Here you go...

[swarm]

Hey I loved nirvana they had some great tunes. Then Kurt had to go and get all messy.

Success has proved anathema for many old school punks.

 

[S.A.M.]

So far it has been my experience that people mainly believe in god because they were told to over and over and over when they were too young to question what they were told. They then back fill their rationals as they get older but by then the damage is done.

Is that your experience?

My own experience is that people have very individual views on God and rarely subscribe to the same notions as their parents, ritual practice notwithstanding.

These "reasons" never seem to survive the light of day. Many find their way to atheism by actually sitting down and trying to understand their "reasons" for believing.

Thats not been my experience either. Many people in my opinion, find their way from atheism to religion if they sit down and think about it.

What are your "reasons?"

Perhaps you could put them in a thread on the subject?

Sure, I believe that the universe is caused. That it is impossible to explain as a causeless one.

 

[swarm]

Is that your experience?

That might be why I said "it has been my experience."

My own experience is that people have very individual views on God and rarely subscribe to the same notions as their parents, ritual practice notwithstanding.

I think if you look closer you will find the "differences" are very minor, even in religiously diverse countries.

Thats not been my experience either. Many people in my opinion, find their way from atheism to religion if they sit down and think about it.

Usually it is not thought but a viseral emotional reaction to some trauma and they fall back on what they were taught as children.

Sure, I believe that the universe is caused. That it is impossible to explain as a causeless one.

Well that's obviously not true since people do explain is as a causeless one, but that hardly equates with any particular god. There is no reason to think god had anything at all to do with it.

But I asked for reasons, not beliefs.

But put them in a new thread please, we don't want LG getting distracted.

 

[S.A.M.]

Well that's obviously not true since people do explain is as a causeless one, but that hardly equates with any particular god. There is no reason to think god had anything at all to do with it.

Are there any theists who explain it as a causeless one? I'm sure there are people who believe in causeless phenomenon, I just don't happen to be one of them.

Those are the reasons for my beliefs.

 

[swarm]

Are there any theists

But put them in a new thread please, we don't want LG getting distracted.

 

[lightgigantic]

jpappl

LG



I disagree.

The difference is that you are equating the knowledge of a doctor, plumber or electrician, those that deal with real tangible issues and those who are claiming to be studying something that doesn't exist or there is no evidence of it's existence.

I draw your attention to your use of the words "real tangible issues".
The whole crux of the argument is that there are real tangible issues to religion and god.

Now, if you want to claim that it's no different than the knowledge of a witch doctor than I can agree.

It's a false argument you make.

On the contrary, its a false argument that you make.

You gloss over the usage of the word "real"

I could say that you are not trying hard enough to study bigfoot. And that is why you don't realize bigfoot exists.

You have nothing to study, nothing to pursue, only apply faith in.

If I deride the methodology of advanced particle physics (by declaring that it is not actually "real) I could also say that it too is merely an issue of faith.

The point of the argument is that the claim of god's existence is surrounded by a host of normative descriptions. Failure to meet these descriptions means failure to perceive the given. This is the general principle all claims of knowledge operate out of.

If you are saying that we don't understand your religion then yes, that is an area that could be understood or knowledge about gained. But do you believe that God comes from the text or the other way around.

The general pattern of all knowledge acquiring means is (correct) theory gives rise to (correct) application which gives rise to (correct) conclusions.

What I am saying is that one has to first understand how one has to act (or the existential conditions - or how one has to "be" - that surround a particular knowledge).

The next stage is putting that knowledge into action.

If god does not come from the text, then no need to study the book is there.

There is no absolute need but its certainly helpful. For instance, in theory, there is no need to read a single book while undergoing tertiary education (after all, you could simply work it all out on your lonesome). Practically speaking though, such a student reads quite a bit.

The texts, all religious texts are unnecessary with regards to the idea of or belief in a god. And no god should give a crap if you have studied them.

So then, why should we study the texts ?

The idea behind reading (reading anything) is that it provides some sort of framework to understand a problem or issue (for instance, one simple example, understanding the details of terminology that surround an issue helps one understand exactly what it is. Its no coincidence that cultures with very minimal vocabularies have a very minimal social/political system).

This becomes doubly dynamic when issues of greater literacy and comprehension come to the fore.

IOW its not so much that theistic perfection is about reading, but rather comprehension. Tons of references are there -

SB 11.11.18 If through meticulous study one becomes expert in reading Vedic literature but makes no endeavor to fix one's mind on the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then one's endeavor is certainly like that of a man who works very hard to take care of a cow that gives no milk. In other words, the fruit of one's laborious study of Vedic knowledge will simply be the labor itself. There will be no other tangible result.

 

[lightgigantic]

Not a problem, I've 23 years of not pretending.

Stop stalling.

So are we allowed to test you or should we just accept your statement on faith?

 

[lightgigantic]

LG had a laundry list of things he felt "required" luckily I've been around for a while and have already done the things he was looking for and as usual, he immediately got cold feet

Actually from my memory of the incident, you were acting more like a pouting child refusing to eat vegetables

 

[jpappl]

Perhaps to understand why the people who study these texts believe in God

But only if it interests you. For example, I learned a lot about Hinduism from studying their texts and now find much in common with them in my thoughts about God and religion. I learned much about Buddhism from reading their texts and find much to disagree with about religion and God with their notions. The idea that if people believe in God, they are static in their belief rather than exploratory is one which I have often encountered in atheists. Most people who believe in God have reasons for doing so.

I understand that, but you don't need the texts to believe, right ?

So, the texts are not a requirement or a prerequisite for the belief.

If that is the case, then studying them should not be the reason for the belief.

 

[jpappl]

LG

I draw your attention to your use of the words "real tangible issues".
The whole crux of the argument is that there are real tangible issues to religion and god.

Such as ?

“ I could say that you are not trying hard enough to study bigfoot. And that is why you don't realize bigfoot exists.

You have nothing to study, nothing to pursue, only apply faith in. ”

If I deride the methodology of advanced particle physics (by declaring that it is not actually "real) I could also say that it too is merely an issue of faith.

The point of the argument is that the claim of god's existence is surrounded by a host of normative descriptions. Failure to meet these descriptions means failure to perceive the given. This is the general principle all claims of knowledge operate out

Nonsense.

The difference is that one is trying to solve an issue, they may find information that goes against their hypothesis, they may find information that supports it.

Theism and the quest for god is not about finding information that rejects or contradicts the belief.

So there is nothing to study because the belief is already pre-determined and absolute. The only ones who will find fault in the texts are those who question it, in other words those who don't already believe or those who believe in a different god or religion.

So what is going to change by reading a text that contradicts everything we KNOW about reality.

“ If you are saying that we don't understand your religion then yes, that is an area that could be understood or knowledge about gained. But do you believe that God comes from the text or the other way around. ”

The general pattern of all knowledge acquiring means is (correct) theory gives rise to (correct) application which gives rise to (correct) conclusions.

What I am saying is that one has to first understand how one has to act (or the existential conditions - or how one has to "be" - that surround a particular knowledge).

The next stage is putting that knowledge into action.

I can acquire knowledge of the religion. But not of god. Unless you claiming the only path to understand god is through the religious texts.

“ If god does not come from the text, then no need to study the book is there. ”

There is no absolute need but its certainly helpful. For instance, in theory, there is no need to read a single book while undergoing tertiary education (after all, you could simply work it all out on your lonesome). Practically speaking though, such a student reads quite a bit.

There is certainly a need to read books to advance to higher educational level. It is testable in the sense that we can be sure the student is understanding principles and equations for example.

We can test knowledge of religious texts as well but that as you said is not a requirement to believing in god. So if you saying it helps, then your saying that it supports the belief.

Which brings us back to finding only what supports the belief and not considering anything that questions it.

That has nothing to do with the scientific method.

“ The texts, all religious texts are unnecessary with regards to the idea of or belief in a god. And no god should give a crap if you have studied them.

So then, why should we study the texts ? ”

The idea behind reading (reading anything) is that it provides some sort of framework to understand a problem or issue (for instance, one simple example, understanding the details of terminology that surround an issue helps one understand exactly what it is. Its no coincidence that cultures with very minimal vocabularies have a very minimal social/political system).

This becomes doubly dynamic when issues of greater literacy and comprehension come to the fore.

IOW its not so much that theistic perfection is about reading, but rather comprehension. Tons of references are there -

SB 11.11.18 If through meticulous study one becomes expert in reading Vedic literature but makes no endeavor to fix one's mind on the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then one's endeavor is certainly like that of a man who works very hard to take care of a cow that gives no milk. In other words, the fruit of one's laborious study of Vedic knowledge will simply be the labor itself. There will be no other tangible result.

This is all great if you believe. Then yes, I would think you would feel obligated to study them.

But your claim is that we haven't studied them enough to understand what the evidence of god is in the texts. Yet, the texts are not a requirement as you admitted to the belief or understanding. So if it's not a requirement, then the belief comes first. The texts are just icing on the belief.

 

[lightgigantic]

LG



Such as ?

Successful application of theistic principles grants god the status of being real and tangible, and neglect of such principles grants the opposite.

Nonsense.

The difference is that one is trying to solve an issue, they may find information that goes against their hypothesis, they may find information that supports it.

And suppose that one person finds information that supports a given and another finds information against it at the hypothesis stage, how do you propose that one determines who's claims are capable of contextualizing the other?

So there is nothing to study because the belief is already pre-determined and absolute. The only ones who will find fault in the texts are those who question it, in other words those who don't already believe or those who believe in a different god or religion.

sort of.

The only one's who don't apply it are persons who don't have have faith in it.

For example, if, at the onset, I think advanced particle physics is a load of bollocks, I don't really have the means to apply whatever is claimed in the field (why would I? Its a load of bollocks, after all ....)

As for discrepancies within the field of religion, there are means to resolve them, much like there are means to resolve discrepancies in any field of knowledge (for instance, how many differing ideas in science are there about the origin of the universe or quantum physics? Or even how many different health practices are there, from acupuncture to surgery? Does this render such disciplines fallacious?)

So what is going to change by reading a text that contradicts everything we KNOW about reality.

hehe

once again, you have to unpack your usage of the word reality. Then perhaps we could see what you are alluding to as the contradictory factors.

I can acquire knowledge of the religion. But not of god. Unless you claiming the only path to understand god is through the religious texts.

I am claiming that within the texts are frameworks that establish the issue (aka terminology and constituent relationships between them) and the means to apply it. IOW you get "what" and "how", much like any other text.

There is certainly a need to read books to advance to higher educational level. It is testable in the sense that we can be sure the student is understanding principles and equations for example.

The only need is that such reading provides information that would otherwise prove a challenge to acquire on one's own.

We can test knowledge of religious texts as well but that as you said is not a requirement to believing in god. So if you saying it helps, then your saying that it supports the belief.

You don't think that acquiring knowledge of particle physics increases the belief of its validity?

IOW we embark in the pursuit of knowledge from a point of faith ("something we think might be true"), and upon achieving that knowledge, the faith is increased (or alternatively, in the frustration of such an attempt, one's faith stands to diminish)

Which brings us back to finding only what supports the belief and not considering anything that questions it.

That has nothing to do with the scientific method.

Once again, you have two parties - pro and against - how do you propose the conflict gets resolved?



This is all great if you believe. Then yes, I would think you would feel obligated to study them.

But your claim is that we haven't studied them enough to understand what the evidence of god is in the texts. Yet, the texts are not a requirement as you admitted to the belief or understanding. So if it's not a requirement, then the belief comes first. The texts are just icing on the belief.

You misunderstand. The validity of any text is that it provides a means to approach the subject. There always exists the means of approaching a subject without a text, but given our brief lifespan and the culminative knowledge available in texts, it rarely works out as more productive to take the solo path.

However mere reading alone doesn't grant knowledge since there are issues of application and comprehension within the greater sphere of literacy. If it was otherwise, any student who merely reads a book would be in a position to automatically to pass with flying colours.

If a student doesn't even believe there is any validity to the discipline, they probably won't even begin the process.

 

[Sarkus]

The only one's who don't apply it are persons who don't have have faith in it.

For example, if, at the onset, I think advanced particle physics is a load of bollocks, I don't really have the means to apply whatever is claimed in the field (why would I? Its a load of bollocks, after all ....)

So belief in God is a prerequisite?
Hmmm. Now where have I heard this before?
"Believe to believe".
Ah yes, that's it.

Have absolute faith that you won't plummet to your death if you walk off a skyscraper... it won't change the outcome.

 

[lightgigantic]

So belief in God is a prerequisite?

just as much as belief in advanced aspects of particle physics is a prerequisite before beginning the arduous task of studying it.

Hmmm. Now where have I heard this before?
"Believe to believe".
Ah yes, that's it.

for as long as one doesn't factor in issues of application, sure.

Imagine a science degree that prohibited anyone from entering a lab for their entire life ...

:shrug:

Have absolute faith that you won't plummet to your death if you walk off a skyscraper... it won't change the outcome.

Interestingly enough, even this problem has issues of application that surround it.

 

[SnakeLord]

For instance I am sure you don't belittle the authority of your doctor (or if you do, you do it in a respectful manner) simply because he is a better physician than you by dint of his having applied himself to the discipline

I don't see where this fits.

Let's say that a man goes to the doctor and the doctor makes a claim that he has cancer. The patient can ask the doctor for evidence that the claim is in fact true and be provided with it.

You self proclaim to be a religious 'doctor', and you have made your claims. Now provide the evidence.

 

[(Q)]

On the contrary, standard arguments require standard rebuttals.

The standard argument for god requires evidence if it is to be an argument, just as the standard rebuttal is to demand it.

Its clear you have issues with the general principles that knowledge works on aside from anything particularly religious )or perhaps more accurately, the issues you have religion cause you to overlook the general principles that knowledge operates out of)

I have no issues with the general principles of knowledge, those being the result of learning and reasoning. Knowledge operates out of nature, hence we have the scientific method to aide us in our learning and reasoning.

If you claim that knowledge can operate from the supernatural, you'll get the standard rebuttal; see above.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't see where this fits.

Let's say that a man goes to the doctor and the doctor makes a claim that he has cancer. The patient can ask the doctor for evidence that the claim is in fact true and be provided with it.

Sure.

My point is that at no time does the patient offer a few tips about brain surgery. No prizes for guessing the quickest way to piss off a doctor or attract a condescending attitude from them ....

You self proclaim to be a religious 'doctor', and you have made your claims. Now provide the evidence.

Already done, numerous times before. The problem is that persons such as yourself balk at the stage of application while simultaneously granting yourself the authority to determine credibility. Kind of like someone totally ignorant of hemodynamics and the environment of the operation theater while trying to offer a few pointers on surgery.

 

[lightgigantic]

The standard argument for god requires evidence if it is to be an argument, just as the standard rebuttal is to demand it.

the standard argument is "god becomes revealed as tangible to those who apply the correct means".

This is remarkably similar to the standard argument of any knowable claim - ""X becomes revealed as tangible to those who apply the correct means"

I have no issues with the general principles of knowledge, those being the result of learning and reasoning. Knowledge operates out of nature, hence we have the scientific method to aide us in our learning and reasoning.

If you claim that knowledge can operate from the supernatural, you'll get the standard rebuttal; see above.

If one is predisposed to working out of the premise that a subject can not be revealed (even to the degree of labeling it with loaded terminology, like supernatural) they face challenges to understanding the standard argument.

 

[(Q)]

Sure.

My point is that at no time does the patient offer a few tips about brain surgery.

Another doctor may offer tips. Many other doctors may offer tips.

They'll all most likely agree on the evidence of cancer.

So, one preacher may offer another preacher tips about scriptures.

The problem is that many preachers don't agree with each other about the evidence, otherwise, why is there so many different sects?

Already done, numerous times before.

I must have missed those posts where you demonstrated gods existence, can you direct me to them, please?

 

[lightgigantic]

Another doctor may offer tips. Many other doctors may offer tips.
They'll all most likely agree on the evidence of cancer.

fancy that eh?

Amazing what a little bit of qualification accomplishes.

So, one preacher may offer another preacher tips about scriptures.

The problem is that many preachers don't agree with each other about the evidence, otherwise, why is there so many different sects?

Similarly there is often disagreement, particularly about application, within the medical fields, ... especially from practitioners of different fields.

I must have missed those posts where you demonstrated gods existence, can you direct me to them, please?

never encountered a normative description in scripture?

 

[(Q)]

fancy that eh?

Amazing what a little bit of qualification accomplishes.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Similarly there is often disagreement, particularly about application, within the medical fields, ... especially from practitioners of different fields.

Nope. Evidence of cancer is evidence. Anyone (with qualifications) disagrees, they would have to demonstrate otherwise. Your assertions are still failing.

never encountered a normative description in scripture?

I most certainly found fairy tale descriptions in scriptures, does that count?