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.
....In general, religious claims to know a variety of absolute ultimate truths strike me as being incredibly arrogant, but when I point this out, many religious people seem to miss my point completely. They will often say "It's not me who knows, it's God who knows. I'm just acknowledging God's wisdom." It's as if their own role in the knowledge claim is invisible to them. This strikes me as a profoundly deep sort of self-deception.....
i'm puzzled. i don't get this.
are you saying you consider it "incredibly arrogant" for someone to tell you what they believe? for them to describe or express their understanding of how things work?
how is it arrogant for someone to describe their own views? how is it "a profoundly deep sort of self-deception."
if Katzpur (for instance) says she is a Mormon and tells me Mormons believe this, and tells me how she lives her life as a Mormon and how she understands life as a Mormon and perhaps gives examples of her relationship with God....how is that "incredibly arrogant" and "deep self-deception" ?
i am missing the point, please help me understand. thank you.
and didn't you just say a few posts back about how diversity is important and essential? wouldn't that include a diversity of views, diversity of understanding, diversity of how people approach and participate in (focus of this forum) religion and spirituality,diversity of how we are in relationship with the Divine?
I reject the Creation concept in favor of an existential concept. So in a sense, it is Both, since Creation is the result of God's existence. I would reverse the last one.
The universe grows and changes because God is a LIVING God, i.e., grows and changes.The first one, but I have no way to know the actual answer and neither do you. It is obvious that God's intelligence and knowledge would CONTAIN the sum total of our intelligence and knowledge but not be limited by it. I reject the silly idea of demanding what attributes God MUST have to qualify to BE God according to human vanity and hubris.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel
no one is telling you what God must be.
no one is telling you what to believe.
no one is demanding anything.
we are simply asking you to clarify what your views and beliefs are.
by asking and answering simple basic questions.
for the purpose of increased understanding, and greater clarity.
Every one of those questions expressed dialectics typically emanating from belief in the supernatural and the Omni's that you and so many other theists categorically assert (totally without basis) are the attributes of God. I have seen no reason (other than human vanity and hubris) why God should automatically have any of those attributes.
..... Never any evidence of doubt in her words. That level of confidence about issues of "ultimate truth" leaves me feeling deeply suspicious.....
this is strange. i don't get this either.
how is it suspicious for someone to feel comfortable in their own skin and secure in the world?
"i love my kids no matter what," that never wavers, i have no doubts on that. is that suspicious to you?
"God loves me, guards me, protects me no matter what," that never wavers, i have no doubts on that. is that suspicious to you?
"no matter what happens I will be OK," i have no doubts on that, that never wavers. is that suspicious to you?
I don't get it.
it sounds like you are uncomfortable when someone is secure in their beliefs. when someone is not disturbed by doubts.
think of something in your life that you have no doubts about, that you have a rock solid level of confidence in or belief in. now someone is telling you they find your confidence lack of doubt on that issue "deeply suspicious." how do you make sense of that?
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-16-2018 at 07:31 PM..
If you know something Beyond A Reasonable Doubt then you don't need to believe it.
If you believe it then you don't know it and therefore you shouldn't have no doubts.
good point regarding "knowing something" and "believing something"
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
... but I have no way to know the actual answer and neither do you.
This brilliantly zero's in on one of my primary pet peeves concerning Tza's posts. Obviously, I can't read anyone else's mind but, based on her posts, she seems to think that she knows things that, so far as I can see, she almost certainly cannot "know". Faith and beliefs, yes of course, but her seemingly high confidence in her feeling that these beliefs are "knowledge" seems wildly unjustified to me. I, of course, am not in a position to claim that she is absolutely wrong. The best I can do is point out logical inconsistencies and absurdities. But my efforts in this regard are to no avail because of her faith in the idea that human ignorance, compared to God's infinite intellect, must always somehow explain why things that seem contradictory or absurd are actually not (or, to put it another way: If I claim that X is a contradiction, or is absurd, then all I manage to do is prove my own ignorance and foolishness in the face of God's infinite wisdom). To disagree with Tza is, almost by definition, to simply prove one's own ignorance of the absolute truth that Tza happens to know, and she feels certain that she knows it. Never any evidence of doubt in her words. That level of confidence about issues of "ultimate truth" leaves me feeling deeply suspicious.
In general, religious claims to know a variety of absolute ultimate truths strike me as being incredibly arrogant, but when I point this out, many religious people seem to miss my point completely. They will often say "It's not me who knows, it's God who knows. I'm just acknowledging God's wisdom." It's as if their own role in the knowledge claim is invisible to them. This strikes me as a profoundly deep sort of self-deception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
...I reject the silly idea of demanding what attributes God MUST have to qualify to BE God according to human vanity and hubris.
And this highlights one of my other pet peeves. I don't see why so many religious people feel a need to define God, up front, in terms of certain attributes - as if anything that does not fulfill every attribute cannot really be God. My instincts are just the opposite. IF there is a God, then a major human mission ought to be to FIND OUT WHAT God's attributes are - not pre-define what God has to be and then try to force everything into that definition. Why does God have to be omnipotent, omniscience, etc.? There are various historical reasons why people came up with these ideas about God, but if, instead of simply accepting these ideas at face value, you step back and think about what we actually experience, I think it becomes obvious that human beliefs about the nature of God are historical human traditions. These beliefs - like all human beliefs - are embedded in historical contexts, cultural contexts, regional/family contexts, and individual psychological contexts. Efforts to understand God ought to take these contextual factors into consideration. Faith that God is the ultimate foundation/source of absolute truth does not immediately imply that any particular person's beliefs about God are, themselves, absolute truth. I can't claim that absolute truths can't pop into a person's mind (divine/mystical revelation/enlightenment), but even if this happens, it still does not follow that the person will interpret this experience in a completely unbiased way - an "absolute truthy" sorta way.
This highlights what I have seen as the major difficulty people seem to have understanding my views and where I am coming from. I automatically parse my views into those that are science and fact-based things I KNOW and those that are extrapolations and interpretations from what I know that I BELIEVE. My experiences form the basis of my CERTAINTY about the existence of God and confidence in my intellect forms the basis for my FAITH in my Synthesis. Tzaph and so many others do not seem to make such distinctions and it is prevalent in both the atheist and theist camps.
I have found that oftentimes it's not what we say but how we say it that is offensive. A few carefully considered words -- either included or omitted -- can make a world of difference in whether a person comes across as arrogant or just comfortable with his own beliefs.
I have found that oftentimes it's not what we say but how we say it that is offensive. A few carefully considered words -- either included or omitted -- can make a world of difference in whether a person comes across as arrogant or just comfortable with his own beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by granpa
What's the difference?
the difference is whether people are being talked down to, with condescencion, by someone who views themself to be superior, better
or whether they are being spoken to with respect, courtesy, dignity by someone who values those traits and seeks to treat all people with regard
when someone is comfortable with their own beliefs, there is no need to attack or belittle other beliefs.
when someone is comfortable with their own beliefs, there is no need to use pejoratives.
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 01-16-2018 at 08:01 PM..
And even less arrogant answer would be "I don't know" or "I'm pretty sure but I could be wrong"
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.
