U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-01-2018, 06:20 PM
 
37,333 posts, read 25,144,376 times
Reputation: 5843

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Last Amalekite 1Sam15 View Post
Wouldn't a loving god just create everyone in heaven/bliss right from the beginning?
Have you ever seen a mighty oak be created fully grown from the beginning?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-01-2018, 07:31 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,070 posts, read 8,530,146 times
Reputation: 6003
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Have you ever seen a mighty oak be created fully grown from the beginning?
That is conflating suffering with immaturity.

I see no reason that growth would be incompatible with non-suffering in the scheme of a tri-omni god. Such notions are based on equivocations and excuses people make to try to reconcile the tri-omni deity with human suffering.

The real situation of course has nothing to do with invisible beings or realms. It is that suffering is a function of the simple fact that human consciousness is something we can scarcely bear. It provides us with awareness of our mortality but the skills to cope with and integrate that are non-intuitive. We still retain an evolved tendency to self defeating thinking and behaviors, most prominently confirmation bias and agency inference (both instinctive survival adaptations, but not that useful in an urban technological society where most actual threats are far more abstract than predator evasion).

Suffering also comes from the human tendency to hold beliefs contrary to facts and evidence -- but rather to selectively reinforce already-held beliefs, even those that are dysfunctional and/or demostrably untrue. So it is difficult to convince people using facts, evidence, or logical argument.

This isn't limited to religion. I was struck today by a controversy in my neighborhood about proposed home construction adjacent to our development. Long story short, a homeowner is upset that the owner of a vacant lot cut down trees prior to constructing a home. The fact is that the owner has the right to cut down whatever trees they want to on their own property. The already-held belief of the homeowner next door to the lot is that they should have consulted the neighbors first. This is manifestly untrue. By that logic I would have to consult my neighbors before planting, moving or removing a shrub. It's patent nonsense. But she has mounted a multi-pronged campaign to right this imagined wrong nonetheless.

This generates suffering in the form of unwanted drama and unkind contentiousness and needless financial expense for the existing homeowner, the prospective home builder, and everyone that has to listen to the whole pointless touche-kicking contest. Ironically the owner of the vacant lot may just sell, likely to someone else who will build an even bigger structure. So it goes with this sort of thing.

Human suffering has zilch to do with gods and everything to do with, by turns, our own irrationality (e.g., pointless strife) and random happenstance (e.g., cancer). When we unbelievers point out that gods are incompatible with suffering we are arguing a hypothetical. The hypothetical is the typical theist claim that god is interventionist, benevolent, all powerful and all knowing and promises to bless the righteous and confound the wicked. We don't believe such nonsense to being with, but since theists make the claim, we point out the logical holes you could drive a truck through.

But in reality it's all a silly side-show that does nothing to address the root causes or effects of human suffering. Typically theists don't care about human suffering nearly so much as they claim; they care about being "right". Certainly right is more important than happy, that's for sure. Also rather than take any sort of responsibility for righting wrongs or preventing suffering, they leave it up to the invisible being on high, to whom they offer various placations and inducements. How's that working out for humanity? Not so hot, I'd wager.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2018, 08:49 PM
 
37,333 posts, read 25,144,376 times
Reputation: 5843
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
That is conflating suffering with immaturity.
I see no reason that growth would be incompatible with non-suffering in the scheme of a tri-omni god. Such notions are based on equivocations and excuses people make to try to reconcile the tri-omni deity with human suffering.
At the very core of the problems interfering with the process of maturing spiritually (cognitively) are the human-derived mandates for the God concept - the Omni's. There is no greater hubris than deciding what God MUST BE to deserve to be God.
Quote:
The real situation, of course, has nothing to do with invisible beings or realms. It is that suffering is a function of the simple fact that human consciousness is something we can scarcely bear. It provides us with awareness of our mortality but the skills to cope with and integrate that are non-intuitive. We still retain an evolved tendency to self-defeating thinking and behaviors, most prominently confirmation bias and agency inference (both instinctive survival adaptations, but not that useful in an urban technological society where most actual threats are far more abstract than predator evasion).

Suffering also comes from the human tendency to hold beliefs contrary to facts and evidence -- but rather to selectively reinforce already-held beliefs, even those that are dysfunctional and/or demonstrably untrue. So it is difficult to convince people using facts, evidence, or logical argument.
Now, who is conflating the existence of suffering itself with the awareness of it and the lack of maturity to overcome and endure it? Suffering does not exist outside a contemplation of it. Only the physical registration of pain and discomfort actually exists. All real suffering arises from the contemplation of suffering based on spiritual discordances and dysphoria. Christ's body endured enormous physical pain and discomfort from scourging and crucifixion but His Spirit overcame it with agape love that endured through His physical death and rebirth. He overrode ALL His body's evolved natural responses as you put it. THAT is how a mature Spirit reacts to suffering and evil. Your remaining post simply elaborates on this theme and essentially agrees with me.
Quote:
This isn't limited to religion. I was struck today by a controversy in my neighborhood about proposed home construction adjacent to our development. Long story short, a homeowner is upset that the owner of a vacant lot cut down trees prior to constructing a home. The fact is that the owner has the right to cut down whatever trees they want to on their own property. The already-held belief of the homeowner next door to the lot is that they should have consulted the neighbors first. This is manifestly untrue. By that logic, I would have to consult my neighbors before planting, moving or removing a shrub. It's patent nonsense. But she has mounted a multi-pronged campaign to right this imagined wrong nonetheless.

This generates suffering in the form of unwanted drama and unkind contentiousness and needless financial expense for the existing homeowner, the prospective home builder, and everyone that has to listen to the whole pointless touche-kicking contest. Ironically the owner of the vacant lot may just sell, likely to someone else who will build an even bigger structure. So it goes with this sort of thing.
This "right" of property ownership you assert is true, but according to Christ, when it inflicts harm or suffering on another we should not ignore it. We generally selfishly resist such considerations and the resultant additional exchange of impositions of suffering ensue as you suggest.
Quote:
Human suffering has zilch to do with gods and everything to do with, by turns, our own irrationality (e.g., pointless strife) and random happenstance (e.g., cancer). When we unbelievers point out that gods are incompatible with suffering we are arguing a hypothetical. The hypothetical is the typical theist claim that god is interventionist, benevolent, all powerful and all knowing and promises to bless the righteous and confound the wicked. We don't believe such nonsense to being with, but since theists make the claim, we point out the logical holes you could drive a truck through.
You seem to agree explicitly that it is the expectations and incompatibilities with reality endemic to the attribution of the human-mandated Omni's that are the root cause of your objections to God.
Quote:
But in reality, it's all a silly sideshow that does nothing to address the root causes or effects of human suffering. Typically theists don't care about human suffering nearly so much as they claim; they care about being "right". Certainly right is more important than happy, that's for sure. Also rather than take any sort of responsibility for righting wrongs or preventing suffering, they leave it up to the invisible being on high, to whom they offer various placations and inducements. How's that working out for humanity? Not so hot, I'd wager.
We can debate how much individual theists care and the extent of our responsibility to prevent suffering and right wrongs against our survival and selfish needs separately from belief in God. As Christ exemplified, it is not straightforward and depends highly upon our spiritual maturity and ability to overcome and endure to the end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 08:01 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,070 posts, read 8,530,146 times
Reputation: 6003
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Your remaining post simply elaborates on this theme and essentially agrees with me. ... You seem to agree explicitly that it is the expectations and incompatibilities with reality endemic to the attribution of the human-mandated Omni's that are the root cause of your objections to God.
Yes and no. I agree with you on the essential nature of suffering but disagree that any sort of deity is needed to either explain or resolve it. As for the incompatibility with the tri-omni notions of god -- those are not the root cause of my objections to god, they were simply the proximal cause of my awakening to their wrongness. I don't have any anger toward god. I would if I had remained a believer, to be sure. But the deeper realization is that god is our own invention. The root cause of my enduring unbelief is the lack of evidence to support belief in god and the failed epistemology of religious faith. The failure is not that it failed ME (although that was a knock-on effect at the time) but that it is not tethered in any meaningful way to reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 04:40 PM
 
34,114 posts, read 8,760,034 times
Reputation: 4760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150 View Post
If you didn’t watch the video, why are you commenting in this tread?
I'm giving you something to use - you usually don't have anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Have you ever seen a mighty oak be created fully grown from the beginning?
No. But the Nature is not God, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-02-2018, 04:47 PM
 
34,114 posts, read 8,760,034 times
Reputation: 4760
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Yes and no. I agree with you on the essential nature of suffering but disagree that any sort of deity is needed to either explain or resolve it. As for the incompatibility with the tri-omni notions of god -- those are not the root cause of my objections to god, they were simply the proximal cause of my awakening to their wrongness. I don't have any anger toward god. I would if I had remained a believer, to be sure. But the deeper realization is that god is our own invention. The root cause of my enduring unbelief is the lack of evidence to support belief in god and the failed epistemology of religious faith. The failure is not that it failed ME (although that was a knock-on effect at the time) but that it is not tethered in any meaningful way to reality.
Yes. My comment was a bit Flip. You dealt with it more fully. You picked up Mystic's method - which is the usual Theist apologist method: start with the Faith, select, fiddle or even invent the 'evidence' to support it, and then claim it validates the faith.

The endless debates here are all about demonstrating that it does not do so again and again, because they do not listen. And Mystic is as fingers in ears as any. He has been debunked so many times and makes the same claims rime and again, and even claims that the debunking never happened. The brainwashing is not a once -only, it is a continual process, Mordant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-03-2018, 11:59 AM
 
37,333 posts, read 25,144,376 times
Reputation: 5843
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
No. But the Nature is not God, right?
Wrong. What you call Nature IS God because there is nothing BUT God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER View Post
Yes. My comment was a bit Flip. You dealt with it more fully. You picked up Mystic's method - which is the usual Theist apologist method: start with the Faith, select, fiddle or even invent the 'evidence' to support it, and then claim it validates the faith.
::Sigh:: Deny, disbelieve, misunderstand my views as you must, Arq, but stop lying about me or my motives.
Quote:
The endless debates here are all about demonstrating that it does not do so again and again because they do not listen. And Mystic is as fingers in ears as any. He has been debunked so many times and makes the same claims rime and again, and even claims that the debunking never happened. The brainwashing is not a once -only, it is a continual process, Mordant.
More lies about debunking that you do NOT have the requisite knowledge to comprehend let alone judge. Nothing I presented has been debunked by anyone ever. Your ignorance and desire to reject my views are what drives your confirmation bias. Stop lying about what you apparently do not have the mental capacity to comprehend.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2018, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,070 posts, read 8,530,146 times
Reputation: 6003
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
More lies about debunking that you do NOT have the requisite knowledge to comprehend let alone judge. Nothing I presented has been debunked by anyone ever. Your ignorance and desire to reject my views are what drives your confirmation bias. Stop lying about what you apparently do not have the mental capacity to comprehend.
You don't flatter yourself or do yourself any favors presenting your opponents as mentally incompetent. You know Arq is quite capable.

No one is ever going to disprove an un-disprovable hypothesis. That is why virtually all god hypotheses are un-falsifiable. You say yours is falsifiable by a long and disciplined process of personal experience, but that is simply a variant of the common theist insistence that we must simply give ourselves over to dogma or to some personal subjective experience to attain belief, which is an entirely circular argument.

It is fine to have your beliefs, it is not fine to claim that those who don't share them are just too dumb to get it.

I've not said this in probably a year or two, but occasionally it bears repeating: your academic background really trips you up here. Living as I do next to an ivy league university, I see it all the time. One of my neighbors is an accomplished professor of marine biology but is basically incapable of writing coherently. They have People to do that for them. Another is a respected oncology researcher and comparative biology expert who is so handicapped socially that you can't get her to make eye contact, unless she perceives you as someone to suck up to politically -- in her world, doubtless, a vital survival skill, but in most people's world, a small-minded and supercilious character flaw.

By contrast I had a pleasant and respectful conversation with some guy awhile back who showed genuine interest in me and my work, and only later discovered that he's a super high muck-a-muck theoretical physicist. My guess is he wouldn't be caught dead flashing his credentials and proclaiming how brilliant he is. Now THERE's an academic I respect -- as a human being first and foremost.

Being an academic does not make you right or unassailable, or put anyone else at the slightest inherent disadvantage. Quit acting like it does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2018, 10:38 AM
 
34,114 posts, read 8,760,034 times
Reputation: 4760
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
Wrong. What you call Nature IS God because there is nothing BUT God.
The usual cheat. Label everything "God" and then claim that God exists...and yet damn' me if it doesn't turn out that this God has a forward -planning intelligence that you have wangled in without having to validate it. In short, you cheated.

Quote:
::Sigh:: Deny, disbelieve, misunderstand my views as you must, Arq, but stop lying about me or my motives. More lies about debunking that you do NOT have the requisite knowledge to comprehend let alone judge. Nothing I presented has been debunked by anyone ever. Your ignorance and desire to reject my views are what drives your confirmation bias. Stop lying about what you apparently do not have the mental capacity to comprehend.
You have learned nothing during the last year old son, nor during the past Five years (indeed you seem to specialize in forgetting - for example that you have been debunked time and again, that I showed I understood your theory better than you did and that you had to adapt it a bit when I showed up flaws in it (1). You are still playing the old cards of Faith -claims, patronizing deprecation and denial of everything.

You don't fool me and I will do what I can to see that you don't fool anybody else. You are of course welcome to do the same with any Pet (gospel) theory of mine, but so far all you did was to imply that it had no more going for it than yours.

(1) notably the Holistic Universal field had to be changed to individual human consciousness -fields (remember the Gnat-swarm theory?) in order to get over a problem (animal consciousness, as I recall). And you conveniently forget this and seem to think that I will as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-04-2018, 10:57 AM
 
34,114 posts, read 8,760,034 times
Reputation: 4760
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Yes and no. I agree with you on the essential nature of suffering but disagree that any sort of deity is needed to either explain or resolve it. As for the incompatibility with the tri-omni notions of god -- those are not the root cause of my objections to god, they were simply the proximal cause of my awakening to their wrongness. I don't have any anger toward god. I would if I had remained a believer, to be sure. But the deeper realization is that god is our own invention. The root cause of my enduring unbelief is the lack of evidence to support belief in god and the failed epistemology of religious faith. The failure is not that it failed ME (although that was a knock-on effect at the time) but that it is not tethered in any meaningful way to reality.
Mystic probably doesn't realize it (in fact so cleverly does he dress his stuff up in High Flown terminology and phrasing that most wouldn't spot it) but he does tend to take everyday stuff like dealing with pain and suffering, inflate it with some Spirituality -talk and launch into a preachfest about the lessons of Christ on the cross.

Despite the purple persiflage, there is nothing different from the Sunday Pulpit sermon.

"I bought boxed cereal in the Supermart last week (1)...the box of cereal is like the Box of life filed with the cereal of life's challenges and temptations....the solution to all those challenges and temptations is Jesusgod." It is in fact a very familiar fault in Theist -think. 'Joining the dots'. That is, you start Here (with everyone else) you want to get to There (your Pet theory) so you do a few leaps with some convincing -sounding stepping stones so the mental Leap isn't so obvious (2).

(1) there'd be some homely anecdote about the Mall to get people interested and comfy

(2) there are many applications from the Wyatt Sinai Moses campsite with a (claimed) sweet water well and the postulated land bridge with some very dubious chariot -wheels in the sea and a very dodgy (it has Vanished (3) Solomon's column, to the Gish gallop where you rush from where we all are to where you want to get to (evolution is bunk) by way of some absurd remarks about Whales blow -holes or 'no transitionals' and rush on with so many claims that you get away with it. Rather like the cartoon where the cartoon mouse or whatever rushes up a series of falling flagstones like a staircase, getting away with it by sheer speed.

Half the knack of apologetics is spotting the trick the other side is pulling. The other half is knowing the stuff a bit better than they do.

(3) just like that bit of Nazareth -proving inscription supposedly found by a Bible apologist on an archaeological site when everyone else was conveniently absent. And has since gone Missing. As one who has done archaeology, I can assure yiou that Finds do NOT go Misssing. Well at my age I'm entitled to digress and ramble a bit, ain't I?

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-04-2018 at 11:17 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:37 PM.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top