I can't. I don't know about anyone else. You have to prove that for yourself. In other words, examine the evidence, eliminate the contradictions (fairly), then honestly decide whether Christianity is a fluke. If you've done that already, then you've already had your proof. Of course, as we see in science, you can always re-examine the evidence and come up with an alternative conclusion. That's the wonder of free will.Medicine Woman said:
Imagine God
- Thread starter moementum7
- Start date
Naugh. I can't see it that way. Not entirely anyway. You see sure the Bible teaches people to rear their children with a knowledge of God. After they reach a certain level of maturity and are bombarded with all the alternatives out there they should then decide if the Christian road is indeed a worthy one. Seems unfair huh? Why not leave them in total isolation then bombard them with all the crap. But that's not possible now is it? We are who we are because of our upbrining and some genetic factors play a part too, and maybe even God behind all that. So we will inevitably be some sort of mutated copy of our guardians and our society. So the point... Christianity is based on a decision made through free will to follow Christ rather than Ghandi (or whoever). The only way you can honestly decide is if you weigh the evidence (the reasonable and logical arguments, your experiences/perceptions). Then you choose C or G. You have to question what is presented to you before you can decide. If you don't you're just being brainwashed. Every Christian goes through the periodic questioning phase (especially in Theological School).JustARide said:
- Acts 17:2-3 "So as usual Paul went there to worship, and on three Sabbaths he spoke to the people. He used the Scriptures to show them that the Messiah had to suffer, but that he would rise from death. Paul also told them that Jesus is the Messiah he was preaching about. Some of them believed what Paul had said..."
- Matthew 22:37 "Jesus answered: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind. This is the first and most important commandment."
Oh it tells you that. O.k. so where exactly does it tell you that? Please provide some Biblical reference - that's the only way I can accept my ignorance of such a thing: otherwise I'll assume your ignorance of what the Bible states.
Oh it's much more than that. Lets look at it this way. You have an alphabet of choices (26) which, as you eliminate one at a time, will lead you to some other successively smaller numbered systems of symbols (25, 24 ,23, ..., 1) to one ultimate symbol. The symbols of each system are linked in such a way that some have stronger relationships than others. When you eliminate one from the 26 you know for the next set you can more comfortably eliminate the other symbols which bore a close relationship to the first eliminated one. So you slowly but surely approach that ultimate symbol. I see faith like that. In other words the more you question and eliminate the more sure you are of what you didn't eliminate. You then arrive at your conclusion. However, the first symbol was eliminated on an assumption which cannot be proven as true or false, but you just feel that there is no other way to go about it. So through faith in yourself and your perceptions and your reasoning and whatever else you eliminate the first. Then you use relationships you observe to eliminate the others. But faith is inherrent in the whole construct, because you used it in the first elimination you made.
So,
faith is not just saying; "Oh I shall believe that the Great Red Spot is the eye of one of those things from Monters' Inc. so therefore Jupiter is not a planet!?! It's a monster! I believe it through faith. (calmly)" Faith is inherrent in reason and reason is inherrent in faith. Assumption, educated guess - whatever - you just don't see another way to go about it and you cannot prove it as true or false - faith is inherrent in it all. So no, faith is not just "believing without question. If that were the case no Christian would have any faith at all.
I don't consider bullies to be any manifestation of power. Just cowardice, agression, and an evacuated cranium.
Look at us, chemical side effects of the earth, the only type of which ponders on whether or not there is a God. Weird huh? Many say no, that we're all just a bunch a chemical reactions wandering around. But just take a step back for a second, take a big look at the scheme of things in the universe, and you can't help but think about a God. Something has to be in control, right?
I think God is on a much higher level of existance than most think, and that he does not directly affect us.
I think God is on a much higher level of existance than most think, and that he does not directly affect us.
MarAC,
Your argument then proceeded to extend your false concept of reality being based on perceptions – so I’ll skip that part.
And you should realize that in Christianity you do indeed expect to live forever and that everyone you do in your present life will have a bearing on your future eternal existence. This is your mindset from which you are arguing. Now back away from that and seriously consider for one moment the potential that at some point you will cease to exist.
The microchip evolved just like absolutely everything else including watches. And we know life took billions of years to evolve into us. And that is rather strong evidence against man being created by a super-intelligent god, who presumably with such perfect intelligence and knowledge could have created man instantly. You could argue that God used evolution as his mechanism but then that just makes God appear as an unnecessary component.
http://www.theness.com/articles/brain-nejs0201.html
http://www.rense.com/general16/myth10.htm
Take care
Kat
Yes I understand, but the primary point is that religionists think there is something beyond death rather than abrupt non-existence. Beyond that the religion will have its own ideas about the definition of its particular afterlife – Christianity, with its heaven and hell, and Buddhism with its levels of reincarnation, etc.
But that isn’t true is it – it still insists you accept its basic tenets – God exists, Jesus is God, people have souls. Beyond that you are allowed to ask questions but at the risk of being tortured and executed for heresy of course.
I wish that were true – his bumbling incompetence and illegitimate rule is causing chaos around the world. Fortunately China, especially and some of Europe are embracing full stem cell research. The USA scientists will be simply left behind.
But you can’t show there is anything other than the physical world, and to say otherwise is to invoke fantasy.
So please stop there – that is a rather simple logical fallacy. For example your claim is like if you bake a cake and then show astonishment when you find the baking dish is the same shape as the cake. Man is the result of the universe not the reverse, so of course the universe appears so finely tuned, like the baking dish being the same shape as the cake. If the universe were any different then we would either not exist or we would reflect the difference. There is no valid argument for design in your claim.
All this then becomes equally invalid because your first premise was invalid.
But that’s another fallacy. Life did not evolve by chance, although there were certainly random elements in play. If you study biology or just chemistry and at least the periodic table then you should understand how elements naturally attract or repel each other, and how molecules can form a variety of different bonds. Providing the universe is “in motion” and given enough time, billions of years in this case; then the result we see is life.
I don’t think you have understood my point yet. So to reiterate – the claim that religious belief is fantasy is qualitatively different from a claim that gods do not exist. Religious claims are by default fantasy until they can be proved. And that hasn’t been achieved yet, so ergo your beliefs are fantasies.
Yes I understand, but you are still not correct. While those ideas were not proven at the time, they were conceived, as you state, based on some factual observations, these were then valid hypotheses and not merely fantasies. Any valid scientific hypothesis has an evidential basis. Contrast that with the base of religious belief - a necessity for the concept of the supernatural to be true, yet there is NO evidence for the supernatural and I challenge you to present some if you think otherwise.
So this brings us to the next step which is credibility. The example you quote here and the other variations are believable and hence warrant attention for action, but as yet the supernatural has no credibility and is merely a fantasy concept and deserves no serious attention.
No, you aren’t there yet. You are now confusing inductive logic and deductive logic, or in other words the existence of some evidence for a claim can be logically extended to build a conclusion based on probability. But faith in the religious sense still requires that claims be accepted without any evidence, they still lack credibility and still cannot be classed as inductive conclusions.
No no, think about this a little more. Reality is entirely independent of our perceptions. What you really mean is that different people will hold different perceptions of the same reality. Now that is a problem and we need to always strive to check and verify that our perceptions are aligned and accurately reflect reality. So yes indeed people can perceive what they think is reality when it is not.
That is completely false. All religionists rely entirely on faith and that lies outside the realm of reason and logic.
But infinitely superior to faith.
Your argument then proceeded to extend your false concept of reality being based on perceptions – so I’ll skip that part.
Yes Ok and that again emphasizes the need for an independent method.
No there is no such thing as bad logic, something is either logical or it is illogical. In syllogistic logic, providing the premises are valid and the correct rules are followed for reaching a valid conclusion from the premises then the result will be a valid conclusion, which of course might be true or false. If either a premise is not valid or correct rules are not followed then the conclusion will be invalid or illogical – it simply won’t be logic.
Again this is nonsense. A valid logical conclusion from valid premises is independent of who examines the construct and there cannot be more than one conclusion.
Whoosh – no idea what that was about.
My viewpoint is entirely from the perspective of the individual. Whatever you do in your life is entirely valueless to you if you die. When dead you are incapable of appreciating anything. And if I did something in my life that was of benefit to others then again that is of zero benefit to me if I die.
And you should realize that in Christianity you do indeed expect to live forever and that everyone you do in your present life will have a bearing on your future eternal existence. This is your mindset from which you are arguing. Now back away from that and seriously consider for one moment the potential that at some point you will cease to exist.
Why? There is no other sense. The supernatural is still a fantasy remember.
But it will be when I cease to exist.
LOL – nuh I don’t expect to ever die.
It is? I don’t think so. I don’t give a shit for the species if I am not a part of it.
It was for them since they no longer exist.
But there is no evidence only speculation. But that would take to an entire discussion on what constitutes valid evidence.
Religious claims do not constitute valid scientific hypotheses, such things require a certain quality of evidence and religious speculations do not qualify.
Wrong in every respect. No one has yet shown that a god is possible let alone that one could or might exist.
I’m not questioning that, but intelligence alone is not sufficient, if it were then why didn’t the ancient Egyptians, who were just as intelligent as us develop the microchip. They were just too early in the evolutionary cycle which actually probably began when the first cavemen started making marks on a rock to count his kills.
The microchip evolved just like absolutely everything else including watches. And we know life took billions of years to evolve into us. And that is rather strong evidence against man being created by a super-intelligent god, who presumably with such perfect intelligence and knowledge could have created man instantly. You could argue that God used evolution as his mechanism but then that just makes God appear as an unnecessary component.
Go to a clock museum and you can see how clocks and watches evolved over a long period of time.
You know the 10% brain use is a myth, right? Otherwise I couldn’t make sense of your statement.
Umm, it is kinda obvious – we decay and die after only a few years, we incur pain, we have little resistance to a wide range of diseases, viruses, and bacteria, our teeth rot and decay quickly, 50% of the world population have defective eyesight, the reproductive system often creates deformed babies, etc, etc. It’s a mess. If we were the result of a super intelligent designer then he needs to be sued heavily for incompetence.
Oh dear – follow these links and update yourself.
http://www.theness.com/articles/brain-nejs0201.html
http://www.rense.com/general16/myth10.htm
Yup, and I didn’t respond to absolutely everything.
Take care
Kat
dont imagine come see me in the flesh I'm waiting
be soon, be soon.
be soon, be soon.
Well of course all conjectures can be reduced to basic assumptions which you have to accept without proof - or they are basically proof of themselves. But no, not in the case of God existing. You accept that God exists due to evidence you see in whatever you perceive. Not without question. All other premises (Jesus is God, Humans have Souls) extend from that where there is evidencial support whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.Katazia said:
No - not that simple. The fact is that theists/religionists see evidence of a powerful sentient being directing the path of our existence. This fantasy is based on observed phenomenon. You see it is all reduced to recognising patterns and linking patterns. There has to be somewhere where that being will reside once you accept that the being exists. String Theory and even the Ekpyrotic Theory have afforded us some views into the possibilites of such 'places' of residence.
Nope - not that simple. Using your bowl and cake anology; the fact remains that the bowl has a certain purpose. The bowl had to be placed there by something (in this case the one who designed it to baked the cake). You can of course assume the baseless fantasy(?) that it had no cause and no purpose, and you have no purpose and there is no point in your being here. Of course you must have expected this reply and I look forward to your justification of your expected baseless position.
So let me just re-state it for you...
...then it can be assumed that if the universe had some purpose, some use, some breadth of significance we are a part of it. If an objective purpose can be observed then it is reasonable to assume that there is some cognizant driving force behind all this and who better to fill that gap then God?
There you go...
Tell that to the Quantum Physicists. According to them everything happens by chance and it is possible in that respect that anything can happen. And thus we were inevitably led to the whole idea of science explaining the how but not the why. In your analogy science explains the heating, and the chemical reactions which take place with the yeast and how the cake assumed the form of the bowl. But why. In fact they are obviously at pains in stating where in God's realm the bowl came from. Of course the simplest and most reasonable explanation is the fact that someone made the bowl to bake a cake because they wanted to. There are alternative explanations but it is in my opinion the most reasonable one.
I hope you're not confusing proof and support as you seem to be using them quite interchangeably in some biased fashion. You can support your claim that God does not exist because you don't accept the supportive evidence (in other words you don't see any evidence of it). The religionists support their claims through the evidence that they are willing to accept. You have not proven anything about God not existing. You just claim that no evidence is there. So, of course, since both our positions are 'unproven' to be true or false they will both be categorized as fantasies - that's my basic gist. Disagree (I get your point about burden of proof on the proponent)? See below.
I can claim that there is a planet between the orbits of Venus and Earth, but you can send a probe out there to prove that there is no such planet. The fact is that God, through His nature as defined by us is beyond such methods of scientific proof. Thus unless you can show how he is not there it will remain possible that he is there. Get it (you still haven't proven that God is not there)? The whole point of the argument from design is your bowl and cake analogy (that is one form of evidence and I await your attempt at dismantling it). I tend not to stress natural vs supernatural because it's all a continuum (try to start from 1 and count to infinity - 1 is natural: infinity is supernatural - you can't get there but it's there).
Great, so we're getting somewhere. The whole point of me using those "imminent doom" analogies is to present the concept of relgious 'dogma'. Here we get to the whole concept of which road you take in life and the consequences which follow. If you consider eternal removal from God's love as a piano about to reduce you to a less integrated form of matter than you already consider yourself to be, well of course it warrants serious attention. Therefore, as I stated to the Medicine Woman, here the burden of proof is on you unless of course you utilise some faith in the whole process and just get out of the way/call the police (better analogy in t his case). If you have considered the evidence presented and see it as crap then you'll just have to wait and see if your door burst open and shots are fired or you just sit there and enjoy the rest of the night.
You see? Once you don't accept the evidence presented then you will arrive at this conlusion. Yes, I am there. Why do you accept the evidence presented?
Nope - I meant exactly what I stated. You cannot check that your perceptions accurately reflect reality, however you can check if they are aligned through definitions. Regardless there is no single proof that your perceptions reflect any reality at all other than your faith in your perceptions (they just are). You cannot prove that your perceptions as a human reflect reality unless you utilize some outside source. Otherwise you would be saying your perceptions define reality. Is that what you're saying?
No. Faith lies within the realm of reason and logic because at some point you have to just accept some things on pure faith, especially the one about your perceptions reflecting an objective reality. Without faith in science itself science wouldn't have progressed. Without faith in your notion that you will live forever you would have seen no point in coming this far I'm sure. No, I'm not confusing induc/deduc-tive logic. You see inductive and deductive logic can take us to separate conclusions as expected din your respone to the bowl and cake analogy. Faith makes you sure of your conclusion as oppsoed to mine, especially when I argue evidence that your reject.
But without faith logic and reason doens't work.
Which only reflects agreement... not an objective reality. The only independent method can be realised in faith through God.
O.k. bad logic, illigoc - whatever. The point is logic is based on your perceptions because logic is based on reality. Unless you say our reality is somehow objective and and so logic is objective which would mean it is of a source independent of us and so... back to my previous post. Or is logic based on agreement also?
Logic is based on knowledge. Logically you can't turn a ball inside out without breaking the surface (pre 20th century logic). Mathematical equations illustrate that in a 5 dimensional existence you can (21st century logic). Therefore logical conclusions are very dependent on who examines the construct and especially when. The whole point is agreement (rules change). Look at this; infinity x 1 = infinity, infinity x 10 = infinity. Is 10 = 1 by dividing infinity by infinity? No. Infinity remains undefined: yet it exists. Obviously our logic has some probs. I don't blame some religionists who just avoid it altogether. You might just logicallly conlude after you wake up in the after life that God indeed exists.
You stated;
" And I agree, yet the assignments are not based on any objective observations but just on the imaginations of those who created the religions. No truth is involved."
And my reply paraphrased is that such a premise is crap unless you can prove otherwise by contradiction between religious interpretations and current accepted knowledge (changes doens't it?). The observations are very objective in your sense (agreement) or else no one would accept the religion except through brainwashing (no Christian anyway).
I'll just make sure I'm remebered as long as possible. Otherwise, it's "just a ride", right?
It all is reduced to what you think is valid through all your various thought processes.
Heh, are you kidding? You did with your bowl and cake analogy!
I get you point of view. But my point is purpose. The bowl had a purpose. It formed the cake. If it was any other shape it would form something else and who is to say that would not have resulted in us anyway? 1 + 1 = 2, 200/100 = 2. The point is purpose. Thats the whole argument. The micrichip looked at by itself or the watch was developed through man's will to develop it. I see your point but I don't fully agree. You see man doesn't have to continue with the development of the microchip if he decides to go in another direction. That is not a natural process.
Nope - not that simple. You have to compare your crappy result to a standard. If there was some being that was better than us well sure but there is none that we can see at the moment. The existence of such phenomenon also merit a discussion into the realms of morality. The basic fact is, also, that our very existence is hinged on many of these phenomenon. The fact is mutations resulted in us being here but they also resulted in mutated babies. We eat food with bacteria in them and our teeth decay, but would the food be here without bacteria? Do we starve oursleves? I do not think God functions within this universe - within our 4 dimensions as it applies to us - outside the laws of physics (providing they have any basis in the "real reality"). Why create rules and then break them? Miracles are simply events beyond current explanation.
Heh, that I did. Many thanks. So it's not less than 10%, o.k.
marcac to much to say.
but i value your opinion and your right to say it
but i value your opinion and your right to say it
MarcAC said:
Wow, congratulations on composing a tangent that had nothing to do with my statement. I was simply remarking that Christianity, as a religion founded upon the Bible, does not -- in itself -- ask followers to question its very practice. Preachers might. Parents might. Skeptics might. But there is no verse in the Bible tantamount to the one I quoted from the Buddha.
Once again, these verses have nothing to do with the question I raised. Both of these verses call on believers to devote their entire selves (mind included). They do not invite believers to view Christianity critically; rather they do just the opposite: remind Christians that they must give up their minds for Christ.
Willful faith does not connote critical thinking. The Buddha invited his followers to listen to his words, but <i>reject</i> them if they did not appeal to the listeners' common sense, spiritual ideals, or personal situation. Jesus may have allowed for people to disagree (free will, of course), but he never entreated his followers to reject Christianity if it "offended" their intellects.
Big difference.
Well, let's start with one of the more oft-quoted passages...
Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. - Proverbs 3:5-6
Now, the first obvious question is: what else does one have except one's own understanding? Someone else's? Not hardly. In that case, all one has is one's own understanding of someone else's understanding. "You" are inescapable, as an entity.
Here the Bible is pitting the heart as an enemy of the brain and vice versa -- a common tactic in religious writing. The underlying assumption that head and heart must somehow do battle for the soul is just that: an assumption. And a fairly tenuous one at that. I would argue that any true philosophy will resonate with both mind and heart. But clearly, Christians have good reason to set the heart against the mind; after all, we all know which one is more gullible and prone to irrational responses, don't we?
There are myriad examples of Biblical aversion to the intellect and philosophy. I Corinthians 1:19-25 offers yet another polemic against earthy wisdom. Also, who can forget Jesus' famous words to "Doubting Thomas" -- praising those who believe without any proof. Other than belief in Christianity itself, is there any other situation where believing without any proof is considered a virtue? Would it be admirable to cross the street on faith, not looking in either direction for traffic? Would it virtuous to do away with meat inspections and rely on faith in God to protect us from disease?
So, faith is "inherrent" in reason? I suppose one may have a <i>reason</i> to have <i>faith</i>, but there are two different definitions of "reason" at work here. Reason, as a system of thought, is not quite the same deal. Reason demands that critical thinking be applied to decisions -- not merely the whims of the heart, as the Bible suggests. Faith in the religious sense only works when complimented by doubt. Consider those folks who harbor the least amount of doubt -- fundamentalists and terrorists. <i>That</i> is the end product of too much certainty, and I agree with Kurt Vonnegut on that token:
Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying.
If you are suggesting, on the other hand, that faith is the basis of all knowledge insofar as none of us can say anything <i>for certain</i> without having faith in our five senses, then I partially agree with you. We could all be living in the Matrix as we speak, being fed an infinite number of lies through our nervous systems. So, on that level, is it an act of faith to say, "I know roses are red"? Yeah, I suppose so. But those are decisions made out of expedience. The only way I can survive is to go along with my own senses and accept the vast majority of humanity's corroborating experiences as being correct. Otherwise, I'd be putting my hands on hots stoves and attempting to fly off skyscrapers.
Religious faith is another beast entirely because it is not forged out of neccessity, but pure choice. Also, it is not based on critical thinking or expedience, but the leanings of the "heart," which sadly I've found somewhat unreliable in matters of science and fact. Just because you've eliminated other possibilities in your mind does not make the remaining option the truth. This is why I remain agnostic -- I cannot say for sure whether, say, the universe was created or always here. I have no reference point upon which to judge this, so believing the Bible's account would in fact be a suspension of critical thinking in my case. Because you have narrowed the choices doesn't mean a hoot, frankly. Other viable choices still exist no matter what you believe.
I agree in principle, however, in the case of Bush -- all I'm saying is 10,000 innocent dead Iraqi civilians might regard MOABs and J-Dams as "powerful."
Josh
MarcAC said:
OK, new rule. No camouflaged attacks on my name in the middle of a reply to another poster. lol
Somehow I'm not surprised you managed yet again to misappropriate a fairly direct quote. "It's just a ride" is not an indictment of life as meaningless cycle -- it's an indictment of life as far-too-serious.
Josh
That's what I meant.JustARide said:OK, new rule. No camouflaged attacks on my name in the middle of a reply to another poster. lol
Somehow I'm not surprised you managed yet again to misappropriate a fairly direct quote. "It's just a ride" is not an indictment of life as meaningless cycle -- it's an indictment of life as far-too-serious.
I wouldn't like to see some people on their death bed when they realise that they are really at the end of the road and they ae about to become non-existent. I guess she can go for cryogenics.Yes, there are many. If they are read in context they will see that they indicate these things. Especially in the letters Paul wrote to the various churches. Here's another one - 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Put everything to the test. Accept what is good..." Of course Christianity is a religion which looks to objective values. Obviously Buddha apparently didn't accept the notion of an objective value (or maybe he did in a sense). That's dangerous. Without objective values every action should be tolerated. There is no right, no wrong.JustARide said:
I see it as inviting you to devote all your rational thought to discovering the truth about God. If you're going to use your mind for anything I'd hope it was for thinking. It doesn't mean give up all rational thought.
I'm not sure what you mean by willful faith. However, it is my view that faith is inherrent in critical thinking (regarding conjecture).
Jesus was a moral objectivist.
Nope that was verse 5 only. Verse 6: "Always let him lead you and he will clear the road for you to follow." Verse 7: "Don't ever think you are wise enough, but respect the Lord and stay away from evil." In other words don't abandon God at the first hint of trouble (contradiction). Let him lead your thoughts and you will see the solution.
That is if you don't believe in God. If you are an objectivist then you will believe that some things are just right even if you don't feel they are right. Wh-o/ere does all the objective come from? God.
No it's not. It is not telling you not to think. It, in fact, when read carefully, encourages you to think. When you see some problem which makes you question your faith in God; don't lose faith. Have faith and try to find the solution. Even scientists (heck everyone except those suffering from depression) display(s) this sort of conviction.
I disagree. No verse if interpreted correctly will advocate abandoning all sense and relying on feeling only. The Bible taken in its entirety basically states you should trust yourself and others through God. Just like biology hints at intelligent life being a very rare event and physics hints at intelligent life being a fairly common event. You can't isolate one thing without looking at its context. Your are bound to err and that is what most Bible skeptics tend to do.
Christians have varying convictions with regards to that. However, it is my view that, yes, to believe without question in God is a virtuous act and is the mark of a person who is really in touch with their Creator (once the beliefs don't represent any form of delusion (no supportive evidence whatsoever). Thus I respect the views of the '6 day creationists' although I don't share them. I respect the views of those who will deny medical care on religious grounds although I don't share them. I would respect the view of any man who would blindly walk out into the road in faith that God will protect him although I'd think he's one crazy futhermocker. Why? I think in the end all that really doesn't matter. What matters is your trust and faith in God. Jesus said faith can move mountains - I literally believe it. I share your view on life being "just a ride", but in a different sense obviously.
Religious faith is not entirely different. However, it all depends on how you see it. To some it is based on necessity, critical thinking, and 'the heart'. You see, the fact of impending doom makes it a necessity. You choose or die. That's from a religious point of view. You, as an agnostic sees it as just another unknown. I guess to you it's worth the risk. But it's like that piano. You tell a blind man to step forward or alse something big and heavy is going to fall on his head. He doesn't know. He starts thinking (critically?); "Is this guy chatting crap?" Or he just steps forward with some amount of trust (faith) and will to survive?
Last edited:
MarcAC said:
Once again, this is not a call to critique; it is a call to accept the Bible. Not the same thing.
And are you God?
If not, please tell me for sure how you know what his "objective" moral position is on any given issue. Because the Bible tells you so? Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Lots of holy books say lots of different things about what this "objective" God wants. It still comes down to which God and which Holy Book <i>you</i> deem correct.
If the call to "think" is contingent upon one retaining belief, then it is not truly a call to think. If one is searching for the truth and runs into a roadblock in Christianity, the Bible is essentially telling him to think really hard and find a reason to believe what it says. That can hardly be considered true freethought. Thinking should not have restrictions placed around it <i>a priori</i> to ensure an outcome. It's a lot like saying, "Sure, think it over for yourself. Think anything you want. As long as you end up thinking what we want you to think."
If a scientist said, "OK, go do an experiment to figure out whether the world is flat or not," and then followed that up by adding, "Oh yeah, before you begin, the world <i>is</i> flat and if your experiments show otherwise, you're doing them wrong and you'll continue to do them until you get the 'right' answer," he wouldn't be much of a scientist. And he'd probably be working for the Bush administration.
I'm curious. Move any mountains lately? If not, I guess you can only assume you don't have enough faith... in which case, I'll see you in Hell.
Ah, so let me ask this. All those Muslims who are screaming at you right now to adopt the faith of Allah or be "hit by a piano" as your analogy put it -- do they scare you? Do you lie awake at night worried that your lack of faith in Zeus will hurt you in the afterlife? What about Zoroaster? Or maybe you have the wrong version of Christianity, and some other sect has it right?
You're relying on Pascal's Wager (i.e., it's better to believe in God at least as an insurance policy in the afterlife). This is a very reductionist argument for one simple reason: God is not one big monolithic concept. Millions of people have different ideas, interpretations, permutations, and inclinations of God. Mainstream Christianity is only one fish in the sea, my friend.
Because you have narrowed the field to one (in your mind anyway), you see my agnosticism as a great risk -- as if I am faced with the simple decision of either believing in God or not believing in God. On the contrary, I have thousands of Gods to pick from, just as you do (or did, rather). So, not believing in one of them isn't really keeping me up at night. After all, maybe Christians will burn in Allah's Hell. Maybe Muslims will burn in God's Hell. Maybe we're all wrong and will burn in some as-of-yet-undiscovered Hell. Allowing fear to drive one's decisions about large, universal truths doesn't seem all that noble to me. In fact, that's the joy of being an agnostic. I get to sit back and watch <i>all</i> sides make fools of themselves.
There may even be definitions of God out there I'm willing to accept -- I don't know. But I'll tell you one thing that really resonates with me, something you might say I have "faith" in... and that's the notion that a God of love does not and would not adopt the tactics of a dictator to "win" souls. Eternal Hells, torture, final sentences -- all of these things sound like the inventions of cruel men to me. Now, tell me, should I somehow force myself to believe otherwise because an ancient book tells me to, or should I, as you and your interpretation of the Bible suggest, look within myself and trust my heart?
If I go with my heart, which tells me the Bible is wrong in its depiction of God, then I'm fucked. On the other hand, if I disregard my heart, maybe I'm disregarding God in the process, in which case I'm fucked also.
Gee, what a great system!
I think I'll just go back to playing with my cat. She makes more sense.
Josh
Actually, it all depends on how you view it, as usual. I don't know what you think the Bible is, but I know what it is to me. It is a compilation of beliefs of men/women who had faith in God. Paul wrote that letter some time in the 1st century A.D. and he was referring to the christians critiquing everything that they hear from those who preach to them. If you read or have ever read (doubtfully it seems) the surfeit of other verses which refer to such people claiming to be Christians and talking crap then you'll see the significance of the verse itself. It calls for critique, but because you read it like it was written yesterday you fail to see the point. 2000 years from now what many Christian people write could be incorporated into another Bible. Jesus himself put question to some laws and acts which Moses put into effect.JustARide said:
Of course not. This is a 'matter of the heart', along with some critical thinking and some amount of necessity. Of course the Bible states an eye for an eye and all that stuff. But I don't do things like the Outback (aka Bush) - which in that case is really an eye for 10,000 eyes. I think God leads us in the right direction through an objective moral sense of right and wrong - or else nothing is right or wrong - which is an implication of Buddhas conjecture (I'm glad that statments obsolutely equivalent to that aren't in the Biblical text I've come to admire and trust).
It is not saying find a way to believe what it says. It is saying that if you see a contradication have faith in God (his rules of morality as you see them) and apply those rules to reach a solution. In other words what you think it says might not be what it actually is saying - that's why the contradiction is there. If the contradiction remains then I don't know - that's up to your faith in God. That fact is realised day in and day out in math (especially), science and logic. Remember the Life Gluttoness' (Katazia's - I'm one too so no offence) post about rules of logic? 'True freethought' is no thought in my opinion. In math you have to say that if you start with one and do a whole lot of operational crap with it you have to end up with one again.
Not in the literal sense. Hell... Hmm, maybe you will but not on account of that. But I might see you in heaven if you find God before its too late. Thomas doubted, yet he was one of Jesus' disciples. Sometimes you have to read between the lines.I'm curious. Move any mountains lately? If not, I guess you can only assume you don't have enough faith... in which case, I'll see you in Hell.
No, because I have faith in God - and many other little facts of life. I respect theri beliefs but I simply don't share them. It's just like you as an agnostic (well you obviously don't respect Christian beliefs). So if Gos is really Allah and I had to be a Muslim or burn in brimstone anf fire (chilling) well so be it. You see? In some ways I understand your position. But better to be hitched on a boat than to be in the water with all those Sharks eh? Saying "I don't see any Sh... *crunch - rip - tear*." If I were fully agnostic I'd see it like that.
I prefer to see it as a boat.
(see above). Of course as a Christian I don't see it that way - seeing God as an insurance policy means you're on a sinking boat. I see evidence for God. The evidence I see fits well with Christianity (non-suicide policy included). That's why I believe. Jews are still wating on their Messiah and Islamics are surronded by too much death.
Why not (but maaan we went through all that already didn't we so let's not bother)? The fact is God is God. God created us, God knows what's good for us, God knows what's not good for us. I am not God as you know. I don't know what God knows. So teeth might rot but aren't the dentists glad for that... heh heh. Oral B (brush like a dentist) loves God beyond measure. Colgate? Aquafresh?
You see, it is my belief that God speaks to all of us even if we don't recognise the voice(?) or just don't want to listen (?). I'm not telling you to do anything except consider the evidence, consider that arguments. If you see some contradiction, don't just give up and say o.k. that's crap. Try to figure a way out of it and see what you can come up with. If it still looks like crap to you so be it.
MarcAC said:
Saying God leads you through an objective moral sense is not the same thing as knowing the objective truth; it still comes around to "your own understanding" of what God is leading you to do. Announcing there is an objective truth and then backing this up by claiming God gives you a vague sense of it sometimes sounds more like wishful rather than critical thinking.
This discussion began with the question of why one should not lean on his own understanding, as the Bible says. I contend that everything must come down to one's own understanding. So you tell me, no, there is an objective truth that stands outside our sphere of understanding. Then I ask how you know know this, and I get "well, it's a matter of the heart." And we're right back where we started. Exactly whose "heart" are we talking about if it is not "your own"? And what mediates your emotions if not your own mind?
Exactly. If you see a contradiction, don't think it out for yourself (after all, that might lead you down a path of *gasp* unbelief); just have "faith" in God. Heaving faith that a piece of scripture is true, though it strikes you as untrue, is no different from plain ol' rationalization.
In this sense, I see religion as comparable to any rigid political ideology. Witness the lengths neocons (who believed the U.S. would be welcomed into Iraq with flowers and gifts) will go to deny any contradictions inherent in their policy of forced democracy and fair global hegemony. Is it better to ignore the unrest and have "faith" in the neocon ideology or actually deal with the problems on the ground? Likewise, is it better to believe that our loving, compassionate Creator once sent two bears to rip up 42 kids for merely insulting a man of faith or use our own common sense and realize the Bible was likely written by biased men in a barbaric, gullible period of history and go from there?
Ah yes, when a contradiction arises in the Bible, give it every possible benefit of the doubt. When a contradiction appears anywhere else, attack it unmercifully.
Yay, you made the connection.
Interesting. Well, all I can say is I do not make premature decisions about the nature of the universe simply because I want to be "hitched on a boat." The fact that I do not understand where the universe came from, where it's going, why I'm here, etc. does not mean I have to grab onto the first raft that floats by. To quote Buddha once again, "The raft is not the shore."
Well, that's all well and fine, and I respect your decision to believe whatever you want to believe. Just be aware that your reasons <i>are</i> subjective and products of your own understanding, even if you prefer not to think of them as such. As for your boat analogy, well, allow me to offer my own aquatic metaphor:
Religous folks are quite certain they have stumbled upon universal, objective truth using only the (fallable) tools of their minds and hearts. Let's say Christians are sitting in a boat above the water. They breathe the fresh afternoon air and bask in the glory of their own self-assurance. They think, "This is the most beautiful picture on Earth. This is right and natural, the way creatures should live."
But meanwhile, Muslims are the fish swimming right below the boat, and they look up at the Christians and say, "Look, they know nothing of the coral reefs or colorful animals here. <i>This</i> is right and natural, the way creatures should live."
All religions feel they have hit upon some absolute, some plateau far above the others, but all this proves is the truth of perspective -- not of religion. The truth is both the boaters and the fish have limited understanding, yet both are quite sure of their superiority.
Then why pretend you know the Bible is his Word? Because you happen to like it more than the Koran? Because the story of Jesus is moving? These are still subjective responses -- not measures of truth.
I don't give up on anything -- that's the definition of a true agnostic. I merely refrain from saying I understand things which I do not. Some call that humility, others heresy.
Christianity, for the most part, makes no sense to me, but I will not deny the possibility that it contains some truth I have yet to grasp. I leave this avenue <i>permanently</i> open. Likewise, I will not force myself to accept something that does not gel with me merely because I want a question answered <i>now</i>.
So, while you ask me not be too hasty in rejecting something, may I offer you the same suggestion, only in reverse.
Josh
Last edited:
Appearances cdeceiving.an be That's why I hold to my position that many things that some Christians squabble over really don't make much of a difference in the end. If there is an objective moral truth it must have a source. Rules are there if they are created. They don't just appear. That's not wishful thinking.JustARide said:
It is not oustside our sphere of understanding - not fully anyway. If it was all up to our own understanding alone the world would be a place with no generally applicable rules. The only rules would be the ones which you apply to yourself. So if you think killing is right then it becomes right as far as you're concerned and you can go about murdering people like you walk on sand particles at the beach and no one should complain. But all societies, all humans, tend towards some universal moral standard. Why is that?
No, think it out for yourself with faith in God. You might not see the difference, but having faith while thinking it out as opposed to thinking with some resigned attitude can achieve very different results in any (religious or secular) endeavour. Many have been led down the path to unbelief, but also, many non-believers have come to believe.
That question is not rhetorical. You have to cling to some ideal or you'll end up in a land of anarchy. What incident do you refer to there (the 2 bear 42)? You have to read the Bible as a compilation of writings of men who had faith in God (especially the Old Testament). Their writings reflect their culture. But looking at the Bible you can see a clear message coming through the millenia. "This" has purpose and it's source is a purposeful, creator. Writing is one aspect of God's revelation of himself to man. Science is another. Logica is another. Everything you can ever experience is a part of God's message to you.
Perfect. Examples?
We are all biased in some respect - even agnostics. You trust your rationale which leads you to the notion that we cannot know truth unless everything agrees with everything to the pico-element. In light of your position, my position is justified, an atheist's and anyone else's. You cannot know if we really can or cannot know things right? Heh.
Of course it doesn't. For you, the only thing you can do is faithfully latch on to one of them if you adapt a position of "better one than none". You cannot usefully think your way to the truth because by your position you can't know if you'll know the truth. Yet you can't know that what you think you know about not being able to know the truth is the truth. Heh. By your subjective position if I say I know truth you can only say you don't know if I know. Not that I don't know.
I do accept that my reasons are subjective. But that doesn't mean they are not based on an objective source too. They are my understanding of an objective truth which, I think God makes us aware of by the very fact that many seem to approximately share them.
Nice, I allowed for that in my boat analogy. The fact is everyone (you included) sees his boat as the only boat and everyone else is in the water. All I can go with is what I know (don't try telling me I don't cause you don't) I know.
... and your position places you among them which then justifies their thoughts of superiority cause you really don't know if one is superior or not. Thus maybe one is wrong, maybe all are wrong, maybe one is right, maybe all are right (which would mean the law of non-contradiction is wrong). You can't know that from where you stand. I know that I'm right by subjective divine guidance.
I have an understanding of God which I have garnered through His revelation of himself to me through his written word (Bible and plethora of other Christian writings) and the physical world as I see it. By the very fact the God allows me to see things this way means that this is what I'm supposed to see through my faith in God. But you cannot know what a measure of truth is... right? Of course if you prove otherwise then this falls apart.
But you cannot deny the truth of a claim which states truth unless you are going to claim you know what truth is. You see the corollary of your posistion right? You see, the world is not a place which is friendly to an agnostic as you must realise. If any religious claims are true you're doomed (or you can use your favourite 'f' word).
Would you find it hard to just stop believing the Sun is there through reason and logic? That's what it's like for me believing God is not there. To me it's pretty obvious.So, while you ask me not be too hasty in rejecting something, may I offer you the same suggestion, only in reverse.
Lata Josh
MarcAC said:
But your only access to "the source" is through subjective means. I'm not arguing that an objective truth can't exist. I'm arguing there is no sure way for you to know it is.
Well, first off, there are certain rules we could not just "make up" -- for instance, I cannot will myself away from gravity or time.
As far as your argument against relativistic morality, may I point you to the church. The church is merely utilizing an ancient text to promote its own agenda. At one point, promoting slavery was on the agenda and the Bible was used to grand effect in that endeavor. So, if the Bible is your source for this objective morality -- allow me to burst that little bubble.
All societies tend toward self-preservation -- not a universal moral standard. Go to China and look at how abortion is viewed. It has no stigma attached and is, in fact, preferred by many as a natural, respectable means of birth control. Are China and the US moving toward a universal moral goal on abortion? I think not. Many cultures see nothing wrong with polygamy -- some see monogamy as strange and unnatural considering the male proclivity to attract more than one female. The fact that any society has moved toward a more democratic, human-rights oriented culture does not tell me anything about some galactic truth. It tells me that country has, at least, figured out that freedom helps us all and thus is preferable to anarchy or fascism.
Yes, and what do you say about those who have been led down the path to unbelief? You must think they have done something wrong, eh. After all, they can't be right, right? In your mind, is it possible that I -- or anyone, for that matter -- can be both an unbeliever and a real, sincere, honest truth seeker? Or, because we have not adopted <i>your particular faith</i>, are we automatically disqualified from the truth race?
Say you could somehow test to see if God existed. Consider that the very first requirement of testing a hypothesis is not to have "faith" in how it will turn out. That is for the <i>experiment</i> to decide, not the tester. Having a notion in one's head prior to the experiment and holding to it no matter what is simply bias, nothing more.
2 Kings 2: 23 - 24
Plenty of writings fit this description.
Yeah, if you happen to believe the first premise that God exists and he is as the Bible depicts him. There is no objective way of knowing this. I can have faith that everything in the galaxy is a goat and everything we experience is part of this goat -- of course, that doesn't mean a damn thing.
Perfect. Examples?
We can only trust our judgment. And yes, as I have said, over and over and over again, I admit the possibility that <u>you could be right</u>. This allows me to respect your opinion while disagreeing with it. I highly doubt you'd offer me the same courtesy, however.
By the way, just go back a few thousand years and you would "know" the Earth is flat. You would "know" God demands animal sacrifices. You would "know" diseases are caused by evil spirits. You would "know" that bloodletting was proper medical treatment for just about everything. All I'm saying is... trusting what you "know" is universal truth is not always the wisest course of action.
Well, maybe if you were a Muslim living in Taliban-controlled Afganistan, you could apply the same reasoning: 1. That God wants to destroy America is my understanding of an objective truth. 2. Islam must be the inspired Word of God because everyone around here seems to be leaning toward it.
By the way, the idea that you don't see anything funny about the phrase "my understanding of an objective truth" tells me you really don't believe your reasoning is subjective. You just think you're plugged into the Almighty. Oh sure, you may have a few little things wrong (the best pizza toppings, your stance on welfare reform, or whatever), but for the most part, you know the ultimate, universal truth. Wow. That must make life really boring for you -- already knowing all that shit. I myself find the race much more interesting when I don't stand still at the starting line and proclaim I've already won.
I am quite content not knowing the ultimate truth -- that's not say I won't or can't at some future date -- but for now, I'm going to be honest with myself rather than blindly grabbing on to the grandest mythology I can find and proclaiming "I know this to be true." And why not? Because it would be a lie. As the famous quote goes, "The final delusion is believing one has lost all delusions."
Well, hurray for you, my friend. Your confidence is admirable. Just allow me to say that confidence is a double-edged sword. Terrorists, fanatics, and serial killers are often quite confident too. Of course, that doesn't strengthen their positions one iota.
The fact that I don't know where I stand keeps me wondering, keeps me on my toes, opens me up to new experiences, and squashes any illusions pride might inspire in me. Now, maybe I'm just a simpleton, a spiritual retard lost in the wilderness, but at least I'm not making wild assertions or guessing about things we could not possibly know for sure. Have any agnostics banged on your door trying to sell you their belief system lately? I doubt it. We wouldn't presume on our relationship. Knowing one is right means absolutely nothing. Any mouthbreathing hick can "know" he's right. Knowing how to <i>search</i> for truth is another thing entirely.
I can only know the measures of truth we have created ourselves and the measure of truth we <i>claim</i> God has inspired.
That's a logical fallacy. For instance, if you asked me to quickly answer a math problem, say, "What is 1,098,657,983,013 X 3.725891" I couldn't answer you quickly. But if you said, "Well, the answer is 7," I would know your answer is incorrect, even though I didn't know the real answer.
Actually, since there are thousands, if not millions, of different religious traditions, your likelihood of being fucked is about 0.00001% better than mine. As I said before, believing in God is not a simple yes/no proposition. There are many, many Gods to choose from (an infinite number, if we admit that anything is indeed possible), so the probability that you happened to pick the right one doesn't really mean much. I can have just as much faith that -- if there is a God - he/she/it doesn't give a shit what I think anyway.
In other words, the number of ways in which we <i>might</i> conceivably be fucked is infinite.
And yes, fuck is a wonderful, versatile word.
Fuck, fuck, fucky, fuck!(My apologies if you're one of those Christians who gets offended by an arbitrarily-assigned series of sounds or letters. Don't worry. It's just a word. It won't bite.)
Well, first off, as George Carlin said, I can <i>see</i> the sun ("kinda helps the credibility along..."). Second, if reason and logic were to dictate that the sun is merely an optical illusion, maybe I could go for that. I'd have to see good evidence though. But here's the catch -- the catch of all science, in fact -- I am not <i>bound</i> by that belief. If a better theory comes along, maybe it will prove true. Who knows? Once again, all one has to do is read a little history to figure out that we are fallible beings, prone to error and miscalculation. That we are immune to this problem when it comes to spirituality or religion or God is... well, ludicrous.
But hey, I could be wrong. That's something you might want to repeat to yourself occasionally. I find it really brings me back down to earth.
Josh
Last edited:
But according to your position you can't be sure that I do or do not know that an objective truth exists if you say we determine everything subjectively. I know I know. Why then argue that I can't know?JustARide said:
The Bible was written by men who had faith in God. You can apply that to your 'if'.
How do these societies pursue their mode of self preservation? You see you have to be careful about morality. Moral rules have context and I notice many people have a problem with context. Sometimes it is o.k. to take a life, other times it isn't. I know many church leaders who do not denounce abortion in certain situations. The point is love. Apply those rules and you will see if they don't tend towards a universal moral standard.
Sure, subjectively you believe you are. From where I stand I don't know but from what I observe I can form an opinion and this is where I put forward your short-comings as I see them. Only God (as source) can lead you to truth.
Point is yah can't. How convenient huh?
Oooh so that's what Heart was so broken about. Well I don't see where it says God sent the bears (am I mistaken?). Remember Jesus' quote; "Faith can move mountains"? Maybe it can 'move' bears too.
Otherwise read it in context. Sure, I find a lot of what the Romans did shocking - but hey, that was their culture.
So you got the point.
Exactly. God desires a relationship with humans. Accepting Jesus as Son of God is a personal decision - it's not forced. But you can't (based on your position) really say there's no subjective way of knowing it now can you?
Heh, not to me. If you hold the belief and it doesn't mean crap to you then I really can't see why you'd keep believing it. Now what parallel does this have with God (gives meaing and purpose to everything)?
If I know I'm right why should I then say to you I might be wrong?
Well, God is one constant presence in all that now isn't He? He just won't frelling leave. Heh. God, God, God.
Well actually you don't know where the starting line is so you can't tell if I'm at the finish or not. You're not in a race. You're nowhere. Agnostic?
Not to say? I guess you'll be discovering this 'ultimate truth' by some yet to be discovered method? Throough human evolution perhaps? We'll evolve into some "truth knowing" creatures right... (?) and agnosticism shall be no more...(?)
I'm confident in my creator.
Anyone can claim they know how to search for truth too. The prob is that if you can't know what truth is, how the hell will you know when you find it bro? That's the implication of your position so unless something changes in your position you'll never find truth.
Fine. So is that or isn't that the "ultimate truth"? If not, again; How the hell do you know when you get there?
Lovely, but not that simple. You are then claiming you know what is not truth. Now what do you compare that conlusion to bro? The fact that when you multiply two numbers of said magnitude the product can't be less than the numbers? Is that truth? But you don't know that now do you. Then how do you know my answer (7) is incorrect. See why I don't rely totally on logic? It's such crap at times (and damned funny too).
Did you watch that movie "Dumb & Dumber" or "Dum & Dummer)"? When the red-head tells Jim Carey that his chances with her are like one in a million his response is; "So you're telling me there's a chance!" (with all happiness hope and conviction). My faith gives me hope.
Versatile is a baaaad word I think. More ambiguous - leading to very imprecise communication. That's what I have against it. It can express joy, amazement, disgust, sex - of course you've had first hand experience. Can get you in trouble too. Then you have the 's' word which can have the same meanings. But then you can't use them interchangeably all the time. Oh crap. Language.And yes, fuck is a wonderful, versatile word.
So I see we agree on the Sun analogy. So until the String Theorist's theory of everything arrives with no space for God in it (including explaining that there is no underlying purpose to anything) I'll continue on my "above the earth" path, as I suspect you will do bro. But how would you know you were 'above' the earth in your position anyway to get back down to earth? Hmm, no biggie. Nothing against you bro, just saying it like I see it.
Lata Josh.