God in the Forest

[§outh§tar]

I've yet to see one theist back down from his/her belief system from being the absolute correct one

*Icy stab*

POW!

 

[§outh§tar]

Yes.
But not disbelief. Lack of belief.
I say lack/absence of belief is ordained by God, but disbelief is not, disbelief is the person's own doing (because they oppose God, and to do so shows they have gotten to know Him but chose to disobey -- which they then cover up into "lack of belief" or "disbelief").

These semantic games with "lack of belief" and "disbelief"! Go look in any dictionary and tell me what the prefix dis- means.

People don't reject God if they don't have any reason to do so. Somebody here was using the analogy of people in Vegas not appreciating statistics. Well, those people have their own reason for ignoring the mathematics, whether it be confidence, lucky feeling, impulse, prayer, desperation etc etc. They choose to "disobey" because they have a reason for disobeying; little Timmy pilfers candy not for no reason at all, but rather because he has a reason for sneaking the candy.

So now are you telling me that a person's reason for "choosing" to believe God is more 'valid' than a person's reason for "choosing" to disbelieve God.

Also recall my other thread where I showed that it is impossible to choose to believe or disbelieve. Sorry, but volition simply cannot acount for belief or disbelief.

It doesn't matter that they are anthropomorphizations. Without full knowledge of God (and this we are unless God intervenes), we cannot but anthropomorphize. And as long as in the state of lacking full knowledge of God, we are bound to ourselves, and thus bound to anthropomorphize.
The important thing to note with anthropomorphization is that we can, for the time being, understand only on human terms. We should concentrate on our human tasks -- which are clearly set by religions. For this purpose, athropomorphized conceptions of God do not stand in the way.

Essential is that we do not believe in God because there were convincing arguments for that, that exist independet of us and of God. We believe because God wills it so.

1) Since God is not a man (as alledged), anthropomorphizations necessarily serve as obscurations and not enlightenment.

2) And if we believe God wills it so, then what happens to your cherished free will?

 

[Raithere]

What you are describing is UNTRAINED REASON, not "an emotional need".
Believing in God has, at least for me, nothing to do with emotionality.

No, what I was describing was emotionally driven belief. I didn't say that all theists were so driven, but in my experience many (if not most) are. If emotion is not a factor for you, what is?

I'm not even sure what "untrained reason" is supposed to mean here. You can have valid reasoning or invalid reasoning, whether you've been trained or not is irrelevant.

~Raithere

 

[water]

And what I see in you is condescending presumption that frames me in a mold you made for me, and a lack of humility regarding the extent of your authority. I have no chance of leaving the box you frame me into in your mind unless you allow it.

You're tiassa I suppose.

It is your own pride that offends you.

A claim of god is simply dishonest, as it fails to acknowledge the possiblity of irrelevance.

You would believe in God only if it were on your terms, and if God were like you choose.

Yup. Does that make it such that "god" is real?

No. Whether people believe in God or not does not change anyhitng about God's existence.

Why on earth would your pretentious ass presume your own emotional neediness projects to ME? Why would you presume your own emotional neediness is relevant outside yourself? I have no need for your constructs. I'm perfectly capable of constructing my own comprehension. Perhaps you aren't and as a consequence, cannot understand how someone else might differ.

Atheistic superiorism ...

 

[water]

No, what I was describing was emotionally driven belief. I didn't say that all theists were so driven, but in my experience many (if not most) are.

I supose it depends on what one means by "emotions".

If emotion is not a factor for you, what is?

Revelation.

I'm not even sure what "untrained reason" is supposed to mean here. You can have valid reasoning or invalid reasoning, whether you've been trained or not is irrelevant.

Trained as in consistently applying the rules of logic. This needs to be learned and trained.
We have an inborn proclivity for logic, but unless it is trained, we end up harboring contradictory beliefs.

 

[water]

People don't reject God if they don't have any reason to do so.

Yes. The reason is called "I can do it myself. I don't need God, neither do I want God. I want to be my own god."

So now are you telling me that a person's reason for "choosing" to believe God is more 'valid' than a person's reason for "choosing" to disbelieve God.

Also recall my other thread where I showed that it is impossible to choose to believe or disbelieve. Sorry, but volition simply cannot acount for belief or disbelief.

I never said belief is a matter of choice.

1) Since God is not a man (as alledged), anthropomorphizations necessarily serve as obscurations and not enlightenment.

We believe in God on our, that is, human terms, we can't do otherwise. hence the anthropomorphization.
But it should be clear that man cannot know God in full, as God is in His entirety. Man can know man's measure about God.

2) And if we believe God wills it so, then what happens to your cherished free will?

There are things that are beyond free will. Like being born, for example.
You have no free will in your creation, but you can apply free will in many aspects of your life.

 

[water]

Knowledge of God is not universal to all.

:bugeye:

So, who gets access to knowledge of god and who doesn't? Why and why not?

This is all up to God.

If they don't obey God properly, they also have lesser knowledge.

If by obeying god properly, you mean they must follow scriptures to the letter?

No, such a thing would be impossible to do. But once you have decided to obey God, things fall into place, in time.

Already we've seen that others here appear to obey god with more diligence than you, yet you've disagreed with them vehemently in opposition and damnation. In fact, I've yet to see one theist back down from his/her belief system from being the absolute correct one, you included.

You all can't possibly be right about the same thing if you all disagree.

Where have we disagreed, and who exactly took part? And on what exactly have we disagreed?

In fact, I've yet to see one theist back down from his/her belief system from being the absolute correct one, you included.

This goes for atheists as well.

 

[Raithere]

I present scripture so that you can see my argument isn't just something I made up. As a theist, I feel responsible to present such arguments that fellow theists recognize as valid.

In science, also, we are bound by the common scientific discourse. We can't just go and make up something without all back-up, and claim it to be science.

Quoting scripture or referring to established scientific theories is a matter of keeping the individual discourses meaningful.

The difference is that I don't recognize the scriptures as being established by anything, so whether you quote them or not makes no difference to me, you may as well quote Bob the soapbox preacher. But since you're doing for other theists and not my benefit, feel free. I was just trying to save you some time.

But you don't believe in God.

The question still stands.

God knows best what will work for you, presently. If He sees fit, He will lead you to gain intelligence and discernment.

In other words, I cannot perceive God because I'm imperceptive and dimwitted. Natch.

Having faith in God is not a matter of convincing arguments.

Then why do theists argue?

Stop trying to decide which religion to choose, or how to believe, or that those things are a matter of choice. It is beyond human ability to make such choices on their own, without God's intervention.

So I should do what? Nothing? Let my mind turn into a jello-mold, relinquish my free-will, and allow other people determine what I believe? Not on your life.

If God wants me to believe in him he can get his merry ass on down here and do something recognizable. If he wants me to worship him he better make it a pretty fucking impressive something too. Parlor tricks like water into wine, walking on water, and rising from the dead don't cut it.

~Raithere

 

[water]

The difference is that I don't recognize the scriptures as being established by anything, so whether you quote them or not makes no difference to me, you may as well quote Bob the soapbox preacher. But since you're doing for other theists and not my benefit, feel free. I was just trying to save you some time.

It is for your possible benefit.

The question still stands.

No. If you indeed believed, said question wouldn't arise.

In other words, I cannot perceive God because I'm imperceptive and dimwitted. Natch.

Noone is saying that. Maybe God is working in you. I don't know, I can't say.

Then why do theists argue?

Ideally, they shouldn't argue. But they are just people as well, trying to overcome their own sins. They are imperfect vessels.

So I should do what? Nothing? Let my mind turn into a jello-mold, relinquish my free-will, and allow other people determine what I believe? Not on your life.

Be true to yourself.

If God wants me to believe in him he can get his merry ass on down here and do something recognizable. If he wants me to worship him he better make it a pretty fucking impressive something too. Parlor tricks like water into wine, walking on water, and rising from the dead don't cut it.

Pfft. Maybe God doesn't come to meet you because you are not in a welcoming mode for God.

 

[wesmorris]

It is your own pride that offends you.

No, it's you putting me in your box and then pretending you didn't.

You would believe in God only if it were on your terms, and if God were like you choose.

No, I wouldn't.

No. Whether people believe in God or not does not change anyhitng about God's existence.

Of course.

Atheistic superiorism ...

LOL. How am I superior? I merely stated that I don't like being put in the box you create for me. You're still doing it. That I'm capable of formulating my own understanding of things is not superiorism. It just is. Perhaps it's a consequence of your poor self image that you find me thinking myself superior. I have said no such thing.

 

[water]

No, it's you putting me in your box and then pretending you didn't.

I'm not pretending I didn't put you into a box.

LOL. How am I superior? I merely stated that I don't like being put in the box you create for me. You're still doing it. That I'm capable of formulating my own understanding of things is not superiorism. It just is. Perhaps it's a consequence of your poor self image that you find me thinking myself superior. I have said no such thing.

I said "atheistic superiorism" -- the atheistic assumption that they are superior to theists, yet refuse to admit that.

 

[wesmorris]

I'm not pretending I didn't put you into a box.

By claiming it was my pride, you did exactly do that.

I said "atheistic superiorism" -- the atheistic assumption that they are superior to theists, yet refuse to admit that.

LOL. My only claim is that my argument on this topic is superior to yours, but that is as you know - steeped in my own perspective per the diagram I created to illustrate my point. You are quite aware of observational distance, and as such should see it in that graphic. That you refuse to recognize it when it suits your presumption (like that of god) is an inferior argument by my standards.

It is your lowly self-image that commands you to think athiests think they are superior. I would not make such a generalization without context. Most certainly in some contexts I AM superior to you and vice-versa. I'm an agnostic. Athiesm is consequential to agnosticism.

 

[water]

By claiming it was my pride, you did exactly do that.

I have never pretended to not categorize you. You are an anti-theist.

LOL. My only claim is that my argument on this topic is superior to yours, but that is as you know - steeped in my own perspective per the diagram I created to illustrate my point. You are quite aware of observational distance, and as such should see it in that graphic. That you refuse to recognize it when it suits your presumption (like that of god) is an inferior argument by my standards.

By your standards, yes.

It is your lowly self-image that commands you to think athiests think they are superior.

It is their hate and anger and conditional love that tells me they think themselves superior.

I'm an agnostic.

In other words, you indulge a mess, insisting on not cleaning it up.

 

[Raithere]

As long as we agree that "meaning" and "meaninglessness" are arbitrarily ascribed; no one (rationalist or not) has the objective perspective with which to determine this.

Of course not. Words are symbols that refer to something. An unreferenced symbol references nothing. Thus it is without meaning. This is basic semantics; subjectivity and objectivity are irrelevant here.

the only difference between (strong) atheists and theists are their preliminary assumptions.
...
So that it is illogical for an atheist to say a theist's assumption is wrong because his assumption is right.

The argument is not that simple. It is the assumptions that we're discussing, we're debating the validity of each other's premises rather than the following logic. Admittedly, it can take a bit of maneuvering to get people to recognize this and get to the meat of the argument but that's what we're doing.

The independent method of arbitration is what you rationalists have for this and I'm interested in knowing what it is.

Mine is quite simple: Make as few assumptions as possible. The fewer assumptions you make the less likely you are to assume a falsehood.

That is sophistry. You are not saying you are the sum of your body parts, are you? For that would mean you would be changed if a hair were to be plucked from you. So:

Sure I am. And if I clip my toenails, cut my hair, or scramble my synapses with an electric shock, "I" am changed. Why, do you have an argument that demonstrates that you are something other than your body?

In a rational and non-circular manner, please define "I".

Certainly. "I" am a particular pattern of energy.

What is "unnecessary" to you might not be unnecessary to someone else. In retrospect, I see Christianity (and religion in general) as "fantasy" but before, I knew it to be both "real" and "necessary".

I was referring to logical necessity. But this is true and I'll give people this. If they have a need for a belief they're welcome to it. Just don't try to assert that I need this belief too or that it is somehow intrinsic, logically required, or real.

All that has changed is my perspective. I can call religion a potent deluding force all I want and a theist can disagree. We will each claim that our reasoning is rational because we have no objective perspective with which to settle our issues.

Nonsense. I can easily recall what I thought and how I felt as a theist. This gives me some perspective and a degree of objectivity. I can also understand and examine an idea without believing it. I can consider the opinion of a theist and comprehend the rational behind it. This is how one analyzes something objectively. I'm not simply stuck in one paradigm, unable to comprehend anything else. That's silly.

Nobody is consistently rational.

What I meant was that I don't see that nihilism necessarily follows being logical. That nobody is consistently rational is irrelevant.

Ok. Then any positive/negative opinion would, necessarily, only be based on this subjective understanding.

Which is why I continually ask theists to explain their opinions to me. Let's keep testing.

More specifically, how do we know whose reason is "congruent with reality"? Is there any standard for determining this that you have in mind?

Sure. Test, test, and test again. I believe my rabbit's foot will help me win at roulette. So we test the belief. I believe prayer will help me become well after an injury. Test the belief. I believe in God. Test the belief.

I don't know that emotion can corroborate logic.

That's what I've been saying. But logic can corroborate emotion.

If you don't agree with the belief, surely, it is not because you have an objective perspective with which to arbitrate?

I don't find myself incapable of considering a perspective other than my own.

Why, then, would you become an atheist, if you did not believe it would make you better? Your switchover from agnosticism was for a reason, surely. Did you feel it made you more honest with yourself, or rational etc etc?

Yes, but that's not necessarily universal. I'm certain that many theists are being as honest as they can be when they come to believe in God. And I've known atheists who come to it from anger rather than intellectual honesty.

~Raithere

 

[Raithere]

It is for your possible benefit.

I know the Bible quite well. But thanks for the thought.

No. If you indeed believed, said question wouldn't arise.

So are you telling me that once God introduces himself you automatically start obeying his rules? That you become incapable of questioning him?

Noone is saying that. Maybe God is working in you. I don't know, I can't say.

You did infer it but I forgive you.

Be true to yourself.

And to others. I always strive to be.

Pfft. Maybe God doesn't come to meet you because you are not in a welcoming mode for God.

Actually, I was a bit peeved at you at the moment. If God exists, I'd welcome him. But I expect I'd be rather harsh and demanding of him because I think we deserve an explanation for all this. I am certainly not satisfied with any answer anyone else has been able to come up with.

~Raithere

 

[wesmorris]

I have never pretended to not categorize you. You are an anti-theist.

While I personally detest and reject theism, there are theists whom I care for deeply. If I were an "anti-theist", I'd certainly think that impossible.

By your standards, yes.

What about yours when you conveniently reject what you accept in other contexts? Observational distance is conditional to whether or not your deity is in question?

It is their hate and anger and conditional love that tells me they think themselves superior.

LOL. You know little of such things with your primitive comprehension of people. Your personal pain precludes further learning at this time it seems. And what of your hate, anger and conditional love (which I've witnessed at least virtually). What should readers take from it?

I don't think you know a damn thing about love, conditional or otherwise. I've certainly see no evidence to support that you do.

In other words, you indulge a mess, insisting on not cleaning it up.

*sigh*

To write it off as such is indicative of great prejudice. You know shit.

 

[mouse]

According to common sense reasoning, the theory that religion is a social construct is of course more likely.

Good, we've struck common ground.

But truth is not simply that which is more likely.

I'm not necessarily aiming for the truth. I'm interested in the model with the least amount of assumptions. Moreover, the assumptions the model does have, should be testable. On the long term, it appears that models, which are designed with such requirements in mind, tend to work best in predicting the world around us.

 

[Light Travelling]

You've just given a discertation on relativism, which is truth. Theists reject this with their core, while the more they stand to their convictions, the more they prove the realism of relativism correct.

Possibilities are infinite. Probabilites far fewer. Really provable, hardly anything. To live only in the provable world is to live in a very small corner of the universe indeed.

Discriminantion is how we discern our reality. The seperation of the infinite possibilities. Our discrimination defines reality but discrimination is not logic or reason or analysis. Discrimination is deeper, it is inherent. Discrimination is the chooser of logic (or not).

 

[mustafhakofi]

Discrimination is how we discern our reality.

No,we dont decide what reality we are going to have to day, reality is.

The seperation of the infinite possibilities.

No, again for us there is only one possible reality, how ever in your subjective mind you can have as many as you want, but there not real.

Our discrimination defines reality

No it does'nt.see above.

but discrimination is not logic or reason or analysis.

Yes it is, discrimination is part of logic as is reason and analysis.

Discrimination is deeper, it is inherent.

it's inherent only in so much has we use it, but it is no more deeper then anything else.

Discrimination is the chooser of logic (or not).

No, it's the helper.

 

[(Q)]

This is all up to God.

How very convenient - you can make up all the goobledegook you want and then claim it's all up to god.

No, such a thing would be impossible to do. But once you have decided to obey God, things fall into place, in time.

Sorry, but that is exactly what scriptures are for, following to the letter. If you don't follow scriptures, you will not be going to heaven.

Sorry, if the knowledge of god is given, it should be given, period. Time ha nothing to do with it. You either have the knowledge of god in its entirety or you don't.

And of course, once again, I must remind you that YOUR knowledge of god is seriously lacking compared to others. You can't possibly be going to heaven.

Where have we disagreed, and who exactly took part? And on what exactly have we disagreed?

Please stop playing ignorant. You know damn well who and what.

This goes for atheists as well.

Yes, but they all agree on the same thing. Theists do not. Big difference.