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.
No you can observe the effects of wind. A cooler full of snow? Ok, says its the 1800s and coolers don't exist. You completely miss my point but resort to the typical condescending rhetoric.
His "condescending rhetoric" was logic.
You are simply too married to your persecution complex to recognize it.
HaHaHa!
I figured if the Fundie Religious can use it...I want that too!
You just declare it to be "holy" or "sacred", point out where it is supported by a line or two from some book that was written back when the idea of a fun day was watching gladiators fight to the death, or say that some Supreme Being inspired you...and it's a wrap!
We even use the stereotype, "That's Gospel", to represent ultimate truth!
Well, I'm gonna bypass the "red tape"...and just declare whatever I say fact as a given.
I actually feel really good about this...think of how simple things will be for me now that I have that established.
This is true, but disproves most of the religion that folks seek to promulgate, and effectively asserts no axioms of conduct, practice or behavior. Effectively, it is a belief in God that affords that belief no power. Therefore those who are into religion because of power find that evident divinity unsatisfying, and so move fall back onto fabricated mythologies to satisfy their desire.
Give me 45 minutes with KCfromNC and I can derive at least a, "I have no objection to religion grounded in that belief." As I have outlined it, it is a corollary of what Carl Sagan wrote in Pale Blue Dot, "A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths."
It would be impossible to fully communicate that within a discussion thread, rife with childish behavior and obstinate insistence on drowning out perspectives that one doesn't like but for which one has no cogent rebuttal. Start here:
[Owen, H. P. Concepts of Deity. London: Macmillan, 1971, p. 65.]
[Harrison, Paul. Elements of Pantheism. Plantation, FL: Llumina Press, Second Edition, April 29, 2011.]
Also, some forms of Taoism are devoid of fabricated supernatural overtones and therefore are suitable answers to your question.
And the answer to all these questions is, "Yes." The Western adherent's inability to accept that is what keeps them spiritually imprisoned by the power brokerages that are the major Western religions, and what keeps them effectively blinded to the truth. And it is puzzling because those beholden to the Judeo-Christian mythology are exposed to atrocities that their conception God committed, as Sodom and Gomorrah, and with the Great Flood.
With the words MysticPhD used, that's not the case. Those words do not portend any conceiver, external force exerted on reality from outside of it. That may be what MysticPhD believes, but it isn't what those words communicate.
Again: "Yes." Even if that makes us feel unsatisfied or disappointed.
Keep in mind that we are focused here on precisely what MysticPhD thinks (as my posting was addressed to him), not to your own idiosyncratic interpretation of what is connotated by saying "God is everything and everything is God". Saying "Yes" to all these claims (re: "So, 'Yes', God is, in fact, everything") cannot be what MysticPhD believes IF he, at the same time, embraces any type of belief in Jesus (which he does, in fact, embrace). That is, although his way of expressing his belief in Jesus is rather atypical and non-traditional, he has conveyed (to paraphrase what he has said from my memory) that Jesus is the manifestation and essence of pure love and wholesomeness of character and spirit, as revealed to him through meditation. Well, how can that be so if, at the same time, God/Jesus is every opposing quality and opposing thing I mentioned (i.e., God is love and God is hate, God is justice and God is injustice, God is kindness/love and God is murder and rape and bullying, God is creation and God is destruction and mayhem, God is order and God is disorder, God is knowledge and God is ignorance, and so on and so on)? Or is it the case that MysticPhD does not equate "God" with "Jesus" but rather thinks of them as two different characters? Is that, in fact, what he believes to be the case? Do you, in fact, know for a fact, that you are speaking accurately on his behalf about the dynamics and dimensions of what precisely MysticPhD believes? So we are supposed to express love and reverence for this "God" of kindness and love who, at the same time, also represents every opposing quality to kindness and love? So God is knowledge and wisdom and then, at the same time, God is ignorance and lies? Do you see what I'm saying?
Claiming that ALL these things (and everything else I mentioned in my previous posting) are, in fact, ALL reflections and indicators of God, says a whole lot of nothing in terms of having a coherent religion which entails any type of wholesale adoration and reverence as MysticPhD and others have expressed when speaking of Jesus and Christianity (unless MysticPhD doesn't, in fact, think of Jesus as being God). So the same God that loves me and you is the same God that afflicts me or you with autism or mental retardation or musculoskeletal deformation? And the same God that creates the beautiful and awe-inspiring wonders and dimensions of existence is the same God that brings destruction and mayhem and injustice and ugliness? How at all does embracing a "Yes" answer to ALL these points (as you have) entail, at the same time, one taking up a perspective of love and reverence and honor for this spoken-of "God" character who is, in the end, the entailment of every single positive quality we can thnk of and every single negative quality we can think of (i.e., entailing every single opposing set of qualities at the same time)? Your points, in the end, appear to add up to a whole lot of nothing. Why would one form ANY type of "religion" around such a perspective? For what rhyme or reason? To what end? Like saying to God "I love you and revere you and, at the same time, I hate you and despise you and loathe you? For after all, you are EVERYTHING good and bad and neutral and everything in between."? Why not just say "There is no mindful entity that we typically give the name of "God"; there is just 'existence' itself and "existence' itself has no values, no character, no sympathies or wants or expectation, no agenda, et al; existence just simply IS (i.e., existence [the universe, the cosmos] simply exists")? And yet, if one thinks of what I just stated in the previous quote in the last sentence to be true, why is that a premise upon which one builds a religion or theological perspective of ANY type?
What I just expressed in the last sentence (i.e., that sentence which appeared in quote marks) virtually sounds like a purely scientific view of existence . . . saying, in essence, that the forces and manifestations of nature simply ARE; they have no consistent mind or character which permeates and guides them and hence they do not operate with humans in mind . . . for nature itself HAS no mind; it just simply IS. Hence, why is such a way-of-thinking a premise to embrace ANY conception of Jesus (as MysticPhD does, in fact, do) or any other character? Why form a religion around such a perspective? If, as you seem to be saying or suggesting, "God is every single thing & ideation and every single thing & ideation is God", why give it the name of "God" a all? Why not just simply say that nature (the cosmos, the natural order) is all that there is, was, or ever will be (as Carl Sagan, I believe, has said)? It has no mind or value or character or agenda and so on. I myself don't absolutely know this to be true (in an epistemological sense) but it does seem to be all that one is left to conclude lacking any other provable evidences to the contrary (i.e., until and unless we would learn otherwise that it is something other than such an assertion).
In my experience, the way theistic ideation works is along the following lines:
1) Decide what you wish to be so, or more likely, accept the assertion of what is so from some other person or organization, usually one that represents authority to you.
2) Look for any association or pattern that in any way, even a little, supports (1)
3) Call it evidence
4) Monitor one's continued compliance with (1), looking for any new associations from (2), thus adding to (3).
Where as empiricists generally go this route:
1) Look at evidence / data / arguments, controlling as much as possible for personal bias, wrongly inferred agency, etc.
2) Draw conclusions from the evidence
3) Accept the conclusions dictated by the evidence whether or not it is pleasing or intuitive.
4) Constantly subject (3) to (1) for possible revision as (1) changes and/or your reasoning process in (2) changes. Rinse and repeat.
In describing the typical theist approach I am serious based on my own experiences as a former theist. The axioms promulgated by your religion of origin are always the starting point ... not actual experience or situations. Any apparent experience or situation contrary to the starting point has to be a misunderstanding or illusion.
The only thing I would add to the empirical section is the role of experimentation. Whenever possible, empiricists test hypothesizes and theories in controlled experiments in an effort to minimize confounding factors.
Basically, science is specifically designed to analyze evidence as logically and objectively as possible, whereas religion is, at best, rooted in a form of highly faulty inductive reasoning: 'Look how perfectly designed this flower is. It must have been designed by something, and that something is god.'
Science certainly isn't perfect, especially initially, but is structured so that mistakes are eventually corrected. Since religion is dogmatic, errors are much more persistent, and in some cases intractable.
Not only it is not circular reasoning, it is not any kind of reasoning, because it is physical evidence.
Fair enough; my objection was trying to marginalize it by calling it circular reasoning. Calling it just plain evidence is good enough for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hutennis
Now, instead of presenting reasoning as evidence for God (which happens to be a very bad evidence b/c it is a very bad reasoning) you are welcome to put forward actual physical evidence.
That's what that specific statement we have been talking about did, but I guess it was simply something perhaps you're not ready to accept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsAll
Keep in mind that we are focused here on precisely what MysticPhD thinks
Well, no. I made clear that I was picking up on that statement, and only that statement, and only what those words mean in English, rather than what baggage MysticPhD may wish to attach to those words. You're welcome to skip my comment, but not to interpret my comment as anything other than what I made clear it was about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsAll
Your points, in the end, appear to add up to a whole lot of nothing.
As hutennis, I can respect that you're not ready to understand things the way other people understand them. That's fine. However, you keep posting categorical statements, like this one, as if your personal opinion matters beyond the confines of your own skull. It doesn't. You'll get as much respect for your comments as you choose to show toward other perspectives - in other words, none. You'd do better to place your comments in a reasonable context, rather than declaring things to be true for others, a behavior that makes you no different from those at whom you're directing criticism and for roughly the same reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsAll
Why would one form ANY type of "religion" around such a perspective?
The question you need to answer is whether you're actually willing to sincerely ask the question, aiming to receive an answer that you're willing to think about, understand, and accept, even if you're not willing to agree. Until you're able to convince people that you'll respect their answer, why do you think you're entitled to even the modicum of respect necessary to grant your question the legitimacy of an answer? Don't get me wrong. There's nothing wrong with saying, "The beliefs you profess have no basis in physical evidence, and therefore are no more valid than anyone else's directly contrary beliefs" But to say that "No one should make meaning out of anything other than physical science," which is effectively what you're saying, is as offensive and baseless an assertion as, "Jesus is your lord and savior."
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsAll
Why not just say "There is no mindful entity that we typically give the name of "God"; there is just 'existence' itself and "existence' itself has no values, no character, no sympathies or wants or expectation, no agenda, et al; existence just simply IS (i.e., existence [the universe, the cosmos] simply exists")?
Why do you think it smart to express a perspective in the negative? That's ridiculously naive and unskilled. Try expressing it normally, as a positive statement of the inverse.
Science requires evidence for everything. Religion requires evidence for nothing.
That is the difference.
Or religion redefines evidence to mean something other than it actually means. Maybe an idea appealing to you is evidence. Maybe personal incredulity is negative evidence (think of all the arguments from incredulity mounted against the scientifically established theory of evolution). Maybe an emotionally powerful subjective personal experience is evidence. Maybe the statements of holy books or ecclesiastical authorities are evidence.
This is true, but disproves most of the religion that folks seek to promulgate, and effectively asserts no axioms of conduct, practice or behavior. Effectively, it is a belief in God that affords that belief no power. Therefore those who are into religion because of power find that evident divinity unsatisfying, and so move fall back onto fabricated mythologies to satisfy their desire.
Give me 45 minutes with KCfromNC and I can derive at least a, "I have no objection to religion grounded in that belief." As I have outlined it, it is a corollary of what Carl Sagan wrote in Pale Blue Dot, "A religion, old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the Universe as revealed by modern science might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths."
It would be impossible to fully communicate that within a discussion thread, rife with childish behavior and obstinate insistence on drowning out perspectives that one doesn't like but for which one has no cogent rebuttal. Start here:
[Owen, H. P. Concepts of Deity. London: Macmillan, 1971, p. 65.]
[Harrison, Paul. Elements of Pantheism. Plantation, FL: Llumina Press, Second Edition, April 29, 2011.]
Also, some forms of Taoism are devoid of fabricated supernatural overtones and therefore are suitable answers to your question.
And the answer to all these questions is, "Yes." The Western adherent's inability to accept that is what keeps them spiritually imprisoned by the power brokerages that are the major Western religions, and what keeps them effectively blinded to the truth. And it is puzzling because those beholden to the Judeo-Christian mythology are exposed to atrocities that their conception God committed, as Sodom and Gomorrah, and with the Great Flood.
With the words MysticPhD used, that's not the case. Those words do not portend any conceiver, external force exerted on reality from outside of it. That may be what MysticPhD believes, but it isn't what those words communicate.
Again: "Yes." Even if that makes us feel unsatisfied or disappointed.
Thank you, bUU. You saved me a lot of typing. Contrary to UsAll's contention that I am a victim of inferred agency, it is he who is the victim. His view of reality as disconnected and separate "things" is what leads him to conclude that any mention of a source for everything MUST mean a separate agent. He seems not to realize that existence itself is sufficient to be the Source. I use an analogy to our own body as a "universe." Imagine the perspective from sentient individual cells and biota that comprise us. To them we would be God as they tried to understand the reason for their existence and their transient cellular lives.
Oddly, I find myself in agreement. Everything is made of the same Stuff and came from the same source. I just don't think it talks to us or believe that the Jesus story is its current correspondence -course.
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.
