define what god actually is.

    To answer your question, I doubt atheists are '100% sure' any god exists. However the question is irrelevant as noone defines what constitutes as "god" existing and everyone's image of "god" seems to be subjective to their own imagination...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Trapz99)
    Special as in being naturally different from other human beings and as having abilities that other humans don't have. For example, Christians believe that Jesus never committed a sin in his life, do you think this is true?
    No, I'm an atheist. I would say that he was suffering from a delusional disorder, for all the positive things I have to at about him sadly.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Lol thanks mate. But this is a bit too vague for me. No offense.
    Vague? The RNA world hypothesis is extremely detailed, I'm doing my Master's project on a subsection of it and there are hundreds of papers and doctoral theses on it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    As it is religious folks who assert a positive, it is up to them to prove their claim. Your question is the equivalent of "how can you be 100% sure that an invisible flying elephant does not exist?". Probably even worse than that, as you fail to define what god actually is.

    To answer your question, I doubt atheists are '100% sure' any god exists. However the question is irrelevant as noone defines what constitutes as "god" existing and everyone's image of "god" seems to be subjective to their own imagination...

    No sorry, that old chestnut does not wash.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    I don't have any issue with "necessary beings", as I consider myself a "necessary being". I bought god into it because the term "necessary being" is typically used by those who believe that the ontological argument is satisfactory for proving the existence of god.

    An empiricist would consider the term "necessary being" as inherently loaded. The existence of things is not established by whether they are necessary, but whether they actually exist. If something exists, it necessarily exists, but that does not necessarily mean it is necessary (which can be a highly subjective standard in any case).
    Then you don't accept the typical definition of necessary being in philosophy. We are talking of completely different things if you consider yourself a necessary being. So do you find the idea of a necessary being (the actual one philosophers mean) incoherent?

    With regards to the empiricist example, that is ironically loaded. It seems to have puzzling ideas about what it means to be necessary and how it ties into existence.

    A necessary being exists by definition. The question is whether any necessary being exist. It could be that there are no necessary beings, that certain forms of anti realism are true. But that says nothing as to the concept of a necessary being. The problem with your examples of the empiricist, is that almost all candidates for necessary beings are abstract objects (numbers,sets, propositions etc) and so empiricism isn't just impotent to the topic, it's irrelevant. That's why you must be falsely equivocating a different definition for 'necessary being' in your example for it to make sense.

    But back to the main point, it really was a simple question.

    Do you disagree with the s5 axiom of modal logic? Of course you could break that down and look at components, such as necessary beings and whether they are possible, to highlight exactly where you disagree with the axiom.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    No sorry, that old chestnut does not wash.
    No, this is a point that you would have to address. It is essentially your own criticism reflected back into you, so poor are your comprehension skills.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    There are also other relevant experts that disagree with that (myopic) definition of agnosticism. George H. Smith and Anthony Flew for example.
    Agnosticism is not simply a third option for those who do not wish to identify as atheist or theist.

    Agnostic (from Ancient Greek ἀ- (a-), meaning "without", and γνῶσις (gnōsis), meaning "knowledge"
    It's not myopic when (1) it was Huxley who defined it like that Or (2) that most philosophers nowadays agree with that. Whether you like it or not, the academia and all of the definitions found in the dictionary agree that agnosticsm is a position that is correct to hold

    Anthony flew's definition has been dealt with in that Reddit post I linked to you and is rejected by most of the relevant experts nowadays
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Racoon)
    No sorry, that old chestnut does not wash.
    Religion apologetics is the oldest chestnut here mate...

    But you can go on believing what you want if you feel the Jesus in you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    I am 100% certain that a moral god does not exist, and I'm 100% certain that a supernatural being has no observable effect on the universe.
    PRSOM
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StrawbAri)
    Agnostic is literally Greek for 'without knowledge'
    So I can be a theist that says 'I believe a god exists for personal reasons and experience but due to lack of knowledge I cannot say for sure that one does definitely exists.' That would be an agnostic theist.
    Yes that's the translation and a breakdown of the literal word, but it's initial use was not to be an exact mirror of its Greek translation (if memory serves correct) but simply an non committal view on the question of God. It wasn't until the later part of the 20 century that it became popular to change how the word was used and what it meant.

    But I also thinks it's impractical if you take the modern usage. Many take gnostic theism/atheism to mean knowing in a synonymous sense to certainty. Which would just mean the agnostic theists/atheists aren't certain in their beliefs. But that's basically the same for practically all beliefs. Some will argue that we actually do have certainty with things like maths. Buts that's as far as you could go, many argue you can't even be certain the external world exists or that there exist other minds to your own. Some say you can literally have no certainty, even with maths. But put the specifics aside, almost all of our beliefs do not deal with certainties, but probabilities. I don't see the need to say I am an agnostic evolutionist, considering I can't be certain that evolution is true. Why feel the need to qualify theism and atheism? Is there a reason for that or is it as arbitrary as it seems?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Vague? The RNA world hypothesis is extremely detailed, I'm doing my Master's project on a subsection of it and there are hundreds of papers and doctoral theses on it.
    Lol I was referring to the other dude's answer, calling it slightly vague. I never heard of this theory. Could you tell me more about it?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onde)
    I disagree, the abstract is perfectly observable. Thoughts, dreams, abstract concepts are all strictly part of the natural world, if observations can be made about them.

    You said that numbers exist outside the abstract world, and implied that god did also, because they are necessary. You are essentially saying that existence and non-existence both exist in reality, as do all fictional characters.
    Thoughts and dreams are certainly not empirically observable. No neuroscientist can observe my thoughts as I see them.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 15, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.