So... God
- Thread starter SomeGuyOverThere
- Start date
I think that God is evident, our existance proves he exists, to me at least if no one else.
It's the details that have to be worked out and that will never happen empirically.
I find Dawkins and company to be people who could empirically rationalize any morality that is convenient at the moment. They have no ability to assert "inalienable rights" because they don't want to. They are above such constraints.
It's the details that have to be worked out and that will never happen empirically.
I find Dawkins and company to be people who could empirically rationalize any morality that is convenient at the moment. They have no ability to assert "inalienable rights" because they don't want to. They are above such constraints.
There is no need to make a choice between science and religion. They are two different disciplines, and they seek different goals. You cannot use scientific facts to disprove the existence of God because theology is not a quest for facts. You cannot use spiritual truth to discredit science because science is not about intangible concepts like truth. Science and religion can peacefully co-exist; they did for centuries. Keep in mind that atheism is a fairly recent phenomenon. Some of the most brilliant scientists of the Renaissance were clerics and theologians. They knew that science and religion were two different fields, and one should not intrude into research of the other. There is no need for a battle of Logos versus Mythos: they both have value. One can be a devout Christian and still wholly accept Evolution as being valid, for example. Science is not a religion, nor should religious tales be taught as science.
From committing to whether God exists or not. They say, "I don't want to play this game!"
Rather than admit, "I just don't know."
You, JustAsking, and I agree here. He just wants to push the envelope on the empirical understanding of [g]od in a formal argumentation format. Fine.
I've been there and want to see if it can be pushed back full circle, at least for me.
But Spooge what you said is very well said. Thank you.
Ah... thank you :biggrin1:
Thanks to the discussion and the Dawkins reference, I now know where "meme" got its start. I love marketing when it recognizes and goofs on its own presence, but hate its basic premise (and presence). I have an aquaintance in the viral marketing field - his business card has "Change Agent" for his title.
I remember trying to steer a conversation with him towards how Christianity was marketed - how it came to be that so many followers were willing to stake a claim in faith - or in any religion, really. It faltered when we both realized that neither was read up enough on the subject
Mdme. Zora said something along these lines - "I don't like to be forced to choose". I can see back then that group think dictated "if everyone else must believe, then it has to be so and I must, too". But when challenged now, yeah maybe I don't want to play the game. Maybe I'd like to invest elsewhere.
I understand your position, spiker - HickBoy's post (which was spot on) backs it up - "believe, and you at least have the chance at salvation if things do pan out in that direction". My problem with that is assertion, or in simpler terms, bible-beating. Overt attempts at marketing religion.
Have I already stated somewhere that I despise demographic targeting? If bible-beaters see me as a potential sale, without faith and needing a crutch, I as a consumer don't have the right to not buy it? To shop elsewhere?
I'm sorry I edited while you were responding with this addition:
Hey, when I posted to you back when - I thought you had faith and just didn't want you to lose it. I never 'marketed' anything purposely.
You'll also see that I never quote the Bible, it doesn't work, because I'm not interested in marketing it directly anyways. I would just make suggestions for you to do the leg work. I'm too lazy to do that for you.:smile:
Not saying you were directly. And during said convo, I pointed out that I do recognize that practicing faith has its value - and I do have my own, albeit unpracticed (and that's not true - I experience faith in other ways daily). And I recognize that the multitudes find faith parochially.
I'm just questioning origins of faith. Thus why I'm interacting. To better understand what the hell you guys are talking about :biggrin1:
Seriously - I wanted to explore this even before LPSG, and don't expect to have leg work done for me.
I'll shut up and keep reading now :biggrin1:
JustAsking
Sexy Member
Spike,
I think we got off the track. Here is my point. With no empirical evidence, and no hope or need that we will find any, I believe <insert Nicene Creed>.
The thing that started our discussion was your insistence that DC's position was indefensible because we don't have exhaustive empirical evidence. My point about that is that empricism will not prove or disprove the existence of God. So I take Dawkin's argument when it comes to that. The difference between Dawkins and I is that he is a logical positivist and I am not. He and I agree empirically, but not as a matter of faith.
I maintain that DC is right in "not playing the game." because any empirical arguments about the existence of God cannot be anything more than a game, since there is no evidence to work with. Rightfully, Dawkins claims that the same game applies to Zeus, Thor, and the orbiting teacup.
Neither does Dawkin's orbiting teacup. His point is that legend, myth or something that was made up only moments ago, is all nonsense if there is no evidence for it. In Dawkin's case, he is not using the argument from ignorance position. He doesn't say God does not exists. He is saying that the conversation is pointless.
I think you are being hyprocritical, since you would not say the same thing about Zeus. Are you an atheist when it comes to Zeus or do you think the question is nonsense, like Dawkins does? Or do you just abstain with no particular passion about it like DC does. I think in the case of Zeus, atheism is the least honest position. Non-believer is the most honest position, if you define honesty as holding the position that is most logically defensible.
This is really my message to you, spiker. Faith is sufficient. You either have it or you don't and even that is a gift from God according to St. Paul.
Without faith in God, there is no other meaningful conversation one can have about it. And relying on empirical arguments to show how one's Atheism has to be an article of faith doesn't work. Because once you invoke empiricism, you are forced to use something bogus, such as the lack of empirical evidence to support your position. With no evidence either way, the empirical conversation about God is devoid of content.
I think we got off the track. Here is my point. With no empirical evidence, and no hope or need that we will find any, I believe <insert Nicene Creed>.
The thing that started our discussion was your insistence that DC's position was indefensible because we don't have exhaustive empirical evidence. My point about that is that empricism will not prove or disprove the existence of God. So I take Dawkin's argument when it comes to that. The difference between Dawkins and I is that he is a logical positivist and I am not. He and I agree empirically, but not as a matter of faith.
I maintain that DC is right in "not playing the game." because any empirical arguments about the existence of God cannot be anything more than a game, since there is no evidence to work with. Rightfully, Dawkins claims that the same game applies to Zeus, Thor, and the orbiting teacup.
Neither does Dawkin's orbiting teacup. His point is that legend, myth or something that was made up only moments ago, is all nonsense if there is no evidence for it. In Dawkin's case, he is not using the argument from ignorance position. He doesn't say God does not exists. He is saying that the conversation is pointless.
I think you are being hyprocritical, since you would not say the same thing about Zeus. Are you an atheist when it comes to Zeus or do you think the question is nonsense, like Dawkins does? Or do you just abstain with no particular passion about it like DC does. I think in the case of Zeus, atheism is the least honest position. Non-believer is the most honest position, if you define honesty as holding the position that is most logically defensible.
Ok, so Thor is the creator of the universe. I just needed to get that right.
Emprically there is no evidence that Jesus is a physical, empirical representation of God. So empirically the answer is no. My understanding of Jesus as the son of God is based on faith. In fact, my understanding is that the only representation of God that we are to put any faith in is Jesus as recommended by Martin Luther.
Now you now back to where I began. My faith is not based on evidence and I don't expect to find any. I brought up Dawkins when I was defending DC against your empirical arguments.
This is really my message to you, spiker. Faith is sufficient. You either have it or you don't and even that is a gift from God according to St. Paul.
Without faith in God, there is no other meaningful conversation one can have about it. And relying on empirical arguments to show how one's Atheism has to be an article of faith doesn't work. Because once you invoke empiricism, you are forced to use something bogus, such as the lack of empirical evidence to support your position. With no evidence either way, the empirical conversation about God is devoid of content.
I like the Creed.:smile:
My point of disagreement with you is that being an atheist (or a non-believer, who is distilled down to an I dont care position) is as much a leap of faith as is being a believer/deist/theist. I think that the only empirically rational person is the agnostic who says, I dont know. He is in the process of completing the empirical experiment.
We are discussing two gods here. You and Dawkins compare White Haired Man God with Flying Spaghetti Monster God. Im here talking about Creator God. Creator God has no myth book story
I sit on this planet and look around and say that creation is evidence of a creator (I will for further purpose refer to him as Thor if it helps). It is an extraordinary statement requiring extraordinary proof, granted. Someguy sits next to me looks around and says creation does not require a Thor. This too is an extraordinary statement requiring extraordinary proof. I have empirical results in the form of the Universe (or entire creation) that has to be, for the sake of scientific curiosity, thought about its origins.
This is an ongoing experiment from which abstract mathematical concepts such as String Theory may very well have valid venues (dimensions) to explore the possibility of a God who has this whole time been waiting for us to find him empirically, as well as by faith.
Non-believer, atheist, deist, theist, believer all are working on faith. Some atheist actually have a religion. The only person working empirically is the agnostic.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
I realise that I'm butting in on this conversation, but it is of great interest to me. What I find over and over is that most discussions end up coming down to the minute differences in how we define words. Danny (DMW, with whom I still speak regularly) and I have come down to only hair-fraction differences in our beliefs, even though he is a Catholic, and I am a devout agnostic.
Without even knowing it, we assign value to words that is the given meaning to us, so our arguments seem valid and clearly obvious to us, but then others take them ever-so-slightly differently and it's difficult to determine where the problem is in communication.
We found that ours was the difference between truth and factual reality. I would argue that there are things in the Bible that are not "true", meaning factually verifyable, and he would argue that many were "true", meaning moral truths. When we understood that this was our difference, we agreed more fully.
JustAsking submits that although there is no factual proof of God, he chooses to believe anyway, for reasons of his own. I submit that I don't know, so I don't assert either way. I participate in these conversations because I love to learn the reasons for people's opinions on both sides.
Without even knowing it, we assign value to words that is the given meaning to us, so our arguments seem valid and clearly obvious to us, but then others take them ever-so-slightly differently and it's difficult to determine where the problem is in communication.
We found that ours was the difference between truth and factual reality. I would argue that there are things in the Bible that are not "true", meaning factually verifyable, and he would argue that many were "true", meaning moral truths. When we understood that this was our difference, we agreed more fully.
JustAsking submits that although there is no factual proof of God, he chooses to believe anyway, for reasons of his own. I submit that I don't know, so I don't assert either way. I participate in these conversations because I love to learn the reasons for people's opinions on both sides.
'and I am a devout agnostic'. sorry madame zora just copied and pasted part of your very astute reply. seems to be very non commital as is the nature of agnostiscism. I beleive there is a higher power, not what man calls religion, for we have created that to suit our needs to control the masses and create a higherarche. Personally I am very angry with god. and pandora rocks
God is imaginary. There is no reason to believe in any form of god. The people who say "oh well you can't prove he ISN'T there!" Uhh, so? If I believed in leprechauns, you'd still think I was retarded. Plus, now when we look back on history, we KNOW Egyptians were flawed in their rituals and beliefs. In the future, we'll look back and KNOW Christians are wrong.
JustAsking
Sexy Member
I think you will need to get in line behind Job, and most of the rest of humanity. I can't imagine losing my child, especially at that young age.
Why Won't God Heal Amputees?
God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs
Same author, brilliant guy really, he'll explain it all if you have the patience to read through it.
God is Imaginary - 50 simple proofs
Same author, brilliant guy really, he'll explain it all if you have the patience to read through it.
Chrysalis
Experimental Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2006
- Posts
- 446
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 5
- Points
- 161
- Location
- Rocky Mountain Region
- Sexuality
- 90% Straight, 10% Gay
- Gender
- Female
My official position: Undecided.
Here are 2 excerpts from C.S. Lewis's "The Pilgrim's Regress," a lesser known work that is a lengthy and difficult read, but that I muddled through during my quest to find "the truth" (along with texts from other various religions, especially Buddhism). I still haven't found the "ultimate" truth, and probably never will, but the two scenes below have stayed in my mind.
Setting: John (the pilgrim in the novel) has met up with a lady called Reason, and is traveling with her on his quest to find out whether or not a beautiful island he only saw once, as a small child, is real.
Excerpt One:
He turned to Reason, and spoke. "You could tell me, Lady, is there such a place as the Island in the West, or is it only a feeling of my own mind? "
"I cannot tell you," said she, "because you do not know."
"But you know."
"But I can tell you only what you know. I can bring things out of the dark part of your mind into the light part of it, but now you ask me what is not even in the dark of your mind."
Excerpt Two:
"There are two things to be said about that," replied the Lady, "and the first is this: Who told you that the island was an imagination of yours?"
"Well, he would not assure me that it was anything real."
"Nor that it was not."
"But I must think it is one or the other."
"By my father's soul, you must not, until you have some evidence! Can you not remain in doubt?"
"I don't know that I've ever tried."
"You must learn to, if you are to come far with me. It is not hard to do it. In Ascropolis, indeed it is impossible, for the people there have to give an opinion once a week or once a day, or else Mr. Mammon would soon cut off their food. But out here in the country, you can walk all day, and all the next day, with an unanswered question in your head. You need never speak until you have made up your mind."
"But if a man wanted to know so badly that he would die unless the question was decided, and no more evidence turned up..."
"Then he would die. That would be all."
.
Here are 2 excerpts from C.S. Lewis's "The Pilgrim's Regress," a lesser known work that is a lengthy and difficult read, but that I muddled through during my quest to find "the truth" (along with texts from other various religions, especially Buddhism). I still haven't found the "ultimate" truth, and probably never will, but the two scenes below have stayed in my mind.
Setting: John (the pilgrim in the novel) has met up with a lady called Reason, and is traveling with her on his quest to find out whether or not a beautiful island he only saw once, as a small child, is real.
Excerpt One:
He turned to Reason, and spoke. "You could tell me, Lady, is there such a place as the Island in the West, or is it only a feeling of my own mind? "
"I cannot tell you," said she, "because you do not know."
"But you know."
"But I can tell you only what you know. I can bring things out of the dark part of your mind into the light part of it, but now you ask me what is not even in the dark of your mind."
Excerpt Two:
"There are two things to be said about that," replied the Lady, "and the first is this: Who told you that the island was an imagination of yours?"
"Well, he would not assure me that it was anything real."
"Nor that it was not."
"But I must think it is one or the other."
"By my father's soul, you must not, until you have some evidence! Can you not remain in doubt?"
"I don't know that I've ever tried."
"You must learn to, if you are to come far with me. It is not hard to do it. In Ascropolis, indeed it is impossible, for the people there have to give an opinion once a week or once a day, or else Mr. Mammon would soon cut off their food. But out here in the country, you can walk all day, and all the next day, with an unanswered question in your head. You need never speak until you have made up your mind."
"But if a man wanted to know so badly that he would die unless the question was decided, and no more evidence turned up..."
"Then he would die. That would be all."
.
I know that pre the supposed birth of 'Lil Chris' (not the current child rocker) there were the same fantastic stories in the Greek, Roman and Egyptian and even Prehistoric times. If none of those are real and any adult can see that there is no way they can be real, why is the bible believed to be a true story?
Just because it endured and was very appealing to people with shitty lives back in the day (Middle Ages). And now it has stuck. But I seriously doubt it is real. Believe what you want to though, I know I do :smile:
Same goes for the Qu'ran and Torah etc. It's all just a very outdated and very fanciful IMO.
I do however like the song 'One Of Us'. But I find it hard to believe there could really be any kind of deity. Or Creator or God.
Just because it endured and was very appealing to people with shitty lives back in the day (Middle Ages). And now it has stuck. But I seriously doubt it is real. Believe what you want to though, I know I do :smile:
Same goes for the Qu'ran and Torah etc. It's all just a very outdated and very fanciful IMO.
I do however like the song 'One Of Us'. But I find it hard to believe there could really be any kind of deity. Or Creator or God.
madame_zora
Sexy Member
I think anything In could say to you about your loss of a child would seem like a blow-off, I can't begin to understand what that feels like, but I am sorry.
I AM very non-committal wrt the existance of God or gods, how could any rational human being be anything but? A "creator" doesn't make sense to me, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that one or several could still exist. It doesn't bring me comfort to believe in something that just doesn't make sense to me, so the intended purpose would not be served
if I were to feign belief.
Yes, what evidence we have points to a massive human effort to present a certain story, and that evidence leads me to a place where I feel "If A, and B, then C" has been answered. In other words, "If it looks like a ducks and quacks like a duck, chances are..."
At the Council of Nicea, one version of the Bible (of the several hundred in existence) was chosen to be the "right and true" version, this one that claims diety for Jesus. We have no direct evidence that Jesus claimed this for himself, nor do we have any writings attributed to him directly. This version was the Paulian heresy, and Paul never met Jesus. This casts a grave shadow of doubt on me, as all we have are things other people claim he said, which is so much bullshit, to me. Heresay is not admissable in our own courts, but we take it as "gospel" in the Bible. No thanks, chaps. I just can't do it.
The fact that there was a significant political benefit from accepting this version makes it's credibility all the more suspect. That this version should benefit the progress and strength of the church also subtracts credibility. The fact that the many other versions were destroyed there makes me want to vomit. Great way to make sure THIS story is the only one that survives, right? Once again, if it looks like a duck, it probably is. I believe that the Bible in its current form was politically motivated moreso than to record the life of the man known as Jesus. This is a shame, because underneath it all, I think Jesus had some very forward-thinking ideas.
