Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A long exchange, but just to show I'm watching and to help a liitle bit
shirina"You're flirting with a lot of sophistry here. The real world doesn't operate that way. If you were to ask any 100 sane adults, not a single one would say that we should leave cookies and milk out for Santa tonight because, hey, there's no proof that he doesn't exist, so we should operate as though he does. "
Jeff " The only thing you are proving here is that it is crazy to live your life completely by logic and reason. This is why atheism just doesn't work. "
You got it back to front. Shirina is saying that logic and reason works in the world so we don't put out milk and cookies for Santa, since we know of course that presents are given by parents. Unless to pander to kiddie's beliefs until they get to age 7
similarly, logic and reason works in the world so we don't put out prayers and hopes for gods as we know that prayers are answered by pure chance, if statistical comparison is a basis for conclusions.
Except of course to pander to the kiddies' beliefs up to the age of reason..which some unfortunately never seem to reach. And they give those who have done so a hard time because they grew out of believing in Santa.
There's the thing about a universe that is pure logic and reason. It's oppressive, and it doesn't work. It's oppressive because it reduces people to a law (You haven't been to work X times, therefore for this job you can't be hired). And it doesn't work, because the universe can't really be defined as pure formula. Steven Hawkings probably came up with a theory of everything by now, but it hasn't really changed anything to speak of.
What this world needs is a mix of reason and emotion. Something less like science, and more like alchemy.
I'd say that is the last thing it needs. Pre ps. no scrap that - in a way you are right.
Sobersides rule and order is inappropriate for a universe with quantum mechanics in it. It took science to find that - and Einstein, believing in a god that did not play dice, refused to accept it. No, in these matters, we need science to find the truth, no matter how wacky it is, and reject faith -belief, no matter how sane and ordered it is.
Law is flexible. It is a human convention. Simply because (unlike science) there is, (so far as reason and evidenceis able to determine ...disclaimer ) there is no outside intrinsic -authority imposer dictating that THIS is the way it is. There may be a case for refusing to employ a habitual non attender. There may be other factors. This is the benefit of a relative morality and laws that can be changed if they seem tio be unjust or exceptions made if it seem compellingly necessary.
I will go this far - we need imagination. We need speculation and hypotheses. Science isn't really geared to this, but philosophy perhaps is. There is a need for an 'alchemy' of speculative suggestions which science then has to try to check out.
But the fact is that until it is checked out and verified or scrapped, speculation and hypothesis is all it can be.
And this means that it cannot be presented as fact. Not until it is found, like the Higgs -boson or remains to be proven, like abiogenesis (I rather think that it does not form part of evolution -theory, not because it isn't relevant, but because it isn't proven. Once it is, it will become part of the Theory, quick enough).
And of course as I have said repeatedly, in art and music, the emotions count. In science they don't, except curiosity.
Ha,Ha,Ha . . . ROTFLMBO! Amen to the bold, mordant!. They seem to universally think they can speak for God!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
High fiving the atheists? Really makes me wonder which side you are on.
I am on God's side . . . NOT the Bible or any other revered and idolized book. God actually abides with us but too many seem oblivious to that fact and rely on books.
I am on God's side . . . NOT the Bible or any other revered and idolized book. God actually abides with us but too many seem oblivious to that fact and rely on books.
Without the Bible, you can make up any version of God you want. Why should I take your opinion of the nature of God over someone else?
I am on God's side . . . NOT the Bible or any other revered and idolized book. God actually abides with us but too many seem oblivious to that fact and rely on books.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Without the Bible, you can make up any version of God you want. Why should I take your opinion of the nature of God over someone else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
(puts hand up) 'Please sir, please, oohh please sir...Mystic has had a close personal encounter with God and knows exactly what's what.'
Gold star?
You atheists are entertaining indeed! LOL! Gold Star for sure, Arq! I admit that my knowledge of the character and nature of God DOES come from my encounters. But it was easy to find those writings that agreed with my personal knowledge in the spiritual fossil record, especially the descriptions of Christ. My standard for vetting the truth in ANY written tome is the agape love of Christ and my experiences. You caught me out, old chum!!
Without the Bible, you can make up any version of God you want. Why should I take your opinion of the nature of God over someone else?
Jeff, I once thought the Bible was an objective standard by which to assess a "correct" version of God. But the Bible is not a black and white document. Like any writing it must be interpreted. You cannot possibly know that you have, or have subscribed to, the "correct" or even "sufficiently correct" interpretation. You can only claim to have settled on an interpretation that you, personally, feel comfortable with because it fits your perceptions and expectations.
You are clearly a fundamentalist, but you might be a dispensationalist or you might hew to covenant theology; you might believe in eternal security or you might make exceptions to it. And a host of other things. The "seven fundamentals of the faith" are generally seen as a line in the sand, of course, and we have to have a definition of "fundamentalist" or the label has no meaning. But my point is that despite reading the same Bible as 100 other people in your general belief-system, you are going to differ from the other 99 in some respects.
Aside from all that, the Bible has been a moot point for most people for most of human history, because most people were illiterate and/or did not have access to a personal copy of the Bible until at least the 16th century. It's a very modern situation, and still largely limited to the affluent West, that most folks are literate and can even access the Bible to access your "correct version" of god. And even a literate and monied person in, say, some Muslim country is not going to be very likely to find the Bible a compelling answer to anything because they are Muslim, not because they reject the Bible, but because they were BORN Muslim.
So in what sense is the Bible actually helpful for any random person that has ever existed?
Jeff, I once thought the Bible was an objective standard by which to assess a "correct" version of God. But the Bible is not a black and white document. Like any writing it must be interpreted. You cannot possibly know that you have, or have subscribed to, the "correct" or even "sufficiently correct" interpretation. You can only claim to have settled on an interpretation that you, personally, feel comfortable with because it fits your perceptions and expectations.
You are clearly a fundamentalist, but you might be a dispensationalist or you might hew to covenant theology; you might believe in eternal security or you might make exceptions to it. And a host of other things. The "seven fundamentals of the faith" are generally seen as a line in the sand, of course, and we have to have a definition of "fundamentalist" or the label has no meaning. But my point is that despite reading the same Bible as 100 other people in your general belief-system, you are going to differ from the other 99 in some respects.
Aside from all that, the Bible has been a moot point for most people for most of human history, because most people were illiterate and/or did not have access to a personal copy of the Bible until at least the 16th century. It's a very modern situation, and still largely limited to the affluent West, that most folks are literate and can even access the Bible to access your "correct version" of god. And even a literate and monied person in, say, some Muslim country is not going to be very likely to find the Bible a compelling answer to anything because they are Muslim, not because they reject the Bible, but because they were BORN Muslim.
So in what sense is the Bible actually helpful for any random person that has ever existed?
Is any 1 person on the planet 100% like another?
The Bible is a starter for ten, through a glass darkly, foot in the door, to getting to know Someone. Science is generally not used to get to know people - getting to know someone has many twists and turns and takes a long time. When we think someone is 'like this', they show how they are actually like 'that'. Words do require interpretation, but that is where spirit also comes in - words can be tested - is the ecology of what these words are saying, true.
Granted though, you have to believe that other is, before you're going to get to know them. If the 'you're not real' narrative keeps playing over and over one ends up not believing the other is.
You atheists are entertaining indeed! LOL! Gold Star for sure, Arq! I admit that my knowledge of the character and nature of God DOES come from my encounters. But it was easy to find those writings that agreed with my personal knowledge in the spiritual fossil record, especially the descriptions of Christ. My standard for vetting the truth in ANY written tome is the agape love of Christ and my experiences. You caught me out, old chum!!
Is this not exactly the picking and choosing that Christians indulge in which influences most non-believers to dismiss the Bible completely?
Mystic is just one of the very few that comes right out and admits it, even if he doesn't call it an admission but as ''properly dividing' and what some others term 'interpreting'.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
Is this not exactly the picking and choosing that Christians indulge in which influences most non-believers to dismiss the Bible completely?
Mystic is just one of the very few that comes right out and admits it, even if he doesn't call it an admission but as ''properly dividing' and what some others term 'interpreting'.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
He, and many like him, also presume that their experiences were from God, not exactly a reliable means of discerning what is real and what is not.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Shirina is saying that logic and reason works in the world so we don't put out milk and cookies for Santa, since we know of course that presents are given by parents. Unless to pander to kiddie's beliefs until they get to age 7
. They seem to universally think they can speak for God!!
