[Obdigore]

I had no idea what you were really on about, and all attempts at clarifying got a response from you of 'thats not what I am saying', but I could not for hte life of me figure out what the hell you were saying!

Take that. :obdi:

[Dolorous Menhir]

Hi Gem. I'd like to make an observation. You stated above that you just wanted to find out the truth.

Previously, you explained that around the age of 16 you came to the conscious decision to adopt an unshaking faith in the religious tradition of your upbringing.

My point is, that is a very curious method of discovering the truth about anything. I'm reluctant to believe it is very effective.

[Gem Windcaster]

Dolorous Menhir;360698 said:

Hi Gem. I'd like to make an observation. You stated above that you just wanted to find out the truth.

Previously, you explained that around the age of 16 you came to the conscious decision to adopt an unshaking faith in the religious tradition of your upbringing.

My point is, that is a very curious method of discovering the truth about anything. I'm reluctant to believe it is very effective.

Okay, it wasn't exactly like I suddenly woke up and said "From now on I will never doubt anything about God ever again" - doubt is a big part of faith, because you choose to believe in something you can't see or touch.

But see it like this: I am testing through experience if something is true. That's not far from what scientists are doing, at least not conceptually. Since I can't test if God exist with any tools or by observation the old fashioned way, I am testing it the only way I can.

Of course the analogy is far from perfect - there's more to faith than that - but I think it's a fair summation of what impact faith has on my intellect.

[Gem Windcaster]

Obdigore;360696 said:

I had no idea what you were really on about, and all attempts at clarifying got a response from you of 'thats not what I am saying', but I could not for hte life of me figure out what the hell you were saying!

Take that. :obdi:

Fair enough, I was trying very hard to explain, and I couldn't for the life of me understand why you didn't get it! :Hetan:

[Gimli's love child]

Sorry Gem I am completely lost here, you cant test the existiance of God through conventional means then what method do you use? And what has resulted in such an unshakable result?

Fair enough the result is probably pretty personal but surely the test isn't?

You seem to employ logic when arguing in favour of God and fall to a philosophical interuptation when logic does not provide satisfactory explaination.

Using the same philosophy who created God? An unfair question, fair enough, but if you have crtically analized the bible and religion, as you say, one that can not be avoided and one that you have presumably answered in order to believe as you do.

[Gem Windcaster]

I was making an analogy, Gimli's love child. Logic has nothing to do with faith. I am however, quite certain that there are no way to test the existence of God by any scientific method.
I have no idea how God came to be. Maybe he isn't the kind of entity that have a beginning at all. I've always felt, though, that trying to explain the beginning of the universe and the beginning of God inherently faces the same problems. It's not and unfair question, quite the opposite, it's just impossible to answer with the knowledge we have at the moment.

Does that answer your question, I'm not sure what the question was?

[Cause]

Gem Windcaster;360769 said:

I was making an analogy, Gimli's love child. Logic has nothing to do with faith. I am however, quite certain that there are no way to test the existence of God by any scientific method.
I have no idea how God came to be. Maybe he isn't the kind of entity that have a beginning at all. I've always felt, though, that trying to explain the beginning of the universe and the beginning of God inherently faces the same problems. It's not and unfair question, quite the opposite, it's just impossible to answer with the knowledge we have at the moment.

Does that answer your question, I'm not sure what the question was?

God might stay a mystery forever but religeons are not so safe. They make claims, have suposed proofs and all of this is subject to examination. The mere fact that their are multiple religeons all whcih make the claim of supremecy and singularity prove at least some of them are false.

[relentless]

Quote

They make claims, have suposed proofs and all of this is subject to examination.

I always find it funny when believers try to prove God. After all, if you have proof you don't need faith. So they're undermining their own religion.

Quote

The mere fact that their are multiple religeons all whcih make the claim of supremecy and singularity prove at least some of them are false.

And that's another funny thing. Even if there is a God, it still means that billions of people are dead wrong ('cause they believe in the wrong one). You can say with absolute certainty that billions of people live their lives according to rules that don't exist, perform rituals that serve no function, and take up a worldview that has no basis in reality.

[Dolorous Menhir]

I think we can all agree to disagree here. Specifically, Gem can agree with herself that doubt is great except when applied to the religious beliefs she's held since childhood, while the rest of us can disagree with that.

Once we all concede that's not going to change, we can go back to the important topic here - how the creationist attacks on evolution are the intellectually bankrupt last resort of a human tradition that cannot compete with our deepening knowledge of the world we inhabit.

[Gem Windcaster]

Cause;360825 said:

God might stay a mystery forever but religeons are not so safe. They make claims, have suposed proofs and all of this is subject to examination. The mere fact that their are multiple religeons all whcih make the claim of supremecy and singularity prove at least some of them are false.

I haven't seen a religion make claims to have proof, ever. But I've never seen the point of religion for religion's sake. It is simply not my thing. But what's your point? I don't quite get what you are getting at. And religion is not that alone in making bold claims.

relentless;360878 said:

I always find it funny when believers try to prove God. After all, if you have proof you don't need faith. So they're undermining their own religion.

I couldn't agree with you more.

relentless;360878 said:

And that's another funny thing. Even if there is a God, it still means that billions of people are dead wrong ('cause they believe in the wrong one). You can say with absolute certainty that billions of people live their lives according to rules that don't exist, perform rituals that serve no function, and take up a worldview that has no basis in reality.

I think religion can have meaning even if it's 'not based on reality' - just like a piece of music or poetry can be meaningful to people, or a game of cards or sports.

Dolorous Menhir;360908 said:

I think we can all agree to disagree here. Specifically, Gem can agree with herself that doubt is great except when applied to the religious beliefs she's held since childhood, while the rest of us can disagree with that.

I said before that doubt is a big part of faith, even mine. I do in no way except myself from my own arguments. Just wanted to make that clear.

Dolorous Menhir;360908 said:

Once we all concede that's not going to change, we can go back to the important topic here - how the creationist attacks on evolution are the intellectually bankrupt last resort of a human tradition that cannot compete with our deepening knowledge of the world we inhabit.

[rant]IMHO I find many creationist arguments to be at least as silly as some that evolutionist makes. I'm in no way a creationist fan. There's a lot of condescension coming from both corners. I saw a clip of a famous creationist (don't remember his name), and I was fast disgusted by his attitude towards people that didn't believe what he believed in. If he just made his arguments and didn't try to mock, but he really got under my skin. He also happened to represent the kind of conservative type that just make me want to puke (both as a woman and as a intelligent being).

I find the way that many creationists jumble together their religion and supposed intelligent argumentation pointless and reprehensible. There's no way they can prove anything, or disprove anything, so they obviously do it for political purposes, then claim to be all holy about it. Seriously, what's their problem? [/rant]

[Cold Iron]

Terez;360665 said:

Missed this post:


Yeah, and belief in Santa Claus is still totally irrational, despite the fact that there are concepts tied up with SC that have some merit. It's easy enough for us to separate those concepts from the fictional character SC. Why is it so difficult to do the same for "god"?

I think you just don't like what I'm saying, because surely it's clear by now. The belief in the existence of a fat man who lives at the north pole who brings you presents in a sleigh is irrational. You have acknowledged the "concepts tied up with santa" and I will take that to mean you agree that these concepts exist. What I am saying is take the title "santa" away from the fat man and place it on the concepts. Suddenly you can smile and say with full confidence "I believe in santa" and know that you actually do, and that the fat man is simply an analogy of the true or real santa, an image that is taught to children who may have difficulty understanding the true nature of the concept due to their limited experience of life.

Now do the same with the white bearded man in the sky. Take the title "god" away from the irrational entity that could not possibly exist, and apply it to the concepts that are applied to it, all the descriptions of god, attributes and actions that have been applied to it. "God smote Soddom" can mean that there is a supreme entity with vast destructive powers who directly destroyed a city, but this would seem to violate rationality. What else could it mean? Let's assume that three events led to the destruction of Soddom, X, Y, and Z. Now lets assume that these three events each had three more events that led to them, XA, XB, XC, YA, YB, YC, ZA, ZB and ZC. It has already become exceedingly difficult to say "this destroyed Soddom" because it was actually all of these 9 things, and the 27 things that led to them, and the 81 things that led to them. Now extrapolate that to an actual real life situation, where each event has an infinity of causes, do you really still have a problem with the phrase "God smote Soddom"? The problem with this phrase is your association of god with an irrational entity, release that and it ceases to be some meaningless excuse for anything that you can't explain but a meaningful description of what actually happened.

What made you you? God.
What made the universe the universe? God.
What is the nature of existence? God.

God is reality itself, it is everything and nothing, it is both all around us and within us.

Now you ask why?

This is why.

Now that you believe (maybe you don't but I'm sure you followed my argument well enough to conceptualise the belief I'm talking about), you can do what you want with this concept, shaping it shapes you, you become the path you tread, you take on the attributes of whom you follow, and if you worship a loving god, you become a loving person.

God is real. God is powerful.

Tell me you understand what I mean? (Because imo nothing I just said is irrational.)

[Sinisdar Toste]

HOLY SHIT CI I AM SO WITH YOU ON THIS! this is the truth as far as i'm concerned. god is the alpha and omega, everything and nothing, he is all of us and none of us.

like the hindu's say brahma is not a person, brahma is in all people. and allow me if i may to draw a parallel to the work of one steven erikson, who states that "gods are shaped by their worshippers". so as you say, if you think of god as loving, you become a loving person. if you see god as a vengeful being you become vindictive and bitter.

now here's a kicker, i propose that atheists are simply replacing god with "the world" as a whole and conducting the same interaction as humans have forever. could be way off as i am no atheist but i think its an interesting comparison.

[RodeoRanch]

Cold Iron;360964 said:

God is reality itself, it is everything and nothing, it is both all around us and within us.

Hell, an empty bottle of beer can be everything in the universe too if you widen the definition enough. You've reduced any counter-argument to irrelevance by taking your definition to an extreme.

[Cold Iron]

RodeoRanch;360969 said:

Hell, an empty bottle of beer can be everything in the universe too if you widen the definition enough. You've reduced any counter-argument to irrelevance by taking your definition to an extreme.

Then follow the empty bottle of beer, or follow nothing. People told Spinoza that by making god everything he made it nothing but I disagree. I can now look at scripture with a new perspective, and my default position need not be "this is stupid crap that means nothing". Why? Because what makes me the magic generation that is so smart I don't need the wisdom of my ancestors?

[Sinisdar Toste]

RodeoRanch;360969 said:

Hell, an empty bottle of beer can be everything in the universe too if you widen the definition enough. You've reduced any counter-argument to irrelevance by taking your definition to an extreme.

he's not taking it to extremes, he's taking it beyond a pointless label and all the other pointless labels that have been attached to it. the concept of god can't be limited to the experience of any one religious group and the various different ways in which they perceive it.

[Illuyankas]

@CI: Because our accumulated knowledge is so, so far beyond what they had back then, Mr. I'm-on-the-internet-living-in-luxury?

[Cold Iron]

Illuyankas;360985 said:

@CI: Because our accumulated knowledge is so, so far beyond what they had back then, Mr. I'm-on-the-internet-living-in-luxury?

If you've been keeping up with my arguments with Xander in technology related threads you'd now know why I'm really against over-estimating ourselves due to our technological advancement. There are more questions in life than how can a most efficiently get my porn.

seriously

[Sinisdar Toste]

this could be total B/S but i heard from somewhere that if the right 15 people died today no one would completely understand einsteins theory of relativity...

[Illuyankas]

@CI: That's why I said knowledge, not technology. That's just a useful sideline. But you can't deny how useful it's all been, and I for one would rather go forward then backwards, or sideways to stagnate.

If you don't want to summarise your views on technology again, tell me the names of the threads you did post them in so I can read them and perhaps get back to you.

[Cold Iron]

Sinisdar Toste;360965 said:

now here's a kicker, i propose that atheists are simply replacing god with "the world" as a whole and conducting the same interaction as humans have forever. could be way off as i am no atheist but i think its an interesting comparison.

I would propose that there are some atheists that do as you say and some that do not. Some may need to reject religion for personal reasons. Some may feel intellectually superior. Some may take comfort in the abyss and like the feeling that their actions mean nothing more than what they cause directly. Others may just not give a shit and think the whole topic is a waste of time. And yet others may simply be projecting the views of people they respect or admire.

I don't want to sound condescending, I have nothing against atheists. There are plenty of trite generalisations one could make about me or "people like me" and some of them may well be true.

If anyone disagrees with my evaluation of atheists above please protest.

Also, as an aside to stay slightly on topic, may I say that one great thing about the perception of god that I described above is that it interferes in no way with science, and that actually science helps to reveal it's nature and thus should never be discouraged (a la creationism).