Just out of curiosity, so you are saying you are uncertain that Hercules and Zeus are myths and were not actually gods? Is that correct?
C'mon Sweet Lou, I thought we made a breakthrough on this whole "certainty" thing? Are we going to have to start repeating ourselves now? Let me ask you, what degree of certainty do you maintain that Hercules and Zeus are simply mythological figures, and are/were not real deities (or demigods, in Hercules' case)? If you say 100% then that is the point at which I will ask for proof. Not just evidence, not logical reasoning, if you are going to be 100% certain then you need completely and absolutely definitive proof. Good luck with that. If you are not able to supply such proof then you must accept that you cannot be 100% certain. Sure, it's pretty damned unlikely that they are anything other than mythological figures, but... you don't know with 100% certainty. There will always be some doubt, whether you acknowledge it or not, no matter how absurd it seems. Others in this thread have been trying to narrow the argument down to specific deities and specific systems of religious belief. The more narrow the specification, the less likely it is that that particular specification (deity/religious system) is the "correct" one, i.e., the one that accurately reflects reality. Given that, it's easier to reject Zeus/Hercules than it is to reject the general concept of a being or entity that exists on a different level than we do, and who has the power to create an existence like the one that we are experiencing. Like I said before, there is so much we don't know that it's impossible to reject such a possibility - just as it is impossible to prove such a being's existence. But if you broaden the specification, it does become easier to accept as a possibility. Zeus and Hercules probably aren't broad enough to make that cut.
Reminds me of the interview of Andrew Wiles on his proof of Fermat's Last Theorem when he said the solution doesn't work for all cases; not just up to like a billion cases and there is one case that works.
I believe I have a similar stance to rocketsjudoka on this, so my answer to this is... NO. I'm not sure there isn't ultimately a God, but I'm quite certain if there is God, it's not the Gods of today books. And God to me isn't necessary a creator God. Therefore, I think I'm agnostic. If the definition of God is the creator Gods of today religious books, than I'm an Athiest.
I am pretty certain Zeus, in the form ascribed by mythology - isnt the creator of anything. Could Zeus be a metaphor? That's possible. Could Allah be a metaphor. Sure. A metaphor for what? That's the problem here - is that no one has defined what this "God" thing is? So it's completely nonsensical to even ask me if I am certain of "God's" existence. Define god first. As for Zeus and 100% certainty I don't even see that as an interesting debate. I'm know that Zues did not exist. How certain is that? What does it mean to know something? We get into all sorts of philosophical debates. Sure there are people who claim to know x, y, or z all the time and are proven wrong. So you can certainly say that, this guy is setting himself up for the same exact debacle. Great - you can do that. That's your prerogative and I understand where you are coming from. Do I believe in magic? No. Do I believe in ghosts? No. Do I believe in the collective conscious? No. Do I believe in past lives. No. These are all things people have made up to give meaning to reality. Reality requires no additional meaning to me. It's as Douglas Adams said: It's not a matter of faith that I say none of this stuff exists. What I know or do not know you can not say. You can accept it or reject it, and you can debate it - and I don't mind you trying to make me question that as I think that's a healthy thing for everyone to do. But If I say I am certain of X, that doesn't make me an extremist. An extremist is someone who can not tolerate the beliefs of others - and I certainly am not that. I do not advocate extreme action. And that does annoy me and I see as an unfair attack. But maybe, just maybe I know what I know and I know what I don't know. Can you respect that?
Well, if you KNOW it then you're 100% certain. Otherwise, you merely believe it probable that Zeus does not exist. LOL, you want my definition? Everyone has their own particular definition. But we all know what we're talking about when we use the term. So do you. We've been doing it for days now. Have you not noticed? That's what the entire debate is about... But short answer is to know something is to be 100% certain of it. know [noh] Show IPA verb, knew, known, know·ing, noun verb (used with object) 1. to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty: I know the situation fully. 2. to have established or fixed in the mind or memory: to know a poem by heart; Do you know the way to the park from here? 3. to be cognizant or aware of: I know it. 4. be acquainted with (a thing, place, person, etc.), as by sight, experience, or report: to know the mayor. 5. to understand from experience or attainment (usually followed by how before an infinitive): to know how to make gingerbread. Since you keep saying you're certain of it, the first definition applies. Let's keep going. cer·tain·ty [sur-tn-tee] Show IPA noun, plural cer·tain·ties. 1. the state of being certain. 2. something certain; an assured fact. Idioms 3. for / of a certainty, certainly; without a doubt: I suspect it, but I don't know it for a certainty. which leads us to cer·tain [sur-tn] Show IPA adjective 1. free from doubt or reservation; confident; sure: I am certain he will come. 2. destined; sure to happen (usually followed by an infinitive): He is certain to be there. 3. inevitable; bound to come: They realized then that war was certain. 4. established as true or sure; unquestionable; indisputable: It is certain that he tried. 5. fixed; agreed upon; settled: on a certain day; for a certain amount. I think you are using the first definition, but I am using the 4th, as I think it applies to this situation more accurately. We are, after all, disputing the possible existence of a deity. Neither side has established the truth of their position. Which would mean that the term "certain" should not apply. Neither of us is ever likely to be proven wrong in this case. Or right. I don't believe in any of that either. Doesn't mean I'm right, and I am certainly not certain about it. Maybe, maybe not. I would tend to agree with you but I don't know it for certain. Since you don't know whether or not it exists yet claim certainty that it does not, it is most certainly a matter of faith. Like I said, call it belief if you don't like the F-word. Same thing. Well, as I said earlier, I cannot even be certain that you are not God, but I choose to believe that you are not. So I think it unlikely that you know everything about everything, which would be a requirement for you to be absolutely certain of God's nonexistence. Fair enough, if that is your definition of an extremist. I will refrain from calling you that again. I will simply say that your certainty in God's nonexistence is exactly as irrational as a religious zealot's certainty in His existence, and leave it at that. Well, this whole debate is making me question your ability to realize what you don't know. That's sorta the point.
If I can answer you and Durvasa together since you are asking similar questions I will say I likely don't think Zeus, Hercules and / or Jesus were divine but I also can't say with with absolute certainty they weren't. If we consider God(s) to be omnipotent then they could take any form and appear at anytime and do anything. So to ancient Greeks they could've appeared as Zeus and Herakles, to the ancient Jews as a pillar of fire then as a man named Jesus, to the ancient Hindus as Rama and Krishna and so on. In fact some Hindu belief says that Jesus and Mohammed were avatars of Vishnu. Anyway I don't agree with the argument that just because a lot of people still believe in the divinity of Jesus and Vishnu means that those other figures were categorically not divine. Some could be, all could be or none could be. I think the argument of bringing Zeus, Odin and etc.. up is used to try to club the faithful. Since I don't necessarily subscribe to a deistic view of religion I don't see a problem with those beliefs. If I met someone who truly believed that Zeus was the supreme god and ruled from Olympus I wouldn't necessarily think less of him if it helped him live as a better person. If you ask me if it is likely that all the miraculous things happened. I would say probably not, or at least need a lot more evidence than just what has been passed down in holy books and stories. The proof though of the existence of those figures, is a matter of history and archeology but the belief in the divinity is a matter of faith. If someone has faith in the divinity of such then no matter of physical proof is likely to sway them or not and I suspect that would be a very shallow religious belief if divinity was dependent on actual physical proof. As I said though these aren't scientific questions but questions of faith.
I wonder how far this argument extends. Suppose someone walked up to you and claimed that they were a god and had supernatural powers. Is it simply a matter of faith whether you believe them? Can't one use a rational, scientific approach to verifying his claims? 100% certainty, one way or the other, may be unattainable, but such is the case for many scientific questions as well.
If they claimed they had supernatural powers then they are making a physical claim that could be tested. Though when looking at a historical claim there is no way to test that in the present day. Anyway is divinity dependent on supernatural displays? Buddhist teaching says that all of us are God or at least are capable of being one. What matters about these type of questions is what is the purpose of asking? These discussions always focus on the demand by atheists and other non-believers of empirical proof when faith by definition isn't about that.
I think the line between faith and science needs to be there when religion is being used a the means to control people's lives. I think individuals have ever reason to believe or have faith in what they want - and if that makes them a good person, I am all for it. The issue at hand, and I think for many atheists is when religious doctrine is used to create or influence laws that affect everyone - including atheists. And in that case, it's fair to ask for scientific evidence as a basis for changing those laws or affecting large groups of people.
As mentioned earlier, that door swings both ways. I will agree that in matters of public policy it is fair to ask for scientific evidence supporting a given policy. Faith may govern matters personal but public is a different story.
I don't see how Atheist make laws that govern what religious folks can or can not do. It's more about preventing themselves from being governed by someone's elses belief framework.
What you see as protecting themselves from being governed by someone else's belief framework many on the opposite side see as an infringement of First Amendment rights. Trying to get nativity scenes yanked from public grounds at Christmas time, not allowing the 120 commandments to be displayed in courthouses, not allowing prayer in public schools - in none of those instances The spirit of the First Amendment involved keeping government out of all religious activity - including removing it. "Congress shall make no law" does not translate into "no, your students cannot pray here". That is an infringement of their rights. You can argue that a state or municipality is not limited by that restraint, but that is questionable. No one is forcing anything upon anyone else, yet many atheists object to the mere presence of any religious activity, whether it concerns them or not. That door most definitely swings both ways, Lou.
I can agree with that and if the issue comes up about substituting religion for science, ie Evolution isn't true because the Bible says this, then we have grounds for a debate. That said I don't see telling people of faith they are stupid for believing such and such is really productive or making such absolutist statements as "God doesn't exist".
Would you then allow any religious symbol to be displayed on public grounds? If a Satanic group wanted to should the be allowed to display Satanic symbols on All Hallows Eve in front of City Hall? Except that students can pray all they want in school. Just go to a school on finals and I am sure you will see students praying. What you are mistaking is officially sanctioned, where the school is associated with the prayer and/or religious symbol versus private expression.
Sorry I missed this earlier I can agree with that but in science there are actually no absolutes. That is why Einstein's theories superseded Newton's Laws. For practical purposes you people can say that the Sun will rise tomorrow but until it does scientifically there isn't a 100% chance that it actually will. Anyway the nature of science isn't what someone believes but what can be proven. Isaac Aasimov once wrote that what is notable about the religion of science is that it actually works.
Seriously? Have you never heard of the Establishment clause? That's the issue with school sanctioned prayer; not the freedom to practice a religion.
I agree - and I think it's terrible to say someone is stupid to believe in god. But just as a Christian doesn't see a Muslim god as not existing, I don't think there's anything wrong with me saying, yeah, to me god doesn't exist - not in the form described by the term. I don't see the issue there.
