╌>

Belief

  
By:  TᵢG  •  3 years ago  •  205 comments


Belief
Everyone already knows all that we know of God.

Leave a comment to auto-join group Critical Thinkers

Critical Thinkers


How often do people speak proudly of their religious belief — their well-honed ability to believe in a god when there is no objective evidence that shows their god even exists?

Belief in a god has evolved through organized religion into something that religious people aspire to.   It is a goal to increase one’s belief through religious practices — to strengthen a belief sans supporting objective evidence.

Further, belief also seems to be personal.   There have been thousands of gods and billions of believers over time.   The definitions for the gods vary considerably.   Today the gods are defined differently even within sects / denominations of a given religion.   Worse still, individuals within a sect might have different views of their respective god.

Who is correct?  No way to know since these god definitions are not based on evidence but rather are mere human words (essentially our imaginations).    Given this lack of grounding, it is no surprise that most religious people claim the right to believe in their personal god as they see fit.   After all, their god (and the characteristics of same that they imagine are true) is no worse grounded than others.   They have no right to force their beliefs on others, but, sure, they have the right to believe what they wish.

Everyone has the right to define ‘God’ as one sees fit.

God, per the Evidence


Seem to me that I could claim a belief too.   My belief, however, would take a quite different route from a conventional religious belief.   If I were to define a god I could believe in, the definition would include as few assumptions as possible and would be based on as much evidence as possible.   The god definition would also be logically sound (no contradictions).

What does that mean?   Starting with the most obvious posit, we know we exist.   Thus the first defining characteristic for God is:

1. Enabled the existence of our universe and all that it contains

The evidence for this god is our existence.    For us to exist something (unspecified) enabled our existence.   God, as defined thus far, exists (or existed) because we exist.

Our universe, based on modern science, began to exist (as a form) about 13.8 billion years ago.   Since our universe had a beginning there necessarily is a cause which enabled the hypothesized quantum fluctuations which triggered the expansion of what we call our universe.   The root cause which ultimately resulted in our universe is defined as God.

The second defining characteristic is that God is:

2. Eternal (first cause)

This is a result mostly of logic rather than simply evidence.   The logic goes like this:


1.  Something cannot poof into existence from nothingness (by definition)
2.  Things do exist (evidence!)
⛬  Something had to always exist

Whatever started the causal chain of reality (the first cause) is necessarily eternal.   When defining God, it makes sense that God is that which is eternal; God is the first cause.   Otherwise, God would itself be simply a form caused by something else.    That is okay, but we would not want to assume that God is an effect — a form that emerged from existence.   We know there is a first cause so an assumption-free approach is to not distinguish that first cause from God.

And since that which is eternal never ceases to exist, God does indeed exist.

What then is God?


God as now defined is eternal and enabled the formation of our universe.  That certainly matches the core of most definitions for ‘God’.   Unlike most, this definition is based on virtually no assumptions and is derived from evidence and logic.   God is evidenced to exist.

Notably, God does not have a defining characteristic of sentience.   The reason is that there is no evidence of sentience being required for our universe to exist so it would be a leap (an assumption) to deem it necessary.  

Further, there are no stories associated with God.   No rules handed down to us.  No promises of grandeur if we follow select, special rules.   No worshipping, rituals, etc.   No special human religious authorities who speak for ‘God’ and coerce the masses to behave as the religious authority wishes.   In short, no assumptions and fantasies invented by human beings for others to simply ‘believe’.

Unfortunately, God also lacks the incredibly appealing grand promises offered in most religions.   There is no promise of heavenly everlasting life thus no promise that we will ever again see a loved one.   There is no sense that God ‘has our back’ and is there to protect us from the greatest of threats.   There is nothing to pray to for comfort or to request intervention on our behalf.   These benefits indoctrinated by religious organizations have not been offered by God.

But God’s behavior is consistent with what we can observe.   Why do bad things happen to good people?   Because, it would seem, God does not intervene.   And there is no reason why we would should expect God to intervene.  Why are children stricken with cancer?   Why do weather formations such as hurricanes devastate life and civilization?  Why are human beings allowed to do horrible things to each other?   Why is almost everything (even on Earth) hostile to life?   God, as defined, is free to be entirely indifferent.   God might not even know we exist.  All the good and bad we see as ‘senseless’ does not in any way contradict an eternal god that, as far as we know, did nothing more than enable our existence.

Knowing and not Knowing God


Happily, we can continue to learn more about God by simply learning more about ourselves and our environment (the universe).   All of these are here because of God (by definition) and the more we learn the closer we get to knowing God.

Importantly, there are no squabbles over what God wants from us.   There are no privileged people with special God-given authority over others.   There are no organizations generating revenue by providing God ‘services’.   God is not, until objectively shown otherwise, telling anyone anything.

Everyone already knows all that we know of God.   No point arguing about it.

If I were to believe in a god, the eternal cause of our existence works for me.  God, as defined here, objectively does exist.   And that is a very unusual circumstance for a god.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1  author  TᵢG    3 years ago

Everyone has the right to define ‘God’ as one sees fit.    For me, that means following the evidence to where it leads and stopping when the evidence trail goes cold.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @1    3 years ago
For me, that means following the evidence to where it leads and stopping when the evidence trail goes cold.

Curious about what you consider "evidence".

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1    3 years ago

That which can be objectively perceived, ideally measured, and which corroborates that which is being tested.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.1    3 years ago

That which can be objectively perceived, ideally measured, and which corroborates that which is being tested.

Agreed, mostly.

Any examples?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.2    3 years ago

I gave my examples for the god I defined.   Existence and the logical need to resolve cause and effect.

For other god definitions, the defining characteristics will be different and the evidence would thus be different.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.3    3 years ago
I gave my examples for the god I defined.

Sorry, I meant examples of the evidence for your god.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.5  author  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.4    3 years ago

I defined God in terms of what we know with certainty — existence.    The evidence of existence is overwhelming and I think everyone would agree on that.

Thus I defined God as that which:  "Enabled the existence of our universe and all that it contains".    

The evidence (existence of the universe) preceded the definition.

I then went on to logically infer why God (as defined) is necessarily eternal.

My approach has been to define God with as few assumptions as possible based on a foundation of evidence.   That is why I did not include sentience as a defining characteristic (among other things).   There is no supporting evidence for sentience.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.5    3 years ago
I defined God in terms of what we know with certainty — existence.    The evidence of existence is overwhelming and I think everyone would agree on that.

Thus I defined God as that which:  "Enabled the existence of our universe and all that it contains".    

The evidence (existence of the universe) preceded the definition.

Rather circular argument there.

I exist, therefore I believe in god because I exist.

How can that be objectively perceived and measured?  I also exist, but the only evidence that I get from that is that my mother and father had sex at least once.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.7  author  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.6    3 years ago
I exist, therefore I believe in god because I exist.

That is not what I have described.

In short, this is what I described (disregarding the eternal part):

  • The existence of our universe and everything it contains (including us) is objectively perceived (and much of it measurable).   
  • Something enabled this existence.

I have deemed this something 'God'.    To wit, this is how I define 'God'.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.8  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.7    3 years ago
The existence of our universe and everything it contains (including us) is objectively perceived (and much of it measurable). 

The existence of a rainbow is objectively perceived (and much of it measurable).

Therefore flying unicorns that fart rainbows exist.

Something enabled this existence.

What evidence of that do you have?  This universe may have always existed in one form or another.

I have deemed this something 'God'.

Just because you feel fine changing the definition of a word (god), does not mean it exists.  Even if something 'god', did cause the universe to begin, although there is no evidence of your god or of a beginning of the universe, does not mean it currently exists, or has ever existed outside that 1 moment of creation.

I have deemed this coffee cup 'god'.  That makes my coffee cup just as much a god as your something.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.9  author  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.8    3 years ago
Therefore flying unicorns that fart rainbows exist.

How do you get from rainbows to unicorns?    Logic and evidence seem to be missing. 

What evidence of that do you have?  This universe may have always existed in one form or another.

In my article I note that our scientific knowledge (evidence based) shows our universe (this form) had a beginning.    But the substance (undefined and unknown) of the universe certainly existed (in another form) prior to the universe (the form) coming into existence.   Something has always existed.   That is the essence of my eternal defining characteristic.

Just because you feel fine changing the definition of a word (god), does not mean it exists.  

I am now wondering if you read my article.   My article makes the point upfront that the meaning of the word 'God' is personal and everyone seems free to define 'God' as they see fit.   I have not changed the meaning, I have offered what I would define as 'God' if asked.

And my argument is NOT that God exists because I have given it a definition.    Completely backwards.   I have stated that which is evidence, made no assumptions (or at least only the most basic in order to communicate) and have stated that this is all we likely know of 'God'.   I have defined 'God' based on what we can evidence (and that leaves us with a pretty vague, attribute-less definition of God).

Even if something 'god', did cause the universe to begin, although there is no evidence of your god or of a beginning of the universe, does not mean it currently exists, or has ever existed outside that 1 moment of creation.

Ozzwald, if the universe began to exist (in this form) which our collective evidence suggests, then that which enabled the formation of our universe is what I would deem 'God'.   Something enabled our universe to form, right?    Yes or No?

I have deemed this coffee cup 'god'.  That makes my coffee cup just as much a god as your something.

Do we have evidence that the coffee cup is that which enabled our universe to form?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
1.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.8    3 years ago

Actually, rainbows are caused by the refraction of light in water droplets (or through a prism). The source of that light is the sun. So no magical farting unicorns are necessary. Neither is there a pot of gold at the end of it. Just saying.

You are correct in that the universe may have always existed in some form. That's something we do not know. But the "beginning" of the universe is considered to be the Big Bang, which is empirically supported.

As for god, the definition is important because a logically contradictory god cannot exist. If you wish to define your God as a cup of coffee, then your god demonstrably exists, unlike other gods I could mention. And I worship a cup of coffee every morning. That's a god that's real and worthy of worship. Of course, that means decaf is the devil, lol

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.11  author  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.8    3 years ago
Even if something 'god', did cause the universe to begin

On this, are you presuming that I have defined God as a sentient entity?   That God deliberately took action to form the universe?   That there was necessarily intent?   If so, I have made no such presumption.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.12  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.9    3 years ago
How do you get from rainbows to unicorns?    Logic and evidence seem to be missing.

Rainbows exist, are measurable and observable.  Therefore flying unicorns that fart rainbows exist.

Isn't that your logic?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.13  author  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.12    3 years ago
Isn't that your logic?

No.   

320

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.14  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.13    3 years ago
No.

Then I don't understand. 

You believe in god because of the existence of the universe and everything in it.  I know that's a paraphrase, but I believe that encompasses what you are saying.

I believe in flying unicorns that fart rainbows because of the rainbows that exist.

Your belief does not require you to provide proof of a god, before giving him credit for the existence of the universe and everything in it.

My belief does not require me to provide proof of flying unicorns that fart, before giving them credit for the existence of rainbows.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
1.1.15  sandy-2021492  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.14    3 years ago

I think you may be ships passing in the night here.  TiG is not convinced of the existence of any god in the religious sense.  For him, "God" is whatever led to the creation of existence.  It need not be a sentient being.  It need not be a supernatural deity.  It might only be physical forces we are unable to explain at present. 

It certainly isn't the god described by the Abrahamic religions in their contradictory scriptures, nor the gods described by any past or present organized religions.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.16  Ozzwald  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.1.15    3 years ago
TiG is not convinced of the existence of any god in the religious sense.  For him, "God" is whatever led to the creation of existence.

Which is fine with me.  If he wants to unilaterally change the definition of a word, in this case god, he can do that but it won't apply to anyone but himself.

It need not be a supernatural deity.  It might only be physical forces we are unable to explain at present. 

God is a supernatural deity, nature is a physical force, parts of which we don't understand.

Definition of god (Entry 1 of 2)

1 God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as
a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and   ruler of the universe
  Throughout the patristic and medieval periods, Christian theologians taught that God created the universe …
— Jame Schaefer
… the Supreme Being or God, the personal form of the Ultimate Reality, is conceived by Hindus as having various aspects.
— Sunita Pant Bansal
b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

2 or less commonly God : a being or object that is worshipped as having more than natural attributes and powers
It certainly isn't the god described by the Abrahamic religions in their contradictory scriptures, nor the gods described by any past or present organized religions.

I absolutely agree, but then have to wonder why he put the label of "god", on it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.17  author  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.14    3 years ago
Then I don't understand. 

And I am running out of ways to explain this.   My article seems self-explanatory to me and I have tried to answer your questions but you seem to have a preconceived notion that I cannot get through.

You believe in god because of the existence of the universe and everything in it.  I know that's a paraphrase, but I believe that encompasses what you are saying.

No.   I have stated that if someone were to ask me for my definition of God (and I have established in this article that everyone apparently is free to define God as they see fit because apparently they do) then God per my definition would be something that is evidenced and the definition would make as few assumptions as possible.

Thus, since most people envision God as the creator of the universe I have followed suit for intellectual convenience.   But creation implies sentience.   I see no evidence of sentience thus it is not one of my defining characteristics.   But the existence of the universe is something we have in evidence;  we have an abundance of evidence that we all exist.   So based on that evidence, I would define God as that which:  'Enabled the existence of our universe and all that it contains'.

Note the use of language.   I used 'enabled the existence';  I did not write 'created'.   Create implies sentience.   Enabled simply requires hosting the conditions under which something can happen.   Clearly, something has enabled the existence of our universe because it exists.  Thus if I were to deem anything God, that is what I would offer.

I believe in flying unicorns that fart rainbows because of the rainbows that exist.

You picked a specific thing: flying unicorns.  You evidence rainbows.  How do you tie rainbows to unicorns.   Note:   my evidence is the existence of the universe.  I tied that existence to that which enabled it.   An obvious tie, right?   Nothing to dispute.   If X exists then something enabled X to exist.   Where is your tie?

Your belief does not require you to provide proof of a god, before giving him credit for the existence of the universe and everything in it.

Where does proof come from?   I have been talking evidence, not proof.    That established, see above.   

My belief does not require me to provide proof of flying unicorns that fart, before giving them credit for the existence of rainbows.

Hopefully you now have a better understanding as to why the above statement makes zero sense in light of what I have described in this article.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.18  author  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.16    3 years ago
If he wants to unilaterally change the definition of a word, in this case god, he can do that but it won't apply to anyone but himself.

In the opening paragraphs of my article:

Further, belief also seems to be personal.   There have been thousands of gods and billions of believers over time.   The definitions for the gods vary considerably.   Today the gods are defined differently even within sects / denominations of a given religion.   Worse still, individuals within a sect might have different views of their respective god.

Who is correct?  No way to know since these god definitions are not based on evidence but rather are mere human words (essentially our imaginations).    Given this lack of grounding, it is no surprise that most religious people claim the right to believe in their personal god as they see fit.   After all, their god (and the characteristics of same that they imagine are true) is no worse grounded than others.   They have no right to force their beliefs on others, but, sure, they have the right to believe what they wish.

Everyone has the right to define ‘God’ as one sees fit.

God, Per The Evidence

Seem to me that I could claim a belief too.   My belief, however, would take a quite different route from a conventional religious belief.   If I were to define a god I could believe in, the definition would include as few assumptions as possible and would be based on as much evidence as possible.   The god definition would also be logically sound (no contradictions).

I am not changing the definition of a word.   I am putting forth how I would define God.   And since the word 'God' is overloaded (everyone has their own personal definition) then I would be doing what everyone else is doing.    There is no single definition for 'God' thus it is impossible for me to change the definition;  I can simply add my own take to the collection of definitions.

God is a supernatural deity, nature is a physical force, parts of which we don't understand.

So what are you trying to do here Ozzwald?    By putting forth a definition for 'God' it now looks as though you do not like how I define God because it differs from your definition?   Is that what this is all about?

If so, you have a right to your definition and I have a right to mine.    If you do not want to understand my point here and would rather simply argue that your God is better than mine (or something like that) then you are in the wrong article.

I absolutely agree, but then have to wonder why he put the label of "god", on it.

Read the damn article.   I have explained that upfront and have further explained in my comments to you.   

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
1.1.19  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.10    3 years ago
Of course, that means decaf is the devil, lol

800

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.20  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.18    3 years ago
In the opening paragraphs of my article:
Further, belief also seems to be personal.   There have been thousands of gods and billions of believers over time.   The definitions for the gods vary considerably.

And I agreed, and pointed out that you were making up your own definition.  But you are going outside the accepted definition of god.  Your belief seems more spiritual, than religious, which is fine, but then you have to access why you chose to make your belief about a supernatural entity and not just nature.

This is absolutely fine for you, but is meaningless for anyone else.  You talked of objective evidence, but provided none.  The fact that the universe exists, is not evidence of anything, just like the fact that rainbows exist does not provide any evidence of flying unicorns.  And again, you can take it as evidence, but it is neither objective nor evidence of anything besides your own personal beliefs.

You haven't explained how the existence of the universe qualifies as evidence, and what that is evidence of.  Subjectively you can claim it as evidence of your god, objectively you cannot.

I am not changing the definition of a word.   I am putting forth how I would define God.

You realize that your 2 sentences contradict each other, right?  Definitions have already been created, if you are putting forth how you would define a word, that does not match the definition that already exists, you are changing the definition.  The definition of "god" has many variations, but one thing is constant, the being it describes is either supernatural, non-natural, or extra natural.

By putting forth a definition for 'God' it now looks as though you do not like how I define God because it differs from your definition?

That's the point.  It is NOT my definition.  My personal definition does not matter, because it would be my personal, subjective, definition.  I would not try to force my personal definition on any word that already has an accepted definition.

If so, you have a right to your definition and I have a right to mine.

Yes, but you cannot use your personal definition and claim it to be objective.  When communicating you must use the accepted definition.

In recipes, if you tell some to add a spoonful of flour, how would they know how much?  The spoon you use is probably a different size and shape from their spoon.  However when you say to add a "tablespoon" of flour, tablespoon has an accepted definition so anyone you talk to can properly relate.  You would never say to add a "tablespoon' of flour, when you actually mean a soup spoon or even ladle full.

The term "god" is the same, when communicating the concept you must stick to the accepted definition, otherwise the claim of being objective is meaningless and untrue.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.21  author  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.20    3 years ago
And I agreed, and pointed out that you were making up your own definition. 

You are pointing out what I have declared in the opening of my article.    Why are you pointing out to me what I have explicitly declared and repeatedly explained?   

But you are going outside the accepted definition of god. 

Which accepted definition?    Even the definition you supplied allows for what I have defined:    "God : the supreme or ultimate reality".   You do not see how what I described falls under 'ultimate reality'?   

Further, where do you get the idea that I am trying to follow an 'accepted definition'?    The article states that I am defining God as I would and that means based on evidence and logic.    There are no rules.   Even so, I did stick with the notion that God ultimately is tied to our existence.

You talked of objective evidence, but provided none.  

Then you are not paying attention (at all)!   Our existence is the only evidence I need for how I define God.   Why?   Because (now read this slowly) I have defined God as that which enabled our existence.

Definition:   God is that which enabled our existence

1.    We exist (the evidence for this is in abundance)

2.    Something enabled us to exist (logically if X exists, something enabled X to exist)

⛬    That 'something' is real;  I have labeled it 'God' (for me)

If I define God as that which enabled our existence then the fact that we exist (and thus something has enabled us to exist) means that our existence is evidence (arguably proof) of God, as I have defined the term (God = that).

I am not going to try to explain this to you anymore.   I am repeating myself and this cannot be broken down any further.

The fact that the universe exists, is not evidence of anything

It is evidence that something enabled the universe to exist!

You haven't explained how the existence of the universe qualifies as evidence, and what that is evidence of. 

Un-friggin-believable.

You realize that your 2 sentences contradict each other, right?

You realize I answered that before you asked?   No, Ozzwald, I have established that there is no single definition for God and that in fact there are countless definitions for God.   You certainly must understand that.   I have added my own definition to the list of existing definitions.

Yes, but you cannot use your personal definition and claim it to be objective. 

I am not claiming that anyone must accept how I defined God.   But God as I have defined it is absolutely objectively evidenced.

The term "god" is the same, when communicating the concept you must stick to the accepted definition, otherwise the claim of being objective is meaningless and untrue.

There is no single accepted definition for God.


My patience is now exhausted.   Don't reply to me until you have read my article and understand what I wrote.

Principle:  if I were to define God then my definition would go only as far as evidence and logic allows.   

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.22  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.21    3 years ago
Definition:   God is that which enabled our existence

1.    We exist (the evidence for this is in abundance)

2.    Something enabled us to exist (logically if X exists, something enabled X to exist)

⛬    That 'something' is real;  I have labeled it 'God' (for me)

1 = True

2 = Not true without evidence.  Other than my parents, nobody enabled me to exist.  There is no evidence that anything "enabled" the universe to exist.

⛬ You "label" is only meaningful to you, for everyone else they have their own meaning for it..

If I define God as that which enabled our existence then the fact that we exist (and thus something has enabled us to exist) means that our existence is evidence (arguably proof) that God, as I have defined the term (God = that), is evidenced.

Yet you have no evidence that your god had anything to do with our existence, or that he would even be necessary for our existence.  You are making a huge leap with no evidence to back it up.  First prove your god exists, then provide the evidence that he created everything.

I am repeating myself and this cannot be broken down any further.

Yes you are.  I asked for your objective evidence, and your only claim was that we exist.  You have never explained how this is evidence of anything.  You are trying to make the claim that the universe would not be possible without your god to create it, but there is absolutely no evidence for you to base that claim on.

It is evidence that something enabled the universe to exist!

No it's not!  There is no evidence that the universe needed to be enabled, of even that the universe didn't always exist in 1 form or another.

Ozzwald, I have established that there is no single definition for God and that in fact there are countless definitions for God.   You certainly must understand that.   I have added my own definition to the list of existing definitions.

Then I suggest you contact Merriam-Webster and ask that they add your definition to the currently accepted one.  Since apparently anybody can change any definition on a whim.

While you're at it, why don't you have the definition of "tablespoon" changed.  I notice that you ignored that example of why you can't make up your own definition.

I am not claiming that anyone must accept how I defined God.

You are as soon as you claim OBJECTIVE evidence on your god's existence.  Your "evidence" is all SUBJECTIVE in relations to your claim.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.23  author  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.22    3 years ago
Not true without evidence.  Other than my parents, nobody enabled me to exist.  There is no evidence that anything "enabled" the universe to exist.

It is true by definition; it is a tautology.   If something comes into existence then something enabled it to come into existence.  (If X has come into existence then something enabled X to come into existence.)  If is definitionally impossible to come into existence without something to enable it.   A form (such as the universe) either has always existed (and thus there is no cause and thus no enablement) or it has come into existence (in which case there is something that enabled it to do so).   That something is not necessarily sentient.   That something could simply be energy in its most primitive form.   You understand that, right?

You "label" is only meaningful to you, for everyone else they have their own meaning for it..

You continue to express what I have established upfront in my article.   Repeatedly telling me what I have declared in my article shows you are just trying to be obnoxious.   Why?   From the article (and repeated in comments):

Everyone has the right to define ‘God’ as one sees fit. ... Seem to me that I could claim a belief too.   My belief, however, would take a quite different route from a conventional religious belief.   If I were to define a god I could believe in, the definition would include as few assumptions as possible and would be based on as much evidence as possible.   The god definition would also be logically sound (no contradictions).

If the words in blue confuse you then explain your confusion.   I stated that in this article I am putting forth my definition of God alongside all the other definitions throughout history.   How can you not comprehend that?

I asked for your objective evidence, and your only claim was that we exist. 

WTF could be more objective evidence that something has enabled us to exist than our existence?   

There is no evidence that the universe needed to be enabled, of even that the universe didn't always exist in 1 form or another.

Do you not understand cause and effect?   If something comes into existence then there is a cause for that effect.  The universe came into existence.  Therefore there is a cause ... something enabled the universe to come into existence.   

Then I suggest you contact Merriam-Webster and ask that they add your definition to the currently accepted one. 

There is no single definition for God.    Dictionaries simply express usages and will do so abstractly.   Also, as noted, what I provided works within the definition you provided.

You are as soon as you claim OBJECTIVE evidence on your god's existence.  Your "evidence" is all SUBJECTIVE in relations to your claim.

I am surprised that I have come across someone who cannot comprehend that a) our universe came into existence and thus b) our existence is objective evidence that something (and remember, sentience is not a defining characteristic) enabled us to come into existence.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.24  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.23    3 years ago
If something comes into existence then something enabled it to come into existence.

1st you have to prove that it required enabling.

If X has come into existence then something enabled X to come into existence.

Can you prove that X requires enabling to com into existence?  Then you would have to prove what this something is what enabled X.

Repeatedly telling me what I have declared in my article shows you are just trying to be obnoxious.   Why?   From the article (and repeated in comments):

I'm sorry if you think me obnoxious for disagreeing with you, but your initial claim promised OBJECTIVE evidence, yet nothing you have provided qualifies as OBJECTIVE.

objective/ subjective
Anything objective sticks to the facts, but anything subjective has feelings. ... Be objective when writing things like summaries or news articles, but feel free to be subjective for arguments and opinions.

Unless you have chosen to redefine the terms objective and subjective.

Everyone has the right to define ‘God’ as one sees fit.

So what is the point of words, if their meanings can change on a whim?  How do you expect to communicate with other people?  Pass out "English to My English" translation dictionaries?

"I have a big dog."

When I say "I have" actually mean a guy who's picture I saw.

When I say "big" I actually mean he is bigger than an electron.

When I say "dog" I actually mean pickle.

This is what happens if people chose to change the definitions of words on a whim.  You are on an internet forum, communicating with other people, you cannot do so if you are randomly changing the definitions of the words you are using.

If the words in blue confuse you then explain your confusion.

They don't confuse me, they are simply subjective to you and you only, and have no part of a public discussion like this.  Before you can use your altered terminology you must fully define it so everyone else has a reference for it.  You have not done that.

WTF could be more objective evidence that something has enabled us to exist than our existence?

As I have said several times, you have not yet proven that the universe required an enabler.  You BELIEVE the universe required an enabler.  But that is only your belief and has not been proven, therefore it is not OBJECTIVE.  See above definition.

Do you not understand cause and effect?   If something comes into existence then there is a cause for that effect.

Cause and effect is not a scientific theory for the beginning of the universe, and how did you come to the conclusion that your god was the cause.  Please provide that evidence.

Dictionaries simply express usages and will do so abstractly.

The camera was the only witness to the osculation inside the store.

Since dictionaries are only abstractions, please provide the meaning of the last sentence without looking up the definition.

a) our universe came into existence and thus b) our existence is objective evidence that something (and remember, sentience is not a defining characteristic) enabled us to come into existence.

"our universe came into existence" is subjective, since you haven't proven that.  Since "came into existence" indicates that it did not exist at some point, and you have provided no evidence of that.  "Our universe exists" would be objective (for the most part).

"and thus", now you are making an assumption.  The "and thus" changes it to a personal conclusion on your part, in other words SUBJECTIVE.

"our existence is objective", that is correct if you stop right there.

"evidence that something", you haven't proven it as evidence to anything.

"enabled us to come into existence.", skipping the whole mother and father thing, but where is your evidence that we required enabling by an outside force (your god)?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.25  Ozzwald  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.23    3 years ago

Know what TiG, I'm going to wrap this up, since I need to leave. 

I enjoyed the debate, I am sorry you got the impression that I was trying to be obnoxious.  You have the right to your beliefs, and I respect someone standing up for their beliefs.

I have tried to maintain at least a little respectful in my replies and tried not to make things personal.  I may have not phrased things as well as you or I would have preferred, but this format is more restrictive for 2 fingered typists like myself.

So I am going to leave this with one last observation.

What it appeared to me as, is that you took the factual and objective statement of "the universe exists", and figured that any conclusions that you came to based on that 1 single factual, objective statement, would also be factual and objective.  Your claim actually consisted of multiple statements each of which must be shown to be factual and objective on their own.

Anyway, have a wonderful weekend.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.26  author  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.24    3 years ago
1st you have to prove that it required enabling.

I do not think there is anything that anyone can write that will make a difference.   You recognize that the universe did come into existence yet you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that this means there was a cause.   

 yet nothing you have provided qualifies as OBJECTIVE

Then you deny our existence?   You deny that there is objective evidence that we exist??    

This is what happens if people chose to change the definitions of words on a whim.  You are on an internet forum, communicating with other people, you cannot do so if you are randomly changing the definitions of the words you are using.

WTF are you talking about?   I am not changing the meaning of any words:  I have added my definition for God to the others.

Cause and effect is not a scientific theory for the beginning of the universe, 

Who said it was?   Cause and effect is an empirically observed phenomena.   Every effect has a cause.   The one exception would be something that exists without a cause.  That would be, by definition, something that has always been.   Also known as 'first cause'.

The universe came into existence.   That is an effect.   Thus there is a cause.   Something was there prior to the universe coming into existence.    Given the universe came into existence, explain how this occurs with no cause.

and how did you come to the conclusion that your god was the cause.  Please provide that evidence.

It is not a conclusion.   It is by definition.   Read my prior comments.   You have asked I have answered.   You keep repeating the same crap and I am done repeating my answers. 

Since dictionaries are only abstractions, please provide the meaning of the last sentence without looking up the definition.

And now you want to argue about this?

"our universe came into existence" is subjective, since you haven't proven that.  

Then you must believe that everything is subjective because the best knowledge that we have, empirically founded, is that our universe came into existence 13.8 billion years ago.   The fact that our universe came into existence is not a whim, a feeling, a personal desire, etc.   It is a fact that is well established worldwide.   That means it is our best approximation to truth that we have thus far.   Now if you have something to the contrary that shows the universe did not come into existence but that it has always existed then bring forth your evidence.   But until you accomplish that feat, I am sticking with the facts as we know them and that includes the universe came into existence.

"and thus", now you are making an assumption.  

Do I have to explain logic now?   That is not an assumption it is a consequent.    The truth of the logical statement is by definition

where is your evidence that we required enabling by an outside force (your god)?

Read the article and prior comments.  I am done repeating.

I did not define God as an outside force.   Where did you get that?    I wrote enabled.   Period.   


There are two possibilities:

1.   The universe came into existence.

2.   The universe has always existed.

Modern knowledge (science) has concluded that the universe has indeed come into existence.   Denying this is stupid.   That means that the form that we call 'the universe' did not exist prior to the singularity.  Of these two choices, I see no reason to deny worldwide science.   

The rest of my argument is easy to understand:

  1. The universe came into existence (overwhelming evidence of this;  for you to stubbornly deny this evidence is remarkable)
  2. That which comes into existence has a cause (logic:  to deny this is to hold that something can simply poof into existence from nothingness)

⛬   The universe has a cause

We do not know anything about this cause.   It may be a single cause or might be a long causal chain.   We do not know the nature of the cause but we sure as hell know that there was a cause based on the established fact that our universe came into existence. 

Whatever enabled our universe to come into existence (the unknown cause) is what I label 'God'.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.27  author  TᵢG  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.25    3 years ago
You have the right to your beliefs, ...

It is not a belief.   I defined God based on the evidence.   I took the evidence as far as I could go without introducing assumptions.   That is it.

What it appeared to me as, is that you took the factual and objective statement of "the universe exists", and figured that any conclusions that you came to based on that 1 single factual, objective statement, would also be factual and objective. 

No, damn it.   Not 'any conclusion'.   That is completely wrong.   That suggests you (for whatever inexplicable reason) do not understand even the basics of what I have written.  I am not arguing that we can conclude anything simply because we exist.   How could anyone seriously not get that?

I took two facts:

  1. the universe exists (extremely easy to observe;  absolutely rock solid empirical evidence supporting this)
  2. the universe came into existence (was not eternal) (the current state of our knowledge)

Those two facts mean that something enabled the universe to come into existence.   This is definitional based on the simple, basic, easy to understand concept of cause and effect.   It is not a conclusion, it is by definition.    To not see this is to not comprehend cause and effect.

I simply stated that if I were to define God then I would define it as that which enabled our universe to come into existence.   The reason is because that definition is derived directly from what we confidently observe (solid evidence) coupled with extremely straightforward logic.


I do not enjoy dealing with an individual who refuses to even acknowledge the basics of cause and effect (if X came into existence then something -no necessity of sentience- enabled X to do so).

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  TᵢG @1    3 years ago
For me, that means following the evidence to where it leads and stopping when the evidence trail goes cold.

That reminded me of an old blonde joke that could be easily modified to fit...

A priest, a Rabbi and an Imam were wandering the woods one day when they came across some tracks. The priest said "These tracks are Jesus's tracks and prove the Christian God is the one true God". The Rabbi said "No, no, these these are the tracks of the Abrahamic God of our forefathers and prove he is the one true God". The Imam said "No, no, you're both wrong, these are obviously the tracks of Allah and prove he is the one true God!". They were all still arguing and bickering when the train hit them...

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2  Hal A. Lujah    3 years ago

Today the gods are defined differently even within sects / denominations of a given religion.   Worse still, individuals within a sect might have different views of their respective god.

Worse yet is when a Christian is reminded of another Christian who got caught in an inarguably sinful act, and they defend their beliefs by saying the other isn’t a “true” Christian.  If you say you are a Christian, you are a Christian, full stop.  Atheists don’t deny that any other nonbelievers aren’t true atheists based on how moral they are.  It’s about what you do or don’t claim to believe.

Think about how Catholics are supposed to be against abortion, yet there are Catholics who get abortions every single day.  The Catholic Church is more than happy to gloat about what percentage of the country is Catholic, but has no interest in discussing the percentage of those who fit their own definition.  As an atheist, I let my 15 year old daughter make her own decision on what to do about her unplanned pregnancy.  She chose to have the baby, and suffered through all the burdens that came with her decision.  A Catholic friend of hers got pregnant around the same time, and her staunchly Catholic parents forced her to quietly terminate the pregnancy.  My daughter is now a college graduate with three kids, making six figures as an accountant.  Her friend went through the same time period without the child raising burden and now makes very little money as a probation officer.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1  CB  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2    3 years ago

That's nice. And please do not take this as a personal attack, but why the anecdotal (personal) comparison? What does either a "catholic friend" and "15 year old daughter" explain about the universal-aility of faith (and resistance to abortion)? Mind you, I believe in a woman's right to choose based on private and freedom in a republic.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.1.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  CB @2.1    3 years ago

It’s a discussion forum and relevant anecdotes are a fine fodder for discussion.  I suppose I could have left out the part about who is more successful now, but i should think anyone who is pro life would appreciate the fact that having a baby at 16 doesn’t necessarily have to hamper your future.  My daughter’s friend is a family friend whom I like very much, but the fact is that her parents gave her no choice because of appearance and the burden having of a baby at 16.  They are all average players on team Catholic and I have nothing against any of them.  I just hate the game.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.2  CB  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.1.1    3 years ago

Thank you for that fine point. This is a caliber of faith that is in the world today: All people of faith have liberty to:

  1. Strictly walk in and experience it,
  2. be "freakish" in expression of it,
  3. or walk in personal liberty/ies faith provides .

That is, faith is 'bordered' on all possible sides by an awareness that there is no heavenly JUDGE to definitively stand before on Earth in "earth-time."

So we utilize others who take up spiritual professions and time-honored positions and traditions of a specific faith in hopes that they make better guides than say, the blind leading the blind.

Even Paul, the 13th Apostle, who suffered in life and in death to build the church world we see today, called what he did and what others are doing: 'The foolishness of preaching.'

1 Corinthians 1: 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Note that Paul recognizes other forms of understanding in his 'age'? But, yet here he was charged to spread spirituality through the mechanism of speaking at len gth. (When a simple "picture," "appearance," or "presence" of God or some other spiritual being would be worth the proverbial: "Thousand words!")

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2  CB  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2    3 years ago
If you say you are a Christian, you are a Christian, full stop.

There are qualifying signs and indicators of spirituality in a Spirit-based religion. Granted, Christianity is defined by its liberty. That is, the rendering of love to all (as many as can receive it). Nothing much about it is easy, and there is really no special dispensation or 'talent' supplied to all believers to help them succeed at becoming or being loving. That said, of course, many believers develop the 'fruit' of love over time accordingly. Much could be said about this.

But no. Christian is not a "said" religion. It is a lifestyle religion and love is its aim. Because after one succeeds or partially fails at the words on the pages of the New Testament. . . love (of God and Others) can sustain the believer.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.2.1  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  CB @2.2    3 years ago

Westboro Baptist Church members worship the same God as you.  You don’t get to tell them that they are not Christian any more than they get to tell you that you are not Christian.  The same goes for all the adherents of Islam.  There can’t be any other way around that without the whole entity falling apart.  

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.2  CB  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.1    3 years ago

Westboro Baptist Church is no more a demonstration of love in action for the people of this world, than "Islamists" who toss blind homosexuals from the highest floors of buildings. Do not try to define me or many other believers by those organizations who abuse their mutually shared liberties under our constitution! It is an unfair and unreasonable comparison.

After all, I exercise liberty (and distinction) in not defining you by other atheists who rationalize raping, pillaging, and conducting themselves as brutes in a world where they expect no redemption to follow after beyond their graves.

Jesus instructed those who would come after him to pray for those who spitefully mistreat them. To be a model demonstrator of compassion and love which is what God wants. That some take charge to say they can insult or 'whip' non-believers into the Spirit realm, belies the truth, that if God wanted the Kingdom to 'fill-up' rapidly, why the "h" would God use men and women of inferior stature to accomplish so a lofty goal? Just appear - put truth to the 'pudding,' and be done with the whole matter!

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.2.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  CB @2.2.2    3 years ago

Do not try to define me or many other believers by those organizations who abuse their mutually shared liberties under our constitution! It is an unfair and unreasonable comparison.

I am not defining you or comparing you to anyone.  You all have done that by yourselves by calling yourself Christians.  If Jesus were to appear one day, you both would expect him to embrace you for your fealty to him, because you are both Christian.


After all, I exercise liberty (and distinction) in not defining you by other atheists who rationalize raping, pillaging, and conducting themselves as brutes in a world where they expect no redemption to follow after beyond their graves.

Who are these atheists that you speak of?  I can identify the Christians who you refuse to share an identity with.  They have churches, websites, ministries - they have a whole corner of YouTube waiting to corrupt new members.  You would claim every one of them to not be real Christians, against their vehement objections.  So again I ask, who are the atheists you speak of?  Where do I find an organized pack of immoral, unethical, unconscionable nonbelievers?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.4  CB  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.3    3 years ago
So again I ask, who are the atheists you speak of?  Where do I find an organized pack of immoral, unethical, unconscionable nonbelievers?

Clarify something for me before we go further: Is it reasonable for you to suggest atheists are not on a spectrum like everything in nature?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.5  CB  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.3    3 years ago
Jesus were to appear one day, you both would expect him to embrace you for your fealty to him, because you are both Christian.

Matthew 7:15 Amplified Bible
“Beware of the false prophets, [teachers] who come to you dressed as sheep [appearing gentle and innocent], but inwardly are ravenous wolves .

Matthew 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, . . . . He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

1 John 2:19  They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us , they would have remained with us ; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us .

2 John 1:10 If anyone comes to your meeting and does not teach the truth about Christ, don’t invite that person into your home or give any kind of encouragement.

2 Corinthians 11:14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

Therefore no, Hal A. Lujah, we are not all "in it' the same. There is a broad spectrum of Christian liberties being granted, taken, and exploited for various reasons, aspirations, motivations, and ambitions.

The Early Church did not stop these folks - though they warned about them! And this nation of ours grants them individual and organizational liberties to exist under a republic clause of freedom of speech. Subsequently, we can't shut them up if we want to, and vice versa.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.2.6  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  CB @2.2.5    3 years ago

For future reference, I don’t read anything quoted from scripture.  Use your big boy words to make an argument, not some convoluted vagueries lifted from ancient goat herders.

As far as spectrum goes, of course we all live on a spectrum but what has that got to do with my question?  I think you’re just frustrated that you can’t answer it.  It’s an important point because it shows that there is no group think that governs atheists, it’s just a single realization.  Nothing is instructing us that we must do something like despise certain people or love every person - in wording so vague that two different people could interpret it in both ways.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
2.2.7  Thrawn 31  replied to  CB @2.2.5    3 years ago

Sorry dude, if someone says they are a Christian then they are. You are trying to utilize the no true Scotsman fallacy. Going with what you are trying to argue then ultimately no one is a Christian because at some point another Christian will discount you and vice versa. 

In my view you and members of the WBC are all Christians because you say you are, you just have differing beliefs. Which is a perfect example of why I disregard the religion in its entirety, if Christians cannot even agree on their belief structure then why should I buy and of it?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.2.8  Drakkonis  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.7    3 years ago
Sorry dude, if someone says they are a Christian then they are.

If someone says they are a vegetarian but they eat meat at every meal, are they a vegetarian? 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.2.9  Drakkonis  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.6    3 years ago
For future reference, I don’t read anything quoted from scripture.  Use your big boy words to make an argument, not some convoluted vagueries lifted from ancient goat herders.

That's rather illogical, since what defines what a Christian is is defined by scripture. All you are doing is defining "Christian" according to your terms and saying CB's argument fails because it doesn't meet your definition of Christian. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.10  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.8    3 years ago

It is interesting though how there is no universal, objective definition for God.   Someone can define 'God' any way they wish and deem that to be God per them.   Those who accept the definition of God per a religion have still made a choice:  they have picked their God by picking their religion.   And even within a religious sect/denomination and within an individual church site, people will have their own personal definition of God which varies from others.

My question is this:   what are the objective defining characteristics of God and who gets to be the authority behind the definition?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.11  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.9    3 years ago

It is interesting to see how Oxford defines 'Christian':

Christian :      " A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity ."

Christianity :  " The religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, or its beliefs and practices."

There are Christians (e.g. Nontrinitarians) who do not believe in a divine Jesus Christ (do not accept the Council of Nicaea's conception of Trinity and stick with the traditional Eastern view).


When objective evidence does not exist, definitions are free to float.   The only grounding they have at that point is a defining authority.   Historically, there have been (and still are) many defining authorities with varying views.   Why would any of these human authorities be correct?

My point is, of course, that everyone who believes in a god has simply picked God from the available human derived choices, dreamed up their own conception of God or a combination of the two.   Without an objective foundation, 'God' is free to be defined however a mind would choose to do so.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.12  CB  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.7    3 years ago

Enough! This is not a discussion when you bull patty it. Next, you will be using logic to explain how there are no bad [  ] in your sector of life. When we both/all know that logic and illogic are on a spectrum. I won't dignify that with any more time. I appreciate your many past comments all the same.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.13  CB  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.6    3 years ago

Petty insults and condescension straight out the 'gate.' Hal A. Lujah, I expected better. Alas, moving on. Then, "of course" you can find your own "bad" atheists spread across time immemorial. That aspect is actually a 'sidebar' to a different discussion altogether. Isn't this discussion focused on "belief" and not "bad atheists throughout history"?

As for what you read or do not read, well that is on you. Belief, "incorporates" a multiplicity of books and experiences, to rise to the challenge of being informed we have to step out of our 'comfort zones' accordingly.

I will continue to quote what I need of scripture (with the indulgence of the Author of course), but only for purposes of education and moving the 'needle.'

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.14  CB  replied to  Thrawn 31 @2.2.7    3 years ago

What I wrote in @2.2.5 is foundational to the Christian worldview. This disregarding of it-is on you. However, it is you putting your STAMP on something that other people 'contract' to live by. I will leave it up to you to determine the value of your "stamp."

As to who is a Christian or not, I will leave it up to God to determine-however as I wrote @2.2:

There are qualifying signs and indicators of spirituality in a Spirit-based religion. Granted, Christianity is defined by its liberty. That is, the rendering of love to all (as many as can receive it). Nothing much about it is easy, and there is really no special dispensation or 'talent' supplied to all believers to help them succeed at becoming or being loving. That said, of course, many believers develop the 'fruit' of love over time accordingly. Much could be said about this. But no. Christian is not a "said" religion. It is a lifestyle religion and love is its aim. Because after one succeeds or partially fails at the words on the pages of the New Testament. . . love (of God and Others) can sustain the believer.
 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.2.15  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  CB @2.2.13    3 years ago

Isn't this discussion focused on "belief" and not "bad atheists throughout history"?

Yes, it is a discussion on beliefs.  That is exactly my point.  You have conveniently avoided my comment about how you and the Westboro Baptist Church member would both have the same expectation about how Jesus would receive you each if he showed up one day.

Belief, "incorporates" a multiplicity of books and experiences, to rise to the challenge of being informed we have to step out of our 'comfort zones' accordingly.

Hogwash.  The Christian thinks they have the advantage of using words that come straight from god to their Bible, in a discussion with someone who knows in their heart of hearts that god is no more real than the tooth fairy.  Pick a better book than a fairy tale if you want to strengthen your argument.  You can’t justify the Bible by quoting the Bible - that’s called circular reasoning.

I will continue to quote what I need of scripture (with the indulgence of the Author of course), but only for purposes of education and moving the 'needle.'

And I’ll continue to ignore such flaccid attempts to move said needle.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.2.16  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.9    3 years ago

That's rather illogical, since what defines what a Christian is is defined by scripture. All you are doing is defining "Christian" according to your terms and saying CB's argument fails because it doesn't meet your definition of Christian. 

All you are doing is interpreting scripture how you see fit.  So is Westboro Baptist Church.  It’s not me that is the speed bump here, it’s your Bible.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.2.17  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.11    3 years ago

Also consider that one’s choice in god is disproportionately influenced by geography.  Being Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, etc. is primarily a function of where you were born, not which one makes the most sense to you.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.2.18  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.8    3 years ago

If someone says they are a vegetarian but they eat meat at every meal, are they a vegetarian? 

Come on.  That’s like asking if someone says they’re a Christian that doesn’t believe in god, are they a Christian?  Let’s try to keep things logical.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
2.2.19  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.3    3 years ago
Where do I find an organized pack of immoral, unethical, unconscionable nonbelievers?

Sorry, I couldn't help myself. I'm more a follower of Paganism rather than the "standard" Christian construct, so take my joking for what it's worth, which may not be much to some and hilarious to others.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.2.20  Drakkonis  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.16    3 years ago
All you are doing is interpreting scripture how you see fit.

How would you know, having refused even the few lines of scripture CB presented? What is your evidence that I read what I want it to read rather than what it says? If I really do interpret according to how I see fit, wouldn't you necessarily have to know what scripture has to say on the subject in order to make that charge? 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.2.21  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.20    3 years ago

I’m in this conversation with the assumption that we are all well aware that the Bible is not a singularly authored book, but a series of books authored over centuries by many random players and cobbled together by a group of men who determined themselves what to include and what not to include.  As such, the Bible is filled with words and concepts that directly contradict themselves.  I’m not going to get into that level of detail, you can consult Bart Ehrman for that.  That said, why would anyone in their right mind consider this hodgepodge of random crap to be a meaningful source to justify anything?  If Jesus were real, even he would be saying wtf?  That’s the best you all could do to support me?!

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
2.2.22  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.21    3 years ago

I think that if the Bible were true messages from God, it would be easier to understand, less vague if you will, but that's just my personal opinion. Interpretation wouldn't be necessary.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.2.23  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @2.2.22    3 years ago

If the authors knew that they live on a spherical planet with lots of lands, oceans, and peoples foreign to them, and that sickness, natural disasters, pregnancy, etc. all have real world explanations, then it would have been written much differently for sure.  It’s lack of portension is it’s greatest failure as a supposed work of greatness.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.2.24  Drakkonis  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.18    3 years ago
Come on.  That’s like asking if someone says they’re a Christian that doesn’t believe in god, are they a Christian?  

Yes, it's rather like that. When one claims to be a vegetarian, we know they are speaking about a specific thing. It is the same for claiming Christianity. People like yourself who don't have any interest in Christianity are seemingly content to define Christian as anyone who claims to follow the Christian God and don't bother with anything further. That's fine. You can do that. 

The problem with that, however, is that it makes you ill suited to argue against the idea that there really are those who claim to be Christian but aren't with someone who understands that to be a Christian means a very specific thing. Your definition stops at claiming to be one. The other starts at that point and goes deeper. The other goes to the source from which Christianity comes from and from which we even know about Christianity in the first place. 

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.2.25  Drakkonis  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.21    3 years ago
I’m in this conversation with the assumption that we are all well aware that the Bible is not a singularly authored book, but a series of books authored over centuries by many random players and cobbled together by a group of men who determined themselves what to include and what not to include.

Then your assumption is incorrect. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.26  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.24    3 years ago

Who or what is the defining authority for 'Christian' and 'Christianity' and what have they(it,he,she) delivered as the singular, universally recognized core definition?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.2.27  Drakkonis  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @2.2.22    3 years ago
I think that if the Bible were true messages from God, it would be easier to understand, less vague if you will, but that's just my personal opinion. Interpretation wouldn't be necessary.

Perhaps it is difficult because we are speaking of two different ways of understanding the world. Ours and God's. We see as humans see, according to our nature but God tries to get us to see as He does and according to His. Why wouldn't that be difficult? 

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
2.2.28  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.27    3 years ago

If He made us to understand as He does, it shouldn't be difficult. Why would God choose to give humans stories / riddles to solve and allow them to interpret, which may be a poor interpretation? 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.2.29  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.25    3 years ago

Then you should educate yourself on the background of that which you hold so dear.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.30  author  TᵢG  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @2.2.28    3 years ago

And, demonstrably, the communication is so vague that it has resulted in countless varied interpretations within which are many contradictions.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.2.31  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.24    3 years ago

The problem with that, however, is that it makes you ill suited to argue against the idea that there really are those who claim to be Christian but aren't with someone who understands that to be a Christian means a very specific thing.

Why would I want to get into that argument?  The crux of the issue is not who is more Christian, it is who is Christian at all.  Do you accept Christ as your lord and savior?  Check.  I couldn’t care less about the internal squabbles beyond that point.  Stop pretending that not all of those who accept Jesus as their lord and savior are Christians - that’s just stupid.  Of course they are if they say they are.  If I never eat meat then I am a vegetarian whether I want to call myself one or not.  I can protest because I don’t want the label, but I meet the definition at its most basic level.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.32  CB  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.15    3 years ago
Yes, it is a discussion on beliefs.  That is exactly my point.  You have conveniently avoided my comment about how you and the Westboro Baptist Church member would both have the same expectation about how Jesus would receive you each if he showed up one day.

I dealt with your question @ 2.2.5 although you 'shot' back with "big boy words. . . condescension ." 

So let me try posting in here for your review:

If Jesus were to appear one day, you both would expect him to embrace you for your fealty to him, because you are both Christian.

Matthew 7:15 Amplified Bible
“Beware of the false prophets, [teachers] who come to you dressed as sheep [appearing gentle and innocent], but inwardly are ravenous wolves .

Matthew 25:31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, . . . . He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

1 John 2:19  They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us , they would have remained with us ; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us .

2 John 1:10 If anyone comes to your meeting and does not teach the truth about Christ, don’t invite that person into your home or give any kind of encouragement.

2 Corinthians 11:14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.

Therefore no, Hal A. Lujah, we are not all "in it' the same. There is a broad spectrum of Christian liberties being granted, taken, and exploited for various reasons, aspirations, motivations, and ambitions.

The Early Church did not stop these folks - though they warned about them! And this nation of ours grants them individual and organizational liberties to exist under a republic clause of freedom of speech. Subsequently, we can't shut them up if we want to, and vice versa.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.33  CB  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.15    3 years ago
Hogwash.  The Christian thinks they have the advantage of using words that come straight from god to their Bible, in a discussion with someone who knows in their heart of hearts that god is no more real than the tooth fairy.

SIDEBAR:

We have some 'housekeeping to do before I can continue.

Is the quote above an affirmative assertion from Hal A. Lujah that God does NOT exist? Are you willing to formally go on record as a Gnostic Atheist in this forum?

The follow-up question will ask for your proof (or logical 'arrival') of God's non-existence.

Before we can continue in the main discussion, that is.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.34  CB  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.15    3 years ago
 You can’t justify the Bible by quoting the Bible - that’s called circular reasoning.

And you can't use logic to suppress discussion of spirituality! For the 'thing' exist and it impacts billions of lives.

I am not justifying anything to you as a measure of persuasion. It is my belief system and you are asking or rather speaking about it. And you dare to tell me I must talk to you in a manner suitable to your whims about my belief system/s?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.35  CB  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.15    3 years ago
And I’ll continue to ignore such flaccid attempts to move said needle.

Then perhaps said efforts are 'half-heartedly' self-righteous at best. It is a free country which respects freedom of speech, nevertheless. Consequently, you are permitted to hold your own counsel, in this republic. Can you call it a free and open debate, is the question. Yes or No.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.36  CB  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @2.2.22    3 years ago

What would REALLY make life easier in the religion realm is for God to 'field' questions!  (Chuckles (dryly).)

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.37  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @2.2.36    3 years ago

Yes!

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.2.38  Drakkonis  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @2.2.28    3 years ago
If He made us to understand as He does, it shouldn't be difficult. Why would God choose to give humans stories / riddles to solve and allow them to interpret, which may be a poor interpretation? 

There are a number of reasons. Things worth having, things of value are seldom free or easy.

If I told you that, left to themselves, human's only desire to do evil all the time. What would you say? Silly, right? But that is what God says of the human heart. How much would it take to convince you that it is true? Do you think anyone could just sit down and convince you of this in just a 15 minute explanation? If they spent the whole day trying to convince you? 

A part of that is that we also don't want to believe it's true. We don't want to accept that we seek to do only evil all the time. We know what's right and wrong. How can God say we only seek to do evil? Preposterous! It may be very easy to understand but because we don't want to believe it of ourselves we don't listen. We don't try to understand how that can be true. We just reject it out of hand, as most of the people reading this are doing as they read it. 

It's important to understand that Christianity isn't simply a set of rules for living the Christian life. It is a fundamental change to everything about us. It is a change to the deepest desires of the heart. The most fundamental is to desire God above all else, even ourselves. To live for His glory and praise. You are correct, we were created in His image, meaning we do have the capacity to understand. But getting through to our hearts is so difficult only God could do it. 

And this ends my participation in this post. I have worked four 12 hour days already, got 24 hours off and now have to do another six 12 hour days, so I won't have time for anything more. Have a nice week : )

 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.2.39  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.38    3 years ago
But that is what God says of the human heart.

You presume the Bible is divine.

And this ends my participation in this post. I have worked four 12 hour days already, got 24 hours off and now have to do another six 12 hour days, so I won't have time for anything more. Have a nice week : )

Yikes!  Are you a medical tech?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
Professor Guide
2.2.40  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.39    3 years ago

No, I'm covering someone on vacation. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.2.41  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  CB @2.2.32    3 years ago

Once again I will not indulge your scripture quotes.  If you can’t find your own way to express an answer then I’m not sure why you are here.  This is not Bible study.  I will say, however, your closing comment about “being warned about these folks” is as useful to Westboro Baptist Church members as it is to you.  That’s what you aren’t getting.  That’s why you need to not be borrowing from the same well of excuses.  Think for yourself man.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.2.42  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  CB @2.2.34    3 years ago

And you can't use logic to suppress discussion of spirituality! For the 'thing' exist and it impacts billions of lives.

You have just emboldened every stupid conspiracy theory ever born, and provided Q a suit of armor since “it exists and impacts billions of lives” in the total absence of logic.  Congratulations.  Those who have no spirituality do not need to indulge the absence of logic from those who do.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.2.43  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  CB @2.2.35    3 years ago

Can you call it a free and open debate, is the question. Yes or No.

I didn’t tell you to stop quoting scripture, I just told you I’m not going to read it.  Pollute this discussion all you want with that garbage - it’s easy enough to identify and skip over.  If you want to exchange with me, just keep that in mind.  In return, I won’t quote to you from the atheist rule book - which is easy since it does not exist.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.2.44  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  CB @2.2.33    3 years ago

Are you willing to formally go on record as a Gnostic Atheist in this forum?

The follow-up question will ask for your proof (or logical 'arrival') of God's non-existence.

Before we can continue in the main discussion, that is.

Good grief - look at you trying to parse a single realization into multiple sects just to try and bring me down to the level of religionists.  Unicorns, leprechauns, Bigfoot, compassionate conservatives, and gods all fall into the same category.  I don’t need to drill down on any of them any further because they all have the EXACT SAME level of evidence of their existence -  which is ZERO.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
2.2.45  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.38    3 years ago
If I told you that, left to themselves, human's only desire to do evil all the time... But that is what God says of the human heart. How much would it take to convince you that it is true? Do you think anyone could just sit down and convince you of this in just a 15 minute explanation? If they spent the whole day trying to convince you? 

No one, not even God would convince me of that. There are plenty of good, moral people that do not believe in the Christian God or any God for that matter. So, if all humans only desired to be evil, wouldn't that suggest that all those that reject God would be evil and doing evil deeds constantly? That thought that humans are inherently evil is something that I reject. That would be akin to saying that I, because I don't believe in the stories handed down by God to those men that wrote those stories down in a book [Bible], I am evil and therefore, must be someone that does evil deeds. I've never once performed an evil deed [unless you count eating meat on Fridays]; so, that premise is therefore flawed. And since God is infallible according to those of the Christian faith, the Bible must be wrong or at least interpreted wrong.

Wouldn't that also suggest that the infallible God has created us "evil doers"; therefore, making a mistake, negating Him being infallible? I get that humans were "given" free will; however, I take issue with any God / god that tells us that we're evil if we don't believe in Him, yet claiming to have created us. 

That still doesn't really answer my question as to why would God provide stories or riddles for the fallible man for his own interpretation? 

I realize that you said that you're done participating here, but I just wanted to share my thoughts on the reply.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.2.46  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Drakkonis @2.2.38    3 years ago

We just reject it out of hand, as most of the people reading this are doing as they read it. 

With good reason.  It says far more about anyone who believes this than it does about those who don’t believe in god(s).

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.47  CB  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.41    3 years ago

Don't lecture Hal A. Lujah. I don't have to offer up a defense, because right now this is lazy interaction coming out in place of a discovery of truth and understanding. Insults and condescension, are distracting and time-consuming tactics that enhance nobody and nothing.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.48  CB  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.42    3 years ago

More insults and nothing sufficiently to discuss. You seem to 'adore' argument of some tangent concept about somebody (me). And "absence of logic" is a bridge to far to span to what I put in my comment. Can you try a principled discussion where both sides engage each other's ideas, plural? 

Please?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.49  CB  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.43    3 years ago

Then you will not examine my points of view, but seek to thrust your points of view (and insults and condescension) upon others. Interesting that you deploy the word, "pollute" - it emphasizes a state of you seeing yourself as a 'purist' of some kind.

Perhaps, it is you, Hal A. Lujah, who is out of one's league in engaging others in a discussion about 'belief'? Hmm.

Note: Yet again, a distracting comment about why a commenter can't cope.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.50  CB  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.44    3 years ago

A distraction and little to no value.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
2.2.51  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @2.2.50    3 years ago

How so?  Do you then acknowledge that there is as much (or little) evidence for Zeus as for the god you worship?  Ditto for unicorns and leprechauns.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
2.2.52  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  CB @2.2.48    3 years ago

You want principled discussion yet spam everyone with Bible quotes.  Physician - heal thyself.

Why don’t you just sit down and make a list of every group that calls itself Christian but doesn’t meet your particular threshold for the label.  Westboro Baptist Church, Oath Keepers, Southern Baptists, evangelical, etc. - you know, especially the ones who think god made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.  If I remember correctly, you have a special beef with those kind.  Then you can go write them each a letter telling them that they are not real Christians, and they can write you back with scripture quotes that indicate to them that you are going to burn in hell.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.2.53  CB  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @2.2.52    3 years ago

A distracting diatribe 'tactic.' Belief is the topic, not me, mine, and thee! (Message) Discipline is helpful please.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3  Trout Giggles    3 years ago

I think if people could just accept that all belief is a personal thing and not mock people for their beliefs, we would all get along better.

And...faith does not require evidence. Faith is an emotion based on nothing more than "feelings". I think most people cannot adequately describe what their faith really means to them or why they have that "feeling".

Faith is illogical. But people have faith. Accept it

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.1  evilone  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    3 years ago
faith does not require evidence.

Faith by definition cannot have evidence. 

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
This amuses me when those who claim to be the most faithful offer some illogical proof of God. 
 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.1  CB  replied to  evilone @3.1    3 years ago

Does it amuse you to consider that God allows for logic and illogic in this world? A spectrum of logic and illogic?

For example: The logic that God (may) exist and illogic that God won't identify in plain sight?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @3.1.1    3 years ago

Of course God allows for logic! He gave us brains, didn't he? Well, we have them anyway

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.2    3 years ago
"Of course God allows for logic! He gave us brains, didn't he? Well, we have them anyway."

It's a shame some don't use them.  

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.1.4  evilone  replied to  CB @3.1.1    3 years ago
Does it amuse you to consider that God allows for logic and illogic in this world?

Simply put faith is a requirement of the Christian religion. It's the very central pillar. Faith is opposite of proof. I'm quite certain if I went searching I could find several religious writings on where offering/looking for proof would be a rejection of faith. As a matter of Christian dogma in almost every sect I've researched the only proof one needs of Christ is the spiritual connection one feels.

So yes, it amuses me when someone tries some pseudoscientific explanation for the existence of an omnipotent being while simultaneously claiming to be more faithful than everyone else.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.5  CB  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.2    3 years ago

And God allows for illogic too? Yes or No?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
3.1.6  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @3.1.5    3 years ago

Until we establish that there is a God, we cannot say whether it allows or disallows anything at all.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.7  CB  replied to  evilone @3.1.4    3 years ago
John 14: 25 All this I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have told you.

Now the above may carry no heft with you at all (I am okay with that); it does carry significance with those who receive Spirit in their individual lives, nevertheless. We can not "simply" ignore it . Spirit is the power in our lives to live in the faith realm "for life" not falling in and out of it. It is our "evidence" of God with us.

Again, may seem/sound foreign and strange to you and others, but that is the nature of discussing other worldviews, no?

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
3.1.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @3.1.7    3 years ago
Now the above may carry no heft with you at all (I am okay with that); it does carry significance with those who receive Spirit in their individual lives

If you're trying to convince or even explain your beliefs to nonbelievers, you are unlikely to make any headway by quoting a book that they see as largely fictional.  Often, such quotations are actually giving nonbelievers an easy target.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.1.9  evilone  replied to  CB @3.1.7    3 years ago
may seem/sound foreign and strange to you and others

You are talking to someone that at one time seriously contemplated going into the ministry long before I became and athiest. So no these concepts aren't foreign nor strange. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.1.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  CB @3.1.5    3 years ago

Of course he does! Have you seen the comments on NT lately?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.11  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.8    3 years ago

Sandy,. . . WHAT?!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.12  CB  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.1.10    3 years ago

HA!

Of course, God (for those who can receive the concept) does allows for a world 'full' of contrasts.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
3.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  CB @3.1.11    3 years ago

What's not clear to you?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.1.14  CB  replied to  sandy-2021492 @3.1.13    3 years ago

I'm good. This is about as good as it is going to get, relatively speaking. (Smile.)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.2  CB  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    3 years ago
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

This verse points out faith is what has in lieu of something promised or something else. We do not see the invisible God, but we sense God in our being. That sensing, taking part through the activity of our minds and as it is called, "spiritual awakening."

Faith functions like a realm. A spiritually intangible place to be dwelt in. As the believer who walks in faith goes through life - he or she acquires "evidences" through happenings or lack of their continued happenings based on following scripture. That is, faith can teach believers to positively gain from practice of, and avoid many pitfalls found in life.

I almost do not wish to 'deploy' an example here. But it may be unavoidable.

Marriage is a faith journey. An activity which takes place in the faith realm. There is nothing tangible which connects two separate individuals together for life, but their expressed desire to remain united. Each and every day the two individuals renew their vows to each other. And through daily practice, they develop experiences they can rely on and even more.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    3 years ago
... not mock people for their beliefs ...

Well when some teach their young nonsense such as dinosaurs coexisting with human beings or a 6,000 year old Earth because they prioritize their beliefs over established knowledge they are doing damage.   I would encourage mocking such beliefs because they do a disservice to society.

But mocking people simply because they believe in a particular God I would agree does not accomplish anything good.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @3.3    3 years ago

I agree with both of your points. However, if one is so ingrained in their "beliefs" no amount of mocking is going to change their minds. What's that old adage? You can wrestle with a pig in the mud, but the pig will enjoy it and you end up in need of a bath and a change of clothes

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3.1    3 years ago
However, if one is so ingrained in their "beliefs" no amount of mocking is going to change their minds.

True, it is near certainty that they will stubbornly cling to their beliefs.   The point is to encourage others who would follow that path to consider the problems with such a belief.   If a damaging belief (e.g. the Earth is 6,000 years old, evolution is a worldwide conspiracy, 'God hates fags', blood transfusions poison the soul) is shown to be ridiculous, that will dissuade others.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.3  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.2    3 years ago

Those who stubbornly cling to belief are simply too closed minded. And clinging to or advocating damaging beliefs, such as your presented examples, is simply irrational. And possibly irresponsible. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @3.3.3    3 years ago
Those who stubbornly cling to belief are simply too closed minded.

Did you ever consider that there are people who take great comfort in their faith? I try not to mock people who are just every day people out to make a living and who do say their prayers. They're not bothering anybody. They aren't the ones who come on this forum and spout rudeness while holding bashing people over the head with their Bibles. Clinging to their belief is not stubbornness, sometimes that's all a person has.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.3.5  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3.4    3 years ago

Yes, I have considered that. I have often said religion or belief is an emotional comfort mechanism. That's one reason why they might cling to belief. But some will cling to belief because an authority convinces them to or to follow. Either way, it's still irrational. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.6  author  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.3.4    3 years ago

I have a 93 year old father-in-law who is a life-long Catholic.   I would never give him even a hint of something that would cause him to question his faith.  His faith brings him great comfort and he does not impose his beliefs on anyone.

In contrast, I give you Ken Ham, Kenneth Copeland, Kent (and Eric) Hovind and all the others who seem to be driven to reduce the intelligence of society.   They put forth ridiculous 'beliefs'  (Ken Ham and the Hovinds are YECs and that is an entire collection of anti-science nonsense).   Kenneth Copeland is the richest televangelist (today) and represents those prosperity gospel con-persons lying to gullible people.    Kenneth Copeland, for example, claims to be able to control the weather and has two-way direct conversations with his best buddy God.

There are ordinary people just going about their lives and then there are those who are using religion to do harm to society.   I encourage everyone to challenge the ridiculous claims the latter make and the parroted claims by their sycophantic proxy.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.7  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.6    3 years ago

Have you ever told your father-in-law how ignorant or illogical his beliefs are?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.8  author  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.7    3 years ago
Have you ever told your father-in-law how ignorant or illogical his beliefs are?

Texan, if only you would read what people write.   It would make life easier and your comments would not appear so damned foolish:

TiG @3.3.6I would never give him even a hint of something that would cause him to question his faith.  His faith brings him great comfort and he does not impose his beliefs on anyone.

How more obvious could I be?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.9  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.8    3 years ago

Why would you think you could shake his faith by declaring his beliefs illogical?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.10  author  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.9    3 years ago

My point is that I would never even take the chance of putting doubt in his mind because I do not want to disturb the comfort he has.   One of the few good benefits of religions is that they bring comfort.   This can be bad but in the case of my FIL, the comfort has no ill-effects;  it is all good.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.3.11  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.10    3 years ago

I don't believe you could make anyone question their faith in God.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.3.12  author  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.3.11    3 years ago

For a moment there you were not trolling.   Let's nip this in the bud.   Move to something near this topic (and that is not me or any other member).

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.3.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @3.3.6    3 years ago
There are ordinary people just going about their lives and then there are those who are using religion to do harm to society.   I encourage everyone to challenge the ridiculous claims the latter make and the parroted claims by their sycophantic proxy.

Right there with you.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
3.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    3 years ago
"I think if people could just accept that all belief is a personal thing and not mock people for their beliefs, we would all get along better."

If it were to just mock is one thing, but unfortunately to persecute and to murder people for their beliefs is not uncommon in this world.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.1  Texan1211  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.4    3 years ago

it could be argued that accepting people mocking others for their religious beliefs leads to more extreme forms of mocking

Some folks can't be happy unless they can tell others about how illogical their beliefs are.

see it on here a LOT..

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.4.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.1    3 years ago
Some folks can't be happy unless they can tell others about how illogical their beliefs are.

The vast majority of the time it is challenging others who have just made religious claims of certainty.   There is a difference (a big one).

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.4.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.4    3 years ago
If it were to just mock is one thing, but unfortunately to persecute and to murder people for their beliefs is not uncommon in this world

And typically (and historically) this is due to one religious faction fighting another because they 'have the wrong beliefs'.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.4  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.4.2    3 years ago

I see almost every day here where someone is mocked for their religious beliefs.

In most cases, believers are all lumped together by the ones doing the mocking.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.4.5  author  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.4    3 years ago

'Prove it' is not mocking.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.6  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @3.4.5    3 years ago

I didnt write that it was.

doesn't negate what I see here regularly.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.4.7  devangelical  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.6    3 years ago

it sucks for thumpers that the 1st amendment is a 2 way street, doesn't it?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
3.4.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.4    3 years ago
In most cases, believers are all lumped together by the ones doing the mocking.

Just for some perspective, going back to the beginning of documented human history till now, who were the most mocked, derided, ridiculed and assaulted, believers or atheists? 

It would seem to me to be a relatively new turn of events in just the last few decades at most where believers are mocked by atheists instead of the reverse and rather hypocritical to now stand up against such mocking and derision. It's also extremely dishonest to claim that those non-believers asking believers to prove their beliefs is somehow "mocking" or ridiculing them. It would be like one group who has always said they have the right to lead and make decisions for everyone else because God anointed them and put them in charge and so everyone just went along with it for thousands of years, then a small group stands up and says "Um, can you actually prove God put you in charge or even prove that this God you believe in exists?" to which the believers, in faux shock and surprise, proclaim "What? How dare you mock us! How dare you not believe! How dare you challenge our authority!". It's obvious that this is their response because they know they have no actual way to prove their claims and can only feign victimhood in order to divert attention from that reality.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.9  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @3.4.7    3 years ago

no, but it damn well does suck that ignorance is so fully on display.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.10  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.4.8    3 years ago

no one has any need to prove God exists for them.

people who continually say "prove it" are tiresome.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
3.4.11  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.10    3 years ago
no one has any need to prove God exists for them.

I see you naturally avoided my question about who have actually been mocked and ridiculed the longest.

people who continually say "prove it" are tiresome.

Atheists have been asked to prove God doesn't exist, asked to prove evolution, asked to prove some other cause for our existence for far longer than believers have been asked to prove their God exists yet they tirelessly seek those answers and look in every corner of the universe, under every quantum rug in an effort to find evidence regardless of what it may show as they seek truth.

On the other hand, believers are incurious about the universe because they are busy trying to focus on building faith in a pre-existing belief that they think they just need to believe in more firmly regardless of what evidence may refute their faith. I believe the only reason that a believers would find the request of "prove it" tiresome would be because they know they can't. They know they have no empirical evidence of their God thus questions pointing that out would of course become burdensome which is why their natural inclination is to deflect and distract instead of seeking truth in the universe. They believe they have already found the truth and just need to squeeze their eyes shut and believe harder and it will come true, like Dorothy clicking her ruby slippers together and wishing to go home, "There must be a God, there must be a God...".

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.12  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.4.11    3 years ago

see, here's the thing.

worship or not as you choose. believe or not as you choose.

I certainly won't be mocking anyone for not believing, and I don't expect to be mocked for mine.

yes, I know that people on both sides go to extremes.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.4.13  CB  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.4.8    3 years ago

Friend Dismayed Patriot: There have always been mockers of the Christian faith. See:

2 Peter 2: 3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”

It is not a "new" concept that people mock other people. No, not at all. The issue is as Paul put it: The "foolishness" of preaching. . . . Life could be much better 'served' if the End (and God) was to appear right 'now'! At least, we would have the end of faith and proof of God!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Quiet
3.4.14  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  CB @3.4.13    3 years ago
There have always been mockers of the Christian faith.

I agree, though the mockers were just believers of a different faith. My question asked who were mocked more throughout history, believers (of any faith) or atheists. I think the answer is clear. Even though there was mocking and derision occurring between the many different faiths as well, only atheists were universally mocked and persecuted by every faith even though they were far fewer in number and often had to hide their non-belief fearing for their lives.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.4.15  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.10    3 years ago

People who continually say "God exists," or makes some affirmative claim regarding god are tiresome as well. But such claims invariably invites challenge, including "prove it." 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.16  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @3.4.15    3 years ago

we all know it always boils down to that anyways. right?

asking someone to prove it isn't mocking, but it usually takes a little while to finally get to the prove it line.

besides, since we know it can't be proven, where is the sense in it?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.4.17  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.16    3 years ago

If one makes an affirmative claim, then that claim is open to challenge. It's that simple.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.18  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @3.4.17    3 years ago

challenge all you desire, but it certainly seems like a monumental waste of time to me.

but. its your time to do with as you see fit.

BTW. have you ever changed anyone's mind on here about their beliefs?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.4.19  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.18    3 years ago

Thank you, I will continue to challenge affirmative claims. I'm not expecting to change anyone's mind and that's not the idea anyway. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.4.20  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @3.4.19    3 years ago

so really just arguing for arguments sake, huh?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
3.4.21  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.20    3 years ago

Not at all. Simply challenging a claim when made.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.4.22  author  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.20    3 years ago

I have remained silent up to this point but it looks as though this is not going to stop on its own (as I had hoped).

Time to discuss something close to the subject.   Gordy's style of discourse is not the topic.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
3.4.23  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.4.14    3 years ago

We agree on this subject.

There have been nations wiped out for not believing.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.4.24  author  TᵢG  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @3.4.23    3 years ago
There have been nations wiped out for not believing ...

... the right thing.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
3.4.25  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  TᵢG @3.4.24    3 years ago

Yes, I thought that was implied; thanks.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.4.26  author  TᵢG  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @3.4.25    3 years ago

I just wanted to emphasize that religious nations wiped out other religious nations.   The conquered believed, but the believed the 'wrong' thing.   Goes to a sub-point of this article which is that everyone seems to have the right to define and believe 'God' as they see fit and nobody seems to have a handle on truth.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
3.4.27  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  TᵢG @3.4.26    3 years ago

There's still wars waged on saying one has the "wrong belief".., even now.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.4.28  author  TᵢG  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @3.4.27    3 years ago

Absolutely.   There is no secret that there are factions within Islam whose goal is to convert the entire planet.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.4.29  CB  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.4.14    3 years ago

But there are mockers of every stripe, style, and 'market.' Jesus was mocked:

Matthew 27:39

The people who were going by shouted blasphemies at Jesus. They shook their heads at him.

40 ‘So!’ they said. ‘You were going to destroy the Temple and build it in three days, were you? Save yourself, if you’re God’s son! Come down from the cross!’

41 The chief priests, too, and the scribes and the elders, mocked him.

Do we really need to 'produce' mockers in their time periods, or can we just assume 'mockers' exist as a diverse grouping? I hope the latter

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
3.4.30  CB  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3.4.14    3 years ago

Friend Dismayed Patriot, is the about a "whataboutism" scenario?

I have nothing to reckon with on the 'history of world mockings' throughout humanity's time on Earth. Even the recorded cases may not/ can not/ tell the whole story can they?

Why can't we chart a new path in discussion of beliefs in some significant aspects of discussion? Can we?

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
3.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  Trout Giggles @3    3 years ago

People can have all the faith they want, as long as they leave me alone. Once their faith starts impacting me, well then we have a problem.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
3.5.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Thrawn 31 @3.5    3 years ago

I'm on board with that. I keep my beliefs to myself

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.5.2  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @3.5.1    3 years ago

Yeah, but some folks can't seem to Let.It.Go.!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4  author  TᵢG    3 years ago

Personally, I think we would all be better off if we did not simply believe what others tell us to believe but rather believe based on what can be reliably perceived.   

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4    3 years ago

I would also add what can be objectively observed or measured.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @4.1    3 years ago

if that works for y'all. then you should definitely do that, and let others decide what's best for them.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4    3 years ago
Personally, I think we would all be better off if we did not simply believe what others tell us to believe but rather believe based on what can be reliably perceived.   

As I often say, follow the evidence to where it leads, not to where you want it to go.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.2.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @4.2    3 years ago

Or at least don't just make thing up or, worse, accept as truth that which other human beings have merely made up.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
4.2.2  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @4.2.1    3 years ago

Unfortunately, there are those quite adept at both.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
5  Buzz of the Orient    3 years ago

48636-Frank-Lloyd-Wright-Quote-I-believe-in-God-only-I-spell-it-Nature.jpg

There are many concepts of God, many religions that have their distinct concepts of God.  Personally, I prefer the concept believed by the Native Americans.  If God is not "Nature", then "it" is an evil being that plays us as one does a video game seeing how much misery it is able to cause. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5    3 years ago
Personally, I prefer the concept believed by the Native Americans. 

Quite along the lines of how I would define God.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
5.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @5    3 years ago

Pantheism is the closest thing to a religion I could be down with. More or less that the universe itself “god”, and that’s basically it. It doesn’t have the be sentient, have a will, have desires, or rules (beyond the laws of physics, chemistry etc.). It is simply physical existence, and if anything sentient life is that god’s consciousness.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6  Kavika     3 years ago

We don't have a name for ''god'' our language is often not translated correctly and the term Gitchi Manitou loosely translates to ''great spirit'' which is the translation of Christian missionaries. We use the term ''Great Mystery'' it has no color or gender. It is simply the Great Mystery. We do not have churches and have no set days to honor or no set way to honor. Each Ojibwe that follows the old Midewiwin system does what each feels right to them. We do not proselytize and to us, Midewiwin is not a religion as understood by the religions of today, simply put, it is a way of life. 

To make one thing very clear we do not ''worship nature'' we understand that we are simply part of nature and we respect nature and our part in it and the circle of life. 

The US claims that it has freedom of religion except that American Indians religions were outlawed and it was not until 1978 under The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) (42 U.S.C. § 1996.) protects the rights of Native Americans to exercise their traditional religions by ensuring access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Kavika @6    3 years ago
We use the term ''Great Mystery'' it has no color or gender.

Which is what I would deem ancient wisdom.

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Kavika   replied to  TᵢG @6.1    3 years ago

I should add that we have no idols/statues/painting of the Great Mystery. No miracles, no angels, no bibles or any of that type of thing. 

BTW to become a Mide of the Midewiwin takes 20 years and to be a Mide one, either male or female, must know how to address physical and well as spiritual problems. The ''Grand Medicine Society'' dates back well over a thousand years and their writing is the history of the Anishinaabe people. Yes, contrary to popular beliefs we had a written language long before Europeans showed up on Turtle Island.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Kavika @6.1.1    3 years ago

It seems your ancestors did not presume much.   They dealt with what they could observe and had the humility and wisdom to not overly infer the unknowns of reality (in contrast with the Abrahamic religions: especially Christianity and Islam).

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1.3  Kavika   replied to  TᵢG @6.1.2    3 years ago
It seems your ancestors did not presume much

No, we didn't and our approach to life in general was and is much different than much of what we see today in the US. 

Our ways upset the Europeans that is one of the reasons that they tried to destroy our religion/culture/language but as we say, ''we are still here''. 

Our beliefs in what is a hot topic today, gender, really gets many upset. We have a very different take on it and if today's religious people would accept the world as it is there would be far fewer problems.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
Professor Guide
6.1.4  Thrawn 31  replied to  Kavika @6.1.3    3 years ago

I imagine the view on gender is along the lines of “people are what they are, and that’s okay.” It’s not my problem and I have yet to see any evidence that gender has any meaningful impact on ones ability to be a productive part of society.

That’s where I sit at least and I always find it amusing when people try to talk about gender as though it is binary and try to utilize nature and biology to support their position. First off they are conflating two different things in gender and sex and don’t realize it, and secondly nature is not nearly as neat as they seem to think. They always seem to forget that hermaphroditism is a thing and that people can be born with an xxy or xxx chromosome combo. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
6.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6.1.4    3 years ago
secondly nature is not nearly as neat as they seem to think.

Nature is inherently chaotic

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
6.1.6  Kavika   replied to  Thrawn 31 @6.1.4    3 years ago
I imagine the view on gender is along the lines of “people are what they are, and that’s okay.” It’s not my problem and I have yet to see any evidence that gender has any meaningful impact on ones ability to be a productive part of society.

Yes, that is partially true but we consider that there are five genders, and what we call ''Two-Spirit'' people are actually seen as having special gifts and have been afforded positions in the tribe or nation that respects those gifts. It is interesting to note that the ''Two-Spirit'' people have been some of the most fierce fighters in many of the tribes. In Ojibwe history, ''Yellow Head'' was a Two-Spirit person and one of the most fierce warriors of his time. 

When the Europeans arrived here they were taken aback and did everything possible to destroy this part of our culture (among many other parts of our culture). My guess is that we Natives were way too advanced for their backward thinking which seems to carry over to today's world.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
6.1.7  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Kavika @6.1.3    3 years ago
if today's religious people would accept the world as it is there would be far fewer problems.

Good grief, ain't that the truth!

 
 
 
Raven Wing
Professor Guide
6.2  Raven Wing  replied to  Kavika @6    3 years ago
We use the term ''Great Mystery''

What you have said is also true for the Cherokee. The only difference is that the entity you call "Great Mystery", the Cherokee call it The Creator. It also has no gender or color.

The Creator has given us the gift of Mother Earth and Father Sky, as well as Mother Nature. The Earth, Sky or Mother Nature do not belong to anyone people. We have been entrusted to do our part to take care of them, and all that dwells upon and in them.

The land does not belong to human beings........we belong to the land.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
7  Nerm_L    3 years ago

Everyone already knows all that we know of God.  That's true; we only know what we know.  Objectively that circular logic holds true.  But what everyone knows isn't everything that can be known.  There are still questions that remain unanswered.

We do not even know everything there is to know about Earth, let alone the universe.  And humans have not lived anywhere else.

Should we stop seeking answers because we already know all that we know about anything?  We can declare an ecumenical unity by consensus of belief and seek no further.  The complacency of consensus plagues theological beliefs as much as secular beliefs.   The consensus views establish a status quo that maintains ignorance.  We already know all that we know about anything.  And, apparently, that is sufficient to maintain the consensus view.  

We do not know everything that can be known.  So, belief is a necessity.  And we can believe whatever we wish to believe.  Objective evidence, no matter how broadly defined, is incomplete.  So, we rationalize the unknown by whatever we wish to believe to fill the vacuum of ignorance.  Cloaking that rationalization of the unknown in intellectual regalia doesn't alter that we are simply believing what we wish to believe.  What we know is often a rationalization of what we believe we know.

That might seem intellectually satisfying.  But such hubris ignores the role of intellectual dissent in human progress.  Increases in our collective knowledge has been driven by dissenting views and not by consensus.  Dissent challenges the beliefs we wish to believe.

Is there a God?  We don't know.  What is God?  We don't know.  Whatever knowledge or understanding we acquire about God will be incomplete and will require belief.  But we must remain humble because the only way to increase our understanding of God is to challenge our beliefs.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
8  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)    3 years ago
But God’s behavior is consistent with what we can observe.   Why do bad things happen to good people?   Because, it would seem, God does not intervene.   And there is no reason why we would should expect God to intervene.  Why are children stricken with cancer?   Why do weather formations such as hurricanes devastate life and civilization?  Why are human beings allowed to do horrible things to each other?   Why is almost everything (even on Earth) hostile to life?   God, as defined, is free to be entirely indifferent.   God might not even know we exist.   All the good and bad we see as ‘senseless’ does not in any way contradict an eternal god that, as far as we know, did nothing more than enable our existence.

I never thought of what I bolded... now you got me thinking. jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
9  JBB    3 years ago

On a cellular level man is the spitting image of God.

256

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
9.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @9    3 years ago

Adding:   If you go below that to the very substance of existence (whatever that might be), everything is the same.    Anything that exists is simply a form of existence — a form of the quintessential substance of existence (something that we may never understand).

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @9.1    3 years ago
a form of the quintessential substance of existence (something that we may never understand).

That reminds me of this scene from ST: TNG

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
Junior Guide
9.2  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  JBB @9    3 years ago

You know why you can't trust atoms?

They make up everything. jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
9.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @9.2    3 years ago
They make up everything.

Lousy little atoms! Lol

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
10  igknorantzrulz    3 years ago

Does this mean we are now i-phones....cause nsome seem more like droids

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1  CB  replied to  igknorantzrulz @10    3 years ago

This comment 'incites' a round of questions:

  1. How reasonable is it to operate on pure logic in a world with illogical happenings?
  2. Can humans live (get very far) on pure logic alone in our world?
  3. Is it acceptable to use pure logic in a world where emotions are a part of our design and 'feedback loop'?
  4. Is anybody living today able to exist on pure logic alone?
  5. Can flesh live and prosper without emotion/s?
 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  CB @10.1    3 years ago
How reasonable is it to operate on pure logic in a world with illogical happenings?

When is illogic ever reasonable?

Can humans live (get very far) on pure logic alone in our world?

Some of us seem to do ok.

Is it acceptable to use pure logic in a world where emotions are a part of our design and 'feedback loop'?

Yes, why not? Emotions can make one irrational.

Is anybody living today able to exist on pure logic alone?

I'm giving it a try.

Can flesh live and prosper without emotion/s?

I'll  let you know. jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.2  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1.1    3 years ago
How reasonable is it to operate on pure logic in a world with illogical happenings?
When is illogic ever reasonable?

Do reread the question. It does not 'ask' if illogic is reasonable or unreasonable.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @10.1    3 years ago
How reasonable is it to operate on pure logic in a world with illogical happenings?

Just to be clear, one would operate on logic and facts.    

That established, why in a world replete with illogical (irrational) thinking would it be good to follow suit with more illogic?   Would it not be better to encourage people to be more logical (rational)?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  CB @10.1.2    3 years ago
Do reread the question. It does not 'ask' if illogic is reasonable or unreasonable.

If one is not being logical, then they are likely being illogical. Hence my question. Because there is illogic, that only makes operating on logic more important and necessary. I fail to see where logic is ever unreasonable.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.5  CB  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.3    3 years ago
[W]hy in a world replete with illogical (irrational) thinking would it be good to follow suit with more illogic?

To be clear, that is not the question asked.

Just to be clear, one would operate on logic and facts.

I am not sure of the difference there, and I follow your. . . logic.  To be clear, the instance logic materialized in the world, its opposite appeared on the spectrum as well. In my opinion.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.6  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @10.1.5    3 years ago
To be clear, that is not the question asked.

Well then paraphrase your question because I do not know what you are asking.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.7  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1.4    3 years ago
Because there is illogic, that only makes operating on logic more important and necessary.

That may be true, but is it pure logic (unbroken) then?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.8  CB  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.6    3 years ago
How reasonable is it to operate on pure logic in a world with illogical happenings?

Okay. In a world with logic and illogic (spectrum), can you, TiG, reasonably function on pure logic alone?

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  CB @10.1.7    3 years ago
but is it pure logic (unbroken) then?

What do you mean?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.10  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @10.1.8    3 years ago

In your way of thinking, is there something other than logic and illogic?   In my way of thinking, one is either thinking logically, at a moment in time, or one is not.   I see no third option.

Spiritual-thinking can be logical or illogical.   The assumptions and facts are an important part.   That is why I included facts with logic in my first reply to you.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.11  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1.9    3 years ago

Is the whole of your existence on this planet, purely logic driven?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.12  CB  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.10    3 years ago

SORRY, the question as laid out is not supplied an answer:

In a world with logic and illogic (spectrum), can you, TiG, reasonably function on pure logic alone?
 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.13  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @10.1.12    3 years ago

What do you mean by 'functioning on pure logic'?     Mr. Spock where there is no emotion?   If so, are you asking if I could function well without emotion?   I think I could, but it would take a toll because human social interaction has an emotional element.  Thus getting along with others would be more difficult.   But in terms of functioning, clear, fact-based, objective logic is great for making good decisions and getting more things right and less things wrong.

Your phrase is vague.   Repeating it does not help.   

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.14  Gordy327  replied to  CB @10.1.11    3 years ago
Is the whole of your existence on this planet, purely logic driven?

Do you mean being completely devoid of emotion?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.15  CB  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.13    3 years ago

You can not function on this 'spectrum' on pure logic alone, whatever the reason. Because "it would take a toll."  My phrasing is fine.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.16  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @10.1.15    3 years ago

So you were not asking a question, you were making a claim in question form.

Why do you object to helping me understand what you were 'asking'?   I was not being critical, I was noting a problem in communication that only you could fix.

That established, what point are you trying to make?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.17  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1.14    3 years ago

Do you see the world in yes or no terms only? (That may be as you put it, "devoid of emotion.")

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.18  CB  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.16    3 years ago

@10.1 a series of questions related to @10 ". . .droids."

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.19  Gordy327  replied to  CB @10.1.17    3 years ago

That's a different question than asking if I'm logic driven.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
10.1.20  CB  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1.19    3 years ago

I'm good. Thank you.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.21  Gordy327  replied to  CB @10.1.20    3 years ago

That doesn't address either of my posts. It shows that you're not really interested in any meaningful discussion. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.22  author  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @10.1.21    3 years ago

FYI  I have lost interest.   CB does not seem interested in being clear so I no longer care what point he was trying to make.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
10.1.23  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.22    3 years ago

As have I. At this point, it just seems like playing games.

 
 
 
Gordy327
Professor Expert
11  Gordy327    3 years ago

As I've always said, belief does not equal fact. Sure it can provide emotional comfort or provide insight as to what someone thinks. But when belief is passed off as fact or truth, then it's open to challenge and probably intellectually dishonest.

 
 

Who is online


Ronin2
Kavika
Tacos!


59 visitors