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.
Thanks. GC and I agreed that our brains process differently, if I'm recalling the discussion correctly. When venturing into the unknown I default to "there must be a logical explanation even if I don't know what it is". Some people must (IMO) default to a more (for lack of a better word) intuition. That is why when some says to me that Jesus could come to me in the flesh and I would still say it didn't prove anything they are right; I would suspect myself of a mental disturbance.
It looks to me like GC is using conversion logic:
Isn't it possible there is a God?
Yes it's possible.
So if there is a God doesn't it logically follow that He would want to communicate with us?
No it does not logically follow.
OK the, Is it possible He would want to communicate with us?
It's possible yes....
....and the next thing ya know your giving money to a church and shunning your family.
I had JW's bring the leader of like 6 churches to me. They told him, talk to (me), he says things that make perfect sense". It was like over a course of 8 weeks and the initial JW's brought JW 'experts' to me that were trained in science/engineering.
everyone of them of them said "we never thought of it like that.". I said go lay your bible in the middle of a playground on the first warm day in spring. that's the size of your god."
anway, they brought the heavyweight to me. The moment we laid eyes on eachother we knew the gig was up. I looked him straight in the face and said "You know and I know whats up, don't hurt these people".
he asked if I believed in angels. I was like "what?" i pointed to the guy that had brought all of these jw 'experts' to me and said ... "yeah ... him." i told him "be careful, don't hurt this guy."
We were cordial to each other, but we both knew. I was no threat to him and he could continue on with his sham.
Nonsense. It is just as silly as positing multiple universes despite the fact that we only have evidence of ONE. We only have evidence of one reality so we only can posit ONE God as the basis for it. What names fallible humans ascribe to God are irrelevant to God's existence.
"positing" and "believing in with faith and loyalty and chosen details" are rather different things.
I can posit Three Gods as the basis for reality, I can posit ONE FSM as the basis of it, I can posit 1,000 Gods as the basis of reality.
TWO PARENTS for ONE CHILD or More CHILDREN.
TWO Gods for Satan's and Jesus's brothers and sisters.
Thanks. GC and I agreed that our brains process differently, if I'm recalling the discussion correctly. When venturing into the unknown I default to "there must be a logical explanation even if I don't know what it is". Some people must (IMO) default to a more (for lack of a better word) intuition. That is why when some says to me that Jesus could come to me in the flesh and I would still say it didn't prove anything they are right; I would suspect myself of a mental disturbance.
It looks to me like GC is using conversion logic:
Isn't it possible there is a God?
Yes it's possible.
So if there is a God doesn't it logically follow that He would want to communicate with us?
No it does not logically follow.
OK the, Is it possible He would want to communicate with us?
It's possible yes....
....and the next thing ya know your giving money to a church and shunning your family.
The punch line or conclusion in the bold above, could be true in some cases.
However it may also depend on faith to faith.
From the given knowledge we get from our faith, here is the guideline and belief regarding spending of your wealth.
“If you have three dollars, and you gave one in charity (in the way of God), you spent one on taking care of your family, and you have spent on yourself, then all three were spent in good cause but the best one is the one you spent in taking care of your family,”.
Surprised? Unexpected? New piece of information? Probably yes.
So in my faith there is an encouragement of using intelligence, common sense and logic to try to strike a fair balance between spending and going blind.
The punch line or conclusion in the bold above, could be true in some cases.
However it may also depend on faith to faith.
From the given knowledge we get from our faith, here is the guideline and belief regarding spending of your wealth.
“If you have three dollars, and you gave one in charity (in the way of God), you spent one on taking care of your family, and you have spent on yourself, then all three were spent in good cause but the best one is the one you spent in taking care of your family,â€.
Surprised? Unexpected? New piece of information? Probably yes.
So in my faith there is an encouragement of using intelligence, common sense and logic to try to strike a fair balance between spending and going blind.
Money doesn't need to pass through God's hands first.
I was more referencing the tactic of "leading along someone in the truth" as it was called in my group. Getting people to agree to seemingly innocuous things and building on them little by little. I noticed you doing this when we interacted. You do not debate your actual beliefs. You debate a possibility then start adding your beliefs as the conversation progresses.
Money doesn't need to pass through God's hands first.
I was more referencing the tactic of "leading along someone in the truth" as it was called in my group. Getting people to agree to seemingly innocuous things and building on them little by little. I noticed you doing this when we interacted. You do not debate your actual beliefs. You debate a possibility then start adding your beliefs as the conversation progresses.
Why apply this logic and make this point to hit on religion only ?
There are many, many other people, industry, businesses and politicians etc that talk the masses into BS in order to get into their wallets.
There will always be honest people and there are always charlatans in every group and there will always be those fall into their nets, and those who do not.
Why apply this logic and make this point to hit on religion only ?
There are many, many other people, industry, businesses and politicians etc that talk the masses into BS in order to get into their wallets.
There will always be honest people and there are always charlatans in every group and there will always be those fall into their nets, and those who do not.
I'm not applying it to any one segment of the population. I'm not even sure its always done nefariously. Religion just happens to be where I was exposed to it. There is nothing original about the group I was raised in. The fact that humans use this line of reasoning on each other in other settings shows where it comes from...men and not some divinity.
I'm not applying it to any one segment of the population. I'm not even sure its always done nefariously.
[b]Religion just happens to be where I was exposed to it. There is nothing original about the group I was raised in. The fact that humans use this line of reasoning on each other in other settings shows where it comes from...men and not some divinity.
Which is understandable and I have nothing against you. However, I think happens outside religion too.
In my opinion, you are not distancing your self away from religion as much as you do with human nature.
When we are looked at into groups, our nature comes into play and you get all sorts into of characters in every group. This is our nature.
Which is understandable and I have nothing against you. However, I think happens outside religion too.
In my opinion, you are not distancing your self away from religion as much as you do with human nature.
When we are looked at into groups, our nature comes into play and you get all sorts into of characters in every group. This is our nature.
I'm distancing myself from thought control and authoritarianism. I'm not concerned with my conclusions or anyone elses'. I want myself and other people to be free to be authentically individuals. Bad logic is an impediment to that.
Edit: I do realize I was exposed to the extreme side of the spectrum of religion and that not all beliefs systems are designed to stamp out a person's humanity. I'd even go so far to say at the other end of the spectrum are belief systems that provide security so a person can feel safe exploring their humanity.
"positing" and "believing in with faith and loyalty and chosen details" are rather different things.
I can posit Three Gods as the basis for reality, I can posit ONE FSM as the basis of it, I can posit 1,000 Gods as the basis of reality.
Your rationale only works if you consider God to be outside of reality creating it. Once God is identified with reality itself then the number of realities is based on their existence and that determines the number of Gods.
The question is actually why do you feel the need to use terms like "scared" to explain away people who are not just falling over into the labels _you_ fling at them. You are more interested - it seems - at writing "lol" a lot and telling people who and what they are rather than them telling you who and what they are.
Why you want to talk _at_ people rather than _with_ people is anyone's guess but I reckon it has a lot to do with the "pretending" that this very thread is about. You want to pretend who we are and what we think - because it is easier to deal with than the reality.
As for your question "what exactly does it mean" I am afraid I simply can not dumb it down or make it any more basic linguistically than I already have. Some people think there is a god. I see no reason to think that. What exactly do you not understand there??? It could not be more understandable.
Drop you little obsession with labels and instead listen to what people are actually saying to you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
But he/she is too shy or scared and seem to have some sort of guilty consciousness to admit that he is an Atheist who believes in things only when they are supported by evidence.
Now you have switched up into outright lying about me which is not really great. I have very often said _exactly_ the things you here outright lie I will not "admit". I can quote me saying them if you require.
The use of the word "admit" is telling though. The word "admit" suggests some kind of confession, often to a crime or to something wrong or immoral or hard to justify. It suggests something negative from the outset. I do not to "admit" to any such things as you list above. I am instead entirely open and forthcoming and clear about them. They you fail to understand the words I write - or pretend to - does not mean I have been in any way reticent in my prose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
I don't know that spirit is. You are the one who is trying to dismiss it by defining it as something ridiculous, and then trying to portray me as believing that. That is dishonest.
Yet you _not_ defining it in any way - merely asserting by fiat that it is in fact there - is what is actually dishonest. You merely making up a word and flinging it at a situation does not mean something _is_ there. You are just imagining there is and then acting like your imagination is something that requires disproving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Perhaps you can explain to me how the beliefs and opinions of fallible humans ABOUT God would have ANY impact on the existential and essentially empirical question of God's existence?????
Or perhaps you can explain to me how the interpretation of an extraordinary experience had by fallible humans _about_ a god would have impact on the question of a god's existence?????
Because pretty much your _entire_ god shtick is based upon your fallible interpretation of an experience you claim you once had - but can not in any way evidence you ever did have. But even if you did - your fallible human interpretation of that experience is all you got and it is not credible even to the average poster here - let alone posters like myself who have had those self same experiences often.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Why on earth would you be talking about plural gods?
Why not? Not only do you have no evidence to offer us that there is _any_ gods - you have certainly offered no reason to suggest that there be only one if there is in fact any. Your _any_ gods are figments of fallible human perception and imagination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Your rationale only works if you consider God to be outside of reality creating it. Once God is identified with reality itself then the number of realities is based on their existence and that determines the number of Gods.
At that point however you are playing nothing but a game of language. Taking something we already have a word for "reality" and then replacing it with another word "god". Which is fine - you can call "reality" "chocolate cake" for all I care - if that is all you do. But you do not stop there. Having smuggled in the word "god" by mere linguistic switching - you then throw out all kinds of ludicrous nonsense based on the word such as us being judged morally after death - a conscious afterlife - or this "jesus" person being anything more than a mere human like the rest of us.
No wonder you had to completely dodge my questions about Santa.
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.
