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.
Existence is the only thing we know for sure about God because the existence of our reality is the only thing we know for sure.
This is akin to pelosy's favorite word is the word. Maybe you can better explain your thinking as to how our realization of ourselves constitutes a god existing.
If someone makes no distinction between Jim Jones and the Dalai Lama yes they are a fanatic. If someone makes no distinction between the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King and L. Ron Hubbard then they are not rational.
So I'm wondering about your perspective on this: Do Jim Jones and L. Ron Hubbard both have true beliefs about the nature of God and the role of humanity in the cosmos, etc.?
Which do you think is a better source of spiritual knowledge and inspiration: Jim Jones or the Dalai Lama? Or are both equally worthy of your admiration? What role, if any, should critical thinking play in deciding which of these religious leaders is the best source of spiritual knowledge and inspiration?
Following up on answering a question Gaylen asked earlier on the topic of critical thinking. He asked do I agree or disagree on these #3 and #4
3) When trying to think critically about X, try to identify the assumptions that underlie your beliefs about X, and then adopt an attitude of skepticism toward each of these assumptions.
Yes I agree but I would use a different word than skepticism. I would try to look at my beliefs and where those beliefs come from and what they are based on and are they still valid for me.
(4) Try to think of some ways to collect evidence for or against X. If you can't think of any way to collect evidence, then articulate a good argument for why it is okay to believe X, even though there can't be and/or does not have to be any evidence for X.
In looking at whether something is convincing, it only has to be convincing for me and NOT for anyone else. That said yes I do look at evidence, investigate and evaluate sources for reliability and credibility,
Still waiting Gaylen for your comments on the distinction between "critical thinking" what it is; and practical application, what it's used for.
This is akin to pelosy's favorite word is the word. Maybe you can better explain your thinking as to how our realization of ourselves constitutes a god existing.
So I'm wondering about your perspective on this: Do Jim Jones and L. Ron Hubbard both have true beliefs about the nature of God and the role of humanity in the cosmos, etc.?
Which do you think is a better source of spiritual knowledge and inspiration: Jim Jones or the Dalai Lama? Or are both equally worthy of your admiration? What role, if any, should critical thinking play in deciding which of these religious leaders is the best source of spiritual knowledge and inspiration?
That question is best addressed by those who think along the lines of "all religion is false and irrational thinking." Or since its your set of questions go ahead and give it a try tell us your responses.
Or anyone...Trans? Matadora? MPD? Arach? Gaylens got a nice set of questions there. Nate? Pleroo?
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-03-2018 at 10:50 PM..
Thats what mystic does. Mystic calls the universe and everything in it God. Which is ok by you because its just another name for the biosphere or universe.
On the other hand you are also saying mystic is wrong.
Because his God IS bible God. Did you miss that part?
He heavily quotes from the bible and relies heavily on a religious figure he found in the bible. He claims his religious figure is God. Because it says so in the Bible he quotes = bible god.
Or are you saying "his" bible god is ok but "other" bible gods are not ok?
Or are you saying "biosphere science universe god" is ok but "bible God" is not?
What's the difference? Maybe you need to define bible god. Because as it stands your post contradicts itself.
It sounds like in your mind there is a "biosphere science god" since you say it is "clearly wrong" to call the biosphere "bible god" and you say "omni bible god has no observational support." If observational support is your criteria then "biosphere science god" is an equivalent quaint term as a counterpart to the also quaint term "bible god."
And you do realize you are firmly planting yourself in the territory of claiming to know what is "right" and what is "wrong" when it comes to religious beliefs. You sound like a preacher and evangelist, just giving you a heads up on that, when you make these sorts of bold statements what is clearly wrong is calling the biosphere "bible god"
I'm wondering if it is even possible for you to be more bass ackward about what Mystic has stated his beliefs are.
Thats what mystic does. Mystic calls the universe and everything in it God. Which is ok by you because it's just another name for the biosphere or universe.
On the other hand, you are also saying mystic is wrong.
Because his God IS bible God. Did you miss that part?
He heavily quotes from the bible and relies heavily on a religious figure he found in the bible. He claims his religious figure is God. Because it says so in the Bible he quotes = bible god.
Or are you saying "his" bible god is ok but "other" bible gods are not ok?
Or are you saying "biosphere science universe god" is ok but "Bible God" is not?
What's the difference? Maybe you need to define bible god. Because as it stands your post contradicts itself.
It sounds like in your mind there is a "biosphere science god" since you say it is "clearly wrong" to call the biosphere "bible god" and you say "omni bible god has no observational support." If observational support is your criteria then "biosphere science god" is an equivalent quaint term as a counterpart to the also quaint term "bible god."
And you do realize you are firmly planting yourself in the territory of claiming to know what is "right" and what is "wrong" when it comes to religious beliefs. You sound like a preacher and evangelist, just giving you a heads up on that when you make these sorts of bold statements what is clearly wrong is calling the biosphere "bible god"
What you seem to refuse to acknowledge is that science can only establish that God exists and how things seem to operate. You do not want to separate that from the many BELIEFS ABOUT God (including mine). My acceptance of (and reinterpretation of) the Christ narrative is based on the fact that the descriptions of the mind of Christ and His actions during scourging and crucifixion match the consciousness I encountered in deep meditation. It certainly is NOT based on the primitive, savage and barbaric descriptions of the Bible God.
I'm wondering if it is even possible for you to be more bass-ackward about what Mystic has stated his beliefs are.
She does seem to have a unique ability to misunderstand many things even those proffered by Gaylen who is a master explainer.
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.
