2 of 5
2
God Is Logical
Posted: 03 October 2006 03:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  161
Joined  2005-12-20

There can be only one “supreme” being.  I use “God” in the generic sense that Aristotle used it and proved it.

The onus is equally on you to prove he does not exist.

No, words mean things, so it is not a linguistic trick else no conversation can be had about any topic.

Perhaps God has made himself scarce to you because he know your predilection NOT to believe.

Believing or not believing is an intellectual style.

The Code of Manu says a “believer” can learn a moral lesson form a loose woman ... because of his predilection, his openness to accepting the lessons of the universe.

This is where the atheists here fall short—your cranky intellectual style that is biased against certain KINDS of evidence ad certain KINDS of logic ... a coldness and flatness of affect, an inability to grasp ideas as big as God.

Do you believe man is whole being?  That the same brain that loves his wife and children also things about math and science?

This is the new frontier, the integration of one’s being such that there is consistency across the spectrum of human personality and functioning.

The KIND of thinking that Christian or Jew does is commensurate with a just and loving personality.

My experience tells me that atheists have part of their brains not functioning very well.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 October 2006 05:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  901
Joined  2005-02-23
[quote author=“Thomas”]There can be only one “supreme” being.  I use “God” in the generic sense that Aristotle used it and proved it.

So you would be equally happy if I were to stop being an atheist, and become a Muslim, or an Orthodox Jew, instead of becoming a Christian (again)?

The onus is equally on you to prove he does not exist.

No!  I categorically reject this, as it opens the door to madness.  Must I also disprove Santa, the Easter Bunny, unicorns and perpetual motion?  The burden of proof must be on the claimant, else all claims must be given credence.

No, words mean things, so it is not a linguistic trick else no conversation can be had about any topic.

Words are handles, by which we identify concepts.  Some of these concepts map to things which are concrete, and some of them map to things which are abstract.  Still others map to things which are speculative.  I can talk about teleportation all day long, but that doesn’t make it real.

Perhaps God has made himself scarce to you because he know your predilection NOT to believe.

I did believe.  I believed strongly enough to witness to people who I was sure were going to hell.  I prayed and read my Bible daily.  The only reason that God has become scarce is because he was only ever a figment of my imagination.

Believing or not believing is an intellectual style.

And wearing open toed shoes is a fashion choice.  I wouldn’t advise open toed shoes for a construction site, and I wouldn’t advise such uncritical belief for anyone that cares about the truth.

The Code of Manu says a “believer” can learn a moral lesson form a loose woman ... because of his predilection, his openness to accepting the lessons of the universe.

The Code of Manu also says that a woman should never enjoy her own will.

This is where the atheists here fall short—your cranky intellectual style that is biased against certain KINDS of evidence ad certain KINDS of logic ... a coldness and flatness of affect, an inability to grasp ideas as big as God.

Is this supposed to intimidate me into reconsidering God?  In my experience, it is the true believers that have a defect of imagination.  The universe is far grander, far more interesting and far more terrible than anything described in any of the various books of fables.

Do you believe man is whole being?  That the same brain that loves his wife and children also things about math and science?

Stop playing games!  It is the same meat, no doubt, but different parts of it are active during the examples you bring up.  So what?

This is the new frontier, the integration of one’s being such that there is consistency across the spectrum of human personality and functioning.

No, this is mystical mumbo jumbo, and although its effects seem harmless enough on the individual level, in aggregate, they are destroying us.

The KIND of thinking that Christian or Jew does is commensurate with a just and loving personality.

And you think that the non-believers among us are incapable of justice and love?  I put to you the notion that, knowing just how precious and limited this life is, we truly value justice, and spending time with our loved ones is a truer sign of love, for we spend the handful of moments that we have, knowing that when we are gone, so are they.

My experience tells me that atheists have part of their brains not functioning very well.

Our brains are not functioning well?  You can’t even articulate what it is that you believe, much less defend it, except by claiming that anyone else who does not believe it is defective.  Readers of this exchange can draw their own conclusions.

-Matt

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 October 2006 06:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  161
Joined  2005-12-20

[quote author=“psiconoclast”][quote author=“Thomas”]There can be only one “supreme” being.  I use “God” in the generic sense that Aristotle used it and proved it.

So you would be equally happy if I were to stop being an atheist, and become a Muslim, or an Orthodox Jew, instead of becoming a Christian (again)?

Yes.

The onus is equally on you to prove he does not exist.

No!  I categorically reject this, as it opens the door to madness.  Must I also disprove Santa, the Easter Bunny, unicorns and perpetual motion?  The burden of proof must be on the claimant, else all claims must be given credence.

You’re claim that there is no God is on equal footing to mine that there is.  The burden is equally distributed.

No, words mean things, so it is not a linguistic trick else no conversation can be had about any topic.

Words are handles, by which we identify concepts.  Some of these concepts map to things which are concrete, and some of them map to things which are abstract.  Still others map to things which are speculative.  I can talk about teleportation all day long, but that doesn’t make it real.

Ontological proofs map to things that exist but that may not be immediately apparent.  It has to be that way or else words are unnecessary—we could just point and grunt.

Perhaps God has made himself scarce to you because he know your predilection NOT to believe.

I did believe.  I believed strongly enough to witness to people who I was sure were going to hell.  I prayed and read my Bible daily.  The only reason that God has become scarce is because he was only ever a figment of my imagination.

You did not have a mature faith.  How were you sure they were going to Hell?

Believing or not believing is an intellectual style.

And wearing open toed shoes is a fashion choice.  I wouldn’t advise open toed shoes for a construction site, and I wouldn’t advise such uncritical belief for anyone that cares about the truth.

So, you’re playing with the word “style?”

Tell me when you’re ready to have an intelligent conversation.

You know, Matt, being clever is not the same as being wise.

We talked before, about a year ago, and you were more serious then.  What happened?

The Code of Manu says a “believer” can learn a moral lesson form a loose woman ... because of his predilection, his openness to accepting the lessons of the universe.

The Code of Manu also says that a woman should never enjoy her own will.

So, tell me, where is the perfect atheist code of conduct?

My point is a valid insight about one’s predilection to believe as an intellectual style as opposed to an evidentiary bias that may well cut you off from the lessons of the universe.

In time the Code of Manu, the “belief” it taught as an intellectual style, led India to become a democratic nation before others in the East.

So, let’s not complain.

This is where the atheists here fall short—your cranky intellectual style that is biased against certain KINDS of evidence and certain KINDS of logic ... a coldness and flatness of affect, an inability to grasp ideas as big as God.

Is this supposed to intimidate me into reconsidering God?  In my experience, it is the true believers that have a defect of imagination.  The universe is far grander, far more interesting and far more terrible than anything described in any of the various books of fables.

???  Intimidate you?

No, that was not my intent.  I’m sorry if I came across that way.

As I’ve tried to say, belief in the existence of God does not depend on fables but on logical proofs.  There have always been strongly philosophical elements to religious faith.

Do you believe man is whole being?  That the same brain that loves his wife and children also does math and science?

Stop playing games!  It is the same meat, no doubt, but different parts of it are active during the examples you bring up.  So what?

Yikes!

My dear Matt, no, it is a complex and wonderful system that integrates at magnificently profound levels all at once to give clarity and inspiration and love and truth all of a piece.

Yikes!  It’s not just independently active “parts.”

My gosh.  Golly, my gosh.  I can’t believe you said that.  “Meat?”  The brain is meat?

You’ll have to excuse me while I recover from your saying that.

Well, okay, I’ve read ahead and I can see that I’ve definitely hit upon a theory for explaining atheism.

This is the new frontier, the integration of one’s being such that there is consistency across the spectrum of human personality and functioning.

No, this is mystical mumbo jumbo, and although its effects seem harmless enough on the individual level, in aggregate, they are destroying us.

Okay, you’re being a little melodramatic there, Matt.

My “new frontier” statement above, now that I look at it, is the mere description of mental health.

As I read it now against your “parts of meat” analysis above I’m thinking that atheism may be a dissociative disorder.  Conversational intolerance, flat affect, evidentiary bias, willful disbelief ... these all now appear to me as defense mechanisms.

The KIND of thinking that a Christian or Jew does is commensurate with a just and loving personality.

And you think that the non-believers among us are incapable of justice and love?  I put to you the notion that, knowing just how precious and limited this life is, we truly value justice, and spending time with our loved ones is a truer sign of love, for we spend the handful of moments that we have, knowing that when we are gone, so are they.

But no atheist invented justice.

Would you give up that handful of moments to save a dirty, rotten sinner, which is what Christ did?

My experience tells me that atheists have part of their brains not functioning very well.

Our brains are not functioning well?  You can’t even articulate what it is that you believe, much less defend it, except by claiming that anyone else who does not believe it is defective.  Readers of this exchange can draw their own conclusions.

Sure, I can articulate what I believe very well—that’s why my churches always grew and why students sign up for my classes.

For our purposes here, this is what I believe:

That Jesus is the Christ, Son of the living God and Savior of the world,

That he died on the Cross for our sins,

That on the third day he arose to live as Lord of the universe, is head of his body, the Church, the elect of God by faith and true Israel,

That everyone should repent and become his disciples because Christianity supersedes Judaism as the world’s only true religion,

That Christ will return to judge the world according to his word and to complete the salvation of his people, even the resurrection of the body and everlasting life.

Amen.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 October 2006 08:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  901
Joined  2005-02-23

[quote author=“Thomas”][quote author=“psiconoclast”][quote author=“Thomas”]There can be only one “supreme” being.  I use “God” in the generic sense that Aristotle used it and proved it.

So you would be equally happy if I were to stop being an atheist, and become a Muslim, or an Orthodox Jew, instead of becoming a Christian (again)?

Yes.

This just does not jibe with what you claim at the end of your post.  I would not have the “real” truth, if I were to become a Muslim (or a Jew), so, based on what you claim, I can see (sort of) how you would be happier if I were one of those things, than if I remained an athieist, but it seems that you should be happiest if I were to become a Christian (again).

The onus is equally on you to prove he does not exist.

No!  I categorically reject this, as it opens the door to madness.  Must I also disprove Santa, the Easter Bunny, unicorns and perpetual motion?  The burden of proof must be on the claimant, else all claims must be given credence.

You’re claim that there is no God is on equal footing to mine that there is.  The burden is equally distributed.

No.  Not even remotely.  Again, I could claim that there are unicorns, and you might claim that there are none, but those claims would not be on equal grounds.  If they were, then anybody could claim anything.

No, words mean things, so it is not a linguistic trick else no conversation can be had about any topic.

Words are handles, by which we identify concepts.  Some of these concepts map to things which are concrete, and some of them map to things which are abstract.  Still others map to things which are speculative.  I can talk about teleportation all day long, but that doesn’t make it real.

Ontological proofs map to things that exist but that may not be immediately apparent.  It has to be that way or else words are unnecessary—we could just point and grunt.

No, they map to things that might exist.

Perhaps God has made himself scarce to you because he know your predilection NOT to believe.

I did believe.  I believed strongly enough to witness to people who I was sure were going to hell.  I prayed and read my Bible daily.  The only reason that God has become scarce is because he was only ever a figment of my imagination.

You did not have a mature faith.  How were you sure they were going to Hell?

Because they had not accepted Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.

Believing or not believing is an intellectual style.

And wearing open toed shoes is a fashion choice.  I wouldn’t advise open toed shoes for a construction site, and I wouldn’t advise such uncritical belief for anyone that cares about the truth.

So, you’re playing with the word “style?”

You are the one who brought up style, and in the context in which you use it, I find it ludicrous.

Tell me when you’re ready to have an intelligent conversation.

Please return the favor.

You know, Matt, being clever is not the same as being wise.

Believe me, I don’t confuse the two.  Is it really wise, however, to throw out concrete reason, and replace it with the fog of “believe what one feels”?  I think not.

We talked before, about a year ago, and you were more serious then.  What happened?

I’m busier.  Also, I am not simply engaging in these discussions for the pleasure of it.  I change my style of interaction (though not my style of thought) from time to time, and see what, if any, effect that has.

The Code of Manu says a “believer” can learn a moral lesson form a loose woman ... because of his predilection, his openness to accepting the lessons of the universe.

The Code of Manu also says that a woman should never enjoy her own will.

So, tell me, where is the perfect atheist code of conduct?

But of course there isn’t one.  I should hasten to add that atheists, not having a direct line to the divine, have never been arrogant enough to presume to write such a code.

My point is a valid insight about one’s predilection to believe as an intellectual style as opposed to an evidentiary bias that may well cut you off from the lessons of the universe.

Yes, I am sure that if I was willing to believe things without evidence, that I would believe a lot more things.  Unfortunately, Thomas, when people believe such things, they often become close-minded to the things that the evidence actually does say.  The shame is that it is you, and people like you, who have filled their minds with things that they “feel” are true, that ignore evidence, and miss out on the lessons that the universe has to offer.

In time the Code of Manu, the “belief” it taught as an intellectual style, led India to become a democratic nation before others in the East.

So, let’s not complain.

Ok, we won’t (and let’s hope that none of the women read this either, because they might not like a democracy in which women are not supposed to be free).

This is where the atheists here fall short—your cranky intellectual style that is biased against certain KINDS of evidence and certain KINDS of logic ... a coldness and flatness of affect, an inability to grasp ideas as big as God.

Is this supposed to intimidate me into reconsidering God?  In my experience, it is the true believers that have a defect of imagination.  The universe is far grander, far more interesting and far more terrible than anything described in any of the various books of fables.

???  Intimidate you?

No, that was not my intent.  I’m sorry if I came across that way.

As I’ve tried to say, belief in the existence of God does not depend on fables but on logical proofs.  There have always been strongly philosophical elements to religious faith.

These logical proofs are bogus.  Saint Anselm’s proof: “God, by definition, is that than which a greater cannot be thought. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.” can be used to prove all sorts of interesting things: “Ultrafood, by definition, is food than which a greater cannot be thought. Ultrafood exists in the understanding. If Ultrafood exists in the understanding, we could imagine it to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, Ultrafood must exist.”

Do you believe man is whole being?  That the same brain that loves his wife and children also does math and science?

Stop playing games!  It is the same meat, no doubt, but different parts of it are active during the examples you bring up.  So what?

Yikes!

My dear Matt, no, it is a complex and wonderful system that integrates at magnificently profound levels all at once to give clarity and inspiration and love and truth all of a piece.

Yikes!  It’s not just independently active “parts.”

My gosh.  Golly, my gosh.  I can’t believe you said that.  “Meat?”  The brain is meat?

You’ll have to excuse me while I recover from your saying that.

FMRI scans show that different parts of the brain are more active during different types of thought.  Yes, it is all integrated, you couldn’t cut the parts out without damaging the whole, but the atomic notion of personhood that you seem to have just doesn’t hold together when investigated with an open mind.

This is the new frontier, the integration of one’s being such that there is consistency across the spectrum of human personality and functioning.

No, this is mystical mumbo jumbo, and although its effects seem harmless enough on the individual level, in aggregate, they are destroying us.

Okay, you’re being a little melodramatic there, Matt.

No, I’m not.  Your cousins, the religious right, are hijacking this country, and shaping policy in a way which is disastrous for the entire world.  Every time a “philosopher” comes along, and gives them intellectual cover in the form of this or that “proof”, it just emboldens them that much further.

My “new frontier” statement above, now that I look at it, is the mere description of mental health.

As I read it now against your “parts of meat” analysis above I’m thinking that atheism may be a dissociative disorder.  Conversational intolerance, flat affect, evidentiary bias, willful disbelief ... these all now appear to me as defense mechanisms.

No, the only disorder displayed here is delusion, and it is displayed by you.

The KIND of thinking that a Christian or Jew does is commensurate with a just and loving personality.

And you think that the non-believers among us are incapable of justice and love?  I put to you the notion that, knowing just how precious and limited this life is, we truly value justice, and spending time with our loved ones is a truer sign of love, for we spend the handful of moments that we have, knowing that when we are gone, so are they.

But no atheist invented justice.

Would you give up that handful of moments to save a dirty, rotten sinner, which is what Christ did?

I don’t believe in dirty rotten sinners, at least not like that.  I am here, instead of many other things I could be doing.

My experience tells me that atheists have part of their brains not functioning very well.

Our brains are not functioning well?  You can’t even articulate what it is that you believe, much less defend it, except by claiming that anyone else who does not believe it is defective.  Readers of this exchange can draw their own conclusions.

Sure, I can articulate what I believe very well—that’s why my churches always grew and why students sign up for my classes.

For our purposes here, this is what I believe:

That Jesus is the Christ, Son of the living God and Savior of the world,

That he died on the Cross for our sins,

That on the third day he arose to live as Lord of the universe, is head of his body, the Church, the elect of God by faith and true Israel,

That everyone should repent and become his disciples because Christianity supersedes Judaism as the world’s only true religion,

That Christ will return to judge the world according to his word and to complete the salvation of his people, even the resurrection of the body and everlasting life.

Amen.

Thanks for spelling it out.  How do you get from ontological proofs of God to believing all of that?

-Matt

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2006 03:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

Sure, I can articulate what I believe very well—that’s why my churches always grew and why students sign up for my classes.

For our purposes here, this is what I believe:

That Jesus is the Christ, Son of the living God and Savior of the world,

I don’t believe this. In fact, I cannot for the life of me even determine what the words in the line immediately above might mean in any physical universe. For example, what does “world” mean in that context? I assume you mean the world of humans, as other beings do not need “God”. Nor any other words for that matter.

That he died on the Cross for our sins,

I am not sure I understand the meaning for the words “died” and “sins” in the above context. See below for why. I also do not understand why the first letter of the word “Cross” is in uppercase. Is it the proper name for a being or geographic locality? I have always understood that it is just a couple of pieces of wood (or in your more modern iconography, plastic).

That on the third day he arose to live as Lord of the universe, is head of his body, the Church, the elect of God by faith and true Israel,

Do you use “head” and “body” in any meaningful anatomical, or even semantic, sense here? What does “elect of God” mean? He “arose”? I thought he “died”. Perhaps he was not really “dead”, but just playing possum. Hmm. “Church”; another curious use of uppercase.

That everyone should repent and become his disciples because Christianity supersedes Judaism as the world’s only true religion,

It seems like “repent” and “become his disciples” might mean the same thing here. Why do you need both phrases? Really. I’m curious. I really like the way you spell “supersedes” correctly. It means “sits on top of”. As a secular jew, I really want you to know what that feels like. It smells like Christianity has not changed its undershorts for about 2000 years. Eeek. Yet another curious and unwarranted use of uppercase.

That Christ will return to judge the world according to his word and to complete the salvation of his people, even the resurrection of the body and everlasting life.

Return? Salvation? What does “return” mean for a noncorporeal being? “Complete the salvation”? Why didn’t somebody do the job right the first time around, or the second, third, etc.? Sorry about being so nuts about uppercase. It’s a Signal.

Amen.

Quack. Quack. rolleyes

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2006 05:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  161
Joined  2005-12-20

[quote author=“psiconoclast”][quote author=“Thomas”][quote author=“psiconoclast”][quote author=“Thomas”]There can be only one “supreme” being.  I use “God” in the generic sense that Aristotle used it and proved it.

So you would be equally happy if I were to stop being an atheist, and become a Muslim, or an Orthodox Jew, instead of becoming a Christian (again)?

Yes.

This just does not jibe with what you claim at the end of your post.  I would not have the “real” truth, if I were to become a Muslim (or a Jew), so, based on what you claim, I can see (sort of) how you would be happier if I were one of those things, than if I remained an athieist, but it seems that you should be happiest if I were to become a Christian (again).

Yes.

The onus is equally on you to prove he does not exist.

No!  I categorically reject this, as it opens the door to madness.  Must I also disprove Santa, the Easter Bunny, unicorns and perpetual motion?  The burden of proof must be on the claimant, else all claims must be given credence.

You’re claim that there is no God is on equal footing to mine that there is.  The burden is equally distributed.

No.  Not even remotely.  Again, I could claim that there are unicorns, and you might claim that there are none, but those claims would not be on equal grounds.  If they were, then anybody could claim anything.

For the mere fact that the bulk of humanity has some kind of faith and atheism seems weird, the burden is at least equally divided.

No, words mean things, so it is not a linguistic trick else no conversation can be had about any topic.

Words are handles, by which we identify concepts.  Some of these concepts map to things which are concrete, and some of them map to things which are abstract.  Still others map to things which are speculative.  I can talk about teleportation all day long, but that doesn’t make it real.

Ontological proofs map to things that exist but that may not be immediately apparent.  It has to be that way or else words are unnecessary—we could just point and grunt.

No, they map to things that might exist.

I’m making progress!

You’ve gone from a flat denial to “might.”  :wink:

Perhaps God has made himself scarce to you because he know your predilection NOT to believe.

I did believe.  I believed strongly enough to witness to people who I was sure were going to hell.  I prayed and read my Bible daily.  The only reason that God has become scarce is because he was only ever a figment of my imagination.

You did not have a mature faith.  How were you sure they were going to Hell?

Because they had not accepted Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.

Who told you that?

Believing or not believing is an intellectual style.

And wearing open toed shoes is a fashion choice.  I wouldn’t advise open toed shoes for a construction site, and I wouldn’t advise such uncritical belief for anyone that cares about the truth.

So, you’re playing with the word “style?”

You are the one who brought up style, and in the context in which you use it, I find it ludicrous.

There is an intuitive, global intellectual style that serves as a kind of reason, that has served man very well.  It is not ludicrous, Matt.  It’s key to understanding things that can’t be apprehended elsewise.

Communication by music, poetry, analogy—this is true communication of things that actually exist but are not well served by a cranky, analytic style of thought.

How do you account for so many intelligent people being satisfied with ontological proofs?  I’m talking thousands upon thousands of the best thinkers you’d ever want to meet.

And they are happy people, too.

Yes, I contend that there are bridges in the mind between the empirically scientific and the abstractly inspirational.

You know, Matt, being clever is not the same as being wise.

Believe me, I don’t confuse the two.  Is it really wise, however, to throw out concrete reason, and replace it with the fog of “believe what one feels”?  I think not.

Concrete operations (the point and grunt approach to reality) is relatively low in taxonomy of cognitive function.

We talked before, about a year ago, and you were more serious then.  What happened?

I’m busier.  Also, I am not simply engaging in these discussions for the pleasure of it.  I change my style of interaction (though not my style of thought) from time to time, and see what, if any, effect that has.

I had been on meds after losing my leg in a boating accident.  I was released last November and have enjoyed being off those things, getting my mind and emotions back to what passes for normal with me!

The Code of Manu says a “believer” can learn a moral lesson form a loose woman ... because of his predilection, his openness to accepting the lessons of the universe.

The Code of Manu also says that a woman should never enjoy her own will.

So, tell me, where is the perfect atheist code of conduct?

But of course there isn’t one.  I should hasten to add that atheists, not having a direct line to the divine, have never been arrogant enough to presume to write such a code.

I wouldn’t think it would be arrogant but a duty and helpful for you to do so.  It could outline the precepts of good living and how to accomplish that sans religion.

So, you tear down everyone else’s code and provide not one yourself?  ???

My point is a valid insight about one’s predilection to believe as an intellectual style as opposed to an evidentiary bias that may well cut you off from the lessons of the universe.

Yes, I am sure that if I was willing to believe things without evidence, that I would believe a lot more things.  Unfortunately, Thomas, when people believe such things, they often become close-minded to the things that the evidence actually does say.  The shame is that it is you, and people like you, who have filled their minds with things that they “feel” are true, that ignore evidence, and miss out on the lessons that the universe has to offer.

“A lot more things,” “such things” sound like generalities to me.

I haven’t ignored evidence.  In college and seminary we were required to explore all points of view.

Yes, there is a kind of reason that borders on “feeling” but is not an actual emotion.  There are flashes of insight that spark positive emotion but the two are not the same ... they are just part of the same soul of a man.

Since my experience I’ve had a heightened awareness about nearly everything that goes on around me.  I “get” things, thoughts and impressions that seem to come intuitively, sometimes flooding in, like gifts of thought.  It’s as if I’ve tapped into a universal consciousness.  Actually, it makes me kind-of nervous!

There have been times in lectures or preaching or counseling when I’ve looked up and people are crying because of what I’ve said.  They tell me how I’ve spoken to their heart and situation in ways I could not have consciously known.  Sometimes, I depart from my notes and “just talk” like form the heart and it seems to meet the moment in profound ways.  I’m often surprised by what what comes out of my own mouth.

In time the Code of Manu, the “belief” it taught as an intellectual style, led India to become a democratic nation before others in the East.

So, let’s not complain.

Ok, we won’t (and let’s hope that none of the women read this either, because they might not like a democracy in which women are not supposed to be free).

India has passed extensive legislation to officially grant women’s rights.  It’s low going but the point is valid—without a “believing” posture toward the universe the Indians may never have even gone democratic.

In the meantime, your point and grunt posture toward reality would never have led to social progress of that sort.  Prove to me on the basis of concrete evidence that women have rights.

This is where the atheists here fall short—your cranky intellectual style that is biased against certain KINDS of evidence and certain KINDS of logic ... a coldness and flatness of affect, an inability to grasp ideas as big as God.

Is this supposed to intimidate me into reconsidering God?  In my experience, it is the true believers that have a defect of imagination.  The universe is far grander, far more interesting and far more terrible than anything described in any of the various books of fables.

???  Intimidate you?

No, that was not my intent.  I’m sorry if I came across that way.

As I’ve tried to say, belief in the existence of God does not depend on fables but on logical proofs.  There have always been strongly philosophical elements to religious faith.

These logical proofs are bogus.  Saint Anselm’s proof: “God, by definition, is that than which a greater cannot be thought. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.” can be used to prove all sorts of interesting things: “Ultrafood, by definition, is food than which a greater cannot be thought. Ultrafood exists in the understanding. If Ultrafood exists in the understanding, we could imagine it to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, Ultrafood must exist.”

Many advances in human history and intellectual development has occurred exactly that way.  It’s the normal and ordinary way the mind works.

It’s even the Scientific Method is to hypothesize a thing and then test it.

Many millions and billions have tested the theory of God’s existence and found it true.

Maybe you just gave up on God too soon?  Scripture says you have to stick with him to the end.  He who endures to the end will be saved.

I have found that God is true and good.  I have experienced his love for me.

Do you believe man is whole being?  That the same brain that loves his wife and children also does math and science?

Stop playing games!  It is the same meat, no doubt, but different parts of it are active during the examples you bring up.  So what?

Yikes!

My dear Matt, no, it is a complex and wonderful system that integrates at magnificently profound levels all at once to give clarity and inspiration and love and truth all of a piece.

Yikes!  It’s not just independently active “parts.”

My gosh.  Golly, my gosh.  I can’t believe you said that.  “Meat?”  The brain is meat?

You’ll have to excuse me while I recover from your saying that.

FMRI scans show that different parts of the brain are more active during different types of thought.  Yes, it is all integrated, you couldn’t cut the parts out without damaging the whole, but the atomic notion of personhood that you seem to have just doesn’t hold together when investigated with an open mind.

So you say.

This is the new frontier, the integration of one’s being such that there is consistency across the spectrum of human personality and functioning.

No, this is mystical mumbo jumbo, and although its effects seem harmless enough on the individual level, in aggregate, they are destroying us.

Okay, you’re being a little melodramatic there, Matt.

No, I’m not.  Your cousins, the religious right, are hijacking this country, and shaping policy in a way which is disastrous for the entire world.  Every time a “philosopher” comes along, and gives them intellectual cover in the form of this or that “proof”, it just emboldens them that much further.

Red Herring, Slippery Slope ... these are logical fallacies, Matt.

Plus, I do not believe the country is being hijacked.  I believe that is Liberal hysterics and political propaganda.

[I snipped ad hominem remarks on both our parts.]

The KIND of thinking that a Christian or Jew does is commensurate with a just and loving personality.

And you think that the non-believers among us are incapable of justice and love?  I put to you the notion that, knowing just how precious and limited this life is, we truly value justice, and spending time with our loved ones is a truer sign of love, for we spend the handful of moments that we have, knowing that when we are gone, so are they.

But no atheist invented justice.

Would you give up that handful of moments to save a dirty, rotten sinner, which is what Christ did?

I don’t believe in dirty rotten sinners, at least not like that.  I am here, instead of many other things I could be doing.

Divine love in Christ reveals itself such that he died for those unworthy of his death.

Who can conceive an atheist promoting a moral principle like that?  People of faith, a Christian or a Buddhist, might actually do that.  In fact, they have, for different reasons, of course.

The spirit of Christ is in many, many wonderful Christians.  I’ve known so many in my churches over the years.  Beautiful, humble, loving, warm, generous, smart, accomplished, joyful, giving people.  I’ve been truly blessed by so many of my people.

I’m not a good person, Matt.  I have many sinful thoughts and was so ambitious.  I have to work at keeping myself pure.  I’ve known some that are good as gold, inspirational people that exude goodness everywhere they go.  I’ve known them in their suffering, too.  I’m supposed to go help them, to pray for them—but I’ve had people that blessed ME!  Now, you’ve made me cry.

Aren’t you willing to put up with a pompous Jerry Falwell in order to get a Mother Teresa?  I am.

My experience tells me that atheists have part of their brains not functioning very well.

Our brains are not functioning well?  You can’t even articulate what it is that you believe, much less defend it, except by claiming that anyone else who does not believe it is defective.  Readers of this exchange can draw their own conclusions.

Sure, I can articulate what I believe very well—that’s why my churches always grew and why students sign up for my classes.

For our purposes here, this is what I believe:

That Jesus is the Christ, Son of the living God and Savior of the world,

That he died on the Cross for our sins,

That on the third day he arose to live as Lord of the universe, is head of his body, the Church, the elect of God by faith and true Israel,

That everyone should repent and become his disciples because Christianity supersedes Judaism as the world’s only true religion,

That Christ will return to judge the world according to his word and to complete the salvation of his people, even the resurrection of the body and everlasting life.

Amen.

Thanks for spelling it out.  How do you get from ontological proofs of God to believing all of that?

If God exists then it’s reasonable to ask “What is he like?”  We can assume he would want to answer that question for himself.  He did in Christ, God coming to us in a way that we need and can understand.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2006 06:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  161
Joined  2005-12-20

[quote author=“Salt Creek”]

Sure, I can articulate what I believe very well—that’s why my churches always grew and why students sign up for my classes.

For our purposes here, this is what I believe:

That Jesus is the Christ, Son of the living God and Savior of the world,

I don’t believe this. In fact, I cannot for the life of me even determine what the words in the line immediately above might mean in any physical universe. For example, what does “world” mean in that context? I assume you mean the world of humans, as other beings do not need “God”. Nor any other words for that matter.

It means everything, the people and the natural created order of things.

Christian teaching is that the whole world will be renewed.

That he died on the Cross for our sins,

I am not sure I understand the meaning for the words “died” and “sins” in the above context. See below for why. I also do not understand why the first letter of the word “Cross” is in uppercase. Is it the proper name for a being or geographic locality? I have always understood that it is just a couple of pieces of wood (or in your more modern iconography, plastic).

English is a Germanic language with a tendency to capitalize all nouns.  It has carried over into modern usage as a tendency to capitalize important words.  The cross is the universal symbol of Christianity because of what Jesus did for us there.  He died for our sins.

Sin the the willful transgression of a known law of God, a moral law.

That on the third day he arose to live as Lord of the universe, is head of his body, the Church, the elect of God by faith and true Israel,

Do you use “head” and “body” in any meaningful anatomical, or even semantic, sense here? What does “elect of God” mean? He “arose”? I thought he “died”. Perhaps he was not really “dead”, but just playing possum. Hmm. “Church”; another curious use of uppercase.

“Head” is figurative speech for being in charge of things, hopefully, if we let him.

Elect means we enjoy special favor and privilege with God because we are believers, in covenant relation, having accepted his offer of forgiveness.

Bodily resurrection is the central truth of Christianity.  If Jesus is still dead then he cannot fulfill his own vision for us and for the world, to redeem and renew us.

That everyone should repent and become his disciples because Christianity supersedes Judaism as the world’s only true religion,

It seems like “repent” and “become his disciples” might mean the same thing here. Why do you need both phrases? Really. I’m curious. I really like the way you spell “supersedes” correctly. It means “sits on top of”. As a secular jew, I really want you to know what that feels like. It smells like Christianity has not changed its undershorts for about 2000 years. Eeek. Yet another curious and unwarranted use of uppercase.

You make a good point about repentance and discipleship.  Repentance is not something that stops once you’re a Christian.  But there is a kind-of change that occurs when one decides to follow Christ.  Repentance can mean a mere change of mind or direction of life, leaving past things for a new future, a hope of better things.

No, I don’t mean “supersedes” that smelly way, of course, but in the way of progressive revelation, a new covenant that had been promised, a linear succession not a hierarchical thing like you describe.

I apologize for any any foul odor you’ve caught.  I hope it wasn’t me.

You’ll find that many Christians have changed their views dramatically.  In some parts it has swung so far the other way that low church Southern fundamentalists are thinking Israel is greater than their own Pastor.  I’ve heard some complain that members are giving money to Israel through TV ads and they are struggling to meet the budget at their own church!  Yikes!

That Christ will return to judge the world according to his word and to complete the salvation of his people, even the resurrection of the body and everlasting life.

Return? Salvation? What does “return” mean for a noncorporeal being? “Complete the salvation”? Why didn’t somebody do the job right the first time around, or the second, third, etc.? Sorry about being so nuts about uppercase. It’s a Signal.

Amen.

Quack. Quack. rolleyes

LOL Quack. Quack.  That’s funny.  :wink:

Now, what do capital letters signal?  What does it signal that you do not capitalize “Jew”?  ???

“Complete” means the body is not fully redeemed and it will be on that promised day.  Just as Jesus was raised in a new body so we will receive a new body.

The salvation we experience now is spiritual renewal, re-birth, if you will, and it will be completed with the new world, the kingdom age to come, as also the Old Testament predicts.

Do you not believe the Prophets?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2006 07:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

[quote author=“Thomas”]Now, what do capital letters signal?  What does it signal that you do not capitalize “Jew”?  ???

Do you not believe the Prophets?

I told you I was a secular jew. What part of ‘secular’ do you not understand?

“Complete” means the body is not fully redeemed and it will be on that promised day. Just as Jesus was raised in a new body so we will receive a new body.

The salvation we experience now is spiritual renewal, re-birth, if you will, and it will be completed with the new world, the kingdom age to come, as also the Old Testament predicts.

This violates too many laws of physics for me even to comment. Excepting this. “Redeemed” has no meaning in this context, at least in relation to “body”.

[ Edited: 04 October 2006 07:37 AM by ]
 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2006 07:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

[quote author=“Thomas”]It means everything, the people and the natural created order of things.

Christian teaching is that the whole world will be renewed.

Everything? The ‘natural created order of things’? The ‘whole world’?

We’re going around in circles here, of your own devising.

You ask me which I would prefer, obeying authority or knowing the truth, but cognitively identify them with one another, It’s not a real question, then.

[ Edited: 04 October 2006 07:47 AM by ]
 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2006 07:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  901
Joined  2005-02-23

[quote author=“Thomas”]

The onus is equally on you to prove he does not exist.

No!  I categorically reject this, as it opens the door to madness.  Must I also disprove Santa, the Easter Bunny, unicorns and perpetual motion?  The burden of proof must be on the claimant, else all claims must be given credence.

You’re claim that there is no God is on equal footing to mine that there is.  The burden is equally distributed.

No.  Not even remotely.  Again, I could claim that there are unicorns, and you might claim that there are none, but those claims would not be on equal grounds.  If they were, then anybody could claim anything.

For the mere fact that the bulk of humanity has some kind of faith and atheism seems weird, the burden is at least equally divided.

At various points in the past, a majority of people (in a given population) believed that the world was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe and that vermin were spontaneously generated.  Appeal to the majority is invalid reasoning.

Perhaps God has made himself scarce to you because he know your predilection NOT to believe.

I did believe.  I believed strongly enough to witness to people who I was sure were going to hell.  I prayed and read my Bible daily.  The only reason that God has become scarce is because he was only ever a figment of my imagination.

You did not have a mature faith.  How were you sure they were going to Hell?

Because they had not accepted Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.

Who told you that?

Who told me that people who don’t accept Christ go to hell?  The Bible, every pastor whose sermons I ever attended.

Who told me they had not accepted Christ?  They did.

Believing or not believing is an intellectual style.

And wearing open toed shoes is a fashion choice.  I wouldn’t advise open toed shoes for a construction site, and I wouldn’t advise such uncritical belief for anyone that cares about the truth.

So, you’re playing with the word “style?”

You are the one who brought up style, and in the context in which you use it, I find it ludicrous.

There is an intuitive, global intellectual style that serves as a kind of reason, that has served man very well.  It is not ludicrous, Matt.  It’s key to understanding things that can’t be apprehended elsewise.

Communication by music, poetry, analogy—this is true communication of things that actually exist but are not well served by a cranky, analytic style of thought.

Look, I’m not saying that people can’t, or shouldn’t love one another.  I’m not saying that the arts are worthless, they certainly are not.  What I am saying is that when the feelings that these things arouse cause people to make concrete claims about reality, those claims must also be backed up with hard reason.

How do you account for so many intelligent people being satisfied with ontological proofs?  I’m talking thousands upon thousands of the best thinkers you’d ever want to meet.

Communal reinforcement.

And they are happy people, too.

Being happy is not the same thing as being right.  A person can, of course, be both, but a person can be happy and wrong, or unhappy and right.

Yes, I contend that there are bridges in the mind between the empirically scientific and the abstractly inspirational.

I’m not going to deny that intuition is important.  I simply think that it must be combined with reason, to validate what it comes up with.

You know, Matt, being clever is not the same as being wise.

Believe me, I don’t confuse the two.  Is it really wise, however, to throw out concrete reason, and replace it with the fog of “believe what one feels”?  I think not.

Concrete operations (the point and grunt approach to reality) is relatively low in taxonomy of cognitive function.

Particle accelerators are hardly point and grunt.  Gene sequencing is hardly point and grunt.  You insist on calling it point and grunt, because it allows you to dismiss the mountains of work that have gone into carving an actual understanding of the universe, so that you can cling to fantasy.

We talked before, about a year ago, and you were more serious then.  What happened?

I’m busier.  Also, I am not simply engaging in these discussions for the pleasure of it.  I change my style of interaction (though not my style of thought) from time to time, and see what, if any, effect that has.

I had been on meds after losing my leg in a boating accident.  I was released last November and have enjoyed being off those things, getting my mind and emotions back to what passes for normal with me!

I’m truly happy that you are off of your meds.  I spent some time on painkillers after a bad series of accidents myself, and I know how unpleasant it can be.

The Code of Manu says a “believer” can learn a moral lesson form a loose woman ... because of his predilection, his openness to accepting the lessons of the universe.

The Code of Manu also says that a woman should never enjoy her own will.

So, tell me, where is the perfect atheist code of conduct?

But of course there isn’t one.  I should hasten to add that atheists, not having a direct line to the divine, have never been arrogant enough to presume to write such a code.

I wouldn’t think it would be arrogant but a duty and helpful for you to do so.  It could outline the precepts of good living and how to accomplish that sans religion.

So, you tear down everyone else’s code and provide not one yourself?  ???

I won’t provide a code, but I can provide a princile.  The core of any proper way of living should, IMHO, be based on empathy.  I know what I feel, and I know what I like, and what I dislike.  I have every reason to believe that other people are largely similar to me in that respect.  Thus, I should not transgress on their feelings (inflict pain, etc.) without cause.

My point is a valid insight about one’s predilection to believe as an intellectual style as opposed to an evidentiary bias that may well cut you off from the lessons of the universe.

Yes, I am sure that if I was willing to believe things without evidence, that I would believe a lot more things.  Unfortunately, Thomas, when people believe such things, they often become close-minded to the things that the evidence actually does say.  The shame is that it is you, and people like you, who have filled their minds with things that they “feel” are true, that ignore evidence, and miss out on the lessons that the universe has to offer.

“A lot more things,” “such things” sound like generalities to me.

I haven’t ignored evidence.  In college and seminary we were required to explore all points of view.

People of many different faiths study other faiths.  The rate of cross conversion is pretty low, so I think that we can make a working assumption that once one holds a particular faith, merely considering other points of view is not sufficient.  Since the various faiths make mutually exclusive claims, it is clear that the very act of belief is exclusionary.

Yes, there is a kind of reason that borders on “feeling” but is not an actual emotion.  There are flashes of insight that spark positive emotion but the two are not the same ... they are just part of the same soul of a man.

Again, I am not denying intuitive impulses, I am just saying that without the filter of reason, the signal to noise ratio isn’t all that good.

Since my experience I’ve had a heightened awareness about nearly everything that goes on around me.  I “get” things, thoughts and impressions that seem to come intuitively, sometimes flooding in, like gifts of thought.  It’s as if I’ve tapped into a universal consciousness.  Actually, it makes me kind-of nervous!

The human mind is an impressive thing.  The “rules” of logic are cumbersome.  For most people, most of the time, going to the trouble of using formal logic for something that the mind can do, automatically, far faster is a waste of time.  However, sometimes the conclusions that the mind reaches automatically need to be questioned. 

There have been times in lectures or preaching or counseling when I’ve looked up and people are crying because of what I’ve said.  They tell me how I’ve spoken to their heart and situation in ways I could not have consciously known.  Sometimes, I depart from my notes and “just talk” like form the heart and it seems to meet the moment in profound ways.  I’m often surprised by what what comes out of my own mouth.

I’m sure that you have given some inspired talks.  There is nothing unreasonable about picking up on non-verbal cues from another person, and reaching out to comfort them.  The unreasonable comes when we start making specific claims about deities and afterlifes, and attempting to dictate to other people how they should live, based on these claims.

In time the Code of Manu, the “belief” it taught as an intellectual style, led India to become a democratic nation before others in the East.

So, let’s not complain.

Ok, we won’t (and let’s hope that none of the women read this either, because they might not like a democracy in which women are not supposed to be free).

India has passed extensive legislation to officially grant women’s rights.  It’s low going but the point is valid—without a “believing” posture toward the universe the Indians may never have even gone democratic.

When I read the headlines, it is religiously motivated people that are largely responsible for rolling back the clock with regards to rights.

In the meantime, your point and grunt posture toward reality would never have led to social progress of that sort.  Prove to me on the basis of concrete evidence that women have rights.

My empathy principle is all that is needed.  I realize that I am not looking out for my own rights, if I am not looking out for other people’s rights.

This is where the atheists here fall short—your cranky intellectual style that is biased against certain KINDS of evidence and certain KINDS of logic ... a coldness and flatness of affect, an inability to grasp ideas as big as God.

Is this supposed to intimidate me into reconsidering God?  In my experience, it is the true believers that have a defect of imagination.  The universe is far grander, far more interesting and far more terrible than anything described in any of the various books of fables.

???  Intimidate you?

No, that was not my intent.  I’m sorry if I came across that way.

As I’ve tried to say, belief in the existence of God does not depend on fables but on logical proofs.  There have always been strongly philosophical elements to religious faith.

These logical proofs are bogus.  Saint Anselm’s proof: “God, by definition, is that than which a greater cannot be thought. God exists in the understanding. If God exists in the understanding, we could imagine Him to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, God must exist.” can be used to prove all sorts of interesting things: “Ultrafood, by definition, is food than which a greater cannot be thought. Ultrafood exists in the understanding. If Ultrafood exists in the understanding, we could imagine it to be greater by existing in reality. Therefore, Ultrafood must exist.”

Many advances in human history and intellectual development has occurred exactly that way.  It’s the normal and ordinary way the mind works.

It’s even the Scientific Method is to hypothesize a thing and then test it.

But you can’t test God.  You can hypothesize him all day long, but at the end of the day, it isn’t falsifiable.

Many millions and billions have tested the theory of God’s existence and found it true.

No, they like to believe.  There is a difference.

Maybe you just gave up on God too soon?  Scripture says you have to stick with him to the end.  He who endures to the end will be saved.

I have found that God is true and good.  I have experienced his love for me.

Witness my frustration.  You believe something because you feel it.  You want me to believe based on what you feel, and that just does not add up.

Do you believe man is whole being?  That the same brain that loves his wife and children also does math and science?

Stop playing games!  It is the same meat, no doubt, but different parts of it are active during the examples you bring up.  So what?

Yikes!

My dear Matt, no, it is a complex and wonderful system that integrates at magnificently profound levels all at once to give clarity and inspiration and love and truth all of a piece.

Yikes!  It’s not just independently active “parts.”

My gosh.  Golly, my gosh.  I can’t believe you said that.  “Meat?”  The brain is meat?

You’ll have to excuse me while I recover from your saying that.

FMRI scans show that different parts of the brain are more active during different types of thought.  Yes, it is all integrated, you couldn’t cut the parts out without damaging the whole, but the atomic notion of personhood that you seem to have just doesn’t hold together when investigated with an open mind.

So you say.

You doubt that?  You doubt that different parts of the brain are active during differnt kinds of thinking?  You doubt that stimulating specific areas of the brain will induce certain kinds of thoughts and feelings?

This is the new frontier, the integration of one’s being such that there is consistency across the spectrum of human personality and functioning.

No, this is mystical mumbo jumbo, and although its effects seem harmless enough on the individual level, in aggregate, they are destroying us.

Okay, you’re being a little melodramatic there, Matt.

No, I’m not.  Your cousins, the religious right, are hijacking this country, and shaping policy in a way which is disastrous for the entire world.  Every time a “philosopher” comes along, and gives them intellectual cover in the form of this or that “proof”, it just emboldens them that much further.

Red Herring, Slippery Slope ... these are logical fallacies, Matt.

Plus, I do not believe the country is being hijacked.  I believe that is Liberal hysterics and political propaganda.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.  As long as you believe, you won’t think that belief is a problem, so I will table this for now.

The KIND of thinking that a Christian or Jew does is commensurate with a just and loving personality.

And you think that the non-believers among us are incapable of justice and love?  I put to you the notion that, knowing just how precious and limited this life is, we truly value justice, and spending time with our loved ones is a truer sign of love, for we spend the handful of moments that we have, knowing that when we are gone, so are they.

But no atheist invented justice.

Would you give up that handful of moments to save a dirty, rotten sinner, which is what Christ did?

I don’t believe in dirty rotten sinners, at least not like that.  I am here, instead of many other things I could be doing.

Divine love in Christ reveals itself such that he died for those unworthy of his death.

Firemen and police officers sacrafice themselves for other people.  Some scientists spend their lives working on things that will benefit humanity and turn down opportunities for wealth and personal comfort.

Who can conceive an atheist promoting a moral principle like that?  People of faith, a Christian or a Buddhist, might actually do that.  In fact, they have, for different reasons, of course.

It’s hype.  Atheists certainly have sacrificed themselves for others.

Also, the governments of the world have done more for people than the religions have.  If we look at it objectively, there has been more secular sacrafice for our fellow man than religious sacrafice.

The spirit of Christ is in many, many wonderful Christians.  I’ve known so many in my churches over the years.  Beautiful, humble, loving, warm, generous, smart, accomplished, joyful, giving people.  I’ve been truly blessed by so many of my people.

I’m not a good person, Matt.  I have many sinful thoughts and was so ambitious.  I have to work at keeping myself pure.  I’ve known some that are good as gold, inspirational people that exude goodness everywhere they go.  I’ve known them in their suffering, too.  I’m supposed to go help them, to pray for them—but I’ve had people that blessed ME!  Now, you’ve made me cry.

Aren’t you willing to put up with a pompous Jerry Falwell in order to get a Mother Teresa?  I am.

No, and Mother Teresa was not the saint that people make her out to be.

I’d happily get rid of both of them for a good national healthcare system.

My experience tells me that atheists have part of their brains not functioning very well.

Our brains are not functioning well?  You can’t even articulate what it is that you believe, much less defend it, except by claiming that anyone else who does not believe it is defective.  Readers of this exchange can draw their own conclusions.

Sure, I can articulate what I believe very well—that’s why my churches always grew and why students sign up for my classes.

For our purposes here, this is what I believe:

That Jesus is the Christ, Son of the living God and Savior of the world,

That he died on the Cross for our sins,

That on the third day he arose to live as Lord of the universe, is head of his body, the Church, the elect of God by faith and true Israel,

That everyone should repent and become his disciples because Christianity supersedes Judaism as the world’s only true religion,

That Christ will return to judge the world according to his word and to complete the salvation of his people, even the resurrection of the body and everlasting life.

Amen.

Thanks for spelling it out.  How do you get from ontological proofs of God to believing all of that?

If God exists then it’s reasonable to ask “What is he like?”  We can assume he would want to answer that question for himself.  He did in Christ, God coming to us in a way that we need and can understand.

If God exists.  Even if I grant your notion that God exists (which I don’t, except for conversation), I still can’t see how you get from there to such certainty that the God of the Bible is the right one.

-Matt

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2006 07:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  161
Joined  2005-12-20

[quote author=“Salt Creek”][quote author=“Thomas”]Now, what do capital letters signal?  What does it signal that you do not capitalize “Jew”?  ???

Do you not believe the Prophets?

I told you I was a secular jew. What part of ‘secular’ do you not understand?

Oops.  Sorry.  I missed that.

But it may answer why you do not capitalize “Jew.”

“Complete” means the body is not fully redeemed and it will be on that promised day. Just as Jesus was raised in a new body so we will receive a new body.

The salvation we experience now is spiritual renewal, re-birth, if you will, and it will be completed with the new world, the kingdom age to come, as also the Old Testament predicts.

This violates too many laws of physics for me even to comment. Excepting this. “Redeemed” has no meaning in this context.

You may to revise your view of the “laws of physics” by consideration of quantum theory, relativity and other contemporary works.

One of the problems I have with Liberals, Humanists and Atheists is their outmoded paradigms.  You’re still living under Newton’s laws, it seems.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2006 07:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

[quote author=“Thomas”]One of the problems I have with Liberals, Humanists and Atheists is their outmoded paradigms.  You’re still living under Newton’s laws, it seems.

Simply by stating that you have made your point, you have not necessarily made it. What have I offered that is specific to classical, relativistic, or quantum physics?

What aspect of my world view implies that only Newtonian laws of physics are incorporated in it? To put it another way, in what manner does “spiritual rebirth” confirm quantum mechanics?

[quote author=“Thomas”][quote author=“Salt Creek”]I told you I was a secular jew. What part of ‘secular’ do you not understand?

Oops.  Sorry.  I missed that.

Perhaps it is also possible that you have missed something else. Such as the entire freaking universe.

[quote author=“psiconoclast”]At various points in the past, a majority of people (in a given population) believed that the world was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe and that vermin were spontaneously generated.  Appeal to the majority is invalid reasoning.

[quote author=“Salt Creek”]You ask me which I would prefer, obeying authority or knowing the truth, but cognitively identify them with one another. It’s not a real question, then.

‘Nuff said.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2006 08:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  161
Joined  2005-12-20

[quote author=“Salt Creek”][quote author=“Thomas”]One of the problems I have with Liberals, Humanists and Atheists is their outmoded paradigms.  You’re still living under Newton’s laws, it seems.

Simply by stating that you have made your point, you have not necessarily made it. What have I offered that is specific to classical, relativistic, or quantum physics?

What aspect of my world view implies that only Newtonian laws of physics are incorporated in it? To put it another way, in what manner does “spiritual rebirth” confirm quantum mechanics?

[quote author=“Thomas”][quote author=“Salt Creek”]I told you I was a secular jew. What part of ‘secular’ do you not understand?

Oops.  Sorry.  I missed that.

Perhaps it is also possible that you have missed something else. Such as the entire freaking universe.

[quote author=“psiconoclast”]At various points in the past, a majority of people (in a given population) believed that the world was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe and that vermin were spontaneously generated.  Appeal to the majority is invalid reasoning.

‘Nuff said.

Its not invalid if you are trying to determine burden of proof.  The burden is greater when you have to convince more people than if you have to convinced a few.

But why would anyone want to talk to you if you say things like that, that I miss the entire freaking universe?

I can see we have nothing to worry about from atheists because no one will take you seriously.  You’re too dang testy in your attitude toward people.  Yuck!

Jesus said, “You shall know them by their fruit.”

You dismiss all ways of seeing things but your own!  Cranky, cranky, cranky.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2006 08:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5404
Joined  2006-09-27

[quote author=“Thomas”]The burden is greater when you have to convince more people than if you have to convinced a few.

Sorry. I did not realize this was the inviolable epistemic rule. I will be more cautious in the future. When you have to convince a lot of people, it is certainly true that the amount of work is a lot greater. If work is a burden, then I agree with you. Hee hee. Were truth not self evident, work would be more respected.

 Signature 

INVEST in cynicism!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 October 2006 09:06 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  766
Joined  2006-02-20

Thomas wrote:

Ted Shepherd wrote:
Thomas: So let me approach it this way, on the basis of an experiential challenge: I challenge the atheists here to repeat a simple mantra:

Ted: I decline the challenge. I have too much self-respect to lie to myself like that. If you believe in a commandment—Thou shalt not lie—then your suggestion that someone else lie to himself is irreligious and indefensible. If lying is sinful for you, how can you in good conscience recommend lying to me? On the other hand, in a boy’s choir in church decades ago, I sang religious sentiments and Christian doctrine (“Holy holy, holy, merciful and mighty! God in Three Persons, blessed Trinity!” for example) in hymns, over and over again. The experience did nothing for me. It did not feel like a lie at that time. I was a gullible kid. Those were the days when I believed in Santa Claus too. I notice that you have said nothing about Hell even after I mentioned it. Ignoring that part of Christian doctrine is one of the ways you protect yourself from the essential gloominess and tragedy of your religion.

(Thomas again:)
I was suggesting that you test the truth claims of the faith against your own experience of it.

If you do not take the test how will you know if God fits your cognitive structure as an argument for his existence?

Are you afraid?

If you are afriad then who has the dark and gloomy religion?

You were urging me to lie to myself. That makes me wonder about your commitment to personal integrity on the one hand and the Ten Commandments on the other hand. Suppose I suggested that you try adultery to see what good feelings in produces in you. Wouldn’t you object to the sinfulness of that? How then can you recommend that I lie to myself? A harsh expression comes to mind for you: whited sepulcher. In recommending that I lie to myself until I become devout and see the divine inspiration of the Ten Commandments and the sinfulness of lying, you sound like Luther: “To be a Christian, you must pluck out the eye of reason.”

No, I am not afraid. I abstain from lying to myself for reasons of mental health and self-esteem. Those are the same reasons that keep me from trying cocaine.

Your hideously dark and gloomy religion says that most human will suffer endless torment in Hell—eternal punishment for sins committed in a finite life time. How much more dark and gloomy could it be, short of saying that every last one of us is damned? If you have mentioned the Christian and Muslim doctrines of Hell in your posts here, I have overlooked it.

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 5
2
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed