Arrggghhh! Illogical Religious Freaks!!!

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by thefountainhed, Oct 1, 2003.

  1. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,076
    If you believe in the possibilty of anything, that it is possible for the bible to be incorrect, possible for the sun to be really blue, etc why can't you accept the possibility that God does not exist?!!!!!!!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ghassan Kanafani Mujahid Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,555
    Perhaps those who are so bright to deny Gods existance , ought to question weither they are denying their personal imagination of the defintion of God , or the God as revealed ion scriptures .

    If you are so eager to question the existance of that what you consider so ignorant , be also sure to question your own understanding of that what is presented to you as God . Not just that what peoples present , but that what scriptures present .

    What Im very tired of is see atheist arguing with religious folks about that same inexisting object of discussion they either do or do not believe in .
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Flores Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,245
    The fountainhed,

    Questions are a product of doubt, which is a product of lack of understanding. I personally need a general model to work with and to base my understanding on. I don't operate on gathering peaces of evidance that might or might not belong, then peacing a puzzle which might or might not work. My model of belief that I'm 100% comfortable with is that I'm a creation that was created by a universal order, mean one entity responsible for creating the entire universe. I never question the multiplicity of my creator, nor do I question the fact that I'm a creation. Everything else is up in the air for me, and doesn't really matter. How does universal order look like? What is it? How did it create the universe? how did it create me? That all doesn't matter. I'm here and I'm the biggest proof of creation along with the universe around me.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    But ....

    But the sun is blue.

    Rather, I still remember the time my mother snapped at me to not look directly at the sun. For the longest time I wondered about the idea of a yellow sun because it looked blue to me.

    And while that may be explained away by relatively simple science, it's still a greater suggestion that the sun is blue than any suggestion that God exists.

    Two cents or so ....

    On edit:

    Indeed, Ghassan. I've come to write and speak of "disarming God", essentially shedding the religious accretions obscuring the intuitive notion that constitutes the core of knowledge of God. But this alone won't do, as those who make a point of condemning ideas of God generally carry their own arsenal with which to re-arm the Divine.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2003
  8. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Flores,

    Almost. Questions are what we do when we feel the need to know something that we don't. They are a product of desire to understand.

    So what you're saying is that rather than going and finding out for yourself, you need someone to lay things out for you? "Forget the evidence! Just spoon-feed me the truth!"

    Please tell me you really didn't mean that.

    But what is that based on? You just said you don't go and gather evidence and try to make decisions on your own, so how do you go about coming to this conclusion?

    This is what I hate about theism. Your religions lay out all the supposed "Facts" for you right from the beginning, so none of you feel compelled to ask questions. That sucks, because it promotes ignorance.

    You can't prove a theory with the thing who's origin is at question, Flores. That would be like me saying "I'm here, and I'm the biggest proof of evolution, along with the universe around me."

    JD
     
  9. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,076
    First of all, don't assume anything about my belief system. It is stupid to assume about me and present arguments veered to that belief.

    Dawg:
    You present fact as if "facts" existed only in the scientific realm-- this is incorrect. Religious facts exist and can be proved through divination or whatever; this is fine as long as long it exists only in the realm of religion. Once it escapes that context, then different rules must necessarily apply.

    The Tiss:
    LMAO. I was going to use "..that the sun was really black..." but decided against it for the side arguments it might conjure. The question itself is presented to bring forth the notion of possibility. You are saying in essence that subjectivity--what you observe and how you feel is really all that matters-- this is fine. But once you use notions such as possibility-- which exists outside the subjetive realm, then different rules must apply.

    Flores;
    To an extent, you are correct. But then again, I have never found a theist who understood everything their God; do you poropose to know everything about the God you believe in? Then why not question, if questioning is a product of a lack of understanding?

    So then what general model is that belief based upon? There is nothing special about order or disorder. And a 'universal order' does not imply a single entity resposible for creating the entire universerve-- in fact it does not present anything except the "order" itself.

    No, you are the biggest proof of your conciousness-- that you exist and can observe, feel, etc what that consciouness allows you to observe, feel, etc. Your existence presents your existence; it does not provide a basis of how you came to being-- whether chnaced, created, or chanced and created. You don't care to understand that which you do not know and yet believe in. What kind of model is this that you propose to use? And again my quetsion was this: If you claim the possibility that the being or entity you believe in can do anything as you donot understand everything about that being/entity, you are using the notion of possibility. This implies or can imply therefore that it is possible for that being to not exist. Why is it that you use a concept that exissts outside your subjective to explain your subjective but cannot accept its other implications? It is possible that I am both dead and alive.

    Ghassan Kanafani:
    First, don't assume. Second, interpretation of the "scriptures" is by default subjective. I am not denying or accepting a God or a definition of a God. You are not answering my question.

    When did I use ignorant? I question my understanding and definition of a God. Still dodging the original question.

    Assumptions! Assumptions! Assumptions!
    I donot engage in debates about whether or not God exists as I can prove neither. This is not what the thread is about.The question says that if you use the notion or accept accept the notion of possibility, then you must accept that the notion also implies that your God does not exist. Why can't that be accepted by theists?
     
  10. Flores Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,245
    JDAWG: You have absolutely no mind

    Did you understand what I meant by a working model... Obviously you didn't. In science, if you have ever worked in that field. A hypothesis is formed based on very limited data. This hypothesis then requires a lot of work to work in a practical situation, but to come up with a hypothesis, it takes five minutes. Let me explain.

    I know from observation that a river size is a function of the contributing drainage area. I know for a fact that there is a relation, but I don't know the nature of relation. Is it direct, inverse, hyperbolic, I don't know. But they are related. Based on that, I come up with a working model in that form.

    River Width = Constant x Drainage area contributing to river.

    That constant might be very very complex that takes in account other variables and for me to know exactly what is this constant, I'll have to observe every river in the universe to make sure that I come up with a constant that will agree to all their behavior. Can I do that, no, why? because rivers and people are difficult sicences that is impossible to be studied in a deterministic fashion. Now imagine god, the creator of all the rivers, people, ect.


    How did Newton go about finding the law of gravity. He sat underneath a tree and observed that an apple falls downward. He doesn't know the extent of his finding, and that a whole field of physics and astronomy is based on his simple observation of apple. Still, you are confusing a hypothesis with the practical model.

    Hate all you want, I don't give a crap. As far as promoting ignorance, you see to be pulling your share equally.

    I'm a 100% sure that universal order is singular. There is so much to support my notion. Just look at infinity. How many infinities are out there? They are not infinite my friend, it's ONE.
    I know that my basis in the belief in one god is stronger than steel. Now, you go along and check the sand castle on the beach that you are busy building.
     
  11. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Flores

    Obviously you didn't. In science, if you have ever worked in that field. A hypothesis is formed based on very limited data. This hypothesis then requires a lot of work to work in a practical situation, but to come up with a hypothesis, it takes five minutes. Let me explain.

    You should instead stick to preaching your religion – and although you make little sense in that field as it is, you definitely shouldn’t wander into areas that are completely foreign to you.

    I know that my basis in the belief in one god is stronger than steel.

    Your so-called basis is equivalent to cheap plastic, so it must be your belief that is stronger than steel.
     
  12. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    How the hell THIS is allowed on the board, I have no idea:

    That is pure bullshit that you would say that, Flores, and it just further promotes the intolerance Westerners have towards your religion.

    Yeah, a means of coming up with an answer without having to do much research. In this case, you've decided that:

    God's Existance = ? X ?

    I still need to see what those other two "very little" datas are, because while I know now how to define the constant of a river's width, I still don't know what your "Working Model" on how to decide if God exists is.

    What does this obscure fact have to do with your working model? You still haven't told me what this working model is, hence you have not refuted my assement of you.

    You do so give a crap. Otherwise, that fifth grade comment wouldn't be there! And somehow, you have completely decided I'm wrong about you, but never provided any evidence for it.

    Oh? And what lunatic notion is that based on, Flores the Deep-Minded?

    Um, how do you know this? How do you know there aren't six million different universes in which there is a different infinity? You have no clue what the hell you are talking about.

    But what the hell is it?! You have YET to tell me what that basis is! Again, you duck and bob and weave and move and shake and do whatever you can to avoid facing-up your beliefs. But this is a discussion forum, so you have two choises:

    1) Explain the basis for your beliefs in detail, since it happens to have a "Working Model"

    2) Shut up and leave

    The choise is yours.

    JD
     
  13. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    How the hell am wrong? A fact is a fact is a fact. And to learn if something is fact or not, you have to use scientific method; there is no other way.

    Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Divination is the method of trying to either see the future or discovering the unknown through oracles, omens or supernatural powers.

    AKA- BULLSHIT.

    Yeah, like so long as it only exists in the realm of your imagination, sure. But as soon as you step into the real world, it is nothing more than fantasy.

    And to set you straight, as far as we know, there is only a material world. And science is the study of it.

    JD
     
  14. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    37,882
    Perception, invention, reality

    To a certain extent, it's the difference between perception and invention when assimilating reality. When I looked into the sun, it appeared to my eye to be blue.

    Incorrect perception is only problematic if it is practical to be problematic. Much of the Universe seems silent or invisible to our perception. Turns out a particular black hole sings B-flat 57 octaves below middle C. There's too much turbulence to get the note off the center of the Milky Way.

    There are, in the case of the blue sun, atmospheric explanations as well as possible data-treatment explanations not yet discovered in my brain. Staring into the sun is truly an overwhelming signal intake. Maybe it was just my retina burning.

    A short digression. There was this Seattle-area band back before things went nuts called Chemistry Set. They had a song called "Blind Caroline", that went, "Caroline is going blind. She stared too long at the sun. Caroline is going blind. And she's not the only one." Strangely, they had another song, the title of which I don't recall, that went, "Baring your soul is the in thing to do: it's fun and it's simple for an empty-headed fool." At least, I'm pretty sure that was the same band.

    Anyway, the thing is that with the sun I can tell you what it is I'm looking at and what it is I see. A blue sun? Perhaps it disagrees with someone else's perception from a similar experience. My favorite sun is white and hued with orange, and comes through fog or thin clouds as a tolerable orb of molten light. But a yellow sun? Well, there's yellow in the orange of the evening sun. I think I've seen a yellow sun, but by and large, "yellow sun" is a cultural tradition to me.

    And with God, this isn't the same thing at all. For instance, I can't tell you what God is. I can agree with many who criticize the religions; I can't understand what rational reason people have for trying to pack God into a shoebox. Travel convenience, I guess. But even those with the tiny-assed Gods like you find in the Bible or any formalized religion (I admit I find the Abramic gods to be the smallest, smaller even than the earthbound Goddess of my own former Craft, but daily exposure to an idea tends to reveal to me more readily the limitations especially of American Christianity as compared to Hinduism or Polynesian shamanism.)

    So instead of something like the sun, where my perception can be called into question, religious folk can't honestly tell you, as the empirical basis of experience, what it is they are perceiving when they respond to their "awareness" of God.

    And somewhere in here, a complex wash of cultural associations dictates much of that response. If I postulate generally that the God of American Christianity tends toward such scrutiny of sin and individual attention as a result of a process that has something to do with ignorance, awareness of ignorance, and the self-accusatory criticism that humans with nothing better to do can construct, is there any sense of familiar association that strikes you between the accusatory, paranoid American culture at large and the menacing, angry God that doesn't like Marilyn Manson or lesbians? People are aware of their ignorance, ignorant of how aware they are of how much ignorance, and as a result feel and characterize the blind pressure that comes with the scorching chorus of self-criticism bestowed on them by their Protestant forefathers? Everything else is a misplaced attempt to describe what is not actually perceived.

    Remember, I count myself among theists specifically because there is a level at which the word God is suitable for me. It describes what I cannot describe to you insofar as I cannot even tell you what it describes. Totality and unity is only one minor aspect of it. I'm aware that this something is the common connection between gods.

    Until the nature of the confusion is itself understood, the confusion cannot be settled. Tempting as it has been to write off the whole idea of theistic thinking based on the idiocy of religious formality, it would be a premature ejection of the idea of God, which persists despite rational argument to the contrary. What is this thing the human brain does that causes us to behave and believe irrationally? And why won't it evolve out? It can't be entirely useless. It's just a matter of whether or not anybody can figure out what it's for. In the meantime, the forecast calls for politics as usual.

    But that's the bizarre thing about religions: they don't recognize what it is they're trying to describe.

    What's even worse was I was just making an excuse to say the sun is blue. It's a true story about the sun appearing blue, but I couldn't help but make a bone out of what should have been all-too-easy a point.

    I'll get off the pulpit now ....
     
  15. thefountainhed Fully Realized Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,076
    Tiss:
    Good post. Now your are right that "perception", intuition or definition of God is entirely different from the Sun. Also that God is by nature undefinable. I do disagree that this "perception" is not actually perceived. You see, it is a perception of an unknown that as you say "... persists despite rational argument to the contrary". It is a perception that is not a perception but is a perception by virtue of being innate. It is a confused attempt to describe an unknown or an 'irrational', but that is is beside the point. The point is that brain recognizes this unknown and accepts it-- perceives it outside the normal faculties of perception.

    The thread was a sick attempt to bring forth the nature of faith in all the organized religions.
     
  16. wayne_92587 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    204
    Re: JDAWG: You have absolutely no mind


    Freedom is the Law, the Law of Singularitiy:

    Only One, the Whole of a single Reality, a Singularity is Free to occupy a given moment of Time in Space.
     

Share This Page