How exactly does "theism" exist?

[aaqucnaona]

Surely you are familiar with the usual pattern in theistic religion:

"In the past, God gave a special man information about Himself. Ever since then, everyone who wants to know about God has to depend on that man and his followers."

So nowadays, everyone who is not that special man to whom God revealed Himself, is in the group of those who have to depend on that special man.

"All the information that humans can possibly have about God necessarily comes via other people" is true for all those people who don't have first-hand information and who have to depend on that special man (and his followers).
Which, nowadays, in some religions, means that everyone has only such second-hand or third-hand information about God.


And even in those religions that teach that one only needs to "look within to find God": even in such an instance, one would still be trusting others that that which one finds within, is indeed about God; one still wouldn't have first-hand knowledge of God.

Unless that usual pattern is actually historically accurate, using it is not a valid counter-argument since it assumes the truth of that assertion and draws conclusions countering those achieve by simple logic. Parsimony and substantiation both favor the latter.

 

[wynn]

That is just blatantly untrue. Just because you do not seem to trust your own lights on the subject does not necessitate that others could not. Just like there are people who come up with ideas and understand things you do not, it is possible that there are people who come by their knowledge of a god naturally.

How else would we explain the origination of religions in isolation?

Divine intervention, divine personal revelation.

Just because you do not seem to trust your own lights on the subject does not necessitate that others could not.

That could mean that some people have a "special something" that others don't have.

And unless this difference among people is further explained and shown as something that everyone can obtain or develop, we have to posit that that "special something" is something a person either has or doesn't have, and is doomed without it.


It's not that because one person doesn't seem to trust their own lights on the subject, therefore nobody does: it's that those who do have such trust have some explaining to do.

 

[wynn]

What if the ''theistic traditions'' (ccording to your understanding of what they are), are saying that for effect?

Are you serious?!

I summoned LG, but I am not sure he will appear here.


If we start off with the idea that the various theistic traditions are making the claim that the only legitimate knowledge of God is that which is obtained via a disciplic succession,
merely "for effect"
then we can dismiss them altogether!

Maybe you are the type of person who depends on others for revelation.
I'm not, and I know alot of people who aren't. That doesn't mean we don't learn of others. It means we process the info, and come to our own conclusions based on our present state of mind.

I am the "type of person" who acknowledges where she got her information from, and who makes an effort not to claim as her own things that aren't her own.


So tell me, which of these describe you:

SB 11.25.2-5:

Mind and sense control, tolerance, discrimination, sticking to one's prescribed duty, truthfulness, mercy, careful study of the past and future, satisfaction in any condition, generosity, renunciation of sense gratification, faith in the spiritual master, being embarrassed at improper action, charity, simplicity, humbleness and satisfaction within oneself are qualities of the mode of goodness.

Material desire, great endeavor, audacity, dissatisfaction even in gain, false pride, praying for material advancement, considering oneself different and better than others, sense gratification, rash eagerness to fight, a fondness for hearing oneself praised, the tendency to ridicule others, advertising one's own prowess and justifying one's actions by one's strength are qualities of the mode of passion.

Intolerant anger, stinginess, speaking without scriptural authority, violent hatred, living as a parasite, hypocrisy, chronic fatigue, quarrel, lamentation, delusion, unhappiness, depression, sleeping too much, false expectations, fear and laziness constitute the major qualities of the mode of ignorance.


That -

Maybe you are the type of person who depends on others for revelation.
I'm not, and I know alot of people who aren't. That doesn't mean we don't learn of others. It means we process the info, and come to our own conclusions based on our present state of mind.

sounds a lot like "advertising one's own prowess and justifying one's actions by one's strength."

 

[wynn]

What you fail to realize is that by granting them the existence of their God, you also grant them the authority of their God. Yes, making women secondary citizens is gross. Yes, advocating the systematic murder of homosexuals is gross. Yes, the "You're either with us or against us" mentality is gross. But you're not going to win them over from that stance, because it is intrinsic to their faith. I'm not saying it's the only way to read scripture, I'm saying it's simply the way they understand it, and appealing to their sensibilities won't sway them because they have the authority of God on their side, contradictions and all.

I mostly agree, and it would be a folly to depend on those theists to admit their wrongdoing, so that after they admit it, one could be well and move on with one's life.

The only argument against this crap is to demonstrate the wrongness of their belief.

But that would still involve that those theists admit they are wrong, would it not?
And as such, it would still be dependence on others for one's wellbeing.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

Are you serious?!
If we start off with the idea that the various theistic traditions are making the claim that the only legitimate knowledge of God is that which is obtained via a disciplic succession,
merely "for effect"
then we can dismiss them altogether!

You cannot dismiss something which you have no idea of.

You have refuted your own conclusion... because one has to have knowledge in order to dismiss.
You are placing yourself in the position of someone who voluntarily stays outside of the building, and complaining that you are not allowed inside. You learn what you can about what goes off inside, and use that information to further distance yourself away from the building you refuse to enter.

I am the "type of person" who acknowledges where she got her information from, and who makes an effort not to claim as her own things that aren't her own.

???

So tell me, which of these describe you:

I don't know. It's not something I think about.

That -


sounds a lot like "advertising one's own prowess and justifying one's actions by one's strength."

Get a good creative writer, or spin doctor on it, and it could sound like alot of things I'm sure. But when read in the context of the discussion, without personal interpretation and bias, then it says what it says.


jan.

 

[wynn]

You cannot dismiss something which you have no idea of.

You have refuted your own conclusion... because one has to have knowledge in order to dismiss.
You are placing yourself in the position of someone who voluntarily stays outside of the building, and complaining that you are not allowed inside. You learn what you can about what goes off inside, and use that information to further distance yourself away from the building you refuse to enter.

That is your interpretation.

Of course I am "allowed" into the building: but at what price!

And I question whether that price is worth paying; and whether it is possible to pay it at all.

???

Really? It is so hard to understand that someone acknowledges her sources?

I don't know. It's not something I think about.

And yet you repeatedly summon others to think about such things.

 

[Balerion]

But that would still involve that those theists admit they are wrong, would it not?

Not at all. This is why important discussions and debates on such subjects happen in public. No third-party is required for proponents of an idea to be wrong, but one is required for them to be discredited.

And as such, it would still be dependence on others for one's wellbeing.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. If you mean that it takes the agreement of others to move away from a tradition or a practice that could be harmful, then yes. But there's no alternative to that. Even if you packed up and moved to the woods to become a hunter-gatherer, you could still argue that the wood only stands because some politicians protected it. And we're not meant to be alone anyway; you'd get lonely without company, so there's really no way to not rely on others for your wellbeing.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wynn,

That is your interpretation.

Of course I am "allowed" into the building: but at what price!

And I question whether that price is worth paying; and whether it is possible to pay it at all.

Then the problem lies squarely with you, not with theism or theists.

Really? It is so hard to understand that someone acknowledges her sources?

It says nothing about how you process that information, to arrive at your attitude towards theists, or how you have arrived at the conclusions you make about theists, and theism. Let's not forget you have a very definate, seemingly unshakeable notion of these things. How did that come about?

And yet you repeatedly summon others to think about such things.

Example please.


jan.

 

[Adstar]

That would give knowledge. Faith is when you believe. Religion is fanaticism just the same. God needs faith to exist on earth, as far as religion goes... what has religion given us but a hell of a party and all our friends?

What exactly tic for tac is your belief in God, then follow it with your choice of religion.

You make statements and put ? marks at the end of them. What exactly is that all about?


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[aaqucnaona]

Ah, a 3way debate with occasional jabs by myself, this thread is a testament to the spirit of sciforums [no sarcasm].

 

[wynn]

Then the problem lies squarely with you, not with theism or theists.

The average ice-cream vendor has a greater sense of responsibility for what he offers people than do all the theists that I know or have heard of.


I would hope that those who claim to be my wellwishers, who claim to know what is best for me, who claim to know the Absolute Truth, who claim to know the path to true happiness - I would hope that those people would actually care about me, and wouldn't simply resort to a caveat emptor and place the whole responsibility on me.

Is that too much to ask for?

Is it really so completely irrational to expect that those who claim to work in our best interest, would actually care about us, as opposed to expecting us to be like puppets, and then when things don't work out for us, blaming our failure exclusively on us?

That is your interpretation.

Of course I am "allowed" into the building: but at what price!

And I question whether that price is worth paying; and whether it is possible to pay it at all.

Then the problem lies squarely with you, not with theism or theists.

How can you even reply something like that.

If a person is unwilling to undergo the psychological/philosophical equivalent of a lobotomy for the sake of entering the building of religion, you think it is perfectly allright to find fault with that person exclusively, and not perhaps with those demanding the lobotomy?

You really think that if a religion demands that a person who enters said religion should be willing to give up their material possessions, their concerns over their material and mental wellbeing, their friends and relatives, their sense of self-worth, their will - that there is nothing wrong with demanding that?? That that is an acceptable price to pay?

It says nothing about how you process that information, to arrive at your attitude towards theists, or how you have arrived at the conclusions you make about theists, and theism. Let's not forget you have a very definate, seemingly unshakeable notion of these things. How did that come about?

You read into this a certainty I don't have. If I present "a strong, unshakeable notion" it is because I want a strong, unshakeable reply.

Example please.

See your recent reply to another poster:

I'm tired of hearing declarative statements about god.

Why does it make you tired?

And all believers follow their belief, changing degrees of belief along the way as "the truth" is revealed to them.

Do you really understand what ''belief in God'' is, or what it actually means?

How vain it is for all the pretenders who don't see they are pretending. This makes it really hard to see the truth with all the BS people have made up to fill holes in the logic of their belief. How can seekers of truth like me hope to find it amongst all of it?

Are you really seeking truth though?
Or are you seeking to justify your prefered position?
A serious question.

etc.

 

[wynn]

But that would still involve that those theists admit they are wrong, would it not?
And as such, it would still be dependence on others for one's wellbeing.

I have no idea what that's supposed to mean.

To illustrate what I mean, I'll sum up a story of an US Army veteran:
Returning from Iraq, he became ill. He had seen doctors, but they didn't acknowledge his illness. He suspected that it had to do with the kind of weapons they were using. He contacted other veterans and found that many were having similar problems with their health, and with the doctors not acknowledging it. He wanted that the US Army would admit they were using weapons that harmed the soldiers using them, and he took some official steps in that direction. The US Army denied that such weapons were used.

He was then in a bind: On the one hand, he could do whatever he could to get well, even if this meant going to other doctors etc. On the other hand, he wanted the US Army to admit its wrongdoing and to apologize to the soldiers.
But if he would get well, there would be no proof that he was sick or that the Army did anything wrong. If he didn't try to get well, things would obviously just get worse for him. So he was stuck, and getting more and more sick.

That soldier made the Army's admission of wrongdoing and its apology the condition for his taking up efforts to get well. On his own, he didn't want to try to get well until the Army would admit its wrongdoing and apologize.


While I think that an approach like this soldier's is counterproductive when it comes to worldly matters (it is best to move on, regardless whether the wrongdoer apologizes or not), I am not sure it is when it comes to spirituality.

Quite likely, the theists will never apologize, never admit any wrongdoing, never take any responsibility for the personal damage and confusion that they have caused people.

But it seems to me that the only way to move on then even without their admission and apology, is to become a strong atheist.

I certainly don't want to become a strong atheist, this is not a position I find tenable.
But at the same time, all efforts toward theism are for me marred, as in making efforts toward theism, I would again have to trust people who already have a history of betraying me and hurting me.

 

[Balerion]

To illustrate what I mean, I'll sum up a story of an US Army veteran:
Returning from Iraq, he became ill. He had seen doctors, but they didn't acknowledge his illness. He suspected that it had to do with the kind of weapons they were using. He contacted other veterans and found that many were having similar problems with their health, and with the doctors not acknowledging it. He wanted that the US Army would admit they were using weapons that harmed the soldiers using them, and he took some official steps in that direction. The US Army denied that such weapons were used.

He was then in a bind: On the one hand, he could do whatever he could to get well, even if this meant going to other doctors etc. On the other hand, he wanted the US Army to admit its wrongdoing and to apologize to the soldiers.
But if he would get well, there would be no proof that he was sick or that the Army did anything wrong. If he didn't try to get well, things would obviously just get worse for him. So he was stuck, and getting more and more sick.

That soldier made the Army's admission of wrongdoing and its apology the condition for his taking up efforts to get well. On his own, he didn't want to try to get well until the Army would admit its wrongdoing and apologize.

This makes no sense. He wouldn't have to remain sick in order to demonstrate that the Army was responsible for his illness. There are such things are medical records.

While I think that an approach like this soldier's is counterproductive when it comes to worldly matters (it is best to move on, regardless whether the wrongdoer apologizes or not), I am not sure it is when it comes to spirituality.

I'm going to need a link to this story, because it sounds bogus. It makes no sense to turn down treatment for the sake of a lawsuit. Doing so would in no way help his cause.

Quite likely, the theists will never apologize, never admit any wrongdoing, never take any responsibility for the personal damage and confusion that they have caused people.

Well that's not true. The Church has apologized for several wrongdoings, albeit often times hundreds of years later.

But it seems to me that the only way to move on then even without their admission and apology, is to become a strong atheist.

I'm completely befuddled at how you reach this conclusion. For one, what the hell are you moving on from? What wrong has been done to you? Secondly, how we becoming a strong atheist help? These are non-sequiturs.

And who says you can choose what you believe? You can't just decide to be an atheist; it's something you have to arrive at. You have a very deep misunderstanding of these concepts.

I certainly don't want to become a strong atheist, this is not a position I find tenable.
But at the same time, all efforts toward theism are for me marred, as in making efforts toward theism, I would again have to trust people who already have a history of betraying me and hurting me.

But as we've already discussed, you don't need any other people to be a theist. Even if you become a Christian, you can arrive at that just by reading the Bible. No one else is necessary. You already derive your conception of God from Christianity, so it wouldn't be much of a leap to just admit you believe in it. IF you actually do, of course.

 

[elte]

Wynn, I don't understand how a person can choose or not what to believe, and I tried it hard when I was younger. Maybe it has to do with picking the information that a person is exposed to, and that is what really happens. I think that might increase the chance of a belief forming, but not guarantee it.

 

[spidergoat]

...But it seems to me that the only way to move on then even without their admission and apology, is to become a strong atheist.

I certainly don't want to become a strong atheist, this is not a position I find tenable.
But at the same time, all efforts toward theism are for me marred, as in making efforts toward theism, I would again have to trust people who already have a history of betraying me and hurting me.

Or you can be an agnostic atheist like me. I don't know if there is a God or not (agnostic) but I don't believe there is one (atheist).

 

[Syne]

Divine intervention, divine personal revelation.

Convenient excuses to avoid any responsibility for one's own personal growth.

That could mean that some people have a "special something" that others don't have.

And unless this difference among people is further explained and shown as something that everyone can obtain or develop, we have to posit that that "special something" is something a person either has or doesn't have, and is doomed without it.


It's not that because one person doesn't seem to trust their own lights on the subject, therefore nobody does: it's that those who do have such trust have some explaining to do.

You really want to know what some people have which others do not? Here it is:

Faith in oneself.

It is as simple as that, and everyone is capable of attaining it. It is because one person does not trust their own lights (have faith in oneself) on the subject that they are sheep who must rely exclusively on others.

Go pick up a self-help book if you need further explanation.

 

[wynn]

Convenient excuses to avoid any responsibility for one's own personal growth.

You really want to know what some people have which others do not? Here it is:

Faith in oneself.

It is as simple as that, and everyone is capable of attaining it. It is because one person does not trust their own lights (have faith in oneself) on the subject that they are sheep who must rely exclusively on others.

Go pick up a self-help book if you need further explanation.

Oh dear. If someone like Cosmictraveler would say that, I would understand.
But this coming from you ... resorting to thought-terminating cliches ...

 

[wynn]

This makes no sense. He wouldn't have to remain sick in order to demonstrate that the Army was responsible for his illness. There are such things are medical records.

I'm going to need a link to this story, because it sounds bogus. It makes no sense to turn down treatment for the sake of a lawsuit. Doing so would in no way help his cause.

I don't recall the source, but the story seems common enough, I've known people who are like that.

Well that's not true. The Church has apologized for several wrongdoings, albeit often times hundreds of years later.
I'm completely befuddled at how you reach this conclusion. For one, what the hell are you moving on from? What wrong has been done to you?

Did, for example, the Christians ever apologize for preaching eternal damnation?

And who says you can choose what you believe? You can't just decide to be an atheist; it's something you have to arrive at. You have a very deep misunderstanding of these concepts.

That's your opinion.

But as we've already discussed, you don't need any other people to be a theist. Even if you become a Christian, you can arrive at that just by reading the Bible. No one else is necessary.

Says a self-declared atheist ...

 

[gmilam]

I don't recall the source, but the story seems common enough, I've known people who are like that.

IOW - I got nothin'.

Did, for example, the Christians ever apologize for preaching eternal damnation?

Why should they apologize for telling you what they believe is "truth"?

 

[Balerion]

I don't recall the source, but the story seems common enough, I've known people who are like that.

People like what? People who have gotten sick because of someone else's negligence and refused treatment for the sake of a pending lawsuit? That's a dubious claim, since such a thing wouldn't be necessary.

Did, for example, the Christians ever apologize for preaching eternal damnation?

Not that I'm aware of. Would that apology really make you feel better? (I do think the Catholic Church has abandoned its teachings about Purgatory, though, which is where they used to say all unbaptized babies went)

That's your opinion.

It isn't an opinion. You can't simply choose to believe in something.

Says a self-declared atheist ...

Well, we've apparently reached the point where you are no longer useful in a discussion, and reduce yourself to vague one-liners. That's too bad, because you were doing well there for a moment. It's a shame that when you are challenged, you revert to your trolling ways.