So, the latest God thread got nuked last night? :idk:

[Stevetemp]

Stop trying to be Draelyc. You don't have the metal capacity of a chalkboard, let alone him. I will ask it again, what dogma are you talking about? You are talking to people who are listening to others make extraordinary and incoherent claims about reality, and they are telling you that they don't find your claims to be justified. This is like you telling those who don't believe in bigfoot or ghosts, that they need to free themselves from dogma in order to believe it. And if you're so bent out of shape about anyone misrepresenting your beliefs, here's a thought: How about you lay them yourself? It's hard keeping up with all the versions and interpretations of Christianity, or even god, when there are as many variations as they are believers.

 

 

LOL...what a pompous ass.

 

Ask me WHAT again? When did you ask me before?

 

I have made my position VERY clear. I'm sorry that stick up your ass is blocking your brain. You aren't here for any kind of discussion...so why should I oblige your demands?

 

Blargh said this:

 

 

the standard-issue Christian concept of God

 

 

if you don't know what that means...it's not my fault.

[sinnerx96]

LOL...what a pompous ass. Ask me WHAT again? When did you ask me before? I have made my position VERY clear. I'm sorry that stick up your ass is blocking your brain. You aren't here for any kind of discussion...so why should I oblige your demands? Blargh said this: if you don't know what that means...it's not my fault.

 

 

Lol

[draelyc]

Before I even attempt to make any responses to the new posts in this thread, let me take just a moment to compare and contrast these two replies, quoted below.

The first is from a person who holds very different views than I, regarding spirituality, metaphysics, and reality in general. Yet, he posts in such a way as to encourage discussion. He invites an honest, open exchange of ideas. In short, he makes it clear that, when he asks what I believe and why I believe it, he genuinely wants to know the answers. He asks intelligent questions, pays close attention to my responses, and at least makes an effort to imagine what the world *might* look like through someone else's eyes.

Now, none of that means in any way that he agrees with what I'm saying, or that he doesn't think I'm completely full of {censored}. He may actually think that, but rather than be an ass about it and absolutely shut down any possibility of conversation, he approaches the discussion in good faith and with some intellectual integrity. Tony, I cannot thank you enough for that.

But as for the second example, what comes across clearly (whether the writer intends to come across this way or not is irrelevant) is a belligerent condescension, a deliberate effort at twisting words and misunderstanding (again, on purpose) whatever I type, regardless of what I actually say. No attempt is made to understand what is being rejected or ridiculed. Again, what comes across is a blatantly anti-intellectual hostility, an unreasoning unwillingness even to entertain an idea, much less to discuss the subject at hand from anything other than an extremely narrow and foolish set of utterly baseless and thus erroneous presumptions ~ most of which have nothing to do with anything I've said, yet said presumptions are used to "justify" a mocking rejection not only of my alleged ideas (I still maintain he has yet even to address my actual idea, responding instead to what he's *convinced* I'm *going* to say), but of myself, personally, as well.

Sigh.

And he ends by accusing *me* of playing games. Seriously?

Okay, let folks compare these two posts and judge for themselves. I'll try to respond to each as soon and as carefully as I can, despite the malfunctioning of our dear forum here. Just had to get that off my chest, first.

Chris

I saw this coming...So you avoided what I said so that we are down to the "we both don't know, but god does" argument then....A.K.A god works in mysterious ways so you can't criticize him . You are limiting what the terms mean, I'm not sure how I can make a person understand and imagine the infinite possibilities that all powerful entails if they believe it already exists as it is exhibited in the current universe. No, I stated that god would then be a sadist (and preferential) if he in fact has omniscience and omnipotence (the two do relate in this case) with the current state of the universe. I don't think you are comprehending what my posts are saying. I will admit that this conversation is "limited" to certain degree of logic...but you can't really avoid that in an argument. It doesn't necessarily obliterate free will (though that is another argument regarding organisms he created), but it makes him evil. That is my point that seems to be so hard for you to understand. Draelyc, Draelyc, Draelyc... sigh.... You are the one dodging the questions here...I can't get a single straight answer about your beliefs and you seem to do that A LOT within every religious discussion. I'm not the one who believes in this stuff, so why should I be defining something I don't think exists? It would be like asking me to define what a unicorn is. I can give you imagery and descriptions (coming from an outsider perspective), but since I don't believe in it how could I give you my "own" concrete definition? I can't say a unicorn HAS to be at least 6 feet tall or has white hair...I believe it to be a fictional character so it would be meaningless. However, the person who believes it to be real could tell me the characteristics think it has similar to how I would describe a deer or a horse. YOU would need to define these things seeing as you are a Christian. Explain what you mean by "pain" then? I don't believe all pain is physical. Sacrifice means giving up something to accomplish something else, thus the word itself is describing a process of going through pain. At the end, yes you are gaining something. However, it clearly shows a loss to the process. And all sacrifices are not equal (this especially relates to early death, the mentally disabled, beings who are unaware of their existence etc

[draelyc]

But why do you think the "lens" is a good pathway to truth, or believing things that are more likely to be true? And how can you have a relationship with a person when there's no contemporary evidence that he even existed, let alone was god/the son of god? Serious question. Phrased differently, how can you know that these experiences are actually Jesus Christ and not a hallucination or some other well-known brain process, Satan tricking you, Alien abduction, a Ghost, Succubi, another theistic god(maybe zeus) that your "lens" is making look like JC, etc? Especially when so many people claim exactly as you do, but but with differing experiences(like mentioned above) with contradictory beliefs. This is enough to dismiss them all, as there's no way to differentiate. This doesn't mean that it's not possible that one of them is "real", or that many of them have bits of reality. What it means is that there's no good reason to accept any of them yet. It seems to me that personal experience is a bad reason to believe anything of this nature(or anything, really), even for the one having the experience. Subjective and/or anecdotal evidence shouldn't amount to anything if you really care about whether or not your beliefs are true. Most people would find it completely loony to apply this line of reasoning to anything else in their life other than religion. I try to be consistent in my journey for truth.

Well, that last sentiment gives us much more in common than it might otherwise seem, despite our significant differences. You've got several really good questions here; let me take a shot at putting some answers, or at least the beginnings of some answers, together for you.

But why do you think the "lens" is a good pathway to truth, or believing things that are more likely to be true? And how can you have a relationship with a person when there's no contemporary evidence that he even existed, let alone was god/the son of god? Serious question.

My answer to the first question likely will not satisfy, because it rests, again, upon personal experience and a bit of pragmatism: I have found this lens to be a good pathway to truth based upon the results I've thus far experienced. Other lenses I've tried so far (be they other religious systems, or pure empiricism, etc.) have, in my direct first-hand experience, fallen short. If or when the lens I'm using now falls short, I'll be forced to adopt another one. But at present, the one I'm using has been the most effective conduit for discerning truth in my personal experience.

As for the second question, here's a point at which ordinary, everday language becomes a barrier. Even if there were solid, empirical evidence proving the existence of one Jeshua bar Joseph who lived and preached in and around the Galilee a couple millennia ago, it would be impossible to "have a relationship" with that person today, two thousand years after his death, in any ordinary, everyday sense. Obviously, then, such language must be a metaphorical approximation of something less empirically tangible.

To put even more obscure words on it (because the more precise you try to get when using human language to express metaphysical/spiritual things, the more strained the language always gets), when I say I have a personal relationship with Christ Jesus, I mean that experience a dynamic, ongoing interaction with the Second Person of the Divine Trinity as manifested in and understood by means of the life of Jesus of Nazareth ... AND as manifested in every human being ... AND as manifested as an intrinsic aspect of my very own consciousness. But saying it that way doesn't quite have the resonance of saying "I have a personal relationship with Christ Jesus," does it?

Phrased differently, how can you know that these experiences are actually Jesus Christ and not a hallucination or some other well-known brain process, Satan tricking you, Alien abduction, a Ghost, Succubi, another theistic god(maybe zeus) that your "lens" is making look like JC, etc? Especially when so many people claim exactly as you do, but but with differing experiences(like mentioned above) with contradictory beliefs. This is enough to dismiss them all, as there's no way to differentiate. This doesn't mean that it's not possible that one of them is "real", or that many of them have bits of reality. What it means is that there's no good reason to accept any of them yet.

I separated the next bit of your question because I don't really see it as a rephrasing of the first question; rather, it strikes me as a different question, deserving its own answer. Before I get to that, let me reiterate from our previous exchange that *everyone's* perception of reality is essentially an hallucination. None of us can, in our normal consciousness, actually perceive reality directly. So everything we think of as "objectively real" is AT BEST an hallucinatory construct created by our consciousness in an attempt to APPROXIMATE reality as best our consciousness is able to do so.

But to answer your second question, let me take it in stages:

First, how do I know it's not an hallucination (in the sense that you mean by that term)? Well, I've honestly never had a full-on "I see something that looks as real as my hand in front of my face but isn't actually there" kind of hallucination, but the few let's call them "visions" I've been blessed to have did not seem to fit the descriptions of clinically documented hallucinations, so that's a start, at least. I have had dreams, though, all my life, and ~ having had dreams ~ I can certainly recognize when an experience is a dream and when it isn't. There is a difference of essence and quality that differentiates the dream from the vision, the spiritual perception/consciousness from either the normal, waking consciousness or the normal, dreaming consciousness. If a person has not experienced for himself this "other" consciousness, then that person would not be able to appreciate the difference between a vision and a dream; but having once experienced the other, he would never mistake it for a dream.

Second, having established that I'm not experiencing hallucinations, how do I know what I'm experiencing is not Satan or some demonic entity trying to trick me? That's a harder thing to do than to tell whether something is real or hallucinatory, imo. At that point, one must look to the content and context of the experience, and judge it against the things one has already discovered to be true. If I have a vision of "Christ," and in it, "Christ" tells me to murder homosexuals because they are abominations before God ... well, I'm going to be highly suspicious, because such a proclamation runs contrary not only to every other experience I, personally, have had of Christ and God, but contrary to the Holy Scriptures that are (supposedly) a record of the Word of God, and contrary to the vast, overwhelming majority of the experiences of Christ & God proclaimed by the Church and my fellow Christians (the Inquisition and modern extremist Protestants notwithstanding). In other words, I must check each new spiritual experiece again my own previous experiences and against those of others I have reason to trust, rather than just accepting the "pronouncements" of anything I see or hear.

That's not really very different than dealing with human beings in the physical world, is it? I mean, if someone tells you that you need to cut off your left arm, do you immediately go out and find a machete? But if a doctor whom you've seen previously and who has helped you with illness or disease in the past tells you "you need to have your left arm amputated," then that pronouncement will carry more weight and validity for you, won't it?

(continued)

[draelyc]

Continued:

So much for Satan, Aliens, ghosts, & succubi, then. As for "another theistic god" (I love that phrase! ... what would an atheistic god look like? ), for me that's a non-issue. There is only One God. That God has revealed Itself in many ways through many cultures over many millennia. But if there were any spiritual truth to be found in the ancient religions of Greece, then I must conclude that Zeus was (is?) in some way a manifestation of the One God. To conclude otherwise, I would have to embrace the idea either that God is not One, or that whatever God is must be as sadistic and maniacal as grunge782 seems to think, because what kind of God would only ever reveal Itself in any loving and salvific way to one, single, teey-tiny culture, one time, and leave the entire rest of Its children across the globe and throughout time to be damned orphans?

No, that makes no sense at all, and it runs contrary to my own direct experience of God, and the countless experiences of others of all faiths ~ God is One, and God is Love; I rest confidently in those certainties, for the reasons I've already outlined. Therefore, I must accept the presence and activity of God as manifested in many different guises throughout human history, Zeus being one of them. Thus, in answer to your specific question, I don't care if it's "Zeus" revealing Himself to me, but since I didn't grow up in ancient Greek culture and don't speak ancient Greek, when this deity reveals itself, I very naturally do not *perceive* it as Zeus; I perceive it as the Abrahamic God of my native, intuitive comprehension. Ultimately, it's silly to bother over earthly words and names, when it comes to the ineffable and Eternal.

So, lastly, that is not enough, then, in my view, to dismiss them all, for the reasons I've just outlined. In fact, it's easy enough to distinguish between spiritual claims and physical ones ("I had a vision of Jesus" vs. "aliens kidnapped me & took me onto their spaceship"), and so it's pretty easy to tell when empirical tests are appropriate (as in the latter example) or not (as in the former). Beyond that, it comes down to the age-old question of which came first: does the sheer volume and consistency of spiritual experience throughout human history point to the existence of spiritual things, or is it all "explained away" by brain structure and chemistry? Does biology cause spiritual experiences, or does our physical make up merely allow us to access spiritual realms under the right conditions? At that point, you have a choice as to how you define your particular portion of the mass-hallucination we call "reality."

One last bit to reply to:

It seems to me that personal experience is a bad reason to believe anything of this nature(or anything, really), even for the one having the experience. Subjective and/or anecdotal evidence shouldn't amount to anything if you really care about whether or not your beliefs are true. Most people would find it completely loony to apply this line of reasoning to anything else in their life other than religion.

I understand your position regarding personal experience, but I can only reiterate that personal experience is all any of us have to go on, thanks to the existential dilemma. Everything is subjective; no one perceives actual reality directly. And if one really cares about whether one's beliefs are true, then one *must* dilligently explore *all* aspects of his existence, which ultimately leads one to confront the question of consciousness ~ what it is, whence it comes, etc.

Did you read the article I posted at the end of that last thread? Very good stuff, on this very point: http://vox-nova.com/2008/09/23/christian-upaya/

Thanks again for the conversation, mang!

C

[Stevetemp]

Lol

 

 

I know right?

 

Look...not sure what you want from me. There's nothing that I could say to change your mind. You don't want your mind changed.

 

I think it is silly to use Christian "doctrine and dogma" in toto to prove god can not ever and at all exist. I believe that Men have changed things around to suit their power needs.

 

I believe that at least some of Christianity can be wrong....and yet a "Christian-like" God could exist. If that theory is too much for you to comprehend...okay fine.

 

If there is anything specific you'd like me to answer about my opinion on this...without attacks and insults....I'm very game for discussion.

 

And no...I'm not as good as Chris. Chris has his faults too....but he's been in academia for a long time, and he knows how to express his thoughts MUCH better than I do. Why you think I think I'm on par is beyond me...other than your need to throw insults around.

[blargh]

 

...I have made it VERY clear...that i do not subscribe to "standard-issue Christian concept of God". And yet...here you are...not only using it in your argument against me...but using it to show how a God cannot possibly exist under those tenets (dogma and doctrine), something I have ALREADY clearly said I don't believe in.

 

Fair enough... I attack the God of fundie nutjobs and young-earth creationists because those are the people who are dangerous. But any concept of God, no matter how far it gets from mainstream Christianity, still has to make a case for its existence. You could daydream and think up deities and all the nice things that could happen in another life all day, but that doesn't get us one bit closer to the truth.

[draelyc]

I saw this coming...So you avoided what I said so that we are down to the "we both don't know, but god does" argument then....A.K.A god works in mysterious ways so you can't criticize him .

Sigh. At this point, you have put me in the difficult position of trying to discern whether you are A) incapable of reading, or B) incapable of having an intellectual discussion. Those are really the only two options you're offering.

See, I said nothing about disallowing criticism of any god. I merely pointed at a problem with the way you were using (misusing, really) the terms "omnipotent" and "omniscient."

How can I (or you, or ANYBODY) even hypothetically label a being as "omiscient" WITHOUT granting that such a being would PERFORCE know more than I (or you, or ANYBODY)? **YOU** brought that term into the conversation, and know you're acting all mentally offended and pretending that I am saying something like "You can't criticize god because you don't know as much as he does."

What crap. Of course you "saw this coming": it was YOUR trap!

You are limiting what the terms mean, I'm not sure how I can make a person understand and imagine the infinite possibilities that all powerful entails if they believe it already exists as it is exhibited in the current universe.

Once again, here you are responding to things that I don't believe, yet you're criticizing me for said beliefs.

What would you say if I criticized you for being in favor of raping underage girls?

(For the record, I *know* you're not in favor of that ~ but what you're doing here to me is exactly the same as if I were to do that to you!)

So, as I said before, why don't you SLOW DOWN, and let's actually have a calm, rational discussion, rather than the random, inane "arguing" that you seem to be going for?

No, I stated that god would then be a sadist (and preferential) if he in fact has omniscience and omnipotence (the two do relate in this case) with the current state of the universe. I don't think you are comprehending what my posts are saying.

I comprehend them perfectly; they're just unrelated to my posts in the slightest. You're bringing up the classic "problem of evil" that has dogged western philosophy for centuries. But it's only a "problem" if one presumes that one knows, himself, ALL there is to know about existence AND if one assumes that all existence is essentially materialistic in nature.

Both of those presumptions are bull{censored}; ergo, this "problem" is a non-issue. Are there things in our human experience of reality that are evil? Absolutely; without question. From our earthly perspective, we are in many ways apparently surrounded by evil. But our earthly perspective is, whether you like it or not, only a tiny portion of the overall picture. Even from the point of view of a strictly materialist/empirical science, our perspective is only a tiny portion of the overall picture.

Saying that is NOT the same thing as saying "you can't criticize god because he/she/it knows more than you, nyah!" either. It's rather just another way of pointing out that you don't seem to have any idea what the word "omniscient" really means.

I will admit that this conversation is "limited" to certain degree of logic...but you can't really avoid that in an argument.

What exactly are you arguing? What's your proposition?

Or are you just disagreeing with whatever I post?

It doesn't necessarily obliterate free will (though that is another argument regarding organisms he created), but it makes him evil. That is my point that seems to be so hard for you to understand.

Oh, again, I understand your point perfectly, as I said above, because it's been made more eloquently by others for centuries. But again, it's a point that only has any validity if you first embrace a couple of fallacious assumptions.

Draelyc, Draelyc, Draelyc... sigh.... You are the one dodging the questions here...I can't get a single straight answer about your beliefs and you seem to do that A LOT within every religious discussion.

I'm not dodging questions, no matter how often you try to claim otherwise. The fact is you're asking the wrong questions, worded badly, and based upon false presumptions. You cannot do that and then fault the other party for "dodging" your bad questions.

If you think that I "seem to do that A LOT within every religious discussion," I suggest you start asking better questions!

I'm not the one who believes in this stuff, so why should I be defining something I don't think exists?

And HERE is your problem, precisely!

You're *not* the one who believes in this stuff, so you ask ridiculous questions based on YOUR beliefs and YOUR worldview, and then you get made when someone points out that the questions based on YOUR beliefs and YOUR worldview simply do not fit or apply to SOMEONE ELSE'S BELIEFS OR WORLDVIEW.

How utterly, mind-numbingly ridiculous that makes your entire position!

Look, if you actually wanted to understand the point of view of someone who sees the world differently then you do, you'd have to stop (at least temporarily) trying to make that other person fit into your narrow set of silly assumptions!

It would be like asking me to define what a unicorn is. I can give you imagery and descriptions (coming from an outsider perspective), but since I don't believe in it how could I give you my "own" concrete definition? I can't say a unicorn HAS to be at least 6 feet tall or has white hair...I believe it to be a fictional character so it would be meaningless.

Exactly. That's why I'm not asking you about the nature of God!

But you still have access to a dictionary, right? So you can still know what WORDS actually mean, yeah? :poke:

However, the person who believes it to be real could tell me the characteristics think it has similar to how I would describe a deer or a horse. YOU would need to define these things seeing as you are a Christian.

Dude, all you have to do is read my posts, here and in the Bill Nye thread, among countless dozens of others you could find in a quick search. I've put my beliefs out there clearly so many times I have tendonitis and have to play .009s.

Right now, you're acting like my two year old: she cries for juice, so I hand her a cup of juice, which she pushes away, at which point she cries and says "I want juice!"

I mean, COME ON!

[sinnerx96]

I believe that at least some of Christianity can be wrong....and yet a "Christian-like" God could exist. If that theory is too much for you to comprehend...okay fine.

 

 

This is NOT a theory. What you just said is agreed upon by most atheists, anyway. And you wonder why everyone always accuses you of playing the annoying devil's advocate. It might be possible. Great "theory". What are you even trying to argue about?

 

Sorry, Chris. I'll get to you in a bit. Between my cell phone and HC sucking on a donkey dick slowly, I wont be able to properly(and without banging my head on the wall) respond until I get back home.

[draelyc]

Explain what you mean by "pain" then? I don't believe all pain is physical. Sacrifice means giving up something to accomplish something else, thus the word itself is describing a process of going through pain. At the end, yes you are gaining something. However, it clearly shows a loss to the process. And all sacrifices are not equal (this especially relates to early death, the mentally disabled, beings who are unaware of their existence etc

[draelyc]

Sorry, Chris. I'll get to you in a bit. Between my cell phone and HC sucking on a donkey dick slowly, I wont be able to properly(and without banging my head on the wall) respond until I get back home.

Lol, inorite? I'm pretty much done for a while, myself. Just had to get those couple of replies hammered out... OCD is a bitch. Have a great weekend!

[Rear Naked]

Can God devide by zero?

 

Serious question....

[Rear Naked]

Can He take the square root of a negative number?

i don't know...

[Axe_34]

OCD is a bitch.

Tell me about it! Got my official diagnosis last year.

[larips]

Have the believers defined which kind of god they believe in?

E.g. draelyc's god is so amorphous, amoral and vague that he could talking about my neighbour. But the again, he probably is, as my neighbour is just another manifestation of the universal truth that has no limits or discernible attributes.

 

I think I've quote him before, but Daniel Dennett cuts through so much wishy-washy hot air with this little snippet:

 

"The philosopher Ronaldo de Souza once memorably described philosophical theology as "intellectual tennis without a net," and I readily allow that I have indeed been assuming without comment or question up to now that the net of rational judgement was up. But we can lower it if you really want to.

 

It's your serve.

 

Whatever you serve, suppose I return service rudely as follows: "What you say implies that God is a ham sandwich wrapped in tin foil. That's not much of a God to worship!". If you then volley back, demanding to know how I can logically justify my claim that your serve has such a preposterous implication, I will reply: "oh, do you want the net up for my returns, but not for your serves?

 

Either way the net stays up, or it stays down. If the net is down there are no rules and anybody can say anything, a mug's game if there ever was one. I have been giving you the benefit of the assumption that you would not waste your own time or mine by playing with the net down."

 

? Daniel C. Dennett

[Axe_34]

I'm half-way through Sagan's The Varieties of Scientific Experience. I highly recommend it. It's basically a transcript from a series of lectures he gave to theology students at the University of Glasgow in 1985.

 

I'm always impressed by how clearly Sagan can make his points, distilling extremely complex things down to a level almost any lay person could understand. Many times while reading, I shook my head in amazement when remembering I was reading a lecture and not a polished text.

 

I just read his take on the role of skepticism and religion. He finds it extremely odd someone would be so skeptical when purchasing a used car -- kicking the tires, examining the engine or taking it to a mechanic for their opinion, asking many questions of the salesperson -- yet so many religious people don't exercise the most basic skepticism when it comes to something so much more important -- religion.

 

In other words, you would never buy a used vehicle based entirely on faith but many people do so quite easily when choosing and practicing religion.

[draelyc]

Oh, good Lord! Here we have someone else who thinks he magically knows what I believe, so he had no need to bother reading anything I actually posted.

Have the believers defined which kind of god they believe in? E.g. draelyc's god is so amorphous, amoral and vague that he could talking about my neighbour. But the again, he probably is, as my neighbour is just another manifestation of the universal truth that has no limits or discernible attributes.

Sigh. It is only the ultimate Godhead that is unknowable and beyond human comprehension. We can ~ and I do ~ know God through God's manifestation in the Person of the Son. In fact, why do you think there *was* an Incarnation in the first place, if not so that humanity could fully and truly come to know the Person of the Father? That's why Jesus is quoted as having said no one comes to the Father but by him ~ we cannot know the ultimate Godhead directly, but we can know God through God's Incarnate Word-made-flesh.

Now, if you think there is nothing of God in your neighbor, then you truly have no understanding whatsoever of Christianity.

I think I've quote him before, but Daniel Dennett cuts through so much wishy-washy hot air with this little snippet: " The philosopher Ronaldo de Souza once memorably described philosophical theology as "intellectual tennis without a net," and I readily allow that I have indeed been assuming without comment or question up to now that the net of rational judgement was up. But we can lower it if you really want to. It's your serve. Whatever you serve, suppose I return service rudely as follows: "What you say implies that God is a ham sandwich wrapped in tin foil. That's not much of a God to worship!". If you then volley back, demanding to know how I can logically justify my claim that your serve has such a preposterous implication, I will reply: "oh, do you want the net up for my returns, but not for your serves?

If Dennet thinks there is nothing of God in a ham sandwich, et al., then he, like you, misapprehends the matter entirely. God is omnipresent, being both transcendent and imminent. There is nowhere that God is not ... and guess what? That includes both ham sandwiches *and* tin foil.

Either way the net stays up, or it stays down. If the net is down there are no rules and anybody can say anything, a mug's game if there ever was one. I have been giving you the benefit of the assumption that you would not waste your own time or mine by playing with the net down." ? Daniel C. Dennett

And it's utter bull{censored} to leap from "there is more than one valid way to interpret reality" to "there are no rules and anybody can say anything." That is spurious to the nth degree, and it's the kind of thing generally only suggested by intellectual weaklings too terrified of anything outside the scope of their comfortably narrow, yet typically ill-considered, presumptions to brave any but the shallowest of philosophical or theological waters.

So, nice try, but no banana for you.

[draelyc]

I'm half-way through Sagan's The Varieties of Scientific Experience. I highly recommend it. It's basically a transcript from a series of lectures he gave to theology students at the University of Glasgow in 1985. I'm always impressed by how clearly Sagan can make his points, distilling extremely complex things down to a level almost any lay person could understand. Many times while reading, I shook my head in amazement when remembering I was reading a lecture and not a polished text. I just read his take on the role of skepticism and religion. He finds it extremely odd someone would be so skeptical when purchasing a used car -- kicking the tires, examining the engine or taking it to a mechanic for their opinion, asking many questions of the salesperson -- yet so many religious people don't exercise the most basic skepticism when it comes to something so much more important -- religion. In other words, you would never buy a used vehicle based entirely on faith but many people do so quite easily when choosing and practicing religion.

Fwiw, I loathe the pop-culture definition of "faith" as being "belief in something without evidence." That's a complete load of crap. One should always seek evidence, and knowledge is superior to faith. Yes, I said that.

The catch it, one should seek the kind of evidence that's appropriate to the subject at hand. Empirical evidence works for tangible, physical phenomena; it is useless, irrelevant, and inapplicable when it comes to the intangible, the non-material, the spiritual...

So, basically, I would agree with Dr. Sagan, and I wouldn't believe what I believe if I didn't have reasons for believing, if I had never encountered any evidence, in my experiences. But in the same way that I wouldn't use the tools and methodologies of theology to "prove" or "disprove" biological evolution, I wouldn't use the tools and methodologies of physical science to "prove" or "disprove" spiritual things.

[tlbonehead]

Huge body building thread. The "obama got balls" political thread. bewbs under/over thread (okay fine )...all kinds of silly personal drama stuff. I counted no less than 13 off-topic threads on the first page. But someone decides we can't have a god/religion thread. WTF.

I'm with ya.

[sinnerx96]

PART 1

That's not really very different than dealing with human beings in the physical world, is it? I mean, if someone tells you that you need to cut off your left arm, do you immediately go out and find a machete? But if a doctor whom you've seen previously and who has helped you with illness or disease in the past tells you "you need to have your left arm amputated," then that pronouncement will carry more weight and validity for you, won't it?

 

I don't find it to be very similar. I would never let a doctor cut my arm off unless there were some good reasons explained and shown to me by multiple qualified doctors. I would be just as skeptical if my doctor randomly told me that I must have my arm amputated after only checking my temperature and heart rate. Besides, it can be objectively verified that the doctors exist.

Sorry. Maybe a bit of a cheap shot, but I couldn't help myself.

 

I'll get to the second response when I get some more time. Hope you have a great weekend, Chris. And thanks for taking the time.

[marshallnoise]

You think conservative tyranny isn't also "social engineering"? You think Jesus wasn't engaged in social engineering when He taught a way of life? Just sayin'.

Ever heard of Father Coughlin? "The New Deal is Christ's deal."

And no, I do not believe that Jesus was truly concerned with THIS life. He was much more concerned with the spiritual life, you know, "his father's business?" Treating people good is all well and good, but only believe in Jesus as the Son of God granted man access to heaven and eternal life with God.

Now, continue on pontiff.

[larips]

Oh, good Lord! Here we have someone else who thinks he magically knows what I believe, so he had no need to bother reading anything I actually posted.

Actually, I've read quite much of your comments but never found any useful definition for god.
Is he good or evil?
You also seem to oscillate between a personal god (i.e. god as a person, god as an agent) and a deistic god however it suits your argument. Probably to avoid cognitive dissonance that is quite obvious anyway. As with morality, whenever you find your concept of god challenged, you hide behind intellectual cop-outs about how he is basically "unknowable and beyond human comprehension" and yet, in the next sentence tell us in what manner we can know him etc.

So, he is, conveniently "unknowable and beyond human comprehension" when it suits you, yet you claim to know much about him anyway.

We can ~ and I do ~ know God through God's manifestation in the Person of the Son. In fact, why do you think there *was* an Incarnation in the first place, if not so that humanity could fully and truly come to know the Person of the Father? That's why Jesus is quoted as having said no one comes to the Father but by him ~ we cannot know the ultimate Godhead directly, but we can know God through God's Incarnate Word-made-flesh.

So, is this finally a somewhat useful definition of at least one attribute of god? He's got a sidekick and it is only through the sidekick that gets us to the big boss?
Now, your earlier claim about universality of your beliefs is clearly contradicted here. This is a attribute that most other religions do and would have rejected.
And this, again, leads to the question, how do you know you picked the right belief (that happens to teach this)?
I guess you were just lucky to live in a society where this was a norm. If you refer to spiritual evidence (AKA delusion, if claimed by people of other, false, religions), how the spiritual evidence that directly contradicts your beliefs effect this? One would think that universal spiritual truths had universal spiritual evidence that lead to that truth.
I'll tell you why you find your arguments conveniently true, it's because you believe what you want to believe. It is pretty evident that you haven't really examined them critically. Instead, you have tried to find loopholes that allow for the inconsistent arguments for your god.

Now, if you think there is nothing of God in your neighbor, then you truly have no understanding whatsoever of Christianity.

Another silly evasion.
Is he a god then? Can you make the disctinction if he's the god or not? If he says "Disregard Jesus and the Bible, you only get to know me by calling this number..." does it negate your earlier statement about how we get to know god?
This is absolutely silly question, I know, but it is required to pin down your amazingly evasive arguments that you seem fit to change whenever it suits you.

God is omnipresent, being both transcendent and imminent. There is nowhere that God is not ... and guess what? That includes both ham sandwiches *and* tin foil.

I thought you said he's "unknowable and beyond human comprehension". Now you, again, argue to know quite much about him and his presence in certain objects.
This is exactly what Dennett was talking about. When you find yourself cornered by rationality (or morality), you hide behind "unknowable and beyond human comprehension", but as soon as it's your serve you do not hesitate to tell us the true meaning of god.

And it's utter bull{censored} to leap from "there is more than one valid way to interpret reality" to "there are no rules and anybody can say anything."

Sure, but of course that's not what was meant.
What was meant that you cannot claim play rational tennis and demand the net of rationality is lowered whenever it's your serve. Sure, you can play tennis, but not rational tennis. I'm quite happy if you agree that you're not cabable to argue in rational manner and prefer wishy-washy argumentation instead, which you of course have alrady demonstrated.

That is spurious to the nth degree, and it's the kind of thing generally only suggested by intellectual weaklings too terrified of anything outside the scope of their comfortably narrow, yet typically ill-considered, presumptions to brave any but the shallowest of philosophical or theological waters.

That was powerful, wow. If only there was an argument in it.

[larips]

 

Treating people good is all well and good, but only believe in Jesus as the Son of God granted man access to heaven and eternal life with God.

 

 

And this is exactly why the Christian "morality" is so abhorrent.

[Axe_34]

 

You also seem to oscillate between a personal god (i.e. god as a person, god as an agent) and a deistic god however it suits your argument. Probably to avoid cognitive dissonance that is quite obvious anyway. As with morality, whenever you find your concept of god challenged, you hide behind intellectual cop-outs about how he is basically "unknowable and beyond human comprehension" and yet, in the next sentence tell us in what manner we can know him etc. So, he is, conveniently "unknowable and beyond human comprehension" when it suits you, yet you claim to know much about him anyway.

 

 

This type of double dealing is found in all kinds of religious sophistry.

 

Something good happens: "Praise be to god! He is good!"

 

Something bad happens: "We cannot know the ultimate will and plan of god."

 

In other words, when it "proves" the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent god, I understand his mind and how he works.

 

When it would seem to "prove" the existence of an angry, malevolent god, we don't understand his mind and how he works.

 

You've got to hand it to those who made up the concept of an all-powerful deity -- in the process they created an entirely self-referencing system that needs no verifiable proof and has an answer to any criticism.

[Stevetemp]

 

And this is exactly why the Christian "morality" is so abhorrent.

 

 

how so?