Atheism and Faith

[Eclogite]

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

So, eternal life is only available to those who believe.:eek2:

You actually believe that? God could decide to allow some to live forever only if they believe he exists, while he controls the events that will allow them to believe or not?

 

And you are choosing to believe just so you can gain eternal life. That sounds incredibly hypocritical from where I sit. Thinking about it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.:eek:

[someguy]

Satia,

I hope you don't feel that we can no longer discuss. It is important to me that we can continue. I want to understand your thinking on this because it is somethnig that baffles me. That being said, let us move on to discussion.

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.

Actually you said that others can tell you that you are delusional. I would agree wholeheartedly though.

Unless you live as a recluse, someone will usually let you know you've crossed the line.

 

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.

I still hold, as do you (per quote above), that there has to be some yardstick with which to judge. If you can find a better one, which can be used in all settings, I would be most intersted. The religious yardstick would not apply to even its closest neighbors in belief. The scientific method is employed by every person every day whether they know they are using it or not. Why is that the wrong process to judge with?

 

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

Do you believe that the world exists in more than one way? I can not see how any rational person can say there is more than one true, correct, or right "complete description" of a single thing. To say grass is both red and green is your version of "truth". When we all know that there can be only one "truth". If it is not true then it becomes false.

 

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

This is very much agreed. However, doesn't it say something about the source. Is the Bible where you get your defintion of God, as to his infinity, or not? If so, then the books validity was brought into question by you. The source should be questioned in all areas if the source is questionable, period.

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.

Actually this reveals that truth is not relative. It shows us that what we thought was truth was wrong and that it must be cast away as not true. More specifically the truth is honed to a better degree and understandings are changed to incorporate the change from the old false to "the new truth"

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.

 

Anyone who claims to hold "the truth" can not make changes to it. Because it ceases to be "the truth" when it turns out to be fallible. By this reasoning we could find out that man's interpetations screwed everything up and it turns out that god is just really big and not infinte or that God is sex not love. Then this would be incorporated into "the Truth" saying nothing about our misunderstandings of everything else that is concrete and will not change, until it does.

But again: the spiritual experience of personal religion remains genuine and valid.

Unless, of course, this turns out to be wrong too.

 

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.

 

Again I appreciate the honesty. But it does make the source questionable. Certainly not reliable enough to have faith in the rest. If you find out someone had lied to many times over, do you question things they have told you before? Or do you go believing that they lied in those cases and were entirely truthful at all other times?

 

Suspending disbelief— your pre-conceptions, prejudices, or simple refusal to see something is real— is not the same thing as suspending judgment.

Actaully that is precisely what it is. You are suspending belief in whether something is or is not. That is a judgement. When you accept something without judging you suspend judgement.

Whether you're knowingly making this substitution or not, this is where your train of thought leaves the rails of honest discussion.

 

The rails are your judgement. You are asked to leave them and accept something that lies far off in a plain somewhere and then return to your tracks as if nothing happened.

 

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.

How does one know that they are feeling the father's love and not a burrito unless someone tells them?

 

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

 

How do they know it's not? Is there a yardstick for that? If someone else must be the one to point out another's delusionality, who is it?

 

Well it's certainly the path of least resistance

Actually I would say being an athiest in a cheifly Christian society would be the path of most resistance.

the slothful animal mind recoils at the effort required to wrestle with cosmic problem solving.

I absolutely agree. Of course, when someone hands you a solution and you accept it on faith it is much easier than thinking it through for yourself.

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?? :phones: (Um, it's the air being sucked out of your theory.):hyper:

David Koresh, Jesus Christ, there has got to be alot more. The point is that man created an being without limit as their God. They made it look like them and said it was the other way around.

The sucking sound is your reason trying to bring you back to the time when you suspended your judgement.

 

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.

 

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.

What Eclogite said. Also, what if this is another misinterpetation? What if it turns out that it is only that it makes your life a little longer than it would have been? Or even worse, there was some mix up or some charlaton switched the verses and to believe is really a ticket to eternal damnation? That dirty charlaton.

 

 

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.

Again your honesty is appreciated and again you say what is not really "the truth". Don't these people get their info from the same place?

Real religious experience is simply beyond the reach of such a method.

Oh wait, we are back to "the truth". How do you seperate the real religious experience from the false, or I mean other "the truths"?

 

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.

You are absolutely right and those bastards who say they "know" there is no God are on my **** list. To say they know is to be wrong. No one has "the truth".

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."

But we sure can understand that God is infinte and that certain truths are correct in the Bible while other truths need to be adjusted.

 

Nevertheless, some atheists take it even further, presuming that all theistic arguments for God— the ontological, cosmological, teleological, moral— have all been refuted.

I am most certainly not one of those. I would never waste my time trying to disprove every aspect of something that has many aspects already disproven.

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

Actually not to my mind either. You are absolutely correct in this matter. To take a lump of knowledge and disregard its validity is insane. Why would anyone want to suspend thier judgement and accept any lump information as correct or incorrect?

 

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.

I truly want you to understand that this is not me or many other atheists. You were very misguided in this assumption. Although the evidence is overwhelming, you can not state that they are completely wrong, however you can state they are most likely wrong.

 

[i do greatly appreciate the thought, time, and energy you've invested with me on this thread, Guy

As do I of you, sincerely.

it seems like we've reaching a plateau of diminishing returns on that investment though.

Don't you go runnin' off. I am enjoying our conversation.

Since no one's really sure how much living they have left here

Unless you have "the truth"

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?

I'm sorry but according to "your"(I'm not sure) belief system I won't be there. But If there is an afterlife and I turn out to be completely wrong and you completely right I will gladly tell you so. Until that day I will say that no one has "the truth" and we will have to rely on the sceintific method to define reality.

 

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

—George W. Bush

Boy he's smart.

 

Some guy

[Southtown]

Boy he's smart.

 

Some guy

We all know that's what's important, don't we?

[Saitia]

So, eternal life is only available to those who believe.:eek:

You actually believe that?

Your assumption is incorrect. Do you actually believe you get the whole story in a single email? Before I devote precious time explaining why, I'd know what your motive is; your comments on my posts sound consistently snide and condescending rather than expressing any interest in learning or even respectful discussion.:wave:

 

 

God could decide to allow some to live forever only if they believe he exists, while he controls the events that will allow them to believe or not?

Wrong.

 

And you are choosing to believe just so you can gain eternal life.

No.

That sounds incredibly hypocritical from where I sit.

That says a lot about where you sit but nothing at all about my faith.

 

[Eclogite]

Do you actually believe you get the whole story in a single email?

If the author is accomplished and is focused on his message, and the reader is skilled in the art of reading, then this should be entirely possible.

Before I devote precious time explaining why, I'd know what your motive is;

Here are all my motives for being on this forum. They are not in any particular order. Some, or all, may apply in relation to this thread. I haven't specifically analysed them for this occasion.

 

1) To engage in spirited communication with others.

2) To learn new things

3) To teach new things

4) To hone my writing skills

5) To improve my debating skills

6) To broaden my understanding of human motivation

7) To broaden my understanding of human diversity

8) To broaden my understanding of human character

9) To demolish spurious arguments

10) To correct faulty logic

11) To pass the time

 

I don't think I have missed out anything major.

 

You go on to suggest that my posts to you have been snide and condescending. Actually, I was aiming for dismissive, so I seem to have hit fairly close to the mark.

I confess, and it shames me to do so, :confused: that at times I can be a bit of a reactionary. :wave: Thus, when I see someone such as yourelf acting in a pretentious, arrogant, dismissive manner I am apt to respond in kind. It isn't very adult, it isn't very pretty, but it is damn natural.

 

So, please put aside the tone of my posts and address the substance - that is exactly what I have done with yours, between the implicit sneers.

 

I await your explanation with interest. Of course, if you decide I have been too rude to deserve a reply I am sure I can think up some suitable snide rejoinder.:eek:

[Saitia]

You go on to suggest that my posts to you have been snide and condescending. Actually, I was aiming for dismissive, so I seem to have hit fairly close to the mark.

I confess, and it shames me to do so, :cup: that at times I can be a bit of a reactionary. :rolleyes: Thus, when I see someone such as yourelf acting in a pretentious, arrogant, dismissive manner I am apt to respond in kind. It isn't very adult, it isn't very pretty, but it is damn natural.

 

I couldn't care less if it's "natural" for you;

your assumptions of me as "pretentious, arrogant,

[and] dismissive" are a result of your own admitted

contemptuous aim. I haven't another moment to

misspend with you.

[Eclogite]

Please learn to read what is written, not what you expect or want to see.

 

I have been completely honest in identifying my motives for posting on these forums. That is a gesture of respect. You appear not to recognise, accept, or acknowledge that.

 

Nowhere amongst those aims is anything contmeptuous, as you put it.

 

I would remind you that your opening post in this thread was characterised by Tormod as reeking of self righteousness. Isn't that akin to contemptuousness?

 

Note, again please, it was in response to your arrogance that I gently chided you with some mild humour. That is why I have , on occassion, leaned towards the dismissive. Clearly you did not find that funny. For that I apologise: I am deeply and sincerely sorry you don't have a sense of humour.

 

Please feel free to forget about me and devote your misspending to other, more weighty matters.

[Saitia]

Satia,

I hope you don't feel that we can no longer discuss.

Not at all; it's a time management issue for me, however; it's Springtime in the Rockies.:hyper:

 

It is important to me that we can continue. I want to understand your thinking on this because it is somethnig that baffles me.

 

It appears you intend to stay baffled; e.g.: "Until that day (death) I will say that no one has 'the truth' and we will have to rely on the sceintific method to define reality." So I've re-read your comments, and a few things are reasonably clear. You have some rather intransigent ideas about faith, and truth, that while perhaps understandable given your atheism, with respect, they are so far from the necessary balance of understanding that it seems pointless to continue in this vein. I'll summarize what I mean.

 

Faith is NOT a suspension of judgement. Logic and reason are not ignored in evaluation of religious claims by well-balanced and intelligent individuals. Faith doesn't require suspending judgment, i.e., your confidence in reason, logic, and fact. Religion isn't the product of reason, but viewed from within, it's altogether reasonable; nor is it derived from the logic of philosophy, but as an experience, it's altogether logical.

 

Religion is the experiencing of divinity in consciousness; it represents true experience with eternal realities, and those realities are the source that matters. It seems you prefer using the lowest possible denominator to press your case; i.e., some people do suspend their critical thinking and accept falsehoods.

 

You say: "I can not see how any rational person can say there is more than one true, correct, or right "complete description" of a single thing. To say grass is both red and green is your version of "truth". When we all know that there can be only one "truth". If it is not true then it becomes false."

 

Japanese Blood Grass is deep red on the tips with green blades. If three people are asked to describe it, and one says it's red, another says it's green, and the third says it's red and green, they are all relatively right; none of them are absolutely right, because truth is relative. And there are hundreds of other things that could be said by way of describing any "single thing." None of them will be completely true, but that doesn't make what they say false.

 

That truth is relative is clearly demonstrated by the fact nothing can be absolutely described on this level of reality; thus both science and religion are predicated on assumptions. It's pointless to continuing arguing about this; you either get that or you don't.

 

The distinction regarding delusion I've tried to make is not remotely subtle either; it can be reasoned out without difficulty by average thinkers. If one is behaving in a delusional way, others will take notice. That doesn't mean they can know your mind of a certainty. Beliefs taken on faith aren't delusions. To insist they always could be denies the reliability personal experience, and the real nature of faith, which you seem largely unaware of or simply deny. Here are some of the real manifestations of living faith, from a religionist's point of view:

1. It causes ethics and morals to progress despite inherent and adverse tendencies.

 

2. Produces a sublime trust in the goodness of God even in the face of bitter disappointment and crushing defeat.

 

3. Generates profound courage and confidence despite natural adversity and physical calamity.

 

4. Exhibits inexplicable poise and sustaining tranquillity notwithstanding baffling diseases and even acute physical suffering.

 

5. Maintains a mysterious poise and composure of personality in the face of maltreatment and the rankest injustice.

 

6. Maintains a divine trust in ultimate victory in spite of the cruelties of seemingly blind fate and the apparent utter indifference of natural forces to human welfare.

 

7. Persists in the unswerving belief in God despite all contrary demonstrations of logic and successfully withstands all other intellectual sophistries.

 

8. Continues to exhibit undaunted faith in the soul's survival regardless of the deceptive teachings of false science and the persuasive delusions of unsound philosophy.

 

9. Lives and triumphs irrespective of the crushing overload of the complex and partial civilizations of modern times.

 

10. Contributes to the continued survival of altruism in spite of human selfishness, social antagonisms, industrial greeds, and political maladjustments.

 

11. Steadfastly adheres to a sublime belief in universe unity and divine guidance regardless of the perplexing presence of evil and sin.

 

12. Goes right on worshiping God in spite of anything and everything. Dares to declare, "Even though he slay me, yet will I serve him."

 

 

I'm sorry but according to "your"(I'm not sure) belief system I won't be there.

 

If God really is "all-merciful" and I say he is, I suspect even the slightest flicker of faith will be sufficient to insure survival into the next level of existence. Personal mind has no survival qualities apart from identification with spirit. Mind is a divine bestowal, but it's not immortal without spirit insight, and when it's devoid of the ability to crave survival. I don't believe ignorance alone would ever prevent survival. In fact, I believe only conscious resistance to spirit leading can prevent the survival of the soul. But our true motives and decisions, not to mention our supreme desires, all contribute to a gradual awakening to the divine purpose of living, and faith is still the avenue to reach understanding and unquestionable validation of that divine purprose.

 

Cheers,

 

—Saitia

[someguy]

Hello again,

Saitia,

Thank you again for responding. It is springtime in the Rockies here as well.

 

It appears you intend to stay baffled; e.g.: "Until that day (death) I will say that no one has 'the truth' and we will have to rely on the sceintific method to define reality."

Actually I am quite interested in understanding the way you think on this matter. I feel more enlightened per our conversation already. I think you may misunderstand what it is I am saying in the above statement. I am stating that no one "knows" what is going to happen. I can tell you only what I think is most likely and you the same. Again, the point is that no one "knows". That is what faith is for. If we "knew" it wouldn't be an act of faith any longer. The second part of the statement is explaining that there is a "yardstick" with which we can explain things. Although that yardstick can not explain all things, it is still the only yardstick used by all people. I implore yet again, by what yardstick do you think we should we should go by for everyone?

 

 

Faith is NOT a suspension of judgement.

Again I say it is. You said it yourself.

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.

The point is that you are accepting something as true without judging its validity. That is suspension of judgment no matter how many times you deny it. The fact that you take it from an admitted incorrect source makes it even more so suspension of judgement.

Logic and reason are not ignored in evaluation of religious claims by well-balanced and intelligent individuals.

That is exactly what is ignored. Logic tells you that if a source is wrong several times it could/ should /would be wrong again. Reason tells us that we should avoid that source for making major judgements in our lives. Faith tells us to forget all that and accept its validity.

Religion isn't the product of reason, but viewed from within, it's altogether reasonable;

Viewed from within implies that you took the "leap of faith" to begin with. You already suspended your judgement and have certain tenants to judge with that aren't necessarily true. You accepted things like God is infinite and the bible is the word of God. With this new set of rules with which to judge the world you can reason differently. You can even say your acting in accord with reason and logic because you have now engrained the altered logic and reason obtained through your "leap of faith".

Religion is the experiencing of divinity in consciousness; it represents true experience with eternal realities, and those realities are the source that matters.

Again with their newly accepted belief system that resulted from a suspension of judgement.

It seems you prefer using the lowest possible denominator to press your case; i.e., some people do suspend their critical thinking and accept falsehoods.

Actually I prefer the highest common denominator as my example. I hope you don't mind being called that. You, at some time, accepted a belief system that went against your better judgement in believing "truths" from an admittedly incorrect source. Here again I see the word Falsehoods i thought there were only other truths.

You say: "I can not see how any rational person can say there is more than one true, correct, or right "complete description" of a single thing. To say grass is both red and green is your version of "truth". When we all know that there can be only one "truth". If it is not true then it becomes false."

 

Japanese Blood Grass is deep red on the tips with green blades. If three people are asked to describe it, and one says it's red, another says it's green, and the third says it's red and green, they are all relatively right; none of them are absolutely right, because truth is relative. And there are hundreds of other things that could be said by way of describing any "single thing." None of them will be completely true, but that doesn't make what they say false.

Bringing up some obscure grass from Japan to poorly illustrate your point is beneath you. If you re-read your quoting of me you'll note I said "complete description". If one says it(your japanese grass) is red and another says it's green they are both wrong when it comes to the complete description of the color of the grass. What about the guy who says its blue? This leaves only one with the complete description of color, the one who has the "truth". This is even more evident when it comes to matters of religion. One believes in God or not, only one can be right and have "the truth". One believes God is an infinte being one believes God was born from another God, there is only one right person. Only one has the "truth" about God's infinity or finity(finitiude). Admittedly there are instances of two people having true descriptions of a single item but when we are talking about complete descriptions there is no differing "truth".

 

That truth is relative is clearly demonstrated by the fact nothing can be absolutely described on this level of reality; thus both science and religion are predicated on assumptions. It's pointless to continuing arguing about this; you either get that or you don't.

You keep saying that truth is relative, it is not. There can not be two complete descriptions that are not the same and both be correct.

A is A and A is B are not two different "truths" that depend on where you view them from. One is correct and one is wrong. One is truth and one is falsehood. I don't know how to make this any more cut and dry. There is no grey area called "truthiness". It is true or it is false. If there are contracdicting claims about the same thing then by necessity one is true one is false. Don't give me Japanese Blood grass to tell me that one says red and one says green and its red and green therefore the both have the truth because you know it doesn't apply when you say God is infinite and God is finite. How about 1+1=3 and 1+1=5 and 1+1=2? Where is your relative truth? When things as complex as belief systems are put into consideration there certainly can not be two fully true belief systems. One part here and there of each maybe but not both fully true.

 

The distinction regarding delusion I've tried to make is not remotely subtle either; it can be reasoned out without difficulty by average thinkers. If one is behaving in a delusional way, others will take notice. That doesn't mean they can know your mind of a certainty. Beliefs taken on faith aren't delusions. To insist they always could be denies the reliability personal experience, and the real nature of faith, which you seem largely unaware of or simply deny.

The point I am making is not that having faith is delusional. I am saying that someone has to judge the delusional behavior as such. There must be a yardstick to say that skining animals and making love to them is not sane. There has to be some measure that tells them lightning the animal on fire afterwards and sitting naked while wiping your own feces across your cheeks is not normal. If this is the case, as you freely admit, then how can you not admit to the possibilty that you are delusional in faith and everyone is trying to rescue you from it? There must be a yardstick to discern delusional behavior. You say others, who are they? If it is the buddhsts then you are delsional. If it's the Hindus, you are delusional. If it is the Muslims you are only partially delusional. I could go on forever citing the different christain religions and the slight differences in each. The point is that the majority of the world thinks you are delusional, are you?

1. It causes ethics and morals to progress despite inherent and adverse tendencies.

As it says in the bible. What if there is no "original sin? What if it is adverse to act in accordance with the original sin and people are acting against their nature when they sin. Then when they are doing ethical and moral things, they are simply being human. There has been far more atrocity due to religion than peace as a result of it.

 

2. Produces a sublime trust in the goodness of God even in the face of bitter disappointment and crushing defeat.

This I will admit is true, especially inreference to the death of a loved one. Actually I believe this to be a reason why people hang on to faith, in the hope they will see them again.

 

3. Generates profound courage and confidence despite natural adversity and physical calamity.

This is especially true of suicide bombers. They know that they will go straight to heaven and have sixty virgins or whatever. I think this could also be better described with the more apt use of the word faith, meaning faith in yourself.

4. Exhibits inexplicable poise and sustaining tranquillity notwithstanding baffling diseases and even acute physical suffering.

Also sends people directly to death as they refuse blood transfusions and walk off to war to win back the holy land.

 

5. Maintains a mysterious poise and composure of personality in the face of maltreatment and the rankest injustice.

Allows you to be kicked around better?

 

6. Maintains a divine trust in ultimate victory in spite of the cruelties of seemingly blind fate and the apparent utter indifference of natural forces to human welfare.

What about the people who are at the receiving end of the cruelties and utter indifference of those who believe this statement?

7. Persists in the unswerving belief in God despite all contrary demonstrations of logic and successfully withstands all other intellectual sophistries.

You admit to demonstrations of logic that disprove God's existence?

8. Continues to exhibit undaunted faith in the soul's survival regardless of the deceptive teachings of false science and the persuasive delusions of unsound philosophy.

Deceptive teachings of false science and unsound philosophy? Seriously? You have to first assume that everything you accepted on faith is, in fact, valid. Then you could have some judgement as to false and true science and philosophy. Of course, they couldn' be false only another form of "truth", since it is relative. Oh and, you would need proof that said science is false.

9. Lives and triumphs irrespective of the crushing overload of the complex and partial civilizations of modern times.

Does it?

 

10. Contributes to the continued survival of altruism in spite of human selfishness, social antagonisms, industrial greeds, and political maladjustments.

I would say it contributes a great deal to human selfishness (my truth is better than yours). It creates social anatagonisms. It is a big source of industrial greed (televangelists, Republicans, I guess Democrats too).

Political maladjustments are part of the agenda of religion. (Gay Marriage)

11. Steadfastly adheres to a sublime belief in universe unity and divine guidance regardless of the perplexing presence of evil and sin.

You can believe in the universe without faith. You just don't need the guidence.

12. Goes right on worshiping God in spite of anything and everything. Dares to declare, "Even though he slay me, yet will I serve him."

Does this not scream illogical? What makes anyone think God wants to be worshipped? I offer an analogy, Let's say you genetically engineer a colony of ants. Do you make them worship you? Do you care if they do?

 

Quote:

I'm sorry but according to "your"(I'm not sure) belief system I won't be there.

 

If God really is "all-merciful" and I say he is, I suspect even the slightest flicker of faith will be sufficient to insure survival into the next level of existence.

If God is all-mericiful, and assuming God exsisted in the first place, he would not require even a flicker of belief in himself as requirement not to get to burn for eternity. Or for that matter, survival to the next existence.

 

Personal mind has no survival qualities apart from identification with spirit. Mind is a divine bestowal, but it's not immortal without spirit insight, and when it's devoid of the ability to crave survival. I don't believe ignorance alone would ever prevent survival. In fact, I believe only conscious resistance to spirit leading can prevent the survival of the soul.

See, I told you I wouldn't be there.

The mind is a construct of the brain. The is no mind without brain, God did not bestow it unto you.

 

Ok lets recap:

You said, that there is a way to measure delusionality but can offer no system to regard it.

You said, you don't have to suspend judgement yet you have to accept information without ascertaining its validity, which means suspending judgement.

From what I can see through our conversation is that you have to accept certain things like the infinitude of God on faith, without judgment. Once you have accepted these ideas you move forward with an altered set of rules for judgement of things. If you come to a decision that would doubt certain things, like for instance the infinite nature of God then those things become false. Of course that would mean that there is only one "truth" and you have come to that "truth" through the suspension of your judgement. Furthermore, the "truth" you procliam to have is retrieved from documents that have questionable validity.

 

In order for somene like myself to accept your beliefs:

I must suspend my judgement and accept on "faith" that which I would normally not without proof.

Then with my new set of rules for judgement, everything will be logical and if it is not then it is the logic in error not my judgement process.

Then I have become a believer and will be blessed with eternal life.

 

There is a problem with this process. It could be used to get anyone to believe anything ever and state its authenticity with fervor.

Example:

You just have to accept on faith that I am the lord and savior and I am infinte. Anything I say is not questionable. I tell you that there are pink unicorns that make up the forces of nature and make everything work. I say that you will go to a special place by jumping on your left elbow three times a day and by burning cabbage on Sunday at 3:00 AM.

Now with this new set of rules. You can set out and make judgements. Any science that undermines the now know unicorns of force is automatically wrong. When someone asks "Why do we get up at 3:00 AM to burn cabbage every Sunday?" You say, "You just have to accept that the lord works in mysterious ways." "We could never understand him in his infinitude." "These are the rules you must follow if you want to go to that special place."

There is no differnce between my ridiculous example and that of faith, in principle. I purposely try to make my example seem silly to show that when you accept something on faith it may as well be unicorns and elbow flopping. The point is if you accept something on faith it can be anything because you are suspendnig your judgement. As you continue on with the ideas accepted on faith they run into trouble when the come up against hard facts. The laws of nature make the laws of faith wrong when they contradict one another. Because, and here is the kicker, that yardstick which we all use to judge validity are the laws of nature. We suspend that judgement to accept that God is infinte (anything infinite in nature?), that miracles happened (that defied the laws of nature), that we owe allegiance to God (would you want it from your ants?) and there is this all-knowing creator who remains hidden (even seen God?).

When you accept these ideas that go against the laws of nature you violate your reason. You can basically accept anything when you do that.

SomeGuy

[Saitia]

Actually I am quite interested in understanding the way you think on this matter. I feel more enlightened per our conversation already.

I'm curious. It seems many of your responses, which rely on some of the more archaic of religious ideas, are used to reiterate your denials of my contentions; not exactly an indication you've gained any real insight into my postulates. Might your "enlightenment" simply be a better understanding of how to reformulate your current objections against belief in God?

 

 

 

I think you may misunderstand what it is I am saying in the above statement. I am stating that no one "knows" what is going to happen. I can tell you only what I think is most likely and you the same. Again, the point is that no one "knows". That is what faith is for. If we "knew" it wouldn't be an act of faith any longer. The second part of the statement is explaining that there is a "yardstick" with which we can explain things. Although that yardstick can not explain all things, it is still the only yardstick used by all people. I implore yet again, by what yardstick do you think we should we should go by for everyone?

 

The scientific yardstick may certainly be used to explain the material world, but it cannot properly address the world of meaning and values. Did you use science to decide your personal morality? How moral does science say you are? To decide your love for a mate? How great a lover are you according to science? (Double entendre intended) What was your experiment of verification like? :evil: :evil: :evil:

The world of spirit— value— cannot be measured with the yardstick of the world of matter, the scientific method; that's the role of faith in finite experience.

Reason introduces us to the world of facts, to things;

wisdom introduces us to the world of truth, to relationships;

and faith initiates us into the world of divinity— spiritual experience.

Faith can carry reason along as far as reason can go, but then it goes on,

with wisdom, to the very limit of philosophy; then it can choose to set out

on an eternal quest in the sole company of Truth. I like it. In fact I love it.

 

If we assume that God is the source of all reality, then true science and true religion have no real quarrel; they're both ultimately perfectly harmonious; in space and time, however, all apparent conflicts are relative and only partially understood.

 

 

 

Quote:

Faith is NOT a suspension of judgement.

 

Again I say it is. You said it yourself.

Quote:

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

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

The point is that you are accepting something as true without judging its validity. That is suspension of judgment no matter how many times you deny it. The fact that you take it from an admitted incorrect source makes it even more so suspension of judgement.

 

You seem to be fixated on the idea an "incorrect source" indicates suspension of judgment. No truth rises higher than its source. Since the spiritual content of religious experience doesn't come from any material source, incorrect or not the error in a book or a philosophy is an error of interpretation of incomplete fact. The spiritual content of religious experience comes from spiritual insight— revelation— from a Divine Source. The intellectual content from a written source or testimony may provide a framework for that truth, but it is not the truth content; that is spiritual, and it can be lived out as well as be held as an idea and ideal. And this is possible because all truth comes from God and all facts exist in relation to God.

 

Wisdom dictates all revelation should be evaluated by sound judgment and scientific fact; and, even though all religionists would do well to recognize intellectual interpretations of revelation are subject to error, they are sufficient to the individual until further revelation produces greater insight, proving what is currently believed to be true right or wrong; evolving our relative understanding of truth. Truth does not press itself upon a passive intellect; persons must initiate a real search for the truth of reality— i.e., the "completely" right answers to the questions who am I, what am I, and what am I doing here; wherever "here" turns out to be. Many religionists as well as materialists abdicate this sacred responsibility to others; big mistake.

 

Science proceeds in exactly the same fashion as religion, but relies on experiment rather than personal experience. But even in science, it is the personal experience of the "scientist" which validates the facts the mind discovered; the very same attitude of faith—

the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen— in experience used by the religionist seeking verification of truth in the soul.

 

Not to believe in soul requires accepting the idea the material mind of man is, de facto, the highest form of reality, here, and supposedly in the entire unknown universe, which I contemplate is vast beyond human comprehension; and then we decide it has the authority to pronounce itself capable of verifying its own reality. How convenient. :evil:

 

And yet this "highest reality" of the material universe finds itself completely incapable of understanding ANYTHING "completely," (as you said) including its own origin as a sentient creature, its supposed self-conscious awareness having emerged from inert chemicals which science observes are utterly devoid of anything remotely resembling life, let alone consciousness— and a notion of pure speculation unsupported by any evidence whatsoever— to my knowledge, which admittedly is not always up to speed despite all the time I spend on this forum:eek: — that life erupted spontaneously from the nuclear activity of matter which presents no factual evidence of its power to become sentient; that atoms, powered by a poorly understood process, (I can hear the physicists' jaws dropping:hihi: ) are able to obtain primal energy from some unknown universal source, and utilize it to accidentally organize compounds which result in substances which can produce— da da— a incomprehensibly vast organized material creation, capable of creating and manifesting itself through life— consciousness— and most incredibly, self-consciousness— in reality. Bravo! :wave: No faith needed there!:lol:

 

Quote:

Logic and reason are not ignored in evaluation of religious claims by well-balanced and intelligent individuals.

 

That is exactly what is ignored. Logic tells you that if a source is wrong several times it could/ should /would be wrong again. Reason tells us that we should avoid that source for making major judgements in our lives. Faith tells us to forget all that and accept its validity.

So reason, not faith, provides you with the evidence of what is real in your reality?

Then you can provide proof for all the facts that form your Philosophy of Life are scientifically true? Does your logic and reason use the scientific method to provide scientific fact sufficiently verifiable to any other sentient being who cares to duplicate your PoL result? No, it certainly doesn't, all your ideas are verified only by your human mind, which can give them no more status or claim to truth than any particular individual mind cares to give it, since it has yet to explain the truth of its own reality.

 

Our dialogue is more than enough proof to show every individual decides what's realllly true.:xx: :xx:

 

 

 

Viewed from within implies that you took the "leap of faith" to begin with.

No; it simply means viewed from inside the mind as opposed to outside the mind.

The "leap of faith" you mention, and your necessarily second-hand notion of what it is before experiencing it yourself, is made when a given mind's reality logically and reasonably decides to search for the meaning of life, which is not a material part of reality; it is a value expression of mind. Remember it this way: Energy is thing, mind is meaning, spirit is value.

Do you value some thing, some one? Depending on how you experience value— or value experience— you might value something sufficiently to "love" it; that's an expression of spirit value. Those who struggle with trying to understand love and its role in relationship with other consciousness', are face to face with the failure to adequately comprehend spirit value; the loving care and consideration a man is willing to bestow on his wife and children are the measure of his attainment of the higher levels of spiritual self-consciousness. Human things must become known before they can be loved; Divine things must be loved in order to be known.

 

 

You already suspended your judgement and have certain tenants to judge with that aren't necessarily true.

They aren't necessarily false, either. :shrug:

 

 

 

You accepted things like God is infinite and the bible is the word of God.

And you accepted life, matter and motion are real; i.e. not delusional.

With this new set of rules with which to judge the world you can reason differently. You can even say your acting in accord with reason and logic because you have now engrained the altered logic and reason obtained through your "leap of faith".

The same "leap of faith" is made by all men and women when they tacitly approve of the reality of life, matter, and motion; these assumptions are shared by most all human minds, including the deluded. So which set of rules does the most damage to a person's ability to judge what's truly real? Following your logic I assume it would be the most fundamental assumption, wouldn't it? If not, why not?:hihi:

 

Quote:

It seems you prefer using the lowest possible denominator to press your case; i.e., some people do suspend their critical thinking and accept falsehoods.

Actually I prefer the highest common denominator as my example. I hope you don't mind being called that. You, at some time, accepted a belief system that went against your better judgement in believing "truths" from an admittedly incorrect source. Here again I see the word Falsehoods i thought there were only other truths.

 

They are the relative truth to those who erroneously believe them; at least until they replace them with something higher or truer.

 

 

 

 

 

Bringing up some obscure grass from Japan to poorly illustrate your point is beneath you.

 

:lol: . . It's neither "obscure" or a poor illustration; it grows in my backyard, and it's perfectly suitable, considering the level you insist on placing the truth. A progressive thinking, God-knowing individual constantly attempts to elevate wisdom to the living-truth levels of divine attainment; the spiritually unprogressive soul ( I hope you don't mind being called that ;) ) is all the while dragging living truth down to the dead levels of wisdom and mere knowledge.

 

 

If you re-read your quoting of me you'll note I said "complete description".

My oversight. To my understanding then, you're using "complete" to mean "total," or "absolute."

Of course I agree that there is only one absolutely true description; but no finite being can describe anything "absolutely," which is of course why I've said truth in time and space must be relative; only God is absolute, therefore only God can describe anything absolutely; whether it's Japanese Blood Grass or. . . himself.

 

You keep saying that truth is relative, it is not. There can not be two complete descriptions that are not the same and both be correct.

Well, it's not important enough to keep finding other ways to explain your misinterpretation; let's agree to disagree. :hihi:

 

There must be a yardstick to say that skining animals and making love to them is not sane. There has to be some measure that tells them lightning the animal on fire afterwards and sitting naked while wiping your own feces across your cheeks is not normal. If this is the case, as you freely admit, then how can you not admit to the possibilty that you are delusional in faith and everyone is trying to rescue you from it? There must be a yardstick to discern delusional behavior. You say others, who are they? If it is the buddhsts then you are delsional. If it's the Hindus, you are delusional. If it is the Muslims you are only partially delusional. I could go on forever citing the different christain religions and the slight differences in each. The point is that the majority of the world thinks you are delusional, are you?

 

Dude; what have you been smoking??:eek2: ". . .wiping (sic) feces across your cheeks"??

Not sure I'm following this; or if I should.:edizzy:

 

You said: The "majority of the world thinks you are delusional, are you?"??

So are you asking me, IF the majority of the world thinks you are delusional, are you really delusional?

Or are you saying, the majority of the world thinks religionists are (I'm) delusional, am I? :evil:

 

Well. This is a good spot to truncate; see you in Part 2.

 

—S

[Saitia]

Re: Atheism and Faith/Part 2

 

SOME GUY SAID: As it says in the bible. What if there is no "original sin?

There isn't, imo.

 

There has been far more atrocity due to religion than peace as a result of it.

I've heard that; is there scientific evidence to back up this claim?

 

This I will admit is true, especially inreference to the death of a loved one.

I might have agreed with you, but having recently experienced feelings of certainty a person has not ceased to exist save physically, I cannot. A quite ineffable spiritual experience, but unassailably validated in the soul.

 

 

 

Actually I believe this to be a reason why people hang on to faith, in the hope they will see them again.

In the end, whether or not the belief is real faith—

the effect is a good one.

 

This is especially true of suicide bombers.

Lowest possible denominator?

Assuming you're not being sarcastic, is this opinion reflective of your atheistic natural outlook on life, or just an observation of misguided religious belief?

 

 

Also sends people directly to death as they refuse blood transfusions and walk off to war to win back the holy land.

Do you believe persons shouldn't have the power to decide whether they live or die?

 

Allows you to be kicked around better?

Again, the lowest possible denominator.

Most people recognize— even if they don't practice it—

that it is morally right to "love your enemies."

Do you consider yourself, in your personal philosophy as an atheist— to be moral?

Do you think it's moral to love your enemies?

 

What about the people who are at the receiving end of the cruelties and utter indifference of those who believe this statement?

The worst affliction in the universe is to never have been afflicted.

We only learn wisdom by experiencing adversity, wouldn't you agree?

 

 

You admit to demonstrations of logic that disprove God's existence?

Read the whole sentence again; ". . .successfully withstands all other intellectual sophistries."

 

Deceptive teachings of false science and unsound philosophy? Seriously? You have to first assume that everything you accepted on faith is, in fact, valid. Then you could have some judgement as to false and true science and philosophy. Of course, they couldn' be false only another form of "truth", since it is relative. Oh and, you would need proof that said science is false.

So; you really do grok the relativity of truth. :wave:

Science is eventually good enough to provide

the evidence that what it once held is now "false,"

thus correcting their evolving truth. Religion can

and must learn to do the same thing.

 

 

I would say it contributes a great deal to human selfishness (my truth is better than yours).

Is it? :hihi: :shrug: Is that a bigger problem than materialistic greed or disregard of the environment in the pursuit of wealth?

 

It creates social anatagonisms. It is a big source of industrial greed (televangelists, Republicans, I guess Democrats too)

Is it a bigger problem than global corporate greed? or dangerous disregard of the environment in the pursuit of wealth?

 

Political maladjustments are part of the agenda of religion. (Gay Marriage)

And in spite of all such agendas, brotherly love and altruism survive.

 

You can believe in the universe without faith. You just don't need the guidence.

Hm. What is it you believe about the universe without guidance?

 

Does this not scream illogical? What makes anyone think God wants to be worshipped?

Understandably, I don't think you grasp the true dynamic of worship.

Briefly, worship is the conscious, and joyous act, of recognizing and

acknowledging the truth and fact of the intimate and personal

relationship of the Creator with the creature.

What usually passes for worship in organized religion is a pale sister

to what it can be. Worship can become increasingly all-encompassing until it eventually attains the highest experiential delight— the most exquisite pleasure known to us.

 

I offer an analogy, Let's say you genetically engineer a colony of ants. Do you make them worship you? Do you care if they do?

The ability to worship is not a capability of animal mind.

Do you consider yourself incapable of worship?

 

If God is all-mericiful, and assuming God exsisted in the first place, he would not require even a flicker of belief in himself as requirement not to get to burn for eternity. Or for that matter, survival to the next existence.

Hell is another of those primitive and childish ideas that is the

equivalence of the lowest common denominator. It's not part of my

religion or philosophy, thus I've no reason to argue for it.

Survival is not automatic in the universe because it would violate

absolute freewill choice; God does not presume to force eternal life on

any freewill creature; you choose it. That cannot be extrapolated as

God requiring ". . .a flicker of belief in himself."

 

 

See, I told you I wouldn't be there.

The mind is a construct of the brain. The is no mind without brain, God did not bestow it unto you.

I'd ask you how you know these things, but I know you do not know them, as our scientific yardstick hasn't accomplished them yet. Science hasn't completely explained what consciousness is, let alone the source of mind. Science may presume to describe life, but they don't know what it is, or how to create it, either. The same for gravity and motion. Science is just starting to free us from superstition and magical thinking, but it essentially doesn't know squat, yet. But science has weakened only those religions which are mostly dependent on fear and emotion.

 

 

Ok lets recap:

You said, that there is a way to measure delusionality but can offer no system to regard it.

Just not my job; delusion must be self-diagnosed when it comes to personal religion, or life; unless you start paging yourself over the intercom at work and don't disguise your voice; then you'll get some help:xx:

 

From what I can see through our conversation is that you have to accept certain things like the infinitude of God on faith, without judgment.

One final time for the record: the exercise of living faith does not require the suspension of the tools of intellect. That's precisely why I can embrace the findings of true science and enjoy the satisfactions of true religion.

 

Once you have accepted these ideas you move forward with an altered set of rules for judgement of things. If you come to a decision that would doubt certain things, like for instance the infinite nature of God then those things become false. Of course that would mean that there is only one "truth" and you have come to that "truth" through the suspension of your judgement. Furthermore, the "truth" you procliam to have is retrieved from documents that have questionable validity.

 

Once again you fall back on things that I have repeatedly rebutted; suffice it to say the validations of religion do not come from any documents, but from personal religious experience. But since you are determined to press this argument of documents of "questionable validity," please reveal what documents of unquestioned validity you used to arrive at your philosophy?

 

 

In order for somene like myself to accept your beliefs:

I must suspend my judgement and accept on "faith" that which I would normally not without proof.

Then with my new set of rules for judgement, everything will be logical and if it is not then it is the logic in error not my judgement process.

Then I have become a believer and will be blessed with eternal life.

Well you gotta do what you gotta do I guess. :evil:

 

 

 

 

There is a problem with this process. It could be used to get anyone to believe anything ever and state its authenticity with fervor.

Example:

You just have to accept on faith that I am the lord and savior and I am infinte. Anything I say is not questionable. I tell you that there are pink unicorns that make up the forces of nature and make everything work. I say that you will go to a special place by jumping on your left elbow three times a day and by burning cabbage on Sunday at 3:00 AM.

Good luck with that. :eek2:

 

 

 

 

Now with this new set of rules. You can set out and make judgements. Any science that undermines the now know unicorns of force is automatically wrong. When someone asks "Why do we get up at 3:00 AM to burn cabbage every Sunday?" You say, "You just have to accept that the lord works in mysterious ways." "We could never understand him in his infinitude." "These are the rules you must follow if you want to go to that special place."

There is no differnce between my ridiculous example and that of faith, in principle.

Well "faith" as you define it.:evil:

 

 

I purposely try to make my example seem silly to show that when you accept something on faith it may as well be unicorns and elbow flopping.

Sure; and the aspect of ridicule just might affect a primitive-minded religionist too, who believes spit has magic properties, or that blood sacrifice is a hotline to the heavenly Lord Dracula.

 

 

 

The point is if you accept something on faith it can be anything because you are suspendnig your judgement. As you continue on with the ideas accepted on faith they run into trouble when the come up against hard facts. The laws of nature make the laws of faith wrong when they contradict one another.

Certainly no bias there, right? So you're saying scientists are rarely wrong when the contradict faith— even though they've really not answered any of the truly vital questions we've visited in this post?

 

 

Because, and here is the kicker, that yardstick which we all use to judge validity are the laws of nature. We suspend that judgement to accept that God is infinte (anything infinite in nature?), that miracles happened (that defied the laws of nature), that we owe allegiance to God (would you want it from your ants?) and there is this all-knowing creator who remains hidden (even seen God?).

When you accept these ideas that go against the laws of nature you violate your reason. You can basically accept anything when you do that.y

 

The "laws of nature" you use to judge validity— where did they come from? Are they like the portable ten-law tablets Moses supposedly picked up from God, or is it more like an encyclopedia full of laws written by men on paper? Since truth is not relative in your world, aren't the current claims of science therefore infallible if you think they're right?:edizzy: :evil:

 

In practical application, the laws of nature operate in what seems to be the dual realms of the physical and the spiritual; but in reality they are one because God the first source and center is the primal cause of all materialization, and the first and final Father of all spirits. Therefore the laws of nature— to the extent they are truly known in a relative world of truth, are all on my side in the pursuit of even higher truth.:evil:

 

Whew. Sorry about the length; one might get the notion this is a complicated subject if you've read this far.:hihi:

 

 

Cheers.

—Saitia

[Millard Alexander Dorsey]

He he. I knew someone would say this. :hihi:

 

Using empirical knowledge I cannot disprove a God. I do, however, not accept that I am by logic required to *believe* that something *does not exist*.

 

Therefore I am an atheist - I have no God, and I do not have non-faith.

 

To claim otherwise is to say that I must believe that everything that does not exist, in fact might exist, and as such everything I believe is both right and wrong. The only way out of this conundrum is to prove that something *exists*, because a proof of non-existence will not be acceptable proof according to the three bullet points in Bio's post.

 

This is flawed logic. I accept the logic of the scientific method, which means that I can assume that what best describes the world is *currently* a reasonable thing to place my bets on. I don't need to "believe" that there is no planet between Earth and Mars. I *know* there is no planet there.

 

By reason I accept that the scientific theories we currently have for the birth and evolution of the universe overwhelm the beliefs of any religion, and therefore I accept those theories. I do not *believe* in them in the sense that I have *faith*.

 

I can thus safely state that no, there is no God just the way I can say that no, there is no planet between Earth and Mars. I am an atheist. There are no gods.

 

I cannot, however, claim that there will never *be* a god. But that is acceptable logic: I cannot determine what can happen tomorrow. Nor can I prove that noone will ever be able to create a universe and be god for the beings in that universe.

My friend there was no word for GOD in my tribe (American Indian), spirit yes, GOD no, Christ no, rocks, bugs, trees, water,birds, yes all spirits, you and I were all spirits, that would happen again and again, in accordance with how you lived while in the presense of your brother or fellow persons (Man or woman), you have the right to claim the spirit of your first ancestor, be cautious it may have been a crock or turtle or what ever. I was an Eagle, as told by my ancestors. GOD is a summation of ancient terms when the expression of GOD happends 12 out of 16 times it is near or during a serious cry for help when things are out of control. Theology will demonstrate several points of "worship", Yan Yen, Budda, Christ, Moe, and more, one thing is consistant, all tell you what GOD said. All say the same thing, if you are saying GOD aint real , (that's not what I feel) , then you are only saying that the agnostic attitude needs more evidence before you select a platform, no platform, is better than the wrong one, You have to understand the the level of communication was "Light Years" from where it is now and the close examination was better off summerized. In my world, GOD is real .. at level 4 QM , we can almost demostrate an infinite and undeniable "force" that is MAN's mind, which is in the image of GOD (man). Try this; Can a dog tell right from wrong, or good from bad .. can a wolf give a care? Is a wolf a dog? We have the power to label things, including folks, what ever fits our needs. Creativity and imagination are where you find GOD like attributes nor raw facts that change into confusing more facts. GOD is a reliable constant or guide line to ALL of this stuff. Spend two hours asking GOD to show you something in private, You will see that the things we argue about in this forum will sway your opinion and atleast your special input will be much needed. I promise you once you relax long enough to recieve the word the light will shine within and you will feel the presence of GOD.

 

DORSEY

[GAHD]

:hihi:

[someguy]

Hello,

Lets get right down to business.

 

I'm curious. It seems many of your responses, which rely on some of the more archaic of religious ideas, are used to reiterate your denials of my contentions; not exactly an indication you've gained any real insight into my postulates. Might your "enlightenment" simply be a better understanding of how to reformulate your current objections against belief in God?

Yes,well sort of. I understand a little better what makes you have faith. It is refreshing to talk to someone of faith that doesn't believe everything that is written down for their religion and repeat it.

 

The scientific yardstick may certainly be used to explain the material world, but it cannot properly address the world of meaning and values.

We must first assume there is such a world

Did you use science to decide your personal morality?

In a way, yes. I thought about the golden rule. To me, it is very scientific. I think philosophy is probabaly more apt to describe morals than science. But most importantly, i believe morals do not belong to religion of any kind. Religions seem to think that they have domain over ethics and morals, they do not. I do not beleive that morals are handed down by God in any way. I believe morals are something that must be agreed upon by men.

How moral does science say you are?

I would agree that science doesn't have much domian here and I would say the same of spiritual religous or whatever.

To decide your love for a mate? How great a lover are you according to science? (Double entendre intended) What was your experiment of verification like?

Science can say something about these things. I would say that how great a lover I am would be decided by the partner and I am sure that her experience would weigh a great deal in that rating. I don't see how this differs much from the method.

The world of spirit— value— cannot be measured with the yardstick of the world of matter

Assuming there is such a world.

and faith initiates us into the world of divinity— spiritual experience.

Assuming there is such a world.

If we assume that God is the source of all reality, then true science and true religion have no real quarrel; they're both ultimately perfectly harmonious; in space and time, however, all apparent conflicts are relative and only partially understood.

I would like to note a big "If we assume" that God is the source of all reality. If we assume that science is the way to define reality then religious people have nothing to fear in its discovery since they "know" "the truth" already. Unless of course science proves them wrong.

Quote:

Faith is NOT a suspension of judgement.

You seem to be fixated on the idea an "incorrect source" indicates suspension of judgment. No truth rises higher than its source. Since the spiritual content of religious experience doesn't come from any material source, incorrect or not the error in a book or a philosophy is an error of interpretation of incomplete fact.

 

I will have to ask you straight forward then. Where do you get your ideas of God from? The idea of infinte is especially important. I believe that incorrect source makes it a greater suspension of judgement. I think that faith alone is suspension of judgement. The point is that you are accepting something as true without judging its validity. That is suspension of judgment no matter how many times you deny it.

 

The spiritual content of religious experience comes from spiritual insight— revelation— from a Divine Source.

But how do you receive the information? Does God give it straight to you?

The intellectual content from a written source or testimony may provide a framework for that truth, but it is not the truth content; that is spiritual, and it can be lived out as well as be held as an idea and ideal.

It must provide the framework and without that framework there would be nothing. You have to accept the framework as true without judging validity before you can have any experience. Is this not correct?

And this is possible because all truth comes from God and all facts exist in relation to God.

It is possible for you because you accepted the framework for all truth to come from God. If you don't accept the framework then you don't accept God and certainly don't accept that he has any truth.

 

Wisdom dictates all revelation should be evaluated by sound judgment and scientific fact; and, even though all religionists would do well to recognize intellectual interpretations of revelation are subject to error, they are sufficient to the individual until further revelation produces greater insight, proving what is currently believed to be true right or wrong;

The first thing you have to do is accept that this revelation is true or valid or for that matter even from God in the first place.

evolving our relative understanding of truth. Truth does not press itself upon a passive intellect; persons must initiate a real search for the truth of reality— i.e., the "completely" right answers to the questions who am I, what am I, and what am I doing here; wherever "here" turns out to be. Many religionists as well as materialists abdicate this sacred responsibility to others; big mistake.

I personally strive for answers to truth of reality, however, I don't think that someone already had them and passed them to us. You accept things as truth of reality without seeing the other possibilties. For instance that God did not give any truth or that the written word of God is simply not the written word of God. Big mistake (responsibility to others to check validity).

 

Science proceeds in exactly the same fashion as religion, but relies on experiment rather than personal experience.

There is a "big" difference, everyone is privy to the expriments. Any one person can acheive the same result. There is objectivity and you don't have to count on subjective opinion.

But even in science, it is the personal experience of the "scientist" which validates the facts the mind discovered; the very same attitude of faith—

Quite the contrary, It is the result of the other scientists experiment that gives validity to the first.

the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen— in experience used by the religionist seeking verification of truth in the soul.

What substance lies in hope? What evidence in things not seen?

 

Not to believe in soul requires accepting the idea the material mind of man is, de facto, the highest form of reality, here, and supposedly in the entire unknown universe, which I contemplate is vast beyond human comprehension; and then we decide it has the authority to pronounce itself capable of verifying its own reality. How convenient. :evil:

To say it is the highest form of reality is silly it is equal in its reality to anyhting else that is real. You conteplate everything is vast beyond human comprehesion. We give the mind no authority, we give that to our eyes and the eyes of others. To believe in soul requires accepting an idea for which there is no proof. We can verify our own reality by looking in the mirror. Where can you see your soul? How inconvenient.

 

And yet this "highest reality" of the material universe finds itself completely incapable of understanding ANYTHING "completely," (as you said) including its own origin as a sentient creature, its supposed self-conscious awareness having emerged from inert chemicals which science observes are utterly devoid of anything remotely resembling life, let alone consciousness— and a notion of pure speculation unsupported by any evidence whatsoever— to my knowledge, which admittedly is not always up to speed despite all the time I spend on this forum:eek: — that life erupted spontaneously from the nuclear activity of matter which presents no factual evidence of its power to become sentient; that atoms, powered by a poorly understood process, (I can hear the physicists' jaws dropping:hihi: ) are able to obtain primal energy from some unknown universal source, and utilize it to accidentally organize compounds which result in substances which can produce— da da— a incomprehensibly vast organized material creation, capable of creating and manifesting itself through life— consciousness— and most incredibly, self-consciousness— in reality. Bravo! :wave: No faith needed there!:lol:

This hypothesis is just that, but it does not claim to have the truth. The ideas behind it have a great deal of supporting evidence at various stages. It is not to be relied upon as truth because somewhere it is written down to be such. I do not accept it as truth without question so no it does not require any faith. It requires understanding

of observable processes and reason. Why is this answer any different from yours, besisdes the above? I think that is the point your're trying to make. Strangely, I am trying to make the same one. Why can't you just accept this as true without judging its validity? The answer is: because it goes against what you have already accepted upon suspension of judgement. This is why I will not accept anyhting as fact or "truth" without concrete proof. I don't want to be in the situation where something is more understanable and intelligible than, but goes against, my current belief system.

So reason, not faith, provides you with the evidence of what is real in your reality?

Absolutely, what is repeatable, what is concrete, what is unchanging, what is provable is real. Can you deny that?

Then you can provide proof for all the facts that form your Philosophy of Life are scientifically true? Does your logic and reason use the scientific method to provide scientific fact sufficiently verifiable to any other sentient being who cares to duplicate your PoL result?

Quite so, I would expect no one to accept anything without proof and/or sufficent reasoning. I think the words "scientifically true" is a misuse I prefer "scientifically proven". While some of beliefs are not supported by fact but are hypotheses. I hold them to be changable when necessity requires it. In fact, while I find it very unlikely that many of my beliefs will be changed there is room for any one to be changed.

No, it certainly doesn't, all your ideas are verified only by your human mind, which can give them no more status or claim to truth than any particular individual mind cares to give it, since it has yet to explain the truth of its own reality.

This is very true of subjective claims, such as your faith. However, the scientific method is objective and can give more status to any claim than any particular individual mind can. In fact it can quite easliy take away status of claim of truth from any particular individual mind.

 

Our dialogue is more than enough proof to show every individual decides what's realllly true.:xx: :xx:

That is exactly what I have been trying to say. Except the opposite. If this were true then the ridiculous examples I offered are really true. Those feces smearing elbow droppers have just as much claim to truth as you do. Where is that person who will come to their aid and explain to them that they are insane? They can't come and won't by your philosophy. There would be no objective way to say that they are crazy.

 

Religion isn't the product of reason, but viewed from within, it's altogether reasonable;

Viewed from within implies that you took the "leap of faith" to begin with.

No; it simply means viewed from inside the mind as opposed to outside the mind.

Could you explain this? Inside the mind before or after you suspend judgement?

The "leap of faith" you mention, and your necessarily second-hand notion of what it is before experiencing it yourself, is made when a given mind's reality logically and reasonably decides to search for the meaning of life, which is not a material part of reality; it is a value expression of mind.

I am actively searching for the meaning of life. The "leap of faith" I speak of is what you did in accepting that you have found the meaning of life without judging its validity.

Remember it this way: Energy is thing, mind is meaning, spirit is value.

What does that mean? Toast is grey canals flow west, material is value. This is equal to what you just said.

Do you value some thing, some one? Depending on how you experience value— or value experience— you might value something sufficiently to "love" it; that's an expression of spirit value.

No that's an expression of emotion.

Those who struggle with trying to understand love and its role in relationship with other consciousness', are face to face with the failure to adequately comprehend spirit value; the loving care and consideration a man is willing to bestow on his wife and children are the measure of his attainment of the higher levels of spiritual self-consciousness.

No you are defining morality. Spirituality does not own morality. Morals are not spiirtual.

Human things must become known before they can be loved; Divine things must be loved in order to be known.

This is silly, everything must be known before it can be loved. If it is unknown, how can you love it? Divine things must be loved to be known is to say you must be immerssed in it enough to beileve it.

 

They aren't necessarily false, either. :shrug:

Ah, but it is more likely.

 

And you accepted life, matter and motion are real; i.e. not delusional.

Verifible by others = objective = real

The same "leap of faith" is made by all men and women when they tacitly approve of the reality of life, matter, and motion; these assumptions are shared by most all human minds, including the deluded.

Not true, these things are verifiable.The deluded are the ones who's reality is not verifiable.

So which set of rules does the most damage to a person's ability to judge what's truly real?

Yours, of course, if it conflicts with your unvalidated knownledge it is thrown out.

Following your logic I assume it would be the most fundamental assumption, wouldn't it? If not, why not?:D

Because the most fundemental assumption would be verifiable or at least have something to use to show some validity.

 

They are the relative truth to those who erroneously believe them; at least until they replace them with something higher or truer.

With the things you believe? Beacause you have "the truth". This is very arrogant. Any idea is relative to its originator that doesn't make it true.

 

:lol: . . It's neither "obscure" or a poor illustration; it grows in my backyard, and it's perfectly suitable, considering the level you insist on placing the truth. A progressive thinking, God-knowing individual constantly attempts to elevate wisdom to the living-truth levels of divine attainment; the spiritually unprogressive soul ( I hope you don't mind being called that ;) ) is all the while dragging living truth down to the dead levels of wisdom and mere knowledge.

I don't mind being called that I would say I am spiritually antiprogressive and proud of it. I would say you are distorting the truth to meet your preconceived notions of what it is. That the only truth we can rely on is that of wisdom and mere knowledge.

 

My oversight. To my understanding then, you're using "complete" to mean "total," or "absolute."

Of course I agree that there is only one absolutely true description; but no finite being can describe anything "absolutely," which is of course why I've said truth in time and space must be relative; only God is absolute, therefore only God can describe anything absolutely; whether it's Japanese Blood Grass or. . . himself.

This assumes god is infinite, yet again, and conveinently you are finite and can not be held accountable to make a complete discription of anything. I do not mean absolute, I mean complete. If japanese blood grass grows in your backyard then it is does or does not. A complete description would be it does. One does not have to describe your backyard in its entirity to understand that there is obscure grass growing in it. God is not necessary to tell you that your obscure grass is both red and green is he? You can come to the complete description of its color without God's assistance.

 

Well, it's not important enough to keep finding other ways to explain your misinterpretation; let's agree to disagree. :beer:

I would love to agree to disagree but there can be no disagreement between us because we both have the truth and it is equal in its relativity so there is no such thing as right and wrong. Wait, how can there be morals? How can anything be true or false? Is this what you are trying to accomplish?

 

Dude; what have you been smoking??:eek2: ". . .wiping (sic) feces across your cheeks"??

Not sure I'm following this; or if I should.:edizzy:

Simple point, you can accept anything on faith.

You said: The "majority of the world thinks you are delusional, are you?"??

So are you asking me, IF the majority of the world thinks you are delusional, are you really delusional?

Or are you saying, the majority of the world thinks religionists are (I'm) delusional, am I? :)

The majority of the world disagrees with you period. You must have a delusionality test. (you have alluded to it several times) If it has anything to do with the fact that most of the world thinks you are wrong, and it should. Then____________ fill in the blank.

 

Well. This is a good spot to truncate; see you in Part 2.

 

dido.

[someguy]

Part 2

As it says in the bible. What if there is no "original sin?

 

There isn't, imo.

You said it was against human nature to act morally.

 

There has been far more atrocity due to religion than peace as a result of it.

 

 

I've heard that; is there scientific evidence to back up this claim?

Wars - crusades- inquisitions. Could you prove the usefulness of religion in the opposite?

 

I might have agreed with you, but having recently experienced feelings of certainty a person has not ceased to exist save physically, I cannot. A quite ineffable spiritual experience, but unassailably validated in the soul.

 

Another issue I have, why does religion,(faith),God need to be necessary for an afterlife. What is wrong with saying there is an afterlife without God?

 

Quote:

This is especially true of suicide bombers.

 

Lowest possible denominator?

Assuming you're not being sarcastic, is this opinion reflective of your atheistic natural outlook on life, or just an observation of misguided religious belief?

The latter.

 

Quote:

Also sends people directly to death as they refuse blood transfusions and walk off to war to win back the holy land.

 

Do you believe persons shouldn't have the power to decide whether they live or die?

Absolutely, but why die unecessarily?

 

Quote:

Allows you to be kicked around better?

 

Again, the lowest possible denominator.

Most people recognize— even if they don't practice it—

that it is morally right to "love your enemies."

Do you consider yourself, in your personal philosophy as an atheist— to be moral?

Do you think it's moral to love your enemies?

It is a question above. I do consider myself to be moral. I do not allow my morals to be defined for me. I do think it is best to love your enemies as fellow men, of course then it would be harder to kill them. It is probably easier to view them as subhuman infidels.

 

 

Quote:

What about the people who are at the receiving end of the cruelties and utter indifference of those who believe this statement?

The worst affliction in the universe is to never have been afflicted.

We only learn wisdom by experiencing adversity, wouldn't you agree?

You can learn from the mistakes of others as well. I don't think that this releases religion from the responsiblity of its cruelties.

 

So; you really do grok the relativity of truth.

Science is eventually good enough to provide

the evidence that what it once held is now "false,"

thus correcting their evolving truth. Religion can

and must learn to do the same thing.

Very true. Another thing religion must learn to do is to be willing to toss the whole thing out and rebuild it if something comes along to shake its foundations. A point of correction the truth does not evolve it just turns out to be untrue after all.

 

Quote:

I would say it contributes a great deal to human selfishness (my truth is better than yours).

 

Is it? Is that a bigger problem than materialistic greed or disregard of the environment in the pursuit of wealth?

No

 

Quote:

It creates social anatagonisms. It is a big source of industrial greed (televangelists, Republicans, I guess Democrats too)

 

Is it a bigger problem than global corporate greed? or dangerous disregard of the environment in the pursuit of wealth?

No, but alot of this is done under its protection and label.

 

 

Quote:

Political maladjustments are part of the agenda of religion. (Gay Marriage)

 

And in spite of all such agendas, brotherly love and altruism survive.

Beacause they do not belong to religion.

 

 

Quote:

You can believe in the universe without faith. You just don't need the guidence.

 

Hm. What is it you believe about the universe without guidance?

All that my eyes reveal to me that is verifiable and repeatable.

 

 

Quote:

Does this not scream illogical? What makes anyone think God wants to be worshipped?

 

Understandably, I don't think you grasp the true dynamic of worship.

Briefly, worship is the conscious, and joyous act, of recognizing and

acknowledging the truth and fact of the intimate and personal

relationship of the Creator with the creature.

What usually passes for worship in organized religion is a pale sister

to what it can be. Worship can become increasingly all-encompassing until it eventually attains the highest experiential delight— the most exquisite pleasure known to us.

Why not hold yourself as the highest? I have never felt exquisite pleasure in the humbling of myself to somneone better. I prefer to think of myself as equal to all (and better than some).

 

Quote:

I offer an analogy, Let's say you genetically engineer a colony of ants. Do you make them worship you? Do you care if they do?

 

The ability to worship is not a capability of animal mind.

Do you consider yourself incapable of worship?

An animal can't worship? I think they can. Apparently you do and you're an animal. No I am not incapable of worship, I have done it in the past. I just got the feeling no one was there and I was just silly.

 

Quote:

If God is all-mericiful, and assuming God exsisted in the first place, he would not require even a flicker of belief in himself as requirement not to get to burn for eternity. Or for that matter, survival to the next existence.

 

Hell is another of those primitive and childish ideas that is the

equivalence of the lowest common denominator. It's not part of my

religion or philosophy, thus I've no reason to argue for it.

Survival is not automatic in the universe because it would violate

absolute freewill choice; God does not presume to force eternal life on

any freewill creature; you choose it. That cannot be extrapolated as

God requiring ". . .a flicker of belief in himself."

I don't think forcing of eternal life is in question it's the taketh away part I am corcerned with. That is what requires the flicker of belief and that is what I have issue with. God, if he is love, would not send you here with the possibility to deny him so that you would lose eternal life as a test. This is another childish act.

Quote:

See, I told you I wouldn't be there.

The mind is a construct of the brain. The is no mind without brain, God did not bestow it unto you.

 

 

I'd ask you how you know these things, but I know you do not know them, as our scientific yardstick hasn't accomplished them yet. Science hasn't completely explained what consciousness is, let alone the source of mind. Science may presume to describe life, but they don't know what it is, or how to create it, either. The same for gravity and motion. Science is just starting to free us from superstition and magical thinking, but it essentially doesn't know squat, yet. But science has weakened only those religions which are mostly dependent on fear and emotion.

True I don't know this. I was only poking. I do have this as a hypothesis though. I do not believe that God bestowed anything to us. I would say we know a great deal especially with the technology of the day. We are going to keep understanding more and more. One day we will do away with all the superstition. Science has weakened all religion by providing an objective "truth".

 

Quote:

Ok lets recap:

You said, that there is a way to measure delusionality but can offer no system to regard it.

 

Just not my job; delusion must be self-diagnosed when it comes to personal religion, or life; unless you start paging yourself over the intercom at work and don't disguise your voice; then you'll get some help

Again you elude to these magical people who will help you based on what?

 

Quote:

From what I can see through our conversation is that you have to accept certain things like the infinitude of God on faith, without judgment.

 

One final time for the record: the exercise of living faith does not require the suspension of the tools of intellect. That's precisely why I can embrace the findings of true science and enjoy the satisfactions of true religion.

Did you not accept somethinf on faith? Did you not accept it as true without checking its validity? Why do you put the true in front of science? Is it because some views of science contradict your faith?

 

Quote:

Once you have accepted these ideas you move forward with an altered set of rules for judgement of things. If you come to a decision that would doubt certain things, like for instance the infinite nature of God then those things become false. Of course that would mean that there is only one "truth" and you have come to that "truth" through the suspension of your judgement. Furthermore, the "truth" you procliam to have is retrieved from documents that have questionable validity.

 

 

Once again you fall back on things that I have repeatedly rebutted; suffice it to say the validations of religion do not come from any documents, but from personal religious experience. But since you are determined to press this argument of documents of "questionable validity," please reveal what documents of unquestioned validity you used to arrive at your philosophy?

You have yet to rebutt. You have suspended judgment as anyone can clearly see. I am aksing you where you got the intial information not where you go to validate that information. I am talking about any writing that claims to have knowledge about God. Especially but not limited to the Bible, the Quran, the talmud, the upinishads etc.

 

 

Quote:

In order for somene like myself to accept your beliefs:

I must suspend my judgement and accept on "faith" that which I would normally not without proof.

Then with my new set of rules for judgement, everything will be logical and if it is not then it is the logic in error not my judgement process.

Then I have become a believer and will be blessed with eternal life.

 

Well you gotta do what you gotta do I guess.

Rephrase with question marks????? Is this correct?

 

Quote:

There is a problem with this process. It could be used to get anyone to believe anything ever and state its authenticity with fervor.

Example:

You just have to accept on faith that I am the lord and savior and I am infinte. Anything I say is not questionable. I tell you that there are pink unicorns that make up the forces of nature and make everything work. I say that you will go to a special place by jumping on your left elbow three times a day and by burning cabbage on Sunday at 3:00 AM.

 

Good luck with that.

Am I wrong? Can faith only be used to accept things that are "the truth" or can faith be used for anything?

 

Quote:

Now with this new set of rules. You can set out and make judgements. Any science that undermines the now know unicorns of force is automatically wrong. When someone asks "Why do we get up at 3:00 AM to burn cabbage every Sunday?" You say, "You just have to accept that the lord works in mysterious ways." "We could never understand him in his infinitude." "These are the rules you must follow if you want to go to that special place."

There is no differnce between my ridiculous example and that of faith, in principle.

 

Well "faith" as you define it.

Does your defintion allow for anything different?

 

 

Quote:

I purposely try to make my example seem silly to show that when you accept something on faith it may as well be unicorns and elbow flopping.

 

Sure; and the aspect of ridicule just might affect a primitive-minded religionist too, who believes spit has magic properties, or that blood sacrifice is a hotline to the heavenly Lord Dracula.

I think your missing the point.The point again is that you can accept anything on faith.

 

Quote:

The point is if you accept something on faith it can be anything because you are suspendnig your judgement. As you continue on with the ideas accepted on faith they run into trouble when the come up against hard facts. The laws of nature make the laws of faith wrong when they contradict one another.

 

Certainly no bias there, right? So you're saying scientists are rarely wrong when the contradict faith— even though they've really not answered any of the truly vital questions we've visited in this post?

Lots of bias there, science can be proven. The laws of nature can be proven. They do not need to answer your vital questions in order to prove better or more apt to say what is true. Your answers to the vital questins are all accepted on faith and therefore not necessarily true. (or untrue, which really means up for judgement.)

 

Quote:

Because, and here is the kicker, that yardstick which we all use to judge validity are the laws of nature. We suspend that judgement to accept that God is infinte (anything infinite in nature?), that miracles happened (that defied the laws of nature), that we owe allegiance to God (would you want it from your ants?) and there is this all-knowing creator who remains hidden (even seen God?).

When you accept these ideas that go against the laws of nature you violate your reason. You can basically accept anything when you do that.y

 

 

The "laws of nature" you use to judge validity— where did they come from? Are they like the portable ten-law tablets Moses supposedly picked up from God, or is it more like an encyclopedia full of laws written by men on paper? Since truth is not relative in your world, aren't the current claims of science therefore infallible if you think they're right?

That's easy they came from observation and experiment. They are just some wierd things that seem to hold in all situations without exception. You know, the rules that govern all motion stuff like that. Truth is not relative and the laws of nature aren't truth, damn close though. If anything can be labeled as truth it would be nature's laws. The claims of science aren't infallible, that's what is great about them. They don't think they have "the truth". If they are wrong, hell their the first to admit it. In fact, they are usually happy about it. Whether I think they are right or not is unimportant. They are right to the point that they might be called "the truth" if it wasn't for that pesky idea that we can't say for certain.

 

In practical application, the laws of nature operate in what seems to be the dual realms of the physical and the spiritual; but in reality they are one because God the first source and center is the primal cause of all materialization, and the first and final Father of all spirits. Therefore the laws of nature— to the extent they are truly known in a relative world of truth, are all on my side in the pursuit of even higher truth.

In practical application, the laws of nature are all we can say with any degree of certainty. There is no spiritual realm that we can can speak of practically. Ther is no God we can speak of practically. The laws of nature are most certainly against your faith and should have been major walls in your judgement to hurdle when accept something as valid.

 

Whew. Sorry about the length; one might get the notion this is a complicated subject if you've read this far.

 

 

Later,

[Millard Alexander Dorsey]

Part 2

 

You said it was against human nature to act morally.

 

 

Wars - crusades- inquisitions. Could you prove the usefulness of religion in the opposite?

 

 

 

Another issue I have, why does religion,(faith),God need to be necessary for an afterlife. What is wrong with saying there is an afterlife without God?

 

 

The latter.

 

 

Absolutely, but why die unecessarily?

 

 

It is a question above. I do consider myself to be moral. I do not allow my morals to be defined for me. I do think it is best to love your enemies as fellow men, of course then it would be harder to kill them. It is probably easier to view them as subhuman infidels.

 

 

 

You can learn from the mistakes of others as well. I don't think that this releases religion from the responsiblity of its cruelties.

 

 

Very true. Another thing religion must learn to do is to be willing to toss the whole thing out and rebuild it if something comes along to shake its foundations. A point of correction the truth does not evolve it just turns out to be untrue after all.

 

 

No

 

 

No, but alot of this is done under its protection and label.

 

 

 

Beacause they do not belong to religion.

 

 

 

All that my eyes reveal to me that is verifiable and repeatable.

 

 

 

Why not hold yourself as the highest? I have never felt exquisite pleasure in the humbling of myself to somneone better. I prefer to think of myself as equal to all (and better than some).

 

 

An animal can't worship? I think they can. Apparently you do and you're an animal. No I am not incapable of worship, I have done it in the past. I just got the feeling no one was there and I was just silly.

 

Quote:

If God is all-mericiful, and assuming God exsisted in the first place, he would not require even a flicker of belief in himself as requirement not to get to burn for eternity. Or for that matter, survival to the next existence.

 

 

I don't think forcing of eternal life is in question it's the taketh away part I am corcerned with. That is what requires the flicker of belief and that is what I have issue with. God, if he is love, would not send you here with the possibility to deny him so that you would lose eternal life as a test. This is another childish act.

 

True I don't know this. I was only poking. I do have this as a hypothesis though. I do not believe that God bestowed anything to us. I would say we know a great deal especially with the technology of the day. We are going to keep understanding more and more. One day we will do away with all the superstition. Science has weakened all religion by providing an objective "truth".

 

 

Again you elude to these magical people who will help you based on what?

 

 

Did you not accept somethinf on faith? Did you not accept it as true without checking its validity? Why do you put the true in front of science? Is it because some views of science contradict your faith?

 

 

You have yet to rebutt. You have suspended judgment as anyone can clearly see. I am aksing you where you got the intial information not where you go to validate that information. I am talking about any writing that claims to have knowledge about God. Especially but not limited to the Bible, the Quran, the talmud, the upinishads etc.

 

 

 

Rephrase with question marks????? Is this correct?

 

 

Am I wrong? Can faith only be used to accept things that are "the truth" or can faith be used for anything?

 

 

Does your defintion allow for anything different?

 

 

 

I think your missing the point.The point again is that you can accept anything on faith.

 

 

Lots of bias there, science can be proven. The laws of nature can be proven. They do not need to answer your vital questions in order to prove better or more apt to say what is true. Your answers to the vital questins are all accepted on faith and therefore not necessarily true. (or untrue, which really means up for judgement.)

 

 

That's easy they came from observation and experiment. They are just some wierd things that seem to hold in all situations without exception. You know, the rules that govern all motion stuff like that. Truth is not relative and the laws of nature aren't truth, damn close though. If anything can be labeled as truth it would be nature's laws. The claims of science aren't infallible, that's what is great about them. They don't think they have "the truth". If they are wrong, hell their the first to admit it. In fact, they are usually happy about it. Whether I think they are right or not is unimportant. They are right to the point that they might be called "the truth" if it wasn't for that pesky idea that we can't say for certain.

 

 

In practical application, the laws of nature are all we can say with any degree of certainty. There is no spiritual realm that we can can speak of practically. Ther is no God we can speak of practically. The laws of nature are most certainly against your faith and should have been major walls in your judgement to hurdle when accept something as valid.

 

Whew. Sorry about the length; one might get the notion this is a complicated subject if you've read this far.

 

 

Later,

WOW!! "Yall" have come to the point or angle not angel or maybe an angel-angle (smile). (Michael was the angel of war, while Gabby was a little bit cooler), or, A collides with B and creates A1-B1,. I have to' tell you; GOD is working the magic, .. Spirits are flying, devils are running. As you just explained to our friend the, "Agonot"= agnostic beliver with an open mind, that will trust the first side whom can produce a formula that works every-time in space-time, any where, that demonstrates "where" GOD's house is.!.!.). The problem is, he is already GOD and will not see, as he looks in the mirror ... Remember once you know the whole story the story is over! So, don't look too deep. Instead add another mirror and lets do some QM. How many replicas of your face can you see now? WOW! there is no end, is it infinite or do you feel your reflection could continue as long as a mirror looks inside of a mirror. Is point A you, and point B the mirror being falsely representative or does the original reflection, stream into the next , and so on. I am surprised you never mentioned this expirament, since you look in a mirror! Reach for something outside of the view of the asending views, you will witness a paradox in time-space. I noticed at one point that you may have confused a Ghost with a spirit. Both are spirits, they don't hang out on the same "Plasma Level". I was a staunch Athiest for a year, while attending a Methodas College in TN, think about this; an American Indian, Agonistic, Christian (Baptist), Choir Singer,Drum Major in a Methodas College on a music scholarship. (Help me). Theology taught me one thing as well as my Grand and Great-grand parents. All of the sect religions say the same thing, all of the religions share the same thing, that is GOD. If you, as I have asked you before ... Try it alone on your own, by your self, "Pick a number you want to hit ask for it", . When it hits within 3 days, do not ask any body on this Forum, or Tell any-one, just post more questions. I have already promised you that a new light will shine inside of you. You are GOD's image in your mirror, you have GOD's temple in your mind and heart. You are not saying you don't, but only protesting why the math aint clinical evidance. Neither are Ghost but the spirit in you or feeling won't let you run around being an outlaw with faith.

 

DORSEY

[Panjandrum]

WOW!! "Yall" have come to the point or angle not angel or maybe an angel-angle (smile). (Michael was the angel of war, while Gabby was a little bit cooler), or, A collides with B and creates A1-B1,. I have to' tell you; GOD is working the magic, .. Spirits are flying, devils are running. As you just explained to our friend the, "Agonot"= agnostic beliver with an open mind, that will trust the first side whom can produce a formula that works every-time in space-time, any where, that demonstrates "where" GOD's house is.!.!.). The problem is, he is already GOD and will not see, as he looks in the mirror ... Remember once you know the whole story the story is over! So, don't look too deep. Instead add another mirror and lets do some QM. How many replicas of your face can you see now? WOW! there is no end, is it infinite or do you feel your reflection could continue as long as a mirror looks inside of a mirror. Is point A you, and point B the mirror being falsely representative or does the original reflection, stream into the next , and so on. I am surprised you never mentioned this expirament, since you look in a mirror! Reach for something outside of the view of the asending views, you will witness a paradox in time-space. I noticed at one point that you may have confused a Ghost with a spirit. Both are spirits, they don't hang out on the same "Plasma Level". I was a staunch Athiest for a year, while attending a Methodas College in TN, think about this; an American Indian, Agonistic, Christian (Baptist), Choir Singer,Drum Major in a Methodas College on a music scholarship. (Help me). Theology taught me one thing as well as my Grand and Great-grand parents. All of the sect religions say the same thing, all of the religions share the same thing, that is GOD. If you, as I have asked you before ... Try it alone on your own, by your self, "Pick a number you want to hit ask for it", . When it hits within 3 days, do not ask any body on this Forum, or Tell any-one, just post more questions. I have already promised you that a new light will shine inside of you. You are GOD's image in your mirror, you have GOD's temple in your mind and heart. You are not saying you don't, but only protesting why the math aint clinical evidance. Neither are Ghost but the spirit in you or feeling won't let you run around being an outlaw with faith.

 

DORSEY

 

I agree 100%.