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.
religion and religious beliefs are very much about ethics, morality, and principles that guide our thought speech action and decisions. it appears you seek to distance yourself at every turn from taking personal responsibility for your thoughts and feelings by saying things like "this is not therapy" and seemingly being content to never move beyond the most vague "love, and repent when you don't" or "consider the well being of everyone involved" without ever actually delving into the "OK what does that look like in this or that scenario and how do we put that into action in boots on the ground reality." Gaylen and I are interested in discussing those topics and practical application of ethics and morality that stem from religious or irreligious beliefs, and applying critical thinking skills in theoretical and actual situations. We are having many excellent conversations. I appreciate his views and insights and articulate in depth thoughtful considered approach.
This is what civilized engaging in-depth conversation looks like even when people disagree. Don't try to silence it.
thats why I am not anti-religious. when we don't need police and life coaches we won't need religion either. Of course, we won't be human anymore.
I am anti-anti-commonsense beliefs and reasons. There is no need for magic. I see no reason to have to believe in a guy dying, waking up, and flying away. If I can get a person to believe that; i can get them to believe almost anything.
you guys are not arguing properties of the universe anymore. You are arguing how to debate. that's another issue.
grey has a lot if's, yeah, many of them are actually unknowns, but that's how he starts. he is open with that. mystic, he has personal feelings, but he has been totally honest about it and the limitations.
trzap, I see you changing what they say. Its no surprise to me that you sided with trans. His, like your, beliefs are not based on observations and how the universe works. You guys are about selling a belief statement or clouding the issue to hide the true nature of unsupported belief statements. literal religous people, either theists or atheist do that
if we are to decide how the universe works based on three letters g,o,and d and the viricile reactions to those three letters, we have a warped world view. The universe works the way it works. denying its properties or changing its meaning based on g,o, and d is the major problem.
For example: my view that we are in a living biosphere and that's what people are misrepresenting as this literal religious god thing.
denying the properties of the biosphere because we have a visceral reaction to the letters g,o, and d is a major problem in trying to find out more valid truths. If some call the properties we list of the biosphere, their god, I don't care. If somebody calls the properties of biosphere that we list "the biosphere, i don't care.
the list of traits is what leads us to a more valid truth. Not the only truth. the letters g,o, and d do not decide for the regular mentals.
The clearity, logic, and reason comes into play when we are listing the properties of the biosphere and how they form explanations, mechanisms, and predictions. A claim with explanations, mechanisms, and predictions are more valid than those that don't. deny everything is stupid. omni bible god has no observational support.
. If the properties are the same, people using commonsense and reason will come to an agreement. what is clearly wrong is calling the biosphere "bible god". What is clearly wrong is denying some empirical observations and predictions that the list of traits given to the biosphere in the name of atheism. denying everything because it makes selling "atheism" easier is just as bad as literal religion.
Last edited by Arach Angle; 02-03-2018 at 07:42 AM..
We are applying critical thinking to existing beliefs but you refuse to engage on that level. You seem to want to protect your beliefs from any scrutiny or critical thinking by misconstruing the analyses and drawing unwarranted negative conclusions about the posters.
This is my impression as well, although she insists that she's doesn't mean to be targeting the posters, and I take her word for that (even if sometimes it feels that way). [...]
Quote:
Please redirect your posts to the actual content and stop evaluating the posters. Thanks.
For whatever it may be worth, I don't take her post (to me, at least), as personal attacks. I find her interpretations of my posts as being shockingly off-base, but after the initial shock, I can usually figure out a way to see how she arrives at her point of view, so I don't see her as simply trolling. On the flip side, I don't see any real effort on her part to really see my point of view. Most of her interpretations of me come with such ludicrous twists that I just have to shake my head in wonderment.
She is, however, bringing to light an intriguing alternative world-view that I can appreciate, even though it conflicts rather strongly with my own. And the world-view she is bringing is deeply relevant to the theme of this thread. She will probably disagree with what I'm about to say, but there is how it seems to me:
There are branches of philosophy that take a "metalogical" and/or more "Eastern" approach and question the value and/or the nature of logic itself. These approaches are highly speculative and problematic for lots of reasons, but some very smart and influential philosophers have taken this route, so its not as if its just some weirdo internet posters blabbering on the fringes. And most of these philosophical approaches do embrace paradox - including two of the core philosophical systems underlying my own views - i.e., Buddhism and some branches of phenomenology. I think Tza is deeply entrenched in this general approach, although she lacks most of the terminology and some of the crucial concepts needed to say what, I think, she is really trying to say.
Earlier, when I mentioned that I have "faith" in logic/reason, I was, essentially, tipping my hat to some of these core mystical/paradoxical concepts that are part of my own worldview. I think this is where Trans and I sometimes part company. He is as solidly entrench in analytic philosophy and existentialism as Tza is entrenched in phenomenology and mysticism (although neither has the academic background to really clarify their approaches in writing). MPhD and I tend to be more in the middle of these two extremes. MPhD is flat-out mystical, but I think he, like me, also sees himself as having faith in logic - and he is trying like the dickens to stay faithful to both (which may actually be a logically impossible task, which might explain why some of you find him (or me) impossible to pin down). And, of course, MPhD and I are both comfortable with speculation, whereas Trans is strictly "concrete" (and Arach, to the extent I can understand his posts at all, seems to be concrete, like Trans, but slips into speculation that he doesn't even recognize, as such).
Anyway, sorry for the detours, but what I'm trying to get to is this: Tza seems to have something I guess I will call "faith in faith". It seems to me that this faith is so strong that she doesn't even recognize when her views leave logic choking in the dust behind her. She and I are at loggerheads over the nature of critical thinking because (whether she realizes it, or not) she basically rejects what I see as Criteria #1. She seems to be deeply committed to two ideas: (1) Everything is ultimately for the best (i.e., God has necessarily created the best of all possible worlds) and (2) Everyone is ultimately doing exactly what they are "meant" to be doing because their souls have planned everything in advance. (I'm reminded of the meme of someone making some crazy mistake and saying "Ha! I totally meant to do that!")
I, on the other hand, acknowledge that this may be true, but I just frankly don't believe it is true. This is my "faith in logic" out there on patrol, checking the fences. I acknowledge that the fence is there and I have faith that the fence serves an excellent purpose, but I also like the fact that the fence has gates that can be opened if I ever find myself moved by either logic or mysticism to let something cross the boundaries. I think my fence is of the chain-link variety; I can see through it, but I generally don't like what I see out there, so I am consciously grateful for the fence and am happy to let it do its job.
I think Tza has boundaries too, but I envision hers as being more like a force field. The power is either on or off so its all or nothing. And she is so terrified of what lies on the other side that she virtually never takes the risk of flipping the switch to take a peek. Thus where I see gradations - a spectrum of mostly grey - she sees the opaque insides of her bubble beyond which is, in her imagination - a realm where "there be dragons." Some of my ideas live beyond her bubble, so when I put them into words, their contextually-dependent meanings crash into the force field and remain beyond her view. At this point her imagination fills in images of horror stemming from her vague fear of what lie beyond the bubble, and thus my words come back to me in a monstrous form that I can barely recognize.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 02-03-2018 at 12:08 PM..
you guys are not arguing properties of the universe anymore. You are arguing how to debate. that's another issue.
grey has a lot if's, yeah, many of them are actually unknowns, but that's how he starts. he is open with that. mystic, he has personal feelings, but he has been totally honest about it and the limitations.
trzap, I see you changing what they say. Its no surprise to me that you sided with trans. His, like your, beliefs are not based on observations and how the universe works. You guys are about selling a belief statement or clouding the issue to hide the true nature of unsupported belief statements. literal religous people, either theists or atheist do that
if we are to decide how the universe works based on three letters g,o,and d and the viricile reactions to those three letters, we have a warped world view. The universe works the way it works. denying its properties or changing its meaning based on g,o, and d is the major problem.
For example: my view that we are in a living biosphere and that's what people are misrepresenting as this literal religious god thing.
denying the properties of the biosphere because we have a visceral reaction to the letters g,o, and d is a major problem in trying to find out more valid truths. If some call the properties we list of the biosphere, their god, I don't care. If somebody calls the properties of biosphere that we list "the biosphere, i don't care.
the list of traits is what leads us to a more valid truth. Not the only truth. the letters g,o, and d do not decide for the regular mentals.
The clearity, logic, and reason comes into play when we are listing the properties of the biosphere and how they form explanations, mechanisms, and predictions. A claim with explanations, mechanisms, and predictions are more valid than those that don't. deny everything is stupid. omni bible god has no observational support.
. If the properties are the same, people using commonsense and reason will come to an agreement. what is clearly wrong is calling the biosphere "bible god". What is clearly wrong is denying some empirical observations and predictions that the list of traits given to the biosphere in the name of atheism. denying everything because it makes selling "atheism" easier is just as bad as literal religion.
THE ANSWER TO IT ALL: Just go with PANTHEISM!
The Universe (ALL) comports definitively as G-O-D. (of Supreme Value)...and objectively exists. The existence of ALL is self-substantiating...so, no issue there...unequivocally and irrefutably.
ANNNNND...it aligns with observations.
Pantheism...the "do all" concept!
THE ANSWER TO IT ALL: Just go with PANTHEISM!
The Universe (ALL) comports definitively as G-O-D. (of Supreme Value)...and objectively exists. The existence of ALL is self-substantiating...so, no issue there...unequivocally and irrefutably.
ANNNNND...it aligns with observations.
Pantheism...the "do all" concept!
As forms of theism go, I think pantheism is among the least objectionable to atheists and agnostics. "All is God" - not much to object to there, except for your comments about aligning with observation. Taken loosely enough, it doesn't contradict observation, but observationally speaking, there is not a whole lot to recommend it either. Observationally speaking, "the Universe is God" or "the Universe is a natural-law system" or a "self-organizing system" could all amount to pretty much the same thing. The indisputable fact of our own subjective experience lends some meat to theism, in a very loose, general sense (which I think is why Trans is so adamant about denying the "mystical" nature of qualia), but our own subjective experiences are generally indiscriminate as to which form of theism, so I personally favor something that could roughly be categorized as a form of pantheism myself. (My notion of "self as a universal" has a somewhat pantheistic flavor, albeit with a twist that makes it a bit different than what most people tend to think, when they think of pantheism).
Unless one has mystical insights supporting theism, I think agnosticism is the most rational stance insofar as pantheism is concerned. Atheism only makes sense when you supply a bunch of details concerning exact nature of God because these details often end up being self-contradictory or just plain implausible, from a scientific perspective.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 02-03-2018 at 04:22 PM..
As forms of theism go, I think pantheism is among the least objectionable to atheists and agnostics. "All is God" - not much to object to there, except for your comments about aligning with observation. Taken loosely enough, it doesn't contradict observation, but observationally speaking, there is not a whole lot to recommend it either. Observationally speaking, "the Universe is God" or "the Universe is a natural-law system" or a "self-organizing system" could all amount to pretty much the same thing. The indisputable fact of our own subjective experience lends some meat to theism, in a very loose, general sense (which I think is why Trans is so adamant about denying the "mystical" nature of qualia), but our own subjective experiences are generally indiscriminate as to which form of theism, so I personally favor something that could roughly be categorized as a form of pantheism myself. (My notion of "self as a universal" has a somewhat pantheistic flavor, albeit with a twist that makes it a bit different than what most people tend to think, when they think of pantheism).
Unless one has mystical insights supporting theism, I think agnosticism is the most rational stance insofar as pantheism is concerned. Atheism only makes sense when you supply a bunch of details concerning exact nature of God because these details often end up being self-contradictory or just plain implausible, from a scientific perspective.
It does align with observations.
The God I perceive...ALL THE ENERGY/MATTER THAT EXISTS AND HAS EXISTED (The Universe)...has all the attributes definitive of a God Entity...and thus IS GOD.
We KNOW:
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, has rearranged itself so as to produce everything that has ever existed in Reality...from the smallest particle to the biggest Galaxy.---SOURCE/CREATOR 100%
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, possess knowledge of all that is known at any given time.---ALL KNOWING 100%
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, occupies all places in Reality.---ALL PRESENT 100%
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, accounts for all the energy and force that exists in, acts upon, and controls, Reality.---ALL POWERFUL 100%
~~THE UNIVERSE and that which comprises it, is capable of all the seeing that has ever occured. ---ALL SEEING 100%
I could go on...but these are the attributes known to be definitive, demonstrative, and indicative of a God Entity.
Religions use metaphorical and allegorical characters and stories to describe all of this.
THE UNIVERSE is as "Godly" as it gets...from ANY reasonable assessment.
We DO KNOW that the ENERGY/MATTER that DOES IN FACT EXIST...rearranges itself so as to create all Reality, and can do this through indigenous power, without assistance or accomplice from any other force...."controls" that which is created by and through "laws" and "processes", that we do IN FACT know to exist...and also maintains and sustains or eliminates that which has been created by it.
We also know that these are the attributes known to define a "God".
Regardless of what ever anyone wants to call the KNOWN, EXISTING ENERGY/MATTER...it is, by its KNOWN ATTRIBUTES, definitively a God.
It doesn't matter whether this creation, control, and maintaining/sustaining, and eliminating happened out of what some believe to be "chaos", and organized itself by "random chance"...it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that that has happened, and is still happening.
It also doesn't matter if this ENERGY/MATTER was never itself "sourced", has always existed, and was never itself created (or is a "multiverse")....it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that it DOES EXIST...AND...by its KNOWN ATTRIBUTES (as opposed to "assigned attributes")...is definitively a God...without it existing in any other state than just the way it is, and has been known to be.
THIS is the evidence that "God Exists" that everyone asks for.
But by refusing to acknowledge the merited title, and insisting that the only reference is by name only ("Nature", "The Universe", etc) to identify that which has been shown to be, by known attributes and definition, a "God" entity....some then turn around and deny the existence of GOD.
No matter..."GOD" by any name is still "GOD".
As forms of theism go, I think pantheism is among the least objectionable to atheists and agnostics. "All is God" - not much to object to there, except for your comments about aligning with observation. Taken loosely enough, it doesn't contradict observation, but observationally speaking, there is not a whole lot to recommend it either. Observationally speaking, "the Universe is God" or "the Universe is a natural-law system" or a "self-organizing system" could all amount to pretty much the same thing. The indisputable fact of our own subjective experience lends some meat to theism, in a very loose, general sense (which I think is why Trans is so adamant about denying the "mystical" nature of qualia), but our own subjective experiences are generally indiscriminate as to which form of theism, so I personally favor something that could roughly be categorized as a form of pantheism myself. (My notion of "self as a universal" has a somewhat pantheistic flavor, albeit with a twist that makes it a bit different than what most people tend to think, when they think of pantheism).
Unless one has mystical insights supporting theism, I think agnosticism is the most rational stance insofar as pantheism is concerned. Atheism only makes sense when you supply a bunch of details concerning exact nature of God because these details often end up being self-contradictory or just plain implausible, from a scientific perspective.
thats right. trans deny's it because, although more valid than deny everything, he doesn't reject it based on its merit ... he rejects it based on his fear fear of religion.
his dishonesty comes into play when he is pressed with science that supports the claim that the universe itself might be life. That claim is certainly more valid than claiming its not life.
His argument gets debunked because its based on the letters g,o, and d and not observation. thats whay he lost so fast and relies on post volume.
we, you and I, would have to talk about the amount of information exchanged in the volume of a cell and compare that ratio to the number of interactions of the biosphere. You said that you don't there there is enough. I think that there is. I think if we talk about the numbers and the volume of the biosphere will match what we call a cell. A colony or a herd or a pod or a school. whatever you want.
you "qualia" has about as much merit as mystics field to me. You have a ton of questionable if's. Gld's pantheism has much more merit than both qualia and awae fields. I stay withing the biosphere. it emeprical at that point.
The biosphere and the connections to people are what people are misrepresenting as g, o, d. Atheists that deny that just don't know what they gon't know or, like trans, are intentionally deceiving people because he fears the letters g, o, d.
Nothing makes a person look more like a zealot than phrases like "atheists do this" or "the problem with religion" or "the trouble with holy books" or "religious people do this." When those types of phrases are used the speaker is seen as irrational, fanatic, and there is no rational discourse on offer.
This is nothing more then your opinion.
There are problems with religion, the "holy" books and the behaviors of "religious" folks.
I could pen a list that would take up pages.
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.
