Do you believe in God?

[SuperCobraJet]

Well, it wasn't addressed at you anyway - I was suggesting to Danoff reasons why many religious people think the way they do, and why I don't share his surprise (although I fully understand it) that so many people think this way. I don't find it surprising that you think it is contradictory to your views though, since I am an atheist and a rationalist, and you are not an atheist - but I don't think this automatically means that your views on how religions work have any more validity than mine. I agree that people should question things - within reason - but my point was that mainstream religions survive because many things pertaining to their core beliefs do go unchallenged (or are you disputing that?). I also think there are very good reasons why certain things go unchallenged, and the net result is that religions continue to prosper. I confess to not being an expert on how this has happened, but it is pretty clear from the world around us that mainstream religions are still very, very successful. This reality doesn't fill me with any joy, but the least I can do is attempt to understand why this is the case.

Although I agree that one needs to conduct one's own investigations, you also need to have a rational framework for interpreting the results as well as the ability to draw conclusions that account for all of the available evidence, and not just some of it. This is what the scientific method is - a rational framework by which new information is discovered and new ideas are hypothesized and tested. Science also inherently acknowledges its limits and is constantly addressing unknowns, as well as accepting what is known to be false. Religions tend not to do this - atleast not to the point where their core beliefs become the target of scrutiny.

Sorry about that. No, I say challenge it to the max., as we are so engaged.

 

[Touring Mars]

First you are assuming it isn't there. That doesn't mean it isn't.

It also doesn't mean that it is. It is a simple truism that you cannot find what isn't there - by all means look, but there comes a time when one can justifiably stop. You seem to be suggesting that if you look for God long or hard enough, you will find him eventually. But that is not the experience of many, including myself. It seems common sense to me to say that the more you look for something that isn't there, the more likely you are to become frustrated and eventually convinced that it just isn't there. Given an infinite number of opportunities to reveal himself to me, God hasn't bothered to do so. And thus far, I haven't found anything that even hints at his existence, let alone verifies it. Indeed, all I have found is evidence to the contrary, and a seemingly endless line of excuses that people make for God's supposed behaviour.

Well there you have it, a big arrow pointing to "Intelligent Design".

How do you get that from what I wrote? If you want to debate ID, then post in the Creation v Evolution thread, where I will be more than happy to respond.

 

[Famine]

In fact if I believed what I want to believe, I would take Famine's advice and embrace the Koran, where in the final solution is "those who will not convert are to be put to the sword".

*bzzt*

Bluff.


Actually read the Qu'ran, okay?

Or at least include the parts where your god says people should be stoned to death depending on where they hid their winkie.

 

[Duke]

IMO the whole crux of this discussion is this:

I believe you(some) are assuming and accepting as an absolute, an "isms" philosophy.
In doing so, you conclude that this is enough to satisfy your logic or rationale.(or because you want to and consider it a neutral, higher or refuge position)

You also by doing so, can suspend the pursuance of your own investigation or effort to truly conclude this philosophy's position as an absolute.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here with the "isms" reference, which you also made earlier. You seem to think that we're adhering to a given set of rules that are rigidly divided in interpretations.

That sounds a lot like religion to me, not rational secular thinking. How many "isms" populate the religious world? Enough to start civil wars over.

And that aside, I'm not terribly interested in identifying with a particular philosophical "ism". I pull freely from a large variety of sources - provided they fit consistently and logically into the rational framework I've constructed for my ethical code. I will use labels for convenience but not to define myself. I'm fiscally a Conservative but socially a Liberal; I am quite Libertarian but also largely an Objectivist, despite the fact that the founder of Objectivism hated Libertarians. So while I can use these tags to highlight areas of my thinking, I am far from defined by them.

Duke freely admits to this when he says: in his estimation, his life is fine,

I did say this, and I believe it. I'm an ordinary person. I'm not rolling in pots of money, I'm not immune to pain and suffering, I'm not ruggedly handsome, I'm not suave and charming, I'm not famous, and I'm not exceptionally talented. Nontheless, my secular life is completely satisfactory and in fact thrilling and full of joy. I have no need whatsoever to wish for immortality, or yearn for spiritual completion - this one life will be enough for me.

he does not seek or need any further investigation.

I'm not sure how you could have missed the point here so breathtakingly, though. I've been at great pains to expalin that my thinking is in a continuous process of investigation and refinement. I'm always looking for gaps in my logic and inconsistencies in my ethics, and I'm always trying to better understand the world around me. I read as much non-fiction science and history and religion and philosophy as I do fiction.

That doesn't mean I've never considered faith. It's just that nothing I have ever learned in my secular studies has compelled me to think that there must be a supernatural explanation for anything. Likewise, nothing in my philosophical and religious studies has convinced me that there must be a supernatural explanation for anything, or even that such belief would be a valuable tool.

So from my investigation, he has stopped short of and allowed this philosophy to confine him to its boundaries.

Quite simply, why would I give up my most powerful and versatile tool - rational logic - when there is no reason to do so? Rational logic has never failed me yet. If there is absolutely nothing wrong with the best weapon in my arsenal, why throw it away in favor of something that is nonfunctional at best?

You have still never answered the question: How did you choose your religion from the infinite number of other religions? How did you weigh, judge, compare, analyze? How can you know you've picked correctly?

 

[Nicksfix]

Quite simply, why would I give up my most powerful and versatile tool - rational logic - when there is no reason to do so? Rational logic has never failed me yet. If there is absolutely nothing wrong with the best weapon in my arsenal, why throw it away in favor of something that is nonfunctional at best?

You have still never answered the question: How did you choose your religion from the infinite number of other religions? How did you weigh, judge, compare, analyze? How can you know you've picked correctly?

You may have answered your question to him in your own post........rational logic.

I will not go as far as to say who's religion is correct or incorrect,but one thing they have in common,is a God to worship.

 

[Famine]

You may have answered your question to him in your own post........rational logic.

I will not go as far as to say who's religion is correct or incorrect,but one thing they have in common,is a God to worship.

Except Buddhism. And Raelism. And Scientology. And that's not the end of the list.

It's not possible to use rationality and logic to analyse the religions objectively (even if you had the time to assess them all) and arrive at a conclusion that any one of them is correct - nor indeed that religion itself is correct. There has to be - no pun intended - a leap of faith. And who knows, you might be right with your particular leap of faith. But there's no reason to presume that you are and rational logic will not back you up.

 

[Nicksfix]

Except Buddhism. And Raelism. And Scientology. And that's not the end of the list.

It's not possible to use rationality and logic to analyse the religions objectively (even if you had the time to assess them all) and arrive at a conclusion that any one of them is correct - nor indeed that religion itself is correct. There has to be - no pun intended - a leap of faith. And who knows, you might be right with your particular leap of faith. But there's no reason to presume that you are and rational logic will not back you up.

Why is it not possible to use rational logic to determine your gender of religion that you choose to worship in ?

If I attented a Catholic Church (of which I am not Catholic),I may not like the way that they worship God or kneel and pray to a statue of Mother Mary.I personally may not like the way that they baptize,(baptism from Greek baptizo: "immersing"),why then do the Catholics only sprinkle your forehead with water,rather than immersion.Therefore,I would use my rational logic to tell me that this is not the type of worship for me. (I am not picking on Catholics by any stretch),I'm just using that as an example.People are free to worship whichever religion they feel is comfortable with their personal beliefs.I have no problem whatsoever with this,it's a personal choice of your own religious choosing.

FAMINE - I'll give you the Buddhism,Raelism thing. 👍

 

[Famine]

Why is it not possible to use rational logic

...

it's a personal choice of your own religious choosing.

Question and answer.

Personal choice != Rational logic


Logic's impersonal - if you follow it correctly to its ultimate conclusion on any topic, there's no choices left open to you, just its conclusion.

As I said, it's ultimately a leap of faith and you might have made the right leap, but it's not possible to use logic to determine that.

 

[Nicksfix]

I am failing to see how you say that logic is impersonal.Can't you arrive at a conclusion by using logic (not to be confused with common sense) ? I personally think you can.

 

[Famine]

I am failing to see how you say that logic is impersonal.

Easy. It doesn't care about you. Or me. Or anyone. It doesn't depend on who is using it or what the subject is.

Can't you arrive at a conclusion by using logic (not to be confused with common sense) ? I personally think you can.

Of course you can! That's the point. Look:

if you follow it correctly to its ultimate conclusion on any topic, there's no choices left open to you, just its conclusion.

 

[Nicksfix]

OK - I follow your point now,just needed another cup of coffee in me to wake up.

Thanks,FAMINE 👍

 

[Duke]

I am failing to see how you say that logic is impersonal.Can't you arrive at a conclusion by using logic (not to be confused with common sense) ? I personally think you can.

You can arrive at a conclusion using logic, if you apply it correctly. However, it may or may not be the conclusion you wanted to reach. If you start out with a conclusion you want to reach ahead of time, you're not using logic, just post-rationalization.

Everything you used in your example above depended upon the word "like", which means it is simply a personal preference, not a logical conclusion.

Those reasons may be the criteria you set for yourself in choosing your preferred religion, and that's valid as far as that goes - but the religion you chose was not the inevitable conclusion of rational logic.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

*bzzt*

Bluff.

Actually read the Qu'ran, okay?

You are saying it doesn't say that?

Or at least include the parts where your god says people should be stoned to death depending on where they hid their winkie.

I'm not excluding it.

As I said, it's ultimately a leap of faith and you might have made the right leap, but it's not possible to use logic to determine that.

I'd say your almost right.

At some point it has to be "mixed" with faith.

That is why, it is not an abandonment of rational.

 

[Famine]

Seriously. Read it (as in pick up an actual copy - neither of us read Arabic, but at least an Arabic-English translation will be close. Close enough for someone reading a Hebrew-Aramic-Greek-Latin-Greek-English translated text). You'll be surprised.


Also I asked earlier, but you may have missed it... Do you eat prawns? How about bacon?

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here with the "isms" reference, which you also made earlier. You seem to think that we're adhering to a given set of rules that are rigidly divided in interpretations.

Concerning rationale, yes I think you are.

That sounds a lot like religion to me, not rational secular thinking. How many "isms" populate the religious world? Enough to start civil wars over.

Exactly.
Many "isms" have done just that.

And that aside, I'm not terribly interested in identifying with a particular philosophical "ism". I pull freely from a large variety of sources - provided they fit consistently and logically into the rational framework I've constructed for my ethical code. I will use labels for convenience but not to define myself. I'm fiscally a Conservative but socially a Liberal; I am quite Libertarian but also largely an Objectivist, despite the fact that the founder of Objectivism hated Libertarians. So while I can use these tags to highlight areas of my thinking, I am far from defined by them.

Then if you are "truly" an "Objectovist", you will examine on the basis of merit by application and quality of content, not just a predetermined, prearrived at conclusion of what Logic will allow.

For example, you say the Bible as well as other religious material cannot be authenticated. IMO with the exception of the New Testament, there are certainly arguments pro and con. Even if you want to include the exception, my logic says: Then let the the writing authenticate it self. In other words I will wiegh it on content alone.

I did say this, and I believe it. I'm an ordinary person. I'm not rolling in pots of money, I'm not immune to pain and suffering, I'm not ruggedly handsome, I'm not suave and charming, I'm not famous, and I'm not exceptionally talented. Nontheless, my secular life is completely satisfactory and in fact thrilling and full of joy. I have no need whatsoever to wish for immortality, or yearn for spiritual completion - this one life will be enough for me.

Aren't you assuming (predetermining in advance) that you don't have it?
(Immortality)

I'm not sure how you could have missed the point here so breathtakingly, though. I've been at great pains to expalin that my thinking is in a continuous process of investigation and refinement. I'm always looking for gaps in my logic and inconsistencies in my ethics, and I'm always trying to better understand the world around me. I read as much non-fiction science and history and religion and philosophy as I do fiction.

So in a sense, you are still searching?

That doesn't mean I've never considered faith. It's just that nothing I have ever learned in my secular studies has compelled me to think that there must be a supernatural explanation for anything. Likewise, nothing in my philosophical and religious studies has convinced me that there must be a supernatural explanation for anything, or even that such belief would be a valuable tool.

Well maybe, maybe not then.

Quite simply, why would I give up my most powerful and versatile tool - rational logic - when there is no reason to do so? Rational logic has never failed me yet. If there is absolutely nothing wrong with the best weapon in my arsenal, why throw it away in favor of something that is nonfunctional at best?

As I keep saying, I don't believe you have to give it up. At least keep it as you said, as purely "Ojective as you can."

You have still never answered the question: How did you choose your religion from the infinite number of other religions? How did you weigh, judge, compare, analyze? How can you know you've picked correctly?

I have answered it but you didn't recognize it as such.

Again, because in my examination, it adresses in depth every aspect of life as we know it, or in other words, it is comprehensive in explanation and perfect in content and application to the problem. I do not see or find this in any other writings. Upon embracing it actually for the second time I realized the whole crux of it was based on and about "relationship". Not "Religion".

As a matter of fact the first time I embraced it was on logic alone.
My heart was not in it.
This was my reasoning: Since I had no say so or input into the fact I was born "at all", much less to who, to what gender, to what time, to what make up, etc., I reasoned that I may not, alternatively have any say so about when I leave. Now if what was being purported concerning the Gospel turned out to be true then I would embrace it as a "After life insurance policy".Then as with any insurance, I would have that contingency covered. I didn't find out until much later, there was a lot more to it than that.

 

[Duke]

Concerning rationale, yes I think you are.

Rationality is the only valid tool we have. As soon as you step into the realm of irrational, supernatural ideas, you immediately discard any possible method of analyzing or comparing concepts. All you have is how they make you feel emotionally. That may or may not be right - it just feels good or bad. Plenty of things make you feel good that are actually bad, and vice versa.

Exactly. Many "isms" have done just that.

Yet you've picked an "ism" of your own, that has also been a cause of wars. Frankly, I think the odds of any possible God adhering to any sort of Scripture (of any religion) are laughable.

Then if you are "truly" an "Objectovist", you will examine on the basis of merit by application and quality of content, not just a predetermined, prearrived at conclusion of what Logic will allow.

For example, you say the Bible as well as other religious material cannot be authenticated. IMO with the exception of the New Testament, there are certainly arguments pro and con. Even if you want to include the exception, my logic says: Then let the the writing authenticate it self. In other words I will wiegh it on content alone.

Content, shmontent. The most exciting, intriguing, breathtaking fiction is still fiction. I'd think the world was a much more interesting and beautiful place if it was full of dragons, wizards, elves, and hobbits, but that doesn't mean Tolkein was writing gospel. You can take in a lot of philosophy reading Lord of the Rings, but no matter how compellingly the story is written, the mere act of writing the content doesn't make it any more true.

I can judge the mortal effects of a given set of behaviours that are prescribed by a religious code, so I can weigh the merits of those effects. But I can't judge the merits at all where the content delves into the supernatural, because the evidence for all supernatural things is precisely the same: zero.

Aren't you assuming (predetermining in advance) that you don't have it? (Immortality)

I'm predicting that I am not immortal based on the compelling evidence that I do have immortality: ZERO. Note that I'm also predicting that there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn who will fly me after death to the Land of Nod, and also predicting that the Earth is not carried on the back of a giant interdimensional space tortoise who will eat my soul when I die. It's equally possible I'm wrong on all 3 counts - just not very likely, considering the evidence.

There is no limit to the things that might be true, so you have two choices - believe in literally everything, or believe in nothing that is not repeatedly shown to be true. Since only the latter allows any kind of logical analysis, I've chosen that way.

The existence of God and an immortal soul have never met that test, no matter how desperately some people want/need to believe in them.

So in a sense, you are still searching?
Well maybe, maybe not then.

In the sense that I approach life scientifically, and science is always striving for better understanding, then yes, I will always be searching.

But not out of any spiritual yearning or wistful desire that there "must be more to life than this". Not out of any need for "deeper meaning" or dissatisfaction with the results of my reasoning; just out of the innate curiosity of a scientist.

As I keep saying, I don't believe you have to give it up. At least keep it as you said, as purely "Ojective as you can."

I do not see how you can apply the word "objective" to something that by definition can only be chosen on the basis of purest emotion.

You cannot apply logic to the supernatural. You can apply logic to the earthly human outcome of adhering to a particular faith, but you cannot apply it to any discussion of "soul" or "hereafter" or "heaven" or "hell".

You can say, "Well, if I follow these teachings of Christ, and behave these certain ways towards my fellow humans, then I will not steal from them or hurt them." That's all good and logical. But you cannot extrapolate that further on to "...so if all goes well, I will be admitted to heaven for eternity." There is absolutely no logical way to apply reason to that concept.

I have answered it but you didn't recognize it as such. Again, because in my examination, it adresses in depth every aspect of life as we know it, or in other words, it is comprehensive in explanation and perfect in content and application to the problem. I do not see or find this in any other writings.

So having an immediate, definite answer to "Where did we come from?" is better than having an accurate but incomplete answer? So arbitrarily believing God Did It is better than living with the knowledge that our understanding is still incomplete but improving constantly? Because on that score alone (and myriad other ways), I don't see any way at all to describe the Bible as "comprehensive in explanation" or "perfect in content". If it was either of those two things, why have people been arguing about what it says for 2,000 years?

Upon embracing it actually for the second time I realized the whole crux of it was based on and about "relationship". Not "Religion".

That's as may be, but there is nothing that requires God in setting a foundation for human relationships. It is perfectly possible to create a totally secular set of logical ethics that mimics the good "Five Commandments" without relying on any sort of supreme being or supernatural presence.

And if you're talking about a relationship with God, again All you have to go on is how belief makes you feel, which has utterly zero bearing on whether that belief is true or false.

As a matter of fact the first time I embraced it was on logic alone.
My heart was not in it.
This was my reasoning: Since I had no say so or input into the fact I was born "at all", much less to who, to what gender, to what time, to what make up, etc., I reasoned that I may not, alternatively have any say so about when I leave. Now if what was being purported concerning the Gospel turned out to be true then I would embrace it as a "After life insurance policy".Then as with any insurance, I would have that contingency covered. I didn't find out until much later, there was a lot more to it than that.

Especially since if the Gospel was false and you'd chosen the wrong team, you might have an unimaginable punishment in store for you. Oh, wait, that might still be the case. No way to tell from here, is there?

At least you figured out that Pascal's Wager is a very poor bet to take.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Seriously. Read it (as in pick up an actual copy - neither of us read Arabic, but at least an Arabic-English translation will be close. Close enough for someone reading a Hebrew-Aramic-Greek-Latin-Greek-English translated text). You'll be surprised.

You answer my question:
"You are saying it doesn't say that"?
and I'll answer yours.

Also I asked earlier, but you may have missed it... Do you eat prawns? How about bacon?

 

[Famine]

Now now, we'll have no secrets here. Besides which, I did ask you some days ago... But, if you promise not to be continuingly evasive, the answer is "No, it does not say that". In fact it says that there should be no compulsion in religion.

It is worth your while reading the Qu'ran though. I promise you.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Rationality is the only valid tool we have. As soon as you step into the realm of irrational, supernatural ideas, you immediately discard any possible method of analyzing or comparing concepts.

Thats based on your assumption, that rationale is incabable of evaluating the supernatural or spiritual things. I contend that it up to a point, it can.

All you have is how they make you feel emotionally. That may or may not be right - it just feels good or bad. Plenty of things make you feel good that are actually bad, and vice versa.

For about the the fourth time. It is not emotionally based. Thats why you can't always trust your emotions and sometimes can't always trust your logic either.
Although I will agree that many people participate in it and may be drawn to it on a emotional basis. However this doesn't take away from the fact that what they found was real even though that might have been the avenue of discovery.

Yet you've picked an "ism" of your own, that has also been a cause of wars. Frankly, I think the odds of any possible God adhering to any sort of Scripture (of any religion) are laughable.

Its much better than any "ism".
Why would it be laughable?

Content, shmontent. The most exciting, intriguing, breathtaking fiction is still fiction. I'd think the world was a much more interesting and beautiful place if it was full of dragons, wizards, elves, and hobbits, but that doesn't mean Tolkein was writing gospel. You can take in a lot of philosophy reading Lord of the Rings, but no matter how compellingly the story is written, the mere act of writing the content doesn't make it any more true.

Just reading it doesn't, but hearing what it says may.

I can judge the mortal effects of a given set of behaviours that are prescribed by a religious code, so I can weigh the merits of those effects. But I can't judge the merits at all where the content delves into the supernatural, because the evidence for all supernatural things is precisely the same: zero.

So if something is given out of the supernatural that is obviously beneficial, that has no validation bearing on its source? That sounds illogical to me.

I'm predicting that I am not immortal based on the compelling evidence that I do have immortality: ZERO. Note that I'm also predicting that there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn who will fly me after death to the Land of Nod, and also predicting that the Earth is not carried on the back of a giant interdimensional space tortoise who will eat my soul when I die. It's equally possible I'm wrong on all 3 counts - just not very likely, considering the evidence.

So you put no credence in "near death" experiences.

There is no limit to the things that might be true, so you have two choices - believe in literally everything, or believe in nothing that is not repeatedly shown to be true. Since only the latter allows any kind of logical analysis, I've chosen that way.

Something that might be true, doesn't mean that it is, or that it isn't.
I don't see how you conclude its a beleive in "everything" as the "only" choice alternative.

The existence of God and an immortal soul have never met that test, no matter how desperately some people want/need to believe in them.

I think you discount the possibility that many believe it because its true.

In the sense that I approach life scientifically, and science is always striving for better understanding, then yes, I will always be searching.

My question is; will you ever reach the purpose of the search, given your self imposed restrictions on what may be validation?

But not out of any spiritual yearning or wistful desire that there "must be more to life than this". Not out of any need for "deeper meaning" or dissatisfaction with the results of my reasoning; just out of the innate curiosity of a scientist.

I do not see how you can apply the word "objective" to something that by definition can only be chosen on the basis of purest emotion.

I don't see how you can. "Objective" in the purest since of the word doesn't discount anything beforehand including emotion.

You cannot apply logic to the supernatural. You can apply logic to the earthly human outcome of adhering to a particular faith, but you cannot apply it to any discussion of "soul" or "hereafter" or "heaven" or "hell".

Why not? Like I said in the previous post, you probably have some forms of insurance don't you? Isn't that logical.
Whats the difference?

You can say, "Well, if I follow these teachings of Christ, and behave these certain ways towards my fellow humans, then I will not steal from them or hurt them." That's all good and logical. But you cannot extrapolate that further on to "...so if all goes well, I will be admitted to heaven for eternity." There is absolutely no logical way to apply reason to that concept.

Again, why not. The one who gave the teachings that are worth following, also clearly taught that there is a Heaven and a Hell, and every person by their own choice will spend eternity in one or the other. So your explanation is "He just got carried away on that part, he didn't really mean it".
Again I find that highly illogical, particularly when he also said; "I am the the way, the truth and the life".

So having an immediate, definite answer to "Where did we come from?" is better than having an accurate but incomplete answer? So arbitrarily believing God Did It is better than living with the knowledge that our understanding is still incomplete but improving constantly? Because on that score alone (and myriad other ways), I don't see any way at all to describe the Bible as "comprehensive in explanation" or "perfect in content". If it was either of those two things, why have people been arguing about what it says for 2,000 years?

And just as many if not more have embraced it for those very reasons.

That's as may be, but there is nothing that requires God in setting a foundation for human relationships. It is perfectly possible to create a totally secular set of logical ethics that mimics the good "Five Commandments" without relying on any sort of supreme being or supernatural presence.

Nothing, except that he wants it and pretty bad I must say.
Thats easy enough to state after the fact.

And if you're talking about a relationship with God, again All you have to go on is how belief makes you feel, which has utterly zero bearing on whether that belief is true or false.

Its not how the belief makes you feel. Its how he responds to you because of it.

Especially since if the Gospel was false and you'd chosen the wrong team, you might have an unimaginable punishment in store for you. Oh, wait, that might still be the case. No way to tell from here, is there?

Maybe not for you, but yes I can tell from where I am.

At least you figured out that Pascal's Wager is a very poor bet to take.

Pretty sound advice I'd say.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Now now, we'll have no secrets here. Besides which, I did ask you some days ago... But, if you promise not to be continuingly evasive, the answer is "No, it does not say that". In fact it says that there should be no compulsion in religion.

It is worth your while reading the Qu'ran though. I promise you.

I eat anything I want.

I will have to see if I still have a copy around. It been along time since I read any of it.

Never the less, tell me from where the history of execution came from and why it is still common today.

 

[Keef]

I imagine an execution made just as much sense 10,000 years ago as is does today. An eye for an eye, you know. If you take someone's life maliciously, you deserve to have yours taken.

 

[Duke]

Thats based on your assumption, that rationale is incabable of evaluating the supernatural or spiritual things. I contend that it up to a point, it can.

How? The supernatural has no repeatable effect. It can't be seen, smelled, touched, heard, or sensed with any instruments. No calculation can demonstrate that it must exist and no prediction can be made based upon what it has been observed to do.

You have a Bible that tells you about your version of the supernatural. There are limitless others. Prove to me that yours is "better" or even just more correct than any of the others. Show me how it has been demonstrated superior in any measurable criteria.

For about the the fourth time. It is not emotionally based. Thats why you can't always trust your emotions and sometimes can't always trust your logic either.
Although I will agree that many people participate in it and may be drawn to it on a emotional basis. However this doesn't take away from the fact that what they found was real even though that might have been the avenue of discovery.

For about the 12th time - there is no way to analyze the supernatural except based on what you feel about it. Not to drag him in as an unwilling witness, but Nicksfix above gave the perfect demonstration: he showed how he decided what flavor of supernatural he preferred, and he did so based entirely on what he felt. He made logical decisions based on his emotions, but they were not based in logic. Somehow you're failing to grasp this shading of the point.

Its much better than any "ism".
Why would it be laughable?

It IS an "ism", just like any other you'd care to identify. Do you think it is somehow different because it is a faith rather than a secular philosophy?

Just reading it doesn't, but hearing what it says may.

Ummm, what? No matter how appealing the message, fiction is fiction. It is not changed into truth by the act of reading/seeing/hearing/whatever.

So if something is given out of the supernatural that is obviously beneficial, that has no validation bearing on its source? That sounds illogical to me.

Prove that it is given out of the supernatural.

So you put no credence in "near death" experiences.

No, I don't. I also don't give any credence to "alien abduction" experiences that feature skinny little grey humanoids with big heads and giant eyes and hairless skin... even though there are thousands of stories that all feature a similar tale. It's not repeatable - you can't predict it or make it happen. And nobody has ever reliably turned up with aliens in hand.

Something that might be true, doesn't mean that it is, or that it isn't.
I don't see how you conclude its a beleive in "everything" as the "only" choice alternative.

Because you have no way to prove that your belief is true. You can't prove God exists. Hindus cannot prove Vishnu exists. Moslems cannot prove that Allah exists. You've all chosen to believe that your gods exist based on some arbitrary text that insists they do. No holy book has ever been demonstrated to be the unquestionable word of god. It's never even been peer-reviewed enough to be taken as generally accepted. So you've chosen your god based on the text you happened to read - but what if it is the wrong book? What if "god" doesn't agree with any of the books?

You can't prove that the god is your God of the Christian Faith. You can't measure or photograph god and demonstrate that he must be the one in the Bible. Which means that you've chosen arbitrarily that He is The One, but your research is not complete - you haven't read every religious text, and even if you did, there are infinite possibilities of what god could be outside any book ever written. Since you've chosen to believe in your God arbitrarily, then you have absolutely no criteria by which you can dismiss other gods. They may be just as arbitrarily right - they are equally provable as the correct god, so if you believe in one, then you have to believe in them all.

Unless you admit that you are just picking the one that feels true.

I think you discount the possibility that many believe it because its true.

No, I just don't discount that it has never been proven. Prove God exists, or let him demonstrate his own existence to me.

But, conveniently, He only demonstrates Himself to people who already (or are at least willing to) believe he exists. Coincidence? I think not. If he's almighty it should be a snap for him to correct my mistaken logic by manifesting here and showing me I'm wrong. I'm waiting, but I'm not holding my breath.

My question is; will you ever reach the purpose of the search, given your self imposed restrictions on what may be validation?

What "purpose"? Every day that I increase my knowledge of reality, I reach the purpose of my search. So my answer is: Yes. All the time.

I don't see how you can. "Objective" in the purest since of the word doesn't discount anything beforehand including emotion.

No, that's not true. Objective means "regardless of the frame of reference". Since emotion is by definition subjective, there is no way something emotional can be true regardless of the frame of reference.

Why not? Like I said in the previous post, you probably have some forms of insurance don't you? Isn't that logical.
Whats the difference?

The difference is that I am only insured against things that I can reasonably predict will affect me. I don't have volcano insurance on my house since I live in the midatlantic US, which is geologically extremely stable. I don't have flood insurance since I live at the top of a hill. I don't have insurance against alien abduction. If those little grey guys come around, I'm screwed. But I've decided to take that risk considering the extremely favorable odds with which I can predict I'm safe from them.

I do not have insurance against every possible thing that could ever happen, ever. Doing so would consume my entire life, trying to think of new things to insure myself against and pay for it all.

Again, why not. The one who gave the teachings that are worth following, also clearly taught that there is a Heaven and a Hell, and every person by their own choice will spend eternity in one or the other. So your explanation is "He just got carried away on that part, he didn't really mean it".

No, he may well have believed it; I have no way to know. Even if Jesus himself believed he was the Son of God, that still doesn't make it true. He also may have merely invented the whole story just to lend his teachings a little muscle. There's no way to prove it was one way or the other.

But the point is, it is possible (and it has been done) to logically generate a code of ethics that is remarkably similar to Jesus's, but that does not require divine authority to make it valid. You can begin with a basic set of human rights which derive directly from the existence of each human being. Then you create a code of ethics that protects those rights for every individual who follows it, and only denies those rights after an individual has chosen to violate another's rights. It's already been done, and as I said, it does not require supernatural involvement in any way.

It makes no sense to say "Jesus got A (ethics) right, so B (divinity) must also be true." The two halves of Jesus's teaching don't have any logical bearing on each other. I had a great English teacher who was crap at mathematics...

Again I find that highly illogical, particularly when he also said; "I am the the way, the truth and the life".

Which differs from just about every other deity in what way? I find it highly illogical that you have summarily chosen Jesus as the Correct Answer when there are a huge number of other prophets/deities who also claim to be the way and the truth and the life (or something similar). Zeus claimed to be the Father of the Greek pantheon - why is that not sufficent for you to believe in Zeus?

And just as many if not more have embraced it for those very reasons.

I'm only talking about people who all believe it's the Word of God! Let alone people of other religions, or atheists - Christians can't even agree on what the Bible says!

Nothing, except that he wants it and pretty bad I must say.
Thats easy enough to state after the fact.

People have martyred themselves for less.

Its not how the belief makes you feel. Its how he responds to you because of it.

And you know he is responding to you... how? Because "he" makes you feel something. This whole conversation would be much easier (and shorter) if only you could admit that to yourself.

Maybe not for you, but yes I can tell from where I am.

Then prove it. Give me some evidence other than your own second-hand insistance.

Pretty sound advice I'd say.

Which part is sound advice? I doubt you're taking the same message from that as I was.

 

[Famine]

I eat anything I want.

The Old Testament says you shouldn't. If you believe in the Ten Commandments, Creation and titheing, you shouldn't eat pork.

Never the less, tell me from where the history of execution came from and why it is still common today.

No idea. It seems to be relatively cross-cultural, not consistently applied even in countries with the same ethnic or religious profile though.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

The Old Testament says you shouldn't. If you believe in the Ten Commandments, Creation and titheing, you shouldn't eat pork.

Most of the ritualistic observances of the Old(Jewish) Covenant were superceded and removed by the New Covenant including the dietary aspects.

 

[Famine]

Most of the ritualistic observances of the Old(Jewish) Covenant were superceded and removed by the New Covenant including the dietary aspects.

I agree - with the substitution of the word "most" with the word "all".

Nevertheless, if you conform to any part of the OT - notable examples are that homosexuality is a sin and that Genesis is an accurate description of universal origins, but in your case we include titheing and the Ten Commandments - you ought logically and for consistency conform to all parts of it.

 

[Danoff]

Nevertheless, if you conform to any part of the OT - notable examples are that homosexuality is a sin and that Genesis is an accurate description of universal origins, but in your case we include titheing and the Ten Commandments - you ought logically and for consistency conform to all parts of it.

...but... but... bacon tastes good! God couldn't have possibly meant what he said in the OT. He was just having a laugh.

 

[Strittan]

I'm not into any religion, but it is an intresting subject for sure! And it would be cool if there was some sort of higher power, but there is none, lol. There is absolutely no proof of one anyway...

 

[SuperCobraJet]

How? The supernatural has no repeatable effect. It can't be seen, smelled, touched, heard, or sensed with any instruments. No calculation can demonstrate that it must exist and no prediction can be made based upon what it has been observed to do.

Exactly, so that ought to tell you something.
Your self elevated idea of the dimension of Logic is not wholely powerful enough to examine the subject. Particularly the way you insist on applying it.

BTW on a whole, death should be repeatable enough for you, however you will, as far as you know, only die once. Tell me how will you apply repeatability to that?

You have a Bible that tells you about your version of the supernatural. There are limitless others. Prove to me that yours is "better" or even just more correct than any of the others. Show me how it has been demonstrated superior in any measurable criteria.

I 've already told you at least three times.

For about the 12th time - there is no way to analyze the supernatural except based on what you feel about it. Not to drag him in as an unwilling witness, but Nicksfix above gave the perfect demonstration: he showed how he decided what flavor of supernatural he preferred, and he did so based entirely on what he felt. He made logical decisions based on his emotions, but they were not based in logic. Somehow you're failing to grasp this shading of the point.

I'm not failing to grasp anything. Thats one approach, not the only one.

It IS an "ism", just like any other you'd care to identify. Do you think it is somehow different because it is a faith rather than a secular philosophy?

Absolutely.

Ummm, what? No matter how appealing the message, fiction is fiction. It is not changed into truth by the act of reading/seeing/hearing/whatever.

Its up to the reader to determine.
Read the book for yourself Duke, OJECTIVELY, or minus all your predetermined judgements.

Prove that it is given out of the supernatural.

Where do you think those 5 commandments came from?

No, I don't. I also don't give any credence to "alien abduction" experiences that feature skinny little grey humanoids with big heads and giant eyes and hairless skin... even though there are thousands of stories that all feature a similar tale. It's not repeatable - you can't predict it or make it happen. And nobody has ever reliably turned up with aliens in hand.

See below.

Because you have no way to prove that your belief is true. You can't prove God exists. Hindus cannot prove Vishnu exists. Moslems cannot prove that Allah exists. You've all chosen to believe that your gods exist based on some arbitrary text that insists they do. No holy book has ever been demonstrated to be the unquestionable word of god. It's never even been peer-reviewed enough to be taken as generally accepted. So you've chosen your god based on the text you happened to read - but what if it is the wrong book? What if "god" doesn't agree with any of the books?

I've read parts of all. Only one has something different that I have seen. A Cure, not just a treating of the symptoms.

You can't prove that the god is your God of the Christian Faith. You can't measure or photograph god and demonstrate that he must be the one in the Bible. Which means that you've chosen arbitrarily that He is The One, but your research is not complete - you haven't read every religious text, and even if you did, there are infinite possibilities of what god could be outside any book ever written. Since you've chosen to believe in your God arbitrarily, then you have absolutely no criteria by which you can dismiss other gods. They may be just as arbitrarily right - they are equally provable as the correct god, so if you believe in one, then you have to believe in them all.

There's something being chosen arbitrarily here, but its not me choosing it.
Again, that is your preconceived idea.

Unless you admit that you are just picking the one that feels true.

To the contrary, I've already explained how I chose and it has nothing to do with feeling.

No, I just don't discount that it has never been proven. Prove God exists, or let him demonstrate his own existence to me.

Its up to the reader to determine.
Read the book for yourself Duke, OJECTIVELY, or minus all your predetermined judgements.

But, conveniently, He only demonstrates Himself to people who already (or are at least willing to) believe he exists. Coincidence? I think not. If he's almighty it should be a snap for him to correct my mistaken logic by manifesting here and showing me I'm wrong. I'm waiting, but I'm not holding my breath.

To the contrary, its up to you to determine that. Besides, as you say, he certainly could, but it wouldn't exactly be sporting of him would it? Nobody likes to be singled out.
Let this same attitude and purpose and [humble] mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus: [Let Him be your example in humility:]

What "purpose"? Every day that I increase my knowledge of reality, I reach the purpose of my search. So my answer is: Yes. All the time.

The purpose of a "Search", is to "Find".

No, that's not true. Objective means "regardless of the frame of reference". Since emotion is by definition subjective, there is no way something emotional can be true regardless of the frame of reference.

Yes its true. There goes your "Objectivity".

The difference is that I am only insured against things that I can reasonably predict will affect me. I don't have volcano insurance on my house since I live in the midatlantic US, which is geologically extremely stable. I don't have flood insurance since I live at the top of a hill. I don't have insurance against alien abduction. If those little grey guys come around, I'm screwed. But I've decided to take that risk considering the extremely favorable odds with which I can predict I'm safe from them.

I do not have insurance against every possible thing that could ever happen, ever. Doing so would consume my entire life, trying to think of new things to insure myself against and pay for it all.

There's a policy you can get that will do that, including "eternity".
It's "free", but its not "cheap".

No, he may well have believed it; I have no way to know. Even if Jesus himself believed he was the Son of God, that still doesn't make it true. He also may have merely invented the whole story just to lend his teachings a little muscle. There's no way to prove it was one way or the other.

Its up to the reader to determine.
Read the book for yourself Duke, OJECTIVELY, or minus all your predetermined judgements.

But the point is, it is possible (and it has been done) to logically generate a code of ethics that is remarkably similar to Jesus's, but that does not require divine authority to make it valid. You can begin with a basic set of human rights which derive directly from the existence of each human being. Then you create a code of ethics that protects those rights for every individual who follows it, and only denies those rights after an individual has chosen to violate another's rights. It's already been done, and as I said, it does not require supernatural involvement in any way.

Again, after the fact, its easy to claim.
The truth is our (USA) whole system is based in and of Judeo-Christian principles.

It makes no sense to say "Jesus got A (ethics) right, so B (divinity) must also be true." The two halves of Jesus's teaching don't have any logical bearing on each other. I had a great English teacher who was crap at mathematics....

I doubt your English Teacher claimed to be "the Son of GOD".
That could make a difference.

Which differs from just about every other deity in what way? I find it highly illogical that you have summarily chosen Jesus as the Correct Answer when there are a huge number of other prophets/deities who also claim to be the way and the truth and the life (or something similar). Zeus claimed to be the Father of the Greek pantheon - why is that not sufficent for you to believe in Zeus?

To my knowledge Zeus has done nothing to help me. Neither does he appear that interested.

I'm only talking about people who all believe it's the Word of God! Let alone people of other religions, or atheists - Christians can't even agree on what the Bible says!

People have martyred themselves for less.

I don't know of hardly anything people or groups of people all agree on.

And you know he is responding to you... how? Because "he" makes you feel something. This whole conversation would be much easier (and shorter) if only you could admit that to yourself.

You cannot know GOD relationally through "feelings", no more than you can know your wife. Feelings develop "out of" the relationship. You can be infatuated prior, but theres no real relationship yet.
Your trying to put the cart before the Horse.

And in this case you cannot know him relationally, without the additional dimension of the "Holy Spirit". Its part of the Cure.(Being born again) He is a "Spirit" being. You did not have that dimension when you were born physically.
Thats why you cannot understand what I'm talking about, because you don't have it. You still only have the dimensions you had at physical birth. So you have determined what I'm saying doesn't exsist or is impossible.
I understand that perfectly, because for years I didn't even know I had it(Holy Spirit) due to my ensconced insistence that it had to be something intellectual. In reality relationships(like with your wife) are based generally on a small part of that.

Then prove it. Give me some evidence other than your own second-hand insistance.

I just did. Thats all I can attest to and its "first hand" not second. There are millions of others who can as well.
I know it to be as real as anything else to date and anyone can have it that wants it and is willing to receive it.

Which part is sound advice? I doubt you're taking the same message from that as I was.

Evidently.
In case you still haven't figured it out yet, this process is just like marriage.
It transcends logic. Why do you think men are generally the reluctant ones in that process?
It likewise is a blood Covenant.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I agree - with the substitution of the word "most" with the word "all".

I don't. Jesus put it this way:
It is not what goes into the mouth of a man that makes him unclean and defiled, but what comes out of the mouth; this makes a man unclean and defiles [him].

Nevertheless, if you conform to any part of the OT - notable examples are that homosexuality is a sin and that Genesis is an accurate description of universal origins, but in your case we include titheing and the Ten Commandments - you ought logically and for consistency conform to all parts of it.

Sexual immorality of any kind, is still clearly taught in the New Testament to be avoided and is clearly sin.

Tithing was instituted prior to the Jewish Covenant with Abraham and continued on through to the New. The only difference is, as with the Ten Commandments, it is now observed under Grace, not under Law.

 

[Famine]

I don't. Jesus put it this way:
It is not what goes into the mouth of a man that makes him unclean and defiled, but what comes out of the mouth; this makes a man unclean and defiles [him].

So, which parts of the Old Testament does Jesus say you must ignore and which parts does Jesus say you must adhere to?

Sexual immorality of any kind, is still clearly taught in the New Testament to be avoided and is clearly sin.

So, within which part of the New Testament does Jesus say homosexual sex is immoral and a sin?


A further question naturally follows from the concept that Jesus swept away the OT rules (except the ones you think he didn't). If one set of rules was needed for people a thousand years before he was born and then another set of rules was needed at that point which required wholesale eradication of the previous rules, what was so different about those people that they needed different rules - and what exactly do we have in common with the people 2,000 years ago that we still need to be governed by the second set of rules?