What was wrong? Heresy was made a state crime. Jews and Protestants were Repressed. People were tortured to obtain confessions. Publications were censored. Severe punishment was meted out including burning at the stake.. 10% of the 350,000 persons judged by the inquisition were executed.
i understand that, but i am talking in terms of beliefs. like if i said "if the spaghetti monster exists, i think he would be tasty". you are saying "if god exists, he is uncontactable." which is is possible i guess, but i have no idea how possible, so i don't make it part of my beliefs. i believe in what is real and known and nothing more. the rest i do not know about. again, i dunno how you come to this conclusion. that there is no evidence of god suggests nothing except that there is no evidence of god. i dunno that it is possible or impossible things about god. obviously, remember i do not deny god exists. i just do not believe in as of now. same with the speaghetti monster. he could exist. i make no claims about the existence of non-existence of god. and unlike you, i make no claims about how possible it is to determine his existence. i think that is clear. yeah. well, here is a definition of agnosticism: "Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities — is unknown or inherently unknowable" the part i think is silly is the "inherently unknowable" part. i dont see where they came up with that. you seem to believe that the inherent unknowableness is a temporary state, which makes more sense. still though, seems like they are presuming things they have no knowledge of.
I usually don't try to be harsh but that was the absolute stupidest thing I have ever seen anyone write, on any topic, ever, period. If you are serious about what you just wrote then you have absolutely no clue what the Spanish Inquisition was. If you did you would see how ludicrous your statement is. Unless you support totalitaristic repression of non-Catholics. Basically people were tortured for being Protestant or Jewish. If you were accused of being Protestant or Jewish, regardless of age or gender, you were tourtured to extract a confession. This resulted in the torture of roughly 341,021 people and the execution of 31,912, and the expulsion of 100,000 Jews. Execution was usually peformed via being burned alive. Here's some help for you.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_inquisition Now since you apparently know the other side of the story, and all of the good the Inquisition did, please enlighten me. I can't wait to hear this. :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:
a footnote to what red and i are discussing is this quote from bertrand russel that helps us out. : " As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods. " i know where that dude is coming from. sometimes the ambigiuty of language leads to problems. for instance some people define atheism very narrowly, meaning denial of the existence of god, rather than simple non-belief. cparso did this. i thik the only justifiable belief is what i call atheism, but is also sometimes called agnostic atheism, which is what bertrand russel means. the implication being that the atheism is based on lack of knowledge and that believing in god is like believing in any other random thing, including a teapot orbiting the sun. it is true that god might exist. in the same sense that anything can exist. and i mean ANYTHING. like for example earth is being held up on the shoulders by the greek god atlas (but he is invisible or whatever). it is possible.
Inherent contradiction. Get real, you make such claims all of the time. You often refer to God as an "imaginary friend". You claim to be an atheist, which by definition, denies the existence of God. From the encyclopedia -- Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities. From the dictionary -- Atheism -noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. If you truly do not deny the existence of God, then you are an agnostic. I don't think you are sure. There are vast grey areas and you are standing in one, but in your black-and-white worldview, you can't accept gray shades, moderate positions, or mixed feelings, Therefore you pose as an atheist, when in fact, you harbor thoughts of the possible existence of God. Just a theory. Welcome to agnosticism. :wink:
you do not understand, but you winn in a minute or two. here i will give you a definition that will help: "a·the·ism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm) pronunciation n. 1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods." see the word "or"? disbelief OR denial, those are two different things quote]From the encyclopedia -- Atheism, in its broadest sense, is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[/quote] of course, that is what i mean. i mean it in the broad sense. absence of belief. NOT DENIAL. red, why do you think there are numbers 1 and 2 there? cant you read number 2 there and see the difference between it and number one? but i fell neatly into all the defijnitions above. haha, you know you arent as good at that as me. only i am inside everyone else's head. there is no grey in my mind. there is reality and there is legend. of course god is possible, but i still dont think you know what i mean by "possible" i mean it is possible to disprove. i mean "possible" in the most broad sense possible, like bertrand russell might say that the "homeric gods" are possible. like it is possible that you are a robot programmed to make conversation on the internet. i cant prove you arent.
if often happens that what i am thinking and trying to say has been said by someone smarter than me, and they say it better. and i found it: it turns out i am a "logical positivist": Logical positivists, such as Rudolph Carnap and A. J. Ayer, are sometimes thought to be agnostic. Using arguments reminiscent of Wittgenstein’s famous "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent," they viewed any talk of gods as literally nonsense. For the logical positivists and adherents of similar schools of thought, statements about religious or other transcendent experiences could not have a truth value and were deemed to be without meaning. But this includes all utterances about gods, even those agnostic statements that deny knowledge of gods is possible. In Language, Truth and Logic Ayer explicitly rejects agnosticism on the grounds that an agnostic, despite claiming that knowledge of gods is not possible, nevertheless holds that statements about gods have meaning.
seems that the thread has turned from biblical contradictions to belief in God. looks like there are 2 camps: those that demand absolute and those that accept the probability that God exists. Be careful when you demand absolute proof. Life just doesn't work that way. In virtually every aspect of your life you make decisions based on high probability rather than conclusive proof. Over 99% of all flights do land where and when they're supposed to, so it's natural to assume a safe arrival. But mechanical failure and weather problems or terrorists occur often enough to remind us that no one can board a plane with absolute certainty that it will arrive safely. Except in the field of math and formal logic life is, and will continue to be negotiated on the basis of probability (sorry red, this is why your formal logic arguments don't work in this scenario). If we had the luxury of making decisions based on absolute certainty then no marriage would end in divorce! No one can be absolutely certain they will have a job or home or car or income tomorrow....remember Katrina? When you eat at you favorite Chinese restaurant are you absolutely sure you won't contract food poisoning? Each of us are forced to live with a measure of uncertainty and we grow accustomed to weighing evidence, considering data and making decisions based on probability. Now, as so far as God exists, it is unreasonable to insist on absolute proof. Why is our court system is based on reasonable doubt, not absolute certainty? Our forefathers knew as we do that to expect trial evidence to convince each and every juror beyond a any doubt is as unreasonable as well as unrealistic. I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists. For me, the evidence is compelling and logical enough. For those of you who choose not to believe, this becomes an easy exercise. You don't have to prove anything, all you have to say is, "Bring Him out, let us look at Him, and we'll believe." For others, the question is more complex. What is our definition of God? Is He the "nothingness" of the Buddhists? Is He the intolerant Allah of the Muslims, or as Christians say, the loving Father of Jesus Christ? How can we possibly know who's right or wrong? All of these questions are valid and all cannot be answered with absolute certainty. However there is enough rational evidence to back up the existence of God.
even though i disagree, that is a great post. however, the lack of paragraph breaks is draggin it down.
