Quite right Cologne, you're don't have to produce evidence to believe in what you believe. Ergo I don't have to produce evidence to dismiss that belief. Whilst I accept that you have the right believe what you want on a personal level, once such beliefs are in the public domain they are open to scrutiny. Failure to justify those beliefs will ultimately lead to a lack of respect in that position from others unless taken on faith. However much of the world is dominated by an adherence to one archaic scripture or another, all of which is held to be the absolute truth etc. etc. and all of which can be demonstrated to be false at some level... Ergo by definition not absolutely true; the sun does not move around the earth for example. That many organisations still seek to influencing our lives by insisting that the scripture or their interpretation thereof is truth. Let's apply that to, say, the Catholic Church's attitudes to AIDS, morality in society and condoms. Need I really say anything even if the latest pontiff is attempting,verbally at least, to change things now. But that doctrine is responsible for millions of deaths in Africa and untold suffering. Do you, Cologne, want to maintain that the Catholic Church does not have the burden of proof over what they believe? Condoms, medicine and education is required not faith and imposed morality. Blood continues to be shed by this institution even now. As I said in my previous post, since I discarded faith I have had a greater appreciation of my responsibility to society and a greater appreciation for nature and my place in the universe. I am a fully autonomous homo sapiens entirely responsible for my own actions which should always be for the betterment of society and human mind. Sometimes I fail in that but it is my responsibility and mine alone. And I accept that responsibility without the crutch of the promise of eternal salvation, 72 celestial virgins or coming back again and again. I accept death for the totality it is, when I am ready I will embrace it... I was a long time dead before I got here and I'll be a long time dead after I've gone. I accept that I have one life, one chance and it is up to me to make the most of it - no belief system required.
Well I was going on the OED definition of Gnosticism: A prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century Christian Church, partly of pre-Christian origin. Gnostic doctrine taught that the world was created and ruled by a lesser divinity, the demiurge, and that Christ was an emissary of the remote supreme divine being, esoteric knowledge (gnosis) of whom enabled the redemption of the human spirit. Again Fez I doubt we can ever quite agree. The OED makes clear the Gnostics believed in a divinity. Devine means god. You and Cologne both confuse spirituality / religion and god. I am sure many new age people ( I do not visit their shops) have not got a clue what Gnosticism is. They are latter day hippies - I grew out of my hippy styles in the seventies. A gnositc believe in god an atheist does not - simples. An atheist asserts he does not believe there is a god - not that he can prove there is no god. I think it is you who misrepresents the position. Atheists tend to use logic and science and it would be unscientific to state there cannot be a god unless you had proof - which of course you cannot have. It does not alter the position though that an atheist believes there is no god. I am an atheist and I believe there is no god in the sense the word is ordinarily used - yes of course I believe there are weird and wonderful forces that zap all over the place and for those who want to make them their religion they are welcome to do so - but now we are back to religion or spirituality not god.
And there was me thinking it was the Christians who caused all the aggro rather than the aetheists . Joking apart I don't care for the ramming of religion down people's throats in the way that Hock dude spoke about and cannot abide the way that some people claim to be religious yet their actions are as far removed from the central tenets of their faith as it's possible to get.
I'm just amazed at the depth of knowledge of the wonderful members of this board, it seems that we are being taken three different ways by people who educate us with their knowledge and never an angry word! Bravo!
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/79532?redirectedFrom=gnostic#eid Gnostic is pertaining to knowledge. It is also pertaining to "spirituality" and also transcenduality. Also esoteric spiritual knowledge. Thus I stand by my original post definition. Put it simply I have no belief in God's and no knowledge of the existence thereof. Spirituality, to my mind = woo. I respectfully suggest that you read what I have actually written on proof of God not what you appear to think I have written. Once I am satisfied that you have fully understood what my position is rather than the misrepresentation above then we can continue.
Not a fan of Stephen Fry , but agree 100% with his comments in the clip .Like most of us , I have seen suffering of those I have loved and seen the misery throughout history and across the globe ...Some may believe that such hardships are character building or the price we must pay for original sin . Richard Dawkins is something of a hero , he has devoted valuable time and intellectual effort to debunking the established religions . Religion might provide comfort / certainties to millions ...but in my cold ,rational opinion they are a complete nonsense . I'm someone who once wanted to believe and studied the Bible ...but there is nowt in that book which convinces me . I'm happy to be sitting on the fence as an agnostic ....my mind is not up to finding any ultimate truths and I'm not prepared to accept anything much on blind faith . I try to live a good life ( often fail ) ...but want to be kind , to love , to care . As a father , I cannot understand how a truly loving god could quietly watch humankind through the torment of wars , famine and disease .
Stephen Fry was simply answering a direct question, why is he not entitled to his opinion? Religion is responsible for many wars, Hidious cruelty has, and is still being perpetrated by misguided souls who believe their faith provides the justification. It is good that religious organisations are now under the same scrutiny as other groups. In the past they were relatively free to act with impunity.
That's a bit rude. If you think I have misinterpreted you then perhaps you had better write or explain more clearly. I have carefully read what you have written and find you quite condescending to suggest I have not "fully" understod you (does anybody ever do that for anyone?) and have misrepresented you. You wrote: "It is quite possible to be a Gnostic Atheist". What is there to misinterpret in that? It is impossible. Gnosticism believes in gods; atheism does not. I take a gnostic to follow gnosticism. Your quote: "Gnostic is pertaining to knowledge. It is also pertaining to "spirituality" and also transcenduality" - do you dispute the definition of gnosticism given by the OED ? If so your argument is with them not me. Gnosticism involves belief in divinity whether or not you accept that, I think you are trying to use a woolly definition. Sorry if that sounds condescending. Do we disagree on "proof of god? " I did not think so. I assert that you cannot be a gnostic (believer in a divinity) and an atheist (believer in NO divinity)at the same time; you are one or the other Maybe you need to answer my questions to help me understand you as I do not understand someone who uses their own definition of gnosticism rather than the OED one and thus produces an oxymoron. I am not certain it was you but was it not once before we debated cowardice and you had your own definition of that and we could not agree because if you define words to mean what you want them to then you have your own language. You wrote: "Once I am satisfied that you have fully understood what my position is rather than the misrepresentation above then we can continue" I think that was your line on cowardice too. It is arrogant and ends discussion.
I cited the OED. I provided the link to the on-line dictionary. It was the very first thing I posted so it could be checked. I'm not entirely sure what else I am supposed to do? I described how the definitions are related but are not the same and provided something of a verbal visual aid that I think is pretty easy to understand in terms of a Cartesian graph and I have at least assumed you would understand that. Am I now to assume you didn't click on the link to check that the definition I used was from the OED and is correct? I can make mistakes which is why I made absolutely sure I provided the reference. I also debate these issues on line regularly, usually more forcefully than I do here respecting the fact that we are a small and fairly tight knit forum with plenty in common, not least a tribal allegiance. All rather disappointing.
Your link to OED Gnostic did not work so I looked it up myself. However you need to go further to see what Gnosticism actually is and that is the definition I provided (without links). You have not explained how you deny that gnosticism is based on belief in a divinity. Your cartesian links of druids and so forth leave me cold. I do not plot my beliefs on any axes -certainly not ones chosen arbitrarily by someone else. It is so so simple to realise that gnosticism requires belief in divinity and that atheism requires an "unbelief" Never the twain shall meet. Why bring in Venn diagrams, cartesian coordinates or any other diversion? Do you accept that gnostics are theists or not? Try not to tell other people the level of their understanding etc - you know nothing about me - I could be mentally less than normal or a Mensa candidate for all you know - if a person does not agree with you it could be for a variety of reasons. You may be better to assume that I am "average" and that if I have trouble accepting your arguments so might many others so be a little more accommodating and pretend your replies are directed at everbody reading this. I will ask this of interested contributors. From the above postings do any of you accept that gnosticism involves belief in divinities and that if it does then a gnostic cannot also be an atheist - or is it just me?
Buddhists are a prime example of gnostic atheists. Spirituality without the deity. I hadn't realised that the link hadn't worked earlier, I think that there's a subscription required so my bad. That said I used the first four definitions of gnostic as defined in the OED not one of the various explanations on how the word can be used in certain circumstances. I used the Cartesian graph to try and illustrate the point not as a hard and fast rule. We may conflict, and I may find some of your attitudes and opinions frustrating but never for a nanosecond have I considered your intelligence to be anything but above average based on the evidence of your posts on this board. I haven't met you, I don't know you outside of this forum so that is all I have to go on. One thing I need you to understand about me is that, whatever my shortcomings, my intellectual honesty is beyond reproach. Everything I say is falsifiable and I take nothing on faith. I am an apistevist (taken from the Greek pisto / pistevo - faith. I believe you won't find it in the OED yet. To conclude: theos, of god; Gnostics, of knowledge; pisto, of faith. Their paths all cross but they do not mean the same thing.
Good post. For two "atheists" we must be amusing some on here. I think we both argue politely in general but quite aggressively. Compared to some boards we do noteven get near handbags at dawn and I hope you don't give up on our debate because I find it excellent. How many places can you go and get a friendly but heated debate like this - on religion of all topics!!! And now we are on symantics !!!! Where we differ is that you are using a definition of gnostics not gnosticism. If you type in to your search engine "gnosticism definition OED " you get the OED's defninition of gnosticism - involving belief in divinity. If you type in gnostic it gives as the definition under "Noun" as an adherent of Gnosticism. You have said you can be both a gnostic (noun) and an atheist (noun) so you have to go back to find out what gnosticism is. The use of gnostic as an adjective is far more woolly - but is not what you said a person could be. You chose to put Gnostic Atheist (making them both equivalent nouns) not gnostic Atheist where the gnostic describes the Atheist. Now if you had said someone could be gnostic Atheist - i.e. a "knowing" atheist I would have perhaps accepted it as possible but not thought the use of that adjective too appropriate, You could also just about get away with having an agnostic atheist - but again I would have thought it a poor definition and a strange combination. Enough - we have never been able to argue each other out of our symantic positions and I doubt we will today - so let's agree that it has been an interesting diversion on use of words.
BBC News : "MPs will hold a crucial vote later to decide whether to allow the creation of babies using DNA from three people. They will have a free vote on the technique, which is aimed at preventing deadly genetic diseases being passed from mother to child. The UK could become the first country to introduce laws to allow the creation of babies from three people. It has sparked fierce ethical debate and senior Church figures have called for the procedure to be blocked". This is another area where I object to the church. Another example of them interfering in others' lives. Some here have criticised "militant" atheists who seem to want others to bow to their views - but this type of church interference goes on all the time. What has it got to do with the church? I am all for a scientific debate about the benefits and dangers of interference in genetics but not a bunch of people narrow minds pontificating on what somebody else can or cannot do in the privacy of their own lives. Personally I am all for it but am sure that many atheists will be for and against and the same with theists - however I do not need some Archbishop claiming to represent his church butting in.
But Lenny, isn't the Archbishop just expressing his opinion? There will also be many people you may object to this procedure on ethical grounds that are not linked to their religious beliefs. Personally I am not in favour as I see it as the thin end of a very dangerous wedge. I suspect it's a short jump from replacing "faulty" mitochondrial material to remove the risk of inherited diseases from the mother to replacing/changing the nucleus material - which is a very different discussion.
My brother died aged 19 .... Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy , he was also a keen Watford fan , we used to go in the wheelchair dug out ..... This procedure would be a great help to people like my mother who carried the faulty gene . I'm a proud dad to triplets ...IVF, after many years of trying .. as an aside all hoping to do science PhDs , two got into Oxford ..they went to the second worst primary school in Buckinghamshire ( don't get me going on school league tables ) . If the church had total control , my children would never have been born . I strongly suspect the church leaders and leading thinkers would have a very different view if their daughters and grand daughters carried a faulty mitochondrial gene .
No - I have no problem with his personal opinions - we all have them -but he was acting as a spokesman for the church
As far as I have understood senior figures from the C of E have called for a delay (not a blocking) until sufficient scientific study can give us a clearer picture of the role mitochondria play in handing on hereditary characteristics. I personally have no opinions on this and I do not altogether share the concerns of the Archbishop. However - he has a right to criticize, whether as a private individual or as a spokesperson from the Church. The Church should feel free to criticize, whenever and wherever they choose, particularly if nations eg. go to war. Just as any other organization eg. Friends of the Earth etc. has the right to criticize. Are you suggesting otherwise Leo.......they are simply acting here like an extra parliamentary pressure group - like the RSPCA or any one of a hundred other groups, are you denying the Church the same right to do this ?
