Atheism and Faith

[Saitia]

Hey 'Now,

 

I could support the experience and the awareness using all manner of psychology and research, however, it is the topic of experience which is not supportable. I will restate my previous that, the moment you speak with any level of certainty, you are immediately wrong.

Um, are you certain I'm wrong?

You seeeeeem to imply certainty. Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly. If so, how are you certain? (And please don't trot out that "nothing is certain but uncertainty" mantra again.)

 

This is especially so with concepts of religion, supernatural, and dieties. You pretty much supported this position yourself, stating that it's a matter of faith not science. However, you words imply certainty.

Good; I'm certain.

 

Maybe I am reading them incorrectly. There are perceptual filters and miscommunicatoins all of the time. However, the only thing that anyone can know with certainty is that there is no such thing as certainty.

But how can you be certain? On its face it would seem you can't be certain your statement is true by your own definition of what can be certain. What up?

 

 

Seemingly oxymoronic, but true.

Yeah. I guess I'm just not getting the "oxy" part.:singer:

So how do you know it's true?

 

 

This sounds to me like it was a thought pattern handed to you by someone else (i.e. something that you were taught), but I respect your belief all the same.

Yes of course it was, originally; until it became a belief of mine. It became my truth when it was validated as true through personal experience.

 

No more vodka until I hear from you.

 

—Saitia

[InfiniteNow]

Well, considering you answered my questions with an attack, I'll just state that you're an *** and I don't care to help you any more. Best of luck.

[Boerseun]

Seriously— can you imagine having a couple dozen Boerseuns running loose on this forum? :singer:

Saitia an ***?!?!?! :eek2:

NO WAY!!!

 

By the way, what's up with all these personal comments you're making?

 

You wanna take this outside, or are you gonna read our site rules, Saitia old buddy old pal?

[Saitia]

Well, considering you answered my questions with an attack, I'll just state that you're an *** and I don't care to help you any more. Best of luck.

 

Now, there was nothing in my post that was intended as an attack.

I have no reason to attack anyone. I hope you'll read it again.

 

—Saitia

[Saitia]

Hey Boer,

 

Saitia:

 

I've quoted your whole post here.

I didn't realize you had such a flare for the dramatic. :singer:

 

Do me a favour, and read it again.

Okkkkayyy; but only if you'll bury aunt Sally and stop bashing fishermen; after all, it's their lie, they can tell it any way they want to.

You sure of this?

After reading it again, I could make a few exceptions; e.g.,

I can't be certain 'Now is as astute as I claimed; or whether his

comments are sufficient to really tell me he's had no "faith

experience to speak of," or whether or not it's really his beliefs

that are hosing things up for him.

 

As for the rest of it, yes, I'm certain.

 

—Saitia

 

PS Well looks like everybody's here! Can't you guys take a joke???

Did you all get beat up a lot in grade school or what?!? For Chr*st's sake lighten up! Your avatar is so funny I thought you had a sense of humor, that's all.

[Eclogite]

Perhaps there's some reliable empirical test for consciousness that's been developed recently that I have not heard of. If not, we can set aside your conclusions about consciousness as unsupported opinion, can't we?

No. Are you suggesting that consciousness has a physical reality? Can you describe this physical reality to me? Where exactly is it located? What is its composition?

Indeed, the absence of an empirical test rather supports my position on its character. There is perhaps more substance to my argument than there is to consciousness.

 

But if you really believe anything you say above, :

Hmm. Are you in the habit of posting things you don't believe.

,,,,then isn't your statement per force every bit as "flawed and thus false" as mine supposedly are? :

No.

But I am puzzled; if no one can be certain about anything but uncertainty, what is the point of philosophizing?:singer:

Clearly you don't have the hang of this philosophy business at all. Why would uncertainty limit the point of contemplating the extent and character of that uncertainty? Do you deal exclusively in absolutes? Are you sure? Take your time.

[someguy]

 

" . . .no matter how ridiculous the idea of god or a great spirit may seem there is simply no way to empirically test such things. so dismissal [of] faith in god is opinion with a lack of evidence which in turn is prejudice, not science." Thank you, Mother E.

 

To understand the "fact" of God then, we must explore the fact of the universe; science is, of course, that very exploration. It's surprising to me how misunderstood the relationship of truth and fact is. God is absolute truth, and all truth takes origin in him.* But when truth becomes allied with fact, it is conditioned by time and space; that makes all truth discovered in time and space relative and partial. I think you realize this, because you understand that belief can always evolve in the face of new evidence.

Essentially I have said that truth is always an experience of the soul, while fact is an experience of the intellect.

 

—Saitia

 

Hello again,

I had a few more questions for Saitia and others if they care to comment.

Again I must ask, Why do you have the "truth"? Or why does the "truth" belong to "an experience of the soul"?

Is the truth not - what is true?

That's the only defintion I have ever seen besides the one that is stolen for those of faith.

True is the opposite of false. If it is undecided or if there is no way to know? How is there truth?

Truth and Fact are the same. The only way to show truth is through proof.

Consider a few things. How are you able to judge anything as true or real? You are a creature of experience. You— Some Guy— ultimately decide what is true or real for you; you are accountable for your own decisions, thus you are the architect of your own destiny.

—Saitia

I am able to judge anything as true or real through empirical evidence, through observation and experiment.

I don't believe anyone has the right to claim truth unless it is provable. I have always liked to think of myself as the architect of my own destiny. But having said that, I do not believe in a "higher architect", so I can think of it that way. Those who beleive in God can not, they already have an architect. My free will power of choice is absolute, not restricted by faith.

For example, scientific analysis doesn't always reveal what a person or a thing can do. Water is commonly used to put out fire; that water puts out fire is a fact of everyday experience, but no analysis of water would ever disclose such a property. Analysis shows that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen; further investigation reveals that oxygen is the real supporter of combustion, and that hydrogen will also freely burn. Science is indispensable to the intelligent discussion of the material aspects of the universe, but such knowledge is not necessarily a part of the higher realization of truth, or of the personal appreciation of spiritual realities.

—Saitia

Actually the ability to put out fire with water can be determined by sceintifc analysis.

Prediction/ Theory: Water will put out fire.

Experiment: Put out fire with water.

Is experiment repeatable by independant sources without exception?

There we go scientifically proven.

I would have to agree that science can not provide personal appreciation of spiritual realities. But then what could, they would have to be realities (provable)?

3. The personality of the God I've come to know is one of infinite qualities; omnipotent; infinite in attributes; unlimited in power; omniscient; limitless. But most importantly, he is love.

 

Without getting too far into it, imagine that God, to be a truly unqualified infinite being, must have experienced the finite; the finite is logically inherent in the infinite.

 

The difficulty in answering the question is not just because of the impossibility of the finite creature to fully comprehend an infinite being, but also because each individual's answer must per force be different by virtue of their own unique personality; thus no two people can similarly interpret the leadings of the spirit of divinity which lives within their minds, and this diversity of religious experience is demonstrated by the thousands of different definitions of religion.

—Saitia

I again ask the question. Why must god be infinite? You have given no reason for this. Why must god be male? Why must God be there?

Everytime I ask these questions I get some kind of "we couldn't possibly understand" statement.

Why is not perfectly legitimate that God is dead? or female? or never existed?

But it is the love of God that so strikingly portrays the value of each one of us to him; we each matter to God, because there is no one else in a vast universe quite like us.

—Saitia

Why? God must care about me because I'm just so special? Why must I be so special and even if I am, why does God have to care?

 

Thanks for answering my questions and I hope you will answer these. I apologize in advance if this quote thing doesn't work. I am just a copy and pasting fool.

Some Guy

[Saitia]

No. Are you suggesting that consciousness has a physical reality?

Consciousness is inextricably linked to our physical life in the body;

if it wasn't, I don't think you'd be able to type "consciousness isn't real."

 

 

 

 

 

Clearly you don't have the hang of this philosophy business at all. Why would uncertainty limit the point of contemplating the extent and character of that uncertainty? Do you deal exclusively in absolutes? Are you sure? Take your time.

I think that's good advice. I'm gonna pencil in April 9th, 2050.

Since I believe consciousness is real, that much time will have resolved the issue for me; I'll look you up. :confused:

[Saitia]

Hello Some Guy,

 

Hello again,

I had a few more questions for Saitia and others if they care to comment.

Again I must ask, Why do you have the "truth"? Or why does the "truth" belong to "an experience of the soul"?

Is the truth not - what is true?

That's the only defintion I have ever seen besides the one that is stolen for those of faith.

True is the opposite of false. If it is undecided or if there is no way to know? How is there truth?

Truth and Fact are the same. The only way to show truth is through proof.

I think my best effort to answer you must be indirectly. In one basic sense, there are two types of people: those who know God, and those who don't. Everyone who says they "know" God has been on both sides of that fence; i.e., there was a time when they didn't have any experience of him in reality. I've been on both sides of that fence, as some others who hang out here certainly have, too. My first "experience" with something outside my senses remains ineffable, but knowable as more real than anything my senses have ever provided me. I don't have any language or any argument that could ever be truly convincing to anyone who hasn't had such an experience; to those who have, no argument is necessary.

 

That ultimately means I can't satisfactorily answer these questions for you. I can only tell you about the route I took to answer them satisfactorily for myself. Certainly I still marvel and wonder at the way things are, much more so, really, than when I just wondered why things are the way they are; I marvel that faith can and does provide a proof of things that transcends the proof of the material world, that things are "this way" as opposed to some other; that there's an infinite, personal being that is the source of everything and everyone.

 

There are, no doubt, numerous reasons some of us experience God as a spiritual reality and some of us don't; some of the factors are obvious, e.g., physical health, inherited temperament, and social environment; others are more difficult to identify, and overcome; deep seated personal prejudices, denial, insecurities, and fear. In the end, only a truly brave person is willing to honestly admit, and fearlessly face what a sincere and logical mind discovers.

 

I don't believe anyone has the right to claim truth unless it is provable.

Of course they do. That's not to say everyone who claims something is true is right, but when the delusional and the charlatan are excluded, you have the individual's experience of truth. Whether your standard is the material yardstick of science or the spiritual yardstick of faith, you have a right to your own deepest understanding of truth, regardless of how much error might be involved in it.

 

I have always liked to think of myself as the architect of my own destiny. But having said that, I do not believe in a "higher architect", so I can think of it that way. Those who beleive in God can not, they already have an architect. My free will power of choice is absolute, not restricted by faith.

 

Neither is mine. Faith in no way restricts free will. You're talking about beliefs. Belief fixates; Faith liberates. God, as the architect of reality, makes certain choices available, thanks to our power of absolute free will choice.

 

 

I would have to agree that science can not provide personal appreciation of spiritual realities. But then what could, they would have to be realities (provable)?

In the material world, the only way is faith.

 

 

I again ask the question. Why must god be infinite? You have given no reason for this.

I don't think it's possible to reveal the true scope of the infinite nature of God to a finite creature, and that includes the "why." Why must there be a universe? The Infinite can only be finally revealed in infinity. Be there; you'll be glad. :cup:

 

Why must god be male?

Who says he must be? That's a childish notion based on the corporeality error; i.e., thinking of God as material person.

 

Why must God be there?

Everytime I ask these questions I get some kind of "we couldn't possibly understand" statement.

That's mostly true; God as an infinite personal being is incomprehensible; just because I can talk about it doesn't mean I can comprehend it. If we think of our consciousness proceeding from the fact, to the meaning, and then to the value, we should be able to think of Creator consciousness proceeding from the thought-value, through the word-meaning, to the fact of action. But it is always God who is acting to break the deadlock of the unqualified unity inherent in existential infinity; in other words, he's providing the truth, the beauty, the goodness, the reality, the universe, the perfection for which we can strive to understand.

 

Why is not perfectly legitimate that God is dead? or female? or never existed?

It's just not a well-formulated question from my pov. "Death" is a finite concept; so is male/femaleness, or the question of existence.

 

 

 

 

? God must care about me because I'm just so special? Why must I be so special and even if I am, why does God have to care?

He chooses to; it's his divine nature. His nature was revealed through the life and teachings of Jesus; our finite nature can take it or leave it; it's our absolute free will choice, remember. God's nature is never forced on any creature, except by those who have no right to do so.

 

Ciao,

—Saitia

[someguy]

Saitia,

Thank you for remaining patient. I appreciate your honesty about the ideas of personal spiritrual experience.

i.e. that one can't be convinced without said experience.

Some further interrogation?

Of course they do. That's not to say everyone who claims something is true is right, but when the delusional and the charlatan are excluded, you have the individual's experience of truth.

How does one know they aren't delusional? It is possible that the personal religous experience of many can be a total coincidence or maybe even a hoax of some charlaton? Branch Dividian comes to mind, but that was their experience of truth. I know that you would say we must filter the nutjobs from the sane, but who is to say which is which?

you have a right to your own deepest understanding of truth, regardless of how much error might be involved in it.

Here is the problem with this, people persuade others to follow in the "truth". I am sure, and you have said, that some are wrong about the way they believe. How can you say they have the "truth"? How can there be more than one truth about any given thing??

His nature was revealed through the life and teachings of Jesus

I thought you didn't subscribe to a specific way of believeing? Isn't Jesus's teachings a Christian belief? That would say to me that you only believe in "truth" in so far as it is Christianity.

Faith in no way restricts free will. You're talking about beliefs. Belief fixates; Faith liberates. God, as the architect of reality, makes certain choices available, thanks to our power of absolute free will choice.

But doesn't God and the teachings of Jesus make certain choices unavailable, or sin, and thereby diminish the freewill? Or more specifically, tell you if you don't believe this you will burn forever in hell. I would have to say that limits freewill just a tad.

I don't think it's possible to reveal the true scope of the infinite nature of God to a finite creature, and that includes the "why." Why must there be a universe? The Infinite can only be finally revealed in infinity

 

This is the answer I can not accept. Sure maybe it isn't possible to reveal infinte to the finite, but first it must be assumed that God is, in fact, infinite. The only way I can see this being done is that someone reads "God is infinite" and then it is suppossedly so. If an infite being can not be revealed to, or understood by, a finite creature. Then how can one "know" God? How can the idea that God is infinite even be postulated unless it is heresay?

I can answer the question "Why must there be a universe?"

Because if there wasn't a universe we wouldn't see it.

No one can say if there wasn't God we wouldn't see him.

He chooses to; it's his divine nature.

This again says that you know the unknowable God in all his infinity. How is it even possible to discuss the nature of God, when that is unattainable knowledge, due to our finite status? Unless that knowledge is accepted without judgement as to its authenticity. I would have to say that personal religous experience must follow reading of certain books. This is where one gets the ideas of "how" to have a personal religous experience and "how" to understand this mysterious personal religous experience. Without these prior "teachings" you wouldn't even know you had a spiritual experince in the least or would pass it off as "that old burrito I ate".

 

Everyone on this site should be appreciative of someone like Saitia who takes a constant barrage of athiest smackdown. ( I feel less intelligent for using a prowrestling term) ( Now I feel even less intelligent for knowing that it is a pro-wrestling term.)

It is rare, at least to me, to find an intelligent person of Faith. (I of course understand there are more out there and I have seen many on this site. However, none of them are offering their own answers to my questions.)

It is even more rare for one to patiently answer questions of an admitted athiest.

So be glad to have Saitia on this forum. Also, keep in mind that, as was very well said by InfiniteNow, I would like to know why you disagree with me so that I may adjust my thinking if I am wrong. Actually, what "Infy" said was much better but I think the point is made. (Sorry if my qoute does any injustice)

Some Guy

[Boerseun]

Saitia, here's one for you:

 

If (from what I understand you to say) God is infinite, the He (no gender implied, it's just a figure of speech) is also omnipotent. Matter of fact, of God is infinite, then He will have every conceivable attribute. He will be the kindest, most loving God, whilst also being the most evil, murderous dude imaginable. He will be a toaster and a wheelbarrow. He will be rubber duck and an inflatable love doll. He will be page 344 of the Old Testament and a Playboy centrefold at the same time. He will be a Vespa and a Ferrari, He will be an atheist, and a satanist. All of these things exist, and if He skips out on being any one of these, He is clearly not infinite.

 

Being omnipotent implies having infinite energy. Since mass = energy, it means that God must consist of infinite mass. The closest thing we can get to infinite mass is the universe itself. This plugs in nicely to the above paragraph.

 

But seeing as God must therefore be infinite, and the only thing we know that might even approach that, is the universe, the next must hold:

 

God(infinite) = God(universe)

 

This is like saying 10(x) = 10(y), which we can simplify by dividing be the common denominator, in this case 10. In other words,

10(x)/10 = 10(y)/10;

x = y

 

Thus we can say

God(infinite) = God(universe) (remove the common denominator)

infinite = universe

 

God is not required. The 'God' concept complicates the matter unnecessarily, and contributes absolutely nothing to our understanding of the universe. It is a redundant factor in the equation.

[Eclogite]

All of these things exist, and if He skips out on being any one of these, He is clearly not infinite.

Oh dear. You've screwed up on this one rather badly.

 

There are an infinite number of odd numbers. However, none of them are even numbers. One can be infinite without being all encompassing. For that, as you noted, you would have to be universal. (Which you could be without being infinite, if the universe is finite. It's delightfully paradoxical, isn't it?)

 

 

While we are at it Saitia, numbers are not real either. Numbers have no physical reality. A bit like consciousness, really.

 

Someguy, hello. I wasn't aware, as per your suggestion, that Saitia was taking a constant barrage of atheist smackdown. I had imagined people were just pointing out where he was wrong. (As you did with considerable precision and eloquence.) Certainly my own objections to Saitia's position cannot, in any conceivable way, be an atheist smackdown.

[Boerseun]

Sorry - meant to say 'omnipotent'. In order to have access to infinite energy, he must actually be everything at once to have infinite mass.

 

Including the rubber duck and blow-up love doll.

[Saitia]

Hi Guy,

 

How does one know they aren't delusional? It is possible that the personal religous experience of many can be a total coincidence or maybe even a hoax of some charlaton? Branch Dividian comes to mind, but that was their experience of truth. I know that you would say we must filter the nutjobs from the sane, but who is to say which is which?

 

You are. Unless you live as a recluse, someone will usually let you know you've crossed the line. If you're personally in doubt, seek a professional. :evil:

There's a reality in genuine religious experience that is transcendent to reason, science, philosophy, wisdom, and all the other things floating around between your ears. The convictions of such an experience are quite unassailable because the certainty of such knowledge is superhuman. Unfortunately that's also the reason some religionists can be so unbearable.

 

Here is the problem with this, people persuade others to follow in the "truth". I am sure, and you have said, that some are wrong about the way they believe. How can you say they have the "truth"? How can there be more than one truth about any given thing??

 

I've already answered this, but look. The same truth can be legitimately understood somewhat differently by every unique personality; it's inevitable. Nevertheless, those who see it sufficiently the same way come together and form religious groups. Others, like myself, pursue personal religious experience. But theology doesn't produce our religion; it's religion that produces our theologic philosophy.

 

Theology deals with the intellectual content of religion. Religious experience is the spiritual content of religion. Despite all the mythologic crap, the assumptions of error and the numerous ways of self-deception, the psychologic illusions of the intellectual content of religion, and finally the political distortions of the philosophic content of religion, the spiritual experience of personal religion remains genuine and valid.

 

That religionists have believed so much that turned out to be false doesn't invalidate religion either, because religion is founded on the recognition of values, and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience; not the changing beliefs of religious dogma. Real religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology is just the attempt to interpret that experience. And again, such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error.

 

I thought you didn't subscribe to a specific way of believeing? Isn't Jesus's teachings a Christian belief? That would say to me that you only believe in "truth" in so far as it is Christianity.

 

Jesus admitted to being the Son of God; his teachings were for everyone. Christianity is an evolutionary religion. But Christianity doesn't "own" Jesus or his teachings. Anyone may look to the life and teachings of Jesus quite independently of the dogma and doctrines of man-made Christianity, and therein find the truth he lived and taught; I've done exactly that, and I encourage others to do so, too.

 

But doesn't God and the teachings of Jesus make certain choices unavailable, or sin, and thereby diminish the freewill? Or more specifically, tell you if you don't believe this you will burn forever in hell. I would have to say that limits freewill just a tad.

 

That's Christian dogma again. From my pov there is no such place as hell as Christianity teaches; there may be some town named hell somewhere, but that's a different kind of hell.:evil:

 

 

This is the answer I can not accept. Sure maybe it isn't possible to reveal infinte to the finite, but first it must be assumed that God is, in fact, infinite. The only way I can see this being done is that someone reads "God is infinite" and then it is suppossedly so. If an infite being can not be revealed to, or understood by, a finite creature. Then how can one "know" God?

 

You'll have to suspend disbelief a minute or two if you expect to see this from another perspective. Believers accept that God is infinite, along with his other attributes, through faith; but "right you are, Kenny," man cannot possibly "know" the infinitude of God. Finite mind simply can't think through such an absolute truth or fact.

 

But this same finite human being can actually feel— literally experience— the full and undiminished impact of such an infinite Father's LOVE. The quantity of that experience is still limited by the individual human capacity for spiritual receptivity. Even so, our finite appreciation of infinite qualities can transcend our logically limited capacities because of the fact that we are made in the image of God— that is, there's a fragment of infinity living within us— the Holy Spirit. So our nearest approach to God is always by and through love; for God is love.

 

 

How is it even possible to discuss the nature of God, when that is unattainable knowledge, due to our finite status? Unless that knowledge is accepted without judgement as to its authenticity. I would have to say that personal religous experience must follow reading of certain books. This is where one gets the ideas of "how" to have a personal religous experience and "how" to understand this mysterious personal religous experience. Without these prior "teachings" you wouldn't even know you had a spiritual experince in the least or would pass it off as "that old burrito I ate".

 

I've had an old burrito or two— trust me— they're not the same. However one comes to a relative intellectual understanding of God and spiritual reality, and it doesn't really matter how you get there, though some ways are easier than others, you'll know it because it's divine; other than you— from a part of you that is beyond your senses— that's your soul. When it happens, you'll know it's not gas.

 

"Is our children learning" yet? :thumbs_do

—Saitia

[Saitia]

Saitia, here's one for you:

 

If (from what I understand you to say) God is infinite, the He (no gender implied, it's just a figure of speech) is also omnipotent. Matter of fact, of God is infinite, then He will have every conceivable attribute. He will be the kindest, most loving God, whilst also being the most evil, murderous dude imaginable. He will be a toaster and a wheelbarrow. He will be rubber duck and an inflatable love doll. He will be page 344 of the Old Testament and a Playboy centrefold at the same time. He will be a Vespa and a Ferrari, He will be an atheist, and a satanist. All of these things exist, and if He skips out on being any one of these, He is clearly not infinite.

 

Being omnipotent implies having infinite energy. Since mass = energy, it means that God must consist of infinite mass. The closest thing we can get to infinite mass is the universe itself. This plugs in nicely to the above paragraph.

 

But seeing as God must therefore be infinite, and the only thing we know that might even approach that, is the universe, the next must hold:

 

God(infinite) = God(universe)

 

This is like saying 10(x) = 10(y), which we can simplify by dividing be the common denominator, in this case 10. In other words,

10(x)/10 = 10(y)/10;

x = y

 

Thus we can say

God(infinite) = God(universe) (remove the common denominator)

infinite = universe

 

God is not required. The 'God' concept complicates the matter unnecessarily, and contributes absolutely nothing to our understanding of the universe. It is a redundant factor in the equation.

 

As you can see, I've quoted your whole post here.

 

Just for fun.

 

I don't know who you think you are, but you're clearly not the Boerseun I know and love, well, not love, but maybe appreciate, (in a quirky, existentially narcissistic sort of way), so you can take your red-in-the-head-self back where you came from and stop impersonating my good old buddy and old pal. This has to be against the sight rules, doesn't it? Anyone?

 

But if I were to make a comment on what you've presented, pretending, as it were, that it might have been my old Buddy Boer, I'd simply say, There you go again. Using the wrong yardstick, thus getting the wrong answer. "Complicates"?? It's only an unnecessary complication to those who can't let go of their pre-conceived notions of the universe and reality.

 

Now get back on the short bus and go back where you came from. You've totally ruined my day. :thumbs_do :evil: :evil:

[someguy]

Hello yet again,

 

You are. Unless you live as a recluse, someone will usually let you know you've crossed the line. If you're personally in doubt, seek a professional.

 

Well if I am the one who decides if people are delusional then I would have to say you are suffering from delusions. I don't believe in religous experience or in God as infinte. I don't believe anyone "knows" God. In fact, I doubt the very existence of God and therefore any religuous book or experience is a delusion or fiction.

If the power of testing delusion is in each one of us then we are all correct in all matters. If someone tries to set us straight, they might be delusional. How can we accept that they are not? If someone attests to that person's sanity, how do we know that they aren't out to wrongly convince me of being delusional in cohesion with the first. Now we can really get a conspiracy theory going. But they may be countered by a group of people who back me up saying that they are the delusional ones. Then an army of supossedly sane people tell me I and my cohorts are delusional yet again. Who is right? By your definition it is me and them and the others and the army. There must be some system of judging "the truth". (insert scientific method here)

 

The same truth can be legitimately understood somewhat differently by every unique personality; it's inevitable. Nevertheless, those who see it sufficiently the same way come together and form religious groups. Others, like myself, pursue personal religious experience. But theology doesn't produce our religion; it's religion that produces our theologic philosophy.

 

This is apparent in the above example.

Religion is necessary for anyone's personal religious experience. The word religion is in "Religous" experience. each religion holds "the truth" and rightly so for each. They must hold the truth because they are correct in thier eyes. I find it odd that you can accept that you are right and have "the truth" but still attribute "the truth" to anyone else.

 

the spiritual experience of personal religion remains genuine and valid.

Here again you say genuine and valid. Does this imply "the truth"?

That religionists have believed so much that turned out to be false doesn't invalidate religion either, because religion is founded on the recognition of values, and is validated by the faith of personal religious experience; not the changing beliefs of religious dogma. Real religion, then, is based on experience and religious thought; theology is just the attempt to interpret that experience. And again, such interpretative beliefs may be right or wrong, or a mixture of truth and error.

 

I would say that is exactly what invalidates religion. The very book that says to you "God is infinite" and "God is love" turns out to be false in other instances but remains entirely correct in those. Of course, these instances are the unverifible ones anyway. The Faith lies in the books that tell you this is what to believe about God. Then one finds out the book is wrong on many other occasions but remains concrete on these issues. Faith is acceptance of fact from an (admittedly) incorrect source.

 

Jesus admitted to being the Son of God; his teachings were for everyone.

So it says in the incorrect source.

 

That's Christian dogma again. From my pov there is no such place as hell as Christianity teaches

Here you state the ineptness of the book that you take your beliefs from.

 

You'll have to suspend disbelief a minute or two if you expect to see this from another perspective.

 

I can not make that exception. It is here, that I point out the mistake of those who have faith. They are to accept this with no reason and then come to some understanding based upon a decision to suspend thier only way of judging validity in the first place.

 

Believers accept that God is infinite, along with his other attributes, through faith

This is very convienent as it is something that makes everything completely incomprehensible from that point on. Why did God kill my dog, or make me piss myself? Well that can't be understood, you see God is infinite and you are just a silly finite creature. Why was it I can't I understand God's infinite nature? Oh yeah, because I suspended my ability to judge so that I would no longer be able to use it here.

But this same finite human being can actually feel— literally experience— the full and undiminished impact of such an infinite Father's LOVE. The quantity of that experience is still limited by the individual human capacity for spiritual receptivity.

Again, I can say that this is delusional. The feeling of the father's love is expected. I would, from the point of suspending my judgement, be waiting to feel the father's love. Of course there would be a greta many peolpe telling me what I will feel, when an d how. I would certainly get there with such expectation and help Maybe that old burrito could be the real cause or just delusion or that pesky Charlaton.

Even so, our finite appreciation of infinite qualities can transcend our logically limited capacities because of the fact that we are made in the image of God

Again something we have to accept on faith. More likely that God was made in the image of us and then we worte a book saying it is the other way around. Then all that had to be done was to convince people to just make this one exception of sanity.

 

I've had an old burrito or two— trust me— they're not the same.

Just how old was this burrito? Was it sufficently old to cause visions?

However one comes to a relative intellectual understanding of God and spiritual reality, and it doesn't really matter how you get there, though some ways are easier than others, you'll know it because it's divine;

What if it is a cheese sandwich that looks like Jesus?

The only way you would know it was divine is if someone told you this is what divinity feels like, unless God himself comes in and says "By the way this is divine". I have been there, I have seen people getting infused, kinda looks like acting. Kinda gives you a warm tingling feeling in your stomach, oh wait, is that the divine?

Or was it that burrito?

 

It seems to me through your definition of what it is to have faith. You must suspend your ability to judge something as completely ridiculous long enough to accept something that would otherwise be completely ridiculous. Then you are to continue on as though nothing happened. Then when someone doubts your beliefs you tell them you couldn't possibly understand because you hold on to that horrid idea that you have enough intelligence to judge for yourself that which is right and wrong or true and false.

 

You seem like a very intelligent person. I can't understand what would make you want to suspend your belief system long enough to accept something that would otherwise be immediatley thrown out. Even more so, what would make you want to ask others to do the same.

I think this explains the "arrogance" of Athiests, if you choose to call it that. They are the ones who refuse to accept something that requires suspension of judgement and realize the bad decision of those who do.

Some Guy

[Saitia]

Guy Again,

 

Well if I am the one who decides if people are delusional then I would have to say you are suffering from delusions.

Your original question was, "How does one know they aren't delusional?" You've made a hopefully inadvertent, but erroneous assumption, that you can decide for someone else; you can't. You can only decide for your consciousness. You simply don't have the ability to decide for someone other than yourself.

 

 

There must be some system of judging "the truth". (insert scientific method here)

The "scientific method" is an intellectual yardstick used to measure the material world; being wholly intellectual, it's of no value in evaluating spiritual realities and religious experiences.

 

 

Here again you say genuine and valid. Does this imply "the truth"?

No, it implies "truth." Not "the truth."

 

 

I would say that is exactly what invalidates religion.

No; it invalidates only that which is wrong or in error to begin with.

It might be helpful if you recall that time and space condition truth; i.e., they make it relative. Some religionists and scientists make the same mistake when they ignore the relative nature of truth. Contemporary science however is generally much better at recognizing this, and willingly correcting error when new information is discovered. Evolutionary religion makes no provision for change or revision; it does not provide for its own progressive correction. Evolved religion commands respect because its followers believe it is "The Truth"; so in theory, it must be both final and infallible. While the Truth may be perfect and infallible as it proceeds from God as the first source, man's interpretations of it, conditioned by time and space, are not. But again: the spiritual experience of personal religion remains genuine and valid.

 

The very book that says to you "God is infinite" and "God is love" turns out to be false in other instances but remains entirely correct in those. Of course, these instances are the unverifible ones anyway. The Faith lies in the books that tell you this is what to believe about God. Then one finds out the book is wrong on many other occasions but remains concrete on these issues.

That's a good description of faith misplaced— in dogma or doctrine instead of in living truth and personal religious experience. Hardly comparable.

 

Faith is acceptance of fact from an (admittedly) incorrect source.

Yep, some of it certainly is. It still doesn't invalidate the spiritual content of religious experience.

 

This is very convienent as it is something that makes everything completely incomprehensible from that point on. Why did God kill my dog, or make me piss myself? Well that can't be understood, you see God is infinite and you are just a silly finite creature. Why was it I can't I understand God's infinite nature? Oh yeah, because I suspended my ability to judge so that I would no longer be able to use it here.

Suspending disbelief— your pre-conceptions, prejudices, or simple refusal to see something is real— is not the same thing as suspending judgment. Whether you're knowingly making this substitution or not, this is where your train of thought leaves the rails of honest discussion.

 

 

Quote:

But this same finite human being can actually feel— literally experience— the full and undiminished impact of such an infinite Father's LOVE. The quantity of that experience is still limited by the individual human capacity for spiritual receptivity.

 

Again, I can say that this is delusional.

Hyeah, you can say it; it just doesn't mean anything to those who know it's not.

 

 

More likely that God was made in the image of us and then we worte a book saying it is the other way around.

 

Well it's certainly the path of least resistance; the slothful animal mind recoils at the effort required to wrestle with cosmic problem solving. But I don't think you'll find— in recorded history anyway— a time when "man" conceived himself to be infinite, perfect, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc. What's that giant sucking sound?? :eek: (Um, it's the air being sucked out of your theory.):Waldo:

 

 

Just how old was this burrito? Was it sufficently old to cause visions?

 

Let's say it was old enough to force me to contemplate my own mortality—

and my hunger— not for toxic burritos, but for life. I like living, pure and simple. If suspending disbelief— not critical judgement— by accepting the notion I can accept the gift of eternal life by simply fully believing it's possible— hey, I'm down with that. I'm math phobic, but how difficult is it to choose between: believe = eternal life, non-belief = maybe 80 years. That's the important question; the rest is details.

 

. . .when someone doubts your beliefs you tell them you couldn't possibly understand because you hold on to that horrid idea that you have enough intelligence to judge for yourself that which is right and wrong or true and false.

You've got a nice little strawman going here, but ultimately you're the one who must honestly deal with it as the depth of your best understanding.

 

You seem like a very intelligent person. I can't understand what would make you want to suspend your belief system long enough to accept something that would otherwise be immediatley thrown out.

 

Eternal life. Some people want it; apparently some don't.

I was probably more fortunate than most in that my spiritual experience clearly preceded my real investigation; whenever I wanted to say f*ck it I had to explain that experience as something other than I knew it was; integrity won't let you go there without a real knockdown-drag-out fight, and you already know who should win before you begin.

 

 

I think this explains the "arrogance" of Athiests, if you choose to call it that. They are the ones who refuse to accept something that requires suspension of judgement and realize the bad decision of those who do.

 

To be sure, there are many beliefs held by various religionists that can only be maintained by ignoring good science and sound logic. I hold such beliefs have never actually been experienced as true in the souls of such believers; they are false intellectual beliefs. And science, particularly psychology, has only weakened those religions and beliefs which are dependent upon fear, superstition, and emotion. Real religious experience is simply beyond the reach of such a method.

 

If there's real arrogance going on, it's in the belief that any exclusively materialistic philosophy has acquired enough factual knowledge and understanding of the universe to reach the conclusion there is no God. Carl Sagan remarked,

" . . .the universe is intractable, astonishingly immune to any human attempt at full knowledge. We cannot on this level understand a grain of salt, much less the universe."

 

Nevertheless, some atheists take it even further, presuming that all theistic arguments for God— the ontological, cosmological, teleological, moral— have all been refuted. Well; not in my mind they haven't. To me, that kind of presumption about the universe and truth is a much greater suspension of judgment than living faith ever could be; the former is based on mere intellectual assumptions; the latter is based on actual living experience of the Divine Spirit within.

 

There was a time when I totally and firmly believed there was no such thing as God and those who believed in God had to border on being ignorant, superstitious fools who simply refused to look at the evidence. To me, believers in God were uneducated followers of fables, tradition, and superstitions, ideas that made no sense to those of us who "really thought we knew" what life was. Ultimately it was sincerity, honesty, and finally faith— not suspension of judgement, but a progressive willingness to believe the assumptions of reason, wisdom, and faith in a life motivated by truth and dominated by love that convinced me otherwise. These are the ideals of objective cosmic reality; realities whose existence cannot be otherwise materially demonstrated.

 

I do greatly appreciate the thought, time, and energy you've invested with me on this thread, Guy; it seems like we've reaching a plateau of diminishing returns on that investment though. Do go again if you think it's worth it. Either way, Best of luck in pursuing your philosophy of living. Since no one's really sure how much living they have left here, let's agree to get together on the other side of death and see what's up, shall we? I mean, what have you got to lose? ;) :eek2: ;)

 

" It's time for the human race to enter the solar system."

—George W. Bush

Be well,

—Saitia