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.
There's no "admitting" anything on my part though - I mean, it just is what it is, which is all I said.
I wouldn't go by what "most" Judeo Christians that you run across believe. I mean, have you ever been to the county fair? I think you'll find that most people aren't like the people we tend to hang out with or have discussions with for that matter.
I wasn't attempting to suggest that you conceded your faith but my word choice of "admitting", LOL. I think a better word choice on my part might have been, "agreed" or even "state". Do you agree?
Why not go with "most", isn't that who we are "most" likely to have interaction with?
You have at separate times posited both of the following. Please feel free to correct anything I have gotten wrong.
1) a god that is merely the physical universe with no attributes except that it created us and provides for us
2) a quasi Christian panentheistic personal God that you meet in meditation, and that feels men have sinned and has sent Christ to save us from our sin
Since these are two separate views, it didn't occur to me to believe that you believe both of them. I'm not sure I believe you believe in both. The only time you pull out version 1 is when debating atheists. I never see you bringing out version 2 in a debate with atheists because you know it is not defendable evidence wise. So I still tend to think you developed version 1 as a debate tactic, unless somehow you manage to in both, which would be a leap but within your rights to do so. Panentheism sees a God outside of the physical universe.
As to the rest, you wish to claim the existence of the universe is an attribute of God. This is not a given. The universe may exist as a natural mindless physical phenomenon, nothing more. In this case there would be no reason to consider the naturally occurring universe a theistic being.
Atheists don't co-opt the default to something not existing until evidence comes forth, that is mere logic. A lack of evidence becomes evidence for the atheist view, even though not 100% conclusive. An invisible theistic being MIGHT exist, but as long as some solid evidence is lacking this lack points as evidence to its non existence.
Because of the many destructive attributes especially those of the fundamentalist persuasion cause on family and society. Many are high control groups that place women as second class, discriminate against homosexuals and lesbians, believe beating children is mandated, and attempt to have their beliefs incorporated into society and its laws.
No one is saying all religious people are that way, but certainly there are elements of that in Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Christian sects and some of the so called New Religions such as Scientology. Those religious people who do not decry the actions of the fervent are complicit in continuing those abuses, just like the good cops who do not stop the bad cops are complicit.
I would rather live knowing this is the only life I have than hoping, wishing and praying that I have another when I die. I would rather know I will turn into bug and worm food, and in that process, give back to this earth the things that sustained me, and I will sustain other organisms.
I myself plan to turn into bug and worm food. I've arranged for a pine box and a simple burial. I'm not sitting around "hoping, wishing and praying that I have another life when I die." I don't feel guilty about who I am, nor do I worry about going to He-l. I'm looking forward to whatever it is because it is so far beyond what we all know for certain. I think it will be exciting to find out.
Brutality of any sort should not happen, but it does. Religion is too frequently used as the reason for war when "the powers that be" actually could not give one sh-- about religion. They just use if for their own purposes. How convenient to use religion as a reason for war when really it's about natural resources or geopolitics or both. How many wars in history were fought over religion alone? There's always an underlying agenda.
Trying to convince religious sects not to murder, maim, enslave or disenfranchise is a waste of time, even though that is a laudable goal. Christians who knowingly try to evangelize "other" countries get what they deserve if they lose their head (life). I realize that may not be popular with those who think the whole world should be evangelized into Christianity.
Do you ever feel like you make any headway when you debate a religious person? A lot of points made by an atheist upthread make sense to me, but I prefer faith. There are many factors that go into that - childhood, family, life experiences, temperament, etc.
As I said upthread I don't proselytize. I prefer to live being an example of my faith as much as I can. I don't have anything to prove to anyone - especially not atheists. My housemate is an avowed atheist - a moral ethicist. I'm sure there are many of those in this thread and forum. He likes to needle me once in awhile and I just ignore it. I don't needle back. I have no interest in debate. Waste of time.
I wasn't attempting to suggest that you conceded your faith but my word choice of "admitting", LOL. I think a better word choice on my part might have been, "agreed" or even "state". Do you agree?
Why not go with "most", isn't that who we are "most" likely to have interaction with?
Sure, we can go by "agreed" or "state."
I wouldn't say "most," because "most judeo Christians that I interact with do not believe as you stated.
I'm a big believer in how we use words, for the record - LOL>
I think it's because many people of every stripe and every belief set want others to believe as they believe, and they often assume (and are often wrong) that others believe a certain way already, because they have just swallowed what others have told them, or are uninformed, or are stupid, or (fill in the blank with some other form of underestimating people). I also think a significant percentage of all types of believers and non believers want to come across as smart to other people.
Personally I find it generally ugly, from all sides.
Quote:
I would rather live knowing this is the only life I have than hoping, wishing and praying that I have another when I die. I would rather know I will turn into bug and worm food, and in that process, give back to this earth the things that sustained me, and I will sustain other organisms.
The thing is, we don't get to choose our afterlife or lack thereof. You don't know - you believe. I don't know - I believe. Two different things entirely.
My body is absolutely going to turn into bug and worm food and give back to this earth the earthly elements that have sustained my body, and my body will sustain other organisms too, just to clarify.
That AND a bag of chips.
And I will repeat something I say over and over again on this forum - I think we're all in for some surprises when we die.
You have at separate times posited both of the following. Please feel free to correct anything I have gotten wrong.
1) a god that is merely the physical universe with no attributes except that it created us and provides for us
I have NEVER said God is MERELY anything! I say they are the only attributes of God that I can substantiate scientifically but that should've been ENOUGH to eliminate the annoying and unsubstantiated demand for scientific evidence of God's EXISTENCE. You do not consider it SUFFICIENT, but it nonetheless IS evidence that supports the existence of our creator (God) sidelining that particular annoyance from the debates.
Quote:
2) a quasi Christian panentheistic personal God that you meet in meditation, and that feels men have sinned and has sent Christ to save us from our sin.
This is the SAME God as #1 but it is part of my BELIEFS that are only hypothetically supported by science. The part of MY panentheist God that I met in meditation is God's transcendent consciousness which IS the substrate (spacetime field, quantum foam) that establishes our physical Reality (His immanent part). I believe His consciousness incarnated and manifested in the human Jesus Christ to accomplish what we were failing to achieve ("missing the mark" aka "sinning").
Our failures were rendering our reproduction of God's consciousness deficient and our spirits were separated from God's because of it. Jesus achieved in His HUMAN consciousness the IDENTICAL Holy Spirit of God thereby connecting all existing and future collective human consciousness permanently with God's consciousness. This saved us by eliminating the separation that had kept our ancestors' spirits from joining God.
Quote:
Since these are two separate views, it didn't occur to me to believe that you believe both of them. I'm not sure I believe you believe in both. The only time you pull out version 1 is when debating atheists. I never see you bringing out version 2 in a debate with atheists because you know it is not defendable evidence wise. So I still tend to think you developed version 1 as a debate tactic, unless somehow you manage to in both, which would be a leap but within your rights to do so. Panentheism sees a God outside of the physical universe.
I only use #1 to eliminate the absurd BELIEF that there is NO EVIDENCE of our creator. Panentheism sees a God who is Immanent (part of the physical Reality) AND transcendent (beyond the physical).
In my view, the transcendent part of God is His consciousness which is what I encountered in deep meditation instantly eliminating my atheism. I see each of us as a microcosm of God in His image and likeness -- immanent as a physical body and transcendent in our consciousness.
The transcendence of our consciousness is supported by the fact that our imagination is completely unconstrained or unlimited by the physical laws that control our physical Reality as I believe God's consciousness is on an infinite scale.
Quote:
As to the rest, you wish to claim the existence of the universe is an attribute of God. This is not a given. The universe may exist as a natural mindless physical phenomenon, nothing more. In this case, there would be no reason to consider the naturally occurring universe a theistic being.
Note the phrasing in bold because you do not treat it as something that MAY be, You BELIEVE it IS with no justification whatsoever other than your preference. You can NOT KNOW it.
Quote:
Atheists don't co-opt the default to something not existing until evidence comes forth, that is mere logic. A lack of evidence becomes evidence for the atheist view, even though not 100% conclusive. An invisible theistic being MIGHT exist, but as long as some solid evidence is lacking this lack points as evidence to its non-existence.
This is why I suspect there must be some cognitive block against recognizing what is taken for granted by those atheists who think as you do. What is this non-existing something you are referring to because I have only been talking about what DOES exist???? YOU brought up an invisible theistic being, NOT me.
The God I am talking about is quite visible. The Hubble Telescope has taken some awesome pictures of His immanent self. His immanent self is in fact the central object of our scientific investigations despite the neutral language scientists use to describe what they discover about MY panentheistic God.
What is quite visible is the universe . What is not evident is that this universe is a conscious being with will and intellect . Therein lies the rub. The universe exists of course , but evidence that the universe is anything more than just a non conscious physical structure does not exist . You want to call a non conscious physical universe “God”. Others , including many theists , disagree . Atheists see no point in doing so, many theists feel your version of God is highly inadequate .
As far as the invisible theistic being, it is you who continually enters threads in which invisible theistic beings are being discussed by theists and atheists , with both sides understanding what they are referring to , and trying to insert your version into every thread on the subject . If what they are discussing is not your version, then why you keep derailing threads shifting the debate away from what was already being discussed ?
What is quite visible is the universe . What is not evident is that this universe is a conscious being with will and intellect . Therein lies the rub. The universe exists of course , but evidence that the universe is anything more than just a non conscious physical structure does not exist . You want to call a non conscious physical universe “God”. Others , including many theists , disagree . Atheists see no point in doing so, many theists feel your version of God is highly inadequate .
As far as the invisible theistic being, it is you who continually enters threads in which invisible theistic beings are being discussed by theists and atheists , with both sides understanding what they are referring to , and trying to insert your version into every thread on the subject . If what they are discussing is not your version, then why you keep derailing threads shifting the debate away from what was already being discussed ?
It's like going into a car convention and talking about boats while calling them cars.
Curious: Do you ever feel like you make any headway when you debate a religious person?
Who is your question directed at?
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.
