What God Would Say

[sideshowbob]

I dont think it is just coincidence that Nations without God have been utter failures.

Nations with gods have been utter failures too.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Actually that would put "mind" as fundamental. Anything perceived by the mind is thus based upon the mind and no longer fundamental. It then gets into issues of how the mind works and whether, as you claim, such things can be a choice or not.

By that logic the blank sheet of paper is the fundamental principle upon which the story written on it came about. But the problem is, the story exits before it is written.

When you say that "they themselves are not the subject of scrutiny" (post #82) it would need some further qualifications from you at the time so as not to read that as a claim of them being exempt from scrutiny.
But whether that is an absolute claim or merely in reference to this thread is actually neither here nor there: why do you consider them exempt from scrutiny within this discussion?

You can discuss them if you like. You can discuss what is mind, where does it come from, and what is its totality, as much as you like. Just as an example.

Either way, I disagree. I do not think it is a choice for me "to accept God", at least as anything other than lip-service.

So you choose to believe.

I'm glad you think belief is just a matter of how much we think about something.

I'm glad you're glad, even though the subject of your gladness has nothing to do with what I said.

You just made choice to believe something you made up, so you could feel good. Similar to the point I actually made.

Jan

 

[river]

Ironicly god has no honour .

 

[Sarkus]

By that logic the blank sheet of paper is the fundamental principle upon which the story written on it came about. But the problem is, the story exits before it is written.

To be honest, Jan, you wouldn't know the right logic if it bit you on the ass.
No, your example is not correct, unless you think your mind is simply relaying objective reality rather than interpretation? And since two people can arrive at different "choices" from the same objective reality, it is surely the mind that is the fundamental difference.

You can discuss them if you like. You can discuss what is mind, where does it come from, and what is its totality, as much as you like. Just as an example.

So you don't hold the fundamentals beyond scrutiny, then? Despite your previous assertions?

So you choose to believe.

No, not how I "choose" to believe.
So all you have to argue for belief being a choice is now to keep repeating that belief is a choice?

I'm glad you're glad, even though the subject of your gladness has nothing to do with what I said.

Oh, but it does, Jan. It very much does. Obviously this is just another case where you can't see the implication of what you write.
"We can make ourselves lose interest, and become forgetful, hence lack belief in God. In this way we can limit how much we choose to believe in God, by replacing God with other stuff."
I'm not going to bother to explain the implications. Clearly if you didn't mean what it implies then you would need to clarify. But that's up to you.

You just made choice to believe something you made up, so you could feel good. Similar to the point I actually made.

Again, all you have is the bleating of "your belief is a choice".
Clearly that's what you believe, but merely repeating it does not make it so, and unless you have something else that actually raises an argument in support of your belief, can I suggest you adhere to your "I'll make this my last post..."?

 

[Jan Ardena]

To be honest, Jan, you wouldn't know the right logic if it bit you on the ass.

Right, I have no logic, no idea of logic. I'm simply lucky to have survived this long.

You said the fundamental principle is the mind, and as such anything that the mind percieves is not fundamental. If as you say, everything is based on the mind, then the mind is the expression, not that we express ourselves through it.This is my understanding of the workings of my own mind.
The blank paper is like a mind, and the writing on it is it's expression, through the agency of a body. If that is not what you mean, then please explain.

So you don't hold the fundamentals beyond scrutiny, then? Despite your previous assertions?

I see the blank sheet of paper as a conduit for expressing whatever I choose.

No, not how I "choose" to believe.
So all you have to argue for belief being a choice is now to keep repeating that belief is a choice?

Firstly, you have thought this through, and arrived your conclusion.
To think is to have a particular belief or idea, or to direct one's mind towards someone or something; use one's mind actively to form connected ideas.

Oh, but it does, Jan. It very much does. Obviously this is just another case where you can't see the implication of what you write.

Blah! Blah! Another instance of diversion.

"We can make ourselves lose interest, and become forgetful, hence lack belief in God. In this way we can limit how much we choose to believe in God, by replacing God with other stuff."
I'm not going to bother to explain the implications. Clearly if you didn't mean what it implies then you would need to clarify. But that's up to you.

Of course you're not going to bother to explain, because you don't have an explanation. You cannot show how your response is even shallowly related the statement you responded to. You simply felt glad over something you concocted. You momentarily thought you were correct, allowing yourself to be glad (feel good), and forgot the reality of what I actually wrote.

Again, all you have is the bleating of "your belief is a choice".

More ad-hominems?
I think the bleating of the same old non explained statement is more akin to your posts, as all you seem to be saying is...

I don't agree because for me it is not a matter of choice. It is not that I choose not to accept anything else: I simply can't [choose].

I am glad that such things are so easy for you, and that you see them as a simple matter of choice. For me they are not [A Choice] (making yourself feel good again?).

Until I accept it [choice], I couldn't say.

Are you really sure you want to agree with me that it is not a choice?

Here is my so called bleating... From what I can comprehend, belief in God is a choice, because he[DE] accepts God, regardless of belief.

Clearly that's what you believe, but merely repeating it does not make it so, and unless you have something else that actually raises an argument in support of your belief, can I suggest you adhere to your "I'll make this my last post..."?

You reasoning is quite pathetic.
If you want this to be my last response to you, then don't respond to this post.

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Right, I have no logic, no idea of logic. I'm simply lucky to have survived this long.

Not sure what this has to do with whether or not you are using the right logic in this instance is, but okay, if you say so, Jan.

You said the fundamental principle is the mind, and as such anything that the mind percieves is not fundamental.

Not quite. My view is that the mind interprets what it perceives and we can only ever be aware of those interpretations. The mind is the most fundamental with regard what can be perceived, understood, experienced. The expression is secondary. What the mind perceives, which it then interprets, would be even more fundamental than mind - i.e. objective reality. But with regard where we, the individual, start, mind is fundamental.

If as you say, everything is based on the mind, then the mind is the expression, not that we express ourselves through it.This is my understanding of the workings of my own mind.

Then we differ.

The blank paper is like a mind, and the writing on it is it's expression, through the agency of a body. If that is not what you mean, then please explain.

The expression is by the mind. The body (to continue the dualism idea, not that I necessarily agree with it) is how it expresses. The mind is fundamental in this regard. The blank paper is the body, the medium by which the mind expresses.

I see the blank sheet of paper as a conduit for expressing whatever I choose.

At least what you think you choose.
But how does that answer my question? On what basis do you consider the fundamental to be beyond scrutiny in this regard? If two people differ due to differences in such fundamentals, why would you allow no exploration, scrutiny, examination?

Firstly, you have thought this through, and arrived your conclusion.

Correct.

To think is to have a particular belief or idea, or to direct one's mind towards someone or something; use one's mind actively to form connected ideas.

Indeed. But how much choice is there over the belief, the conclusion, the connection? Can I look at 2+2 and believe that it = 5? No. Even subjective matters are determined by my experience up to that point.
Yes, indirect Doxastic voluntarism suggests that I can "choose" whether to research further ideas, thus indirectly leading to new formations of belief, but this simply raises the issue of whether there is free will in the decision to do such research or not. And you undoubtedly know my position on freewill. (If not please look at any of the threads on the matter).

Blah! Blah! Another instance of diversion.

If you say so, Jan.

Of course you're not going to bother to explain, because you don't have an explanation.

No, it is because I'm trying hard to not let this discussion nose-dive.

You cannot show how your response is even shallowly related the statement you responded to. You simply felt glad over something you concocted. You momentarily thought you were correct, allowing yourself to be glad (feel good), and forgot the reality of what I actually wrote.

If you say so, Jan.

More ad-hominems?

If you say so, Jan.

Here is my so called bleating... From what I can comprehend, belief in God is a choice, because he[DE] accepts God, regardless of belief.

While it doesn't address the issue, please explain how one can "accept God" without having the belief that God exists. I.e. How do you propose that accepting God can be "regardless of belief"?
And how does this actually provide an argument that belief is a choice (or not, I'm still not clear on your position, let alone your argument in support of it) as all you have done is stated what you consider DE's position to be?

You reasoning is quite pathetic.

If you say so, Jan.

If you want this to be my last response to you, then don't respond to this post.

I don't actually care if you do or do not; it was you that expressed intention to not post. My only desire is that if you do respond you post something of some value and it doesn't simply collapse into attempts at tit-for-tat.

 

[eyeswideshut]

And there are just as many examples of nations that did turn to gods for moral guidance and were told to slaughter their enemies. Obviously, the guidance of gods is no guarantee of good moral behaviour.

Not in percents I will argue, I cant figure out any free societes with no God, somebody always will take Hes place and will take an advantage, and will slaughter their own citizens too, but I agree.
Guidance isnt surely no kind of guarantee if one serving wrong God, but I will argue that there has to be one right God, or else our existence is impossible, everything has a source.
Has He declared us so is the debate of the century and I choose the bible because it presents truths in philosofical plain for me, and so on just "be honorable" doesnt cut it.
I´m fully aware that there are many anomalies in the bible in mainstream sciencetific framework, to me those are mysteries to be solved, and some of them can be explained with science already.
Everyday we discover things we couldnt even have dreams about.

When asked which rule is the most important, Jesus(God) said:
(nterestingly He chose two)

Love your God with all your mind, heart and soul

and Love your neighbors as yourself

First rule generates all the rest rules.


And for all; sorry if I have offended, been rude and all that, but I have no time but on to the point, thruth searching angles.

Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one, so we have to analyze what comes out of it, and I would have to choose the philisophical plain from far away and leave the stinky poking for others. :]

 

[eyeswideshut]

Such naivety. If bad things came of it, it was either misused or they weren't "real" Christians in the first place.

Sorry if you/I took wrong position because of my use of Christianity word,
I should have use the word for the source, the bible.
Real Christians are harder and harder to find, lukewarms not so.
"Misused" in this context I ment it could have been any book in fashion then, not the misuse of the content , rather lukewarm or plainly political (not even bothered to read it) use of it, or intented misuse of the content ~ heresy of the worst kind.
In both cases I cant see why anything bad came from the bible? Wasnt human and hes understanding in the charge of things, or do you want to show specific cases where some passages from the bible has been misused with some effect?
But on the otherside, "real Christians" if you will, were and is killed because of their conviction.

My Christianity [my interpretion(among others) of the bible] gives every human intrinsic value.

If you have noticed I argue from the bible, naivety, hmmm, havent been called out for that a while.
But meh, in this subject we should use words with caution.
I think we are in the same page now.

Do you think/believe that every human has intrinsic value?
Do you disagree that the bible gives every human intrinsic value?

 

[sideshowbob]

When asked which rule is the most important, Jesus(God) said:
(nterestingly He chose two)

Love your God with all your mind, heart and soul

and Love your neighbors as yourself

First rule generates all the rest rules.

All rules about treatment of other people come from the second, not the first.

 

[spidergoat]

Do you think/believe that every human has intrinsic value?

Yes.

Do you disagree that the bible gives every human intrinsic value?

Yes. You might as well cut your ties to that book and simply say you're a humanist.

 

[Spellbound]

Yes.

Yes. You might as well cut your ties to that book and simply say you're a humanist.

What is your expertise? Do you have a PhD? Are you a writer or journalist? A scientist perhaps? A genius maybe?

 

[eyeswideshut]

Yes.

Yes. You might as well cut your ties to that book and simply say you're a humanist.

Okay. Will not, and been there done that.

I assume that you draw the conclusion from Humanism that there is intrinsic
value in every human, care to eloborate the reasoning behind it?

And to think about it, why to bother in this thread,I guess you really want to argue that there is no God, so there is Nobody saying nothing. We would just hijack the thread.

But still I truly are interested your reasoning, regarding my guestion.

 

[eyeswideshut]

All rules about treatment of other people come from the second, not the first.

In your opinion I may add. Is there the first rule I mentioned in your position?
If yes, there was no God until we "discovered" how to love your neighbor as yourself?
I forgot, "we could figured out anyway" was your position, well, another opinion without reasoning.
If so, from where the second rule did come about?

 

[Beer w/Straw]

If so, from where the second rule did come about?

The attitude towards ourselves and others runs basically parallel, to wit, love thy neighbor as thyself. Is intrinsic with ones relationship to the world around them, hence, perception of reality. No God required, more about mental health.

 

[DaveC426913]

Real Christians

No True Scotsman fallacy.

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

 

[eyeswideshut]

The attitude towards ourselves and others runs basically parallel, to wit, love thy neighbor as thyself. Is intrinsic with ones relationship to the world around them, hence, perception of reality. No God required, more about mental health.

Would you say the attitude and all that comes from our moral values? How did/do we define them?

I guess your position is same Sideshowbobs, Evolution did/doeth it?

First we were monkies and somewhere on the line we evolve to humans with self-reflecting morals and then we invented religions (why, we got the morals already?) and now we figured out that no need for religions and absolute truths, we can define our morals ourselves trough our reasoning, basing it "do unto others as yourself", no love needed.

No explanations there, and Evolution itself needs a huge amount of faith, only theory, thats why the "missing link". Only opinions.

 

[DaveC426913]

First we were monkies and somewhere on the line we evolve to humans

Nitpick: no we weren't.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Would you saythe attitude and all that comes from our moral values? How did/do we define them?

I guess your position is same Sideshowbobs, Evolution did/doeth it?

First we were monkies and somewhere on the line we evolve to humans with self-reflecting morals and then we invented religions (why, we got the morals already?) and now we figured out that no need for religions and absolute truths, we can define our morals ourselves trough our reasoning, basing it "do unto others as yourself", no love needed.

No explanations there, and Evolution itself needs a huge amount of faith, only theory, thats why the "missing link". Only opinions.

Isn't the reality that I was born with feelings and you were born with feelings and we are social animals?

The human race has progressed because of working together. Empathy much?

 

[eyeswideshut]

No True Scotsman fallacy.

Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Yes, and that is exactly what God said in the bible what will happen, Christ would be ridiculed and turned to trivial prophet and the bible with it,
and that there would be come many in Hes name.
I guess Real Christians were only those whom saw him, they surely believed and many died for it, every one else is a suspect.
Lets reduce it to that and leave it be. Or lets take the bible out of the equation too.
By the definition by the bible "true christians" are those whom believe the bible and accept Christ as God and saviour.
Its not the story itself but the message/philosophy what one needs understand to be Real Christian in my opinion.

 

[eyeswideshut]

Nitpick: no we weren't.

Yes, I know, there were X many variations on the line, which you cant prove though. ? .
And I think the use of monkey (should have use word animal) was obvious in the context, so yes, nitpicking surely :]