11
   

Which is more likely, theism or atheism?

 
 
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2013 10:15 am
@timur,
timur wrote:

Wiki wrote:
Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or to experience subjectivity.


Now, tell about the sentience of the ants..

sen┬Ětience (snshns, -sh-ns)
n.
1. The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness.

Are ants unconscious?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Animal rights and sentience

Main articles: Animal consciousness, Animal cognition, Animal rights, and Pain in animals

In the philosophy of animal rights, sentience implies the ability to experience pleasure and pain.
igm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2013 10:23 am
@igm,
and...

Awareness is the state or ability to perceive, to feel, or to be conscious of events, objects, or sensory patterns. In this level of consciousness, sense data can be confirmed by an observer without necessarily implying understanding. More broadly, it is the state or quality of being aware of something. In biological psychology, awareness is defined as a human's or an animal's perception and cognitive reaction to a condition or event. (Wikipedia)

It's probably safe to say that awareness and sentience are levels or subclasses of the consciousness i.e. the physical act of perceiving, of any sentient being, subjectively.
0 Replies
 
Miss L Toad
 
  2  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2013 10:33 pm
@igm,
More sentient beings ...

I shall be more careful with my sentiences in future.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Dec, 2013 11:58 pm
More arrogance from Know-It-All Jimmy.

It's time "we" had a legitimate post on the subect? As if this very question hasn't been debated frequently in this forum over at least several years.

And yet Jimmy, didn't have the time to share with us his wisdom on the subject.

Not to worry, I'm quite sure it will be something to the effect of:

"Why do idiots believe in God? Anyone who has been to college knows there is no God."
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2013 01:40 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
I simply know that my post will be long and have abstained until I have time to sit down and type it up. The only one with sour juice in his mouth here is you, Finn dAbuzz, as you have followed me to almost every thread that I've posted in (even the relationship thread) and come up with some ill-conceived insult. The irony in your endeavor is that you and I hold the same view-point on this particular subject.






As for everyone else, don't over-complicate the question. It's pretty obvious to all of you what the question is saying/asking. Don't attempt to dissect the wording to be a smart ass. Simply leave your opinion here.




If you're wondering why I didn't dig up some old posts about this topic it's because I didn't want to. Get over it. Btw, whichever of you called me "newbie" is a pretty funny guy! As if being an old member to this forum is some type of achievement to be proud of.
Pearlylustre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2013 01:54 am
@JimmyJ,
Quote:
It's pretty obvious to all of you what the question is saying/asking

No. it's actually pretty obvious from our responses that it wasn't obvious what you were asking. It doesn't matter what your intention was if you fail to communicate it clearly. It's not unusual to post something which is misinterpreted and the commonsense thing to do is clarify what you meant and then get on with the discussion. Why are you being so stubborn about it?
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2013 02:10 am
@Pearlylustre,
The question means:

Which ideology is more likely, theism (the belief that gods do exist) or atheism (the disbelief in god(s))?

Explain to me which part of that you don't understand? "More likely" means is "more likely" to be true. I'm sorry that you required an explanation for this.
Pearlylustre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2013 02:30 am
@JimmyJ,
Quote:
"More likely" means is "more likely" to be true


That is the bit which clearly was ambiguous - as Set very unambiguously said:

Quote:
Do you mean which is more likely "true," or do you mean which is more likely to be adopted?


But thank you for your continued stubborness on the issue - it's been very entertaining.
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2013 02:39 am
@Pearlylustre,
Quote:
That is the bit which clearly was ambiguous - as Set very unambiguously said:


I'm sorry you didn't understand.
0 Replies
 
Miss L Toad
 
  2  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2013 04:36 am
@JimmyJ,


Quote:
Which ideology is more likely, theism (the belief that gods do exist) or atheism (the disbelief in god(s))?

Explain to me which part of that you don't understand? "More likely" means is "more likely" to be true.


Oh, please stop jimmyjam you're too risible like that boy in the story.
0 Replies
 
Smileyrius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2013 05:23 am
Based on the fact that the universe had a beginning, coupled with causality and thermodynamics, my personal view is that something rather than nothing, caused nothing to become something. I also think it more likely that something is both intelligent and infinite.

so Theism for me.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2013 06:30 am
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem . . . on that basis, i don't go along with the idea of god as prime mover, as first cause. For a variety of other reasons as well, i don't believe that there is a god. Now the religionists, for that reason, call me an atheist. That's kind of silly. They don't call me an A-toothfairyist, or an A-FatherChristmasist . . .
0 Replies
 
timur
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2013 06:36 am
If they call me an apostate, does it mean I cannot post?
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2013 06:39 am
If we ascribe intent to the big bang, but recognize that no intelligence intervenes after that, what are we saying? We are projecting and not freeing ourselves at all from the notion of the old man with a beard that follows our daily activities to guide us and punish us. There is no longer just cause to be superstitious and that means no god.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2013 06:52 am
@timur,
I won't tell . . .
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2013 08:30 am
@igm,
Wow...igm...you gave me something to consider here.

I have always used "sentient beings" to mean "living beings who can reason"...but on a wider (and more precise) scale, you are right.

Ummm...there is danger in dictionary definitions, because usually those definitions tell us how the word is used. Etymological dictionaries, however, do show that "sentient" does come from a Latin root that has to do with the ability to sense.

Good catch, igm. I thank you for it.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2013 08:31 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

More arrogance from Know-It-All Jimmy.

It's time "we" had a legitimate post on the subect? As if this very question hasn't been debated frequently in this forum over at least several years.

And yet Jimmy, didn't have the time to share with us his wisdom on the subject.

Not to worry, I'm quite sure it will be something to the effect of:

"Why do idiots believe in God? Anyone who has been to college knows there is no God."


You caught Jimmy out on this correctly, Finn.

We all have to protect him from breaking his arm patting himself on his back.
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2013 07:00 pm
@Smileyrius,
Quote:
Based on the fact that the universe had a beginning, coupled with causality and thermodynamics, my personal view is that something rather than nothing, caused nothing to become something. I also think it more likely that something is both intelligent and infinite.

so Theism for me.


How do you know that the universe had a beginning?

If something1 caused nothing to become something2, where did something1 come from?
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2013 07:02 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
You caught Jimmy out on this correctly, Finn.


My my, you are old. The correct phrase is "you called Jimmy out".

You're a funny guy, Frank.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Dec, 2013 07:27 pm
@JimmyJ,
What kind of person are you?

We talk, on a2k, often well phrasing and often messing up, even the best, except for people who work up their replies, so don't post often, who formulate them off line first - and lots with mediocre spelling, including from our smartest folk.

My own take is that we have a guy who is surely smart, and delves therein, intensely, and so is frightened if people even think of teasing since he doesn't breathe usual air.

Also, old is not bad, sonny.

Most of us understand aggression as a mode, but it wears for interest.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/27/2023 at 10:25:44