Why would theists talk about God to non-theists, if not to proselytize?

[Jan Ardena]

jpappl,

Still doesn't answer what was before Krishna. Again as you say life can not come from non-life.

Then read BG.

So I will just leave it at this. You don't have an answer and neither do I.

The answer is in the BG.

Definitions of god are claims of knowledge about god. Which is claiming to know about it specifically. How can you know this ?

We can know some things. It is still knowledge.

Scriptures are that claim, that someone can make those claims because of such contact.

Scriptures also offer ways of understanding and knowing God.
So if someone follows the regulative principle they get results.

Are all the other religions wrong ? Is everyone who ever claimed to be in contact with god other than what your religion is based on wrong ?

I don't operate like that.
I'm interested in the individual, not the institute.

As you said there is only one god. So by this I assume that yours is the only correct one.

How did you arrive at this conclusion?

I asked in a response to you previously, show me a scripture that can only be from god and not created by man.

Any knowledge given, that man cannot know by his own edeavours.

Furthermore, relying on the scriptures is nothing more than faith. Faith in the original as truly being the words of god. Without any evidence of any kind to support it other than the story itself.

Reliance itself is faith.
There's lots of evidence in scriptures that show great knowledge
that could only have been known with either modern scientific help, or outside help.

But as we have been touching on, there is actual evidence against.

You have to say that don't you.

So we have zero evidence for, and evidence against and per you there is only one true god. Hmmn.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Here for starters:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I want you to tell me, simply, in your own words.
Or at least directly cut and paste parts of the link which show why regard it as evidence.

For example ?

Time wasting.

No. Not at all and if it can't stand on it's own it will be replaced with a better theory. Most importantly is not what supports only but what questions. So yes questioning is important. But the questions have to be legitimate and have merit.

You mean they shouldn't contradict the story in any way?

If we have been here many times over, 40,000,000 million years + then we should be finding human fossils throughout all of that time as well, but we are not.

But it's not dealing with the hindu religion. It's dealing with the dodgy dealings
of the mainstream science brigage.

Nonsense. You're expecting science to solve the issue of why we haven't found human remains that are evidence of humans being here many times over, millions and 50 millions of years ago because it would support your beliefs.

Actually fossils and artefacts have been brought to the attention of mainstream science which directly contradics Darwins theory, and they have dismissed it.


This was the respone made by William Holmes an anthropologist regarding
Dr. J.D. Whitney and the Calaverus Skull.

"Perhaps if Professor Whitney had fully appreciated the story of human evolution as it is understood today, he would have hesitated to announce the conclusions formulated, notwithstanding the imposing array of testimony with which he was confronted."

It has become very obvious that there are some dodgy things going on.
It is as obvious as the bogus reasons given to go into Iraq.
There are some powerfull people behind this.
And this concept IS here to stay (for a while), and nothing is going to get in it's way.
Fortunately there is scripture for us to make sense of this time.

That's not how it works, we follow the evidence.

You interpret the evidence to fit your worldview.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

The thing is that somehow, you don't doubt that what you read in scriptures really is about what it claims to be about, and you also presume to know what it is about.

Nevertheless the information is there, and as such we can define God because of this. Belief, acceptence, or lack of, is something entirely different.

You accept them, as naturally as a child accepts the claims of his mother.

That's because of it's content, and how it relates to me.

But many of us don't have this sort of natural, unquestioning trust in scriptures (or dictionaries).

It's not an ''unquestioning trust''.
That's probably why you are so confused about this.

Instead, we experience ourselves as ontological and epistemological instances who yet need to find a justification for why to trust the scriptures.

Good luck in your endeavour.

When this is pointed out to you (and some other theists), you reply with a reasoning along the lines of "stop wasting my time" and "take responsibility for yourself" or "make a choice, come to a conclusion."

Erm, read above.

There is a level of skepticism that you and many other theists seem to be impervious to, even though it is the level of skepticism typical for the philosophy of religion, esp. for the epistemology of religion.

Most probably because we recognise it for what it is.
Especially after giving explanation time and again, for the same old tired argument. You get to realise that out time is being wasted.

I'm not sure there can be much discussion here. The way many theists dismiss inquiries from non-theists, does leave me with the impression that theism is primarily about some kind of superiorism, and also mysticism.

We don't dismiss.
We get tired of the atheist bringing up the same thing even though
they have been given explanations.
They (some) are not interested in conversation.

jan.

 

[Big Chiller]

We have to believe something.

Really? Why? Who says so?

Well even atheists believe in God (nothing).

This is the difference between someone who believes ET aliens exist somewhere because of the probabilities and someone who is convinced that the earth is being visited by Reptilian like humanoids today.

Aliens are not seen in the same position as God because they are also not seen as omnipotent so we can go too far with delusions about aliens. God being omnipotent would have to be the one to influence us e.g. create us no matter what.

 

[Big Chiller]

Nothing more than an argument from personal incredulity. You can't (or don't want to) conceive of an impersonal god therefore you've concluded that it's impossible to legitimately do so. All atheists are doing (with varying degrees of philosophical lucidity and sophistication) is assigning to the universe the same ontological status that you assign to your god. In other words, even though a typical atheist might not describe the universe as god, that's essentially what they believe it to be. Instead of a great I AM it's simply a great IT IS.

A personal god is an extraneous concept. Unless you can demonstrate why one is needed, you're full of shit.

What kind of God is a "God" who can't even be personal that's no omnipotent God. By that logic the universe cannot be God.

 

[wynn]

We don't dismiss.
We get tired of the atheist bringing up the same thing even though
they have been given explanations.

And it never occured to you that this repetitive scenario may be indicative of a bigger problem - that perhaps they are not able to phrase their questions in a different way, and that they might need your help in doing so?

Like when two people are having the same fight over and over again tends to be indicative that there is a bigger problem underneath that they are not able to address.

I find it sad that you simply conclude "They (some) are not interested in conversation."
To me, it shows how little faith you have in people, and how little you are willing to help them. Perhaps you are not able to help them, though ...

 

[Rav]

What kind of God is a "God" who can't even be personal

The god of pantheism perhaps?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Signal,

And it never occured to you that this repetitive scenario may be indicative of a bigger problem - that perhaps they are not able to phrase their questions in a different way, and that they might need your help in doing so?

The first few years you tend to think something along those lines, so you try and explain it in different ways. Then you begin to realise they are only looking for ways to defeat you. They have no intention of conversing.

Like when two people are having the same fight over and over again tends to be indicative that there is a bigger problem underneath that they are not able to address.

This isn't a fight. It's them trying to demolish you.

I find it sad that you simply conclude "They (some) are not interested in conversation."

Can't you see it for yourself?
Most of these guys don't give a toss about religion, God, or spirituality.
They think it's mumbo-jumbo. They only want to get rid of it. I doubt most of them know what ''it'' is.


[/quote]To me, it shows how little faith you have in people, and how little you are willing to help them. Perhaps you are not able to help them, though ...[/QUOTE]

Please fully explain what you are talking about.

jan.

 

[Rav]

The first few years you tend to think something along those lines, so you try and explain it in different ways. Then you begin to realise they are only looking for ways to defeat you. They have no intention of conversing.

So what are you doing then out here on the frontier, amongst so many atheists?

 

[wynn]

Can't you see it for yourself?
Most of these guys don't give a toss about religion, God, or spirituality.
They think it's mumbo-jumbo. They only want to get rid of it. I doubt most of them know what ''it'' is.

I am not talking just about "those guys". I am also talking about you and I.

To me, it shows how little faith you have in people, and how little you are willing to help them. Perhaps you are not able to help them, though ...

Please fully explain what you are talking about.

Just what I said.

 

[gmilam]

What kind of God is a "God" who can't even be personal that's no omnipotent God. By that logic the universe cannot be God.

We are part of the universe. How much more personal can you get?

 

[Jan Ardena]

I am not talking just about "those guys". I am also talking about you and I.




Just what I said.

Religion, spirituality, God-consciousness, or however you wish to coin it, pertains to each individual. There are teachers whose purpose is to help
us to break free of this conditioning. But I'm not one of them. I'm of the masses that need help.

Alot of the time, it seems to me that you have a good handle on this subject matter. Your mind seems to grasp the concept quite easily. And then you come up with threads/questions that make me think you should already have an idea on it.
It appears that you argue against points that you have made previously making it seem that one day you are theist, the next agnostic, the next atheist. I don't think we can keep up with you.
So what can anyone do to help you in your quest.

What is it that you believe?
Reveal that to us now, so we can understand where you are coming from.


jan.

 

[wynn]

Religion, spirituality, God-consciousness, or however you wish to coin it, pertains to each individual. There are teachers whose purpose is to help
us to break free of this conditioning. But I'm not one of them. I'm of the masses that need help.

You certainly don't sound like "of the masses that need help"!

Alot of the time, it seems to me that you have a good handle on this subject matter. Your mind seems to grasp the concept quite easily. And then you come up with threads/questions that make me think you should already have an idea on it.
It appears that you argue against points that you have made previously making it seem that one day you are theist, the next agnostic, the next atheist. I don't think we can keep up with you.
So what can anyone do to help you in your quest.

What is it that you believe?
Reveal that to us now, so we can understand where you are coming from.

To me, these things are not so cut and dry as they seem to be to many other people, here and elsewhere.

To me, this whole discussion/debate is like one big stream of mind, which I sort of swim in, but which I am not.

I generally don't hold any particular stance (one that I would hold independently of context), but comment when something irks me or catches my attention.

I imagine it would be nice to hold a stance, but I don't know how to get there, epistemologically and ontologically.

When it is said that the living entity is a marginal entity, one the contents of whose mind and intelligence change depending on where the entity happens to be - this teaching seems to describe my situation well.

 

[jpappl]

Jan,

“ Still doesn't answer what was before Krishna. Again as you say life can not come from non-life. ”

Then read BG.


“ So I will just leave it at this. You don't have an answer and neither do I. ”

The answer is in the BG.

Still no answer then.

“ Definitions of god are claims of knowledge about god. Which is claiming to know about it specifically. How can you know this ? ”


We can know some things. It is still knowledge.

How, knowledge is a justified true belief. There is nothing to justify there is any truth to any religious texts. It's pure belief, faith only.

Since information cited contradicts the how and when, then again it's justifiably false not true.

“ Scriptures are that claim, that someone can make those claims because of such contact. ”

Scriptures also offer ways of understanding and knowing God.
So if someone follows the regulative principle they get results.

But your following stories and fables. How can information that is in fact shown to be justifiably false lead you to truth ?

You will take this as me not wanting to see or to allow myself to envision. But this is not true. What I am doing is questioning, appropriately, what I see as a problem with the concept of finding truth (god) through that which is not in fact true and therefore can not be a guide to find a higher truth.

It's like saying 1 + 1 = 3 and solving math problems based on the original error.

As you said there is only one god. So by this I assume that yours is the only correct one. ”


How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Here, from your post # 15.

There is only one God, I think you mean gods.

“ I asked in a response to you previously, show me a scripture that can only be from god and not created by man. ”


Any knowledge given, that man cannot know by his own edeavours.

Not an answer, show me one please.

“ Furthermore, relying on the scriptures is nothing more than faith. Faith in the original as truly being the words of god. Without any evidence of any kind to support it other than the story itself. ”

Reliance itself is faith.
There's lots of evidence in scriptures that show great knowledge
that could only have been known with either modern scientific help, or outside help.

Again, show me one please.

Here for starters:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ ”


I want you to tell me, simply, in your own words.
Or at least directly cut and paste parts of the link which show why regard it as evidence.

Here, but I doubt you will take the time. Do you realize Jan that you are throwing the baby (evolution) out with the bath water in order to believe in your religions version of how things came to be. It's your choice, but it is not backed by any evidence and this is the problem with your belief system. God could be real, but adhering to a system that is flawed and was never mean't to provide these answers anyway is short sighted and in a sense devaluing the very religion you want to uphold. The religion's scholars no better than that, just as the vatican accepts evolution. At least publicly, the reason is they don't want to look like an ass.

"One of the most celebrated examples of transitional fossils is our collection of fossil hominids (see Figure 1.4.4 below). Based upon the consensus of numerous phylogenetic analyses, Pan troglodytes (the chimpanzee) is the closest living relative of humans. Thus, we expect that organisms lived in the past which were intermediate in morphology between humans and chimpanzees. Over the past century, many spectacular paleontological finds have identified such transitional hominid fossils."

This page gives both sides so you can see the rebuttals to the rebuttals.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

For example it talks about discoveries that science itself proved to be false, because it is about following the evidence.

“ No. Not at all and if it can't stand on it's own it will be replaced with a better theory. Most importantly is not what supports only but what questions. So yes questioning is important. But the questions have to be legitimate and have merit. ”

You mean they shouldn't contradict the story in any way?

Wrong. If they contradict any timeline then the story changes with the evidence. But again, you have to look at the evidence being presented to see if it merits such a change. It's not only about what fits but what doesn't.

This was the respone made by William Holmes an anthropologist regarding
Dr. J.D. Whitney and the Calaverus Skull.

Even your own link presents it as a hoax:

"However, its authenticity was immediately challenged. In 1869 a San Francisco newspaper reported that a miner had told a minister that the skull was planted as a practical joke.[2] Thomas Wilson of Harvard ran a fluorine analysis on it in 1879 (the first ever usage of such on human bone[3]), with the results indicating it was of recent origin.[4] It was so widely believed to be a hoax that Bret Harte famously wrote a satirical poem called "To the Pliocene Skull" in 1899.[5]"

"To further complicate the issue, careful comparison of the skull with descriptions of it at the time of its discovery revealed that the skull Whitney had in his possession was not the one originally found.[1]"

I mean wtf ?

It has become very obvious that there are some dodgy things going on.

Yes with Whitney there was. He did exactly the opposite of good science. He had a pre-determined belief and only followed that which fit his pre-determined belief. Instead of questioning all the things that did not fit. He would have saved himself the embarrasment.

I agree Jan, that there are scientists who respond to new information in a manner that they don't want to accept or listen to knew ideas or any that may affect their view as to how things are, based on what they have come to know, but science itself does not allow for this, eventually the better information is followed. This is why we have come as far as we have, by not listening to only the current understanding, but by challenging it.

There are some powerfull people behind this.
And this concept IS here to stay (for a while), and nothing is going to get in it's way.
Fortunately there is scripture for us to make sense of this time.

:wallbang::wallbang::wallbang:

“ That's not how it works, we follow the evidence. ”

You interpret the evidence to fit your worldview.

At least I have evidence, all you have is stories.

You should have stuck with the nobody knows, that I can respect as nobody does. We don't have those answers and following flawed information is not going to get us any closer to the truth.