Definitions: Atheism and Agnosticsm.

Cris you are probably right however

this is in fact my point as well.

So even at a very small personal level conceptually God/Gods exist.

I think that this is a very insignificant point and hardly worth the time to discuss. It stems ffrom the feeling that words and expresions of an idea are absolute.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Whether you hold theist, atheist or agnostic perspectives - gods, spirits/souls, and the supernatural certainly all exist as imaginative concepts. It is evidence that reveals a fantasy as something real – and to date no such evidence has ever been presented.

Man has been looking for thousands of years and I see little prospect of anything ever appearing. So if you spend your time looking then have fun, in the meantime I’m going to spend my time on naturalistic endeavors that are certainly extremely real and tangible.

This is 12/31/3 – the last day of the 4 years I have been here - I joined 1/1/0. And this is my 5000th post and my last.

Have fun with whatever you do.
Cris

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Cris

This is 12/31/3 – the last day of the 4 years I have been here - I joined 1/1/0. And this is my 5000th post and my last.

NOOOOOOOOOO!

It will be very sad to see you leave Cris.

If that is your decision, have a good life and keep the 'spirit' alive.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think so, exiting this joint is not as easy as entering it....Explain in detail in a new thread the reasons for your decision to depart.

If you insist on naturalistic endeavors, then all you have to do is regard us sciformians idiots as your lab rats.

 

reality1 tells it is extremely real and tangible as per the rules of reality1.

can't disprove falsehood by the rules of falsehood.

can't realise that its dream while dreaming.

Reality is subjective including its 'objective' aspects.

No Cris, you have to debunk my above statments when you find free time.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Your clarification of these terms was both well-researched and evidently correct, but I'd like to add a point you neglected. Agnosticism has an additional definition; the one that I myself proudly accept as label. Agnostic implies that the person is searching, or rather, philosophizing about religious concepts, particularly God. The terms heretic, and sometimes even as harsh as iconoclast, are given to those following an agnostic tradition. We wonder, and are in a constant state of wonder, either being blunt by studying matter, or just allowing life to take its course and coming to self-righteous realizations and understandings. Agnostics take into consideration that no two people think alike, so it is highly unlikely that anyone's opinion is going to be homogenous to another's. Agnosticism - a perfect state of equnimical confusion and acceptance.

 

M*W: Only ConsequentAtheist knows about the aliens. He may be an alien. He's not human.

 

Ah Mistah Vistor.

Wait till he leaves and then ask him questions? Not bright I don't think.

Your scripture is the spice you can't do without eh? You carry it with you wherever you go and sprinkle a little dab on everything eh?

Hey what if hmmm.. what if for some reason, you had grown up in isolation from scripture. You never saw a bible (or had knowledge of one) in your life until you were 25 and someone brings you one.

Where would you be without your special sauce? You'd probably just be a dirty hellbound sinner eh? Can you see it any other way?

 

Man has been looking for thousands of years and I see little prospect of anything ever appearing.
------------------------
2 Peter 3:3
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."



So if you spend your time looking then have fun, in the meantime I’m going to spend my time on naturalistic endeavors that are certainly extremely real and tangible
---------------------------------
This time only those looking for Him , will find Him.

"So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. "

 

Wesmorris: Surely, you cannot have concluded that no one can believe in God without the Bible. Surely. I refute that statement. Grounds: experience. PMT

 

That is correct.

No reason to bother.

I think that in any good definition of god is the implicit characteristic of being completely beyond human comprehension. Not because people are stupid, but for the same reason you can't see in eight or twenty dimensions. It's apples and concrete - not even the same kind of thing. So in this case if god is literally beyond comprehension, then 'he' is totally irrelevant.

If you defined god somehow where it wasn't totally beyond comprehension, I don't see how it would really be very godlike.

So I reject the word and the concept it represents as I know it.

I really think the model of the system of "isness" can be organizationally qualified better than 'the god concept' if you're interested in developing a means to model it. I mean the point of developing a model is to accurately represent the system. (implying to me that the idea of 'god' (which is outside the system) can't even be broached until you figure out a good working model of the system, and then it may well be off limits due to something analagous to that whole dimensional think I was talking about before). So the quest for 'god' is quite premature. If you just throw something together (your model), you'll have to bullshit your way through the presentation and most likely at least the sharp people in the audience will notice the inconsistencies that result from the hasty preparations.

As has been repeated over and over and over... a model has to be tested, etc. "god" models are simply pointless to me, as they disregard the nature of knowing. All knowledge is ultimately tentative (and if you (the proverbial you) disagree with this assertion, we are at an impass and I do not think you are fair (since you must claim authority to claim this knowledge (yes authority over yourself, in other words, there's nothing wrong with making an assumption, but if you fail to recognize it as such and say you have proof but that proof is tautological, so you have provided no proof and simply disregarded all other possibilities, assuming your assumption is the only possible assumption, otherwise it would be tentative))), though that is not necessarly a practical consideration (meaning I don't have to spend all my time doubting my knowledge if I know that it's a model and I know the assumptions I've made to define the parameters/extents of the model). I think god is superfluous to a model that is not crafted to fill an outstanding emotional void, or out of sheer simplicity. LOL. How much sense does it take to just make stuff up?

Umm.. wait.................................

Eureka!

god did it.

no really he did!

?!?!

*giggle* Meh. (you can use that model for anything though, so I guess it is maximally versatile)

Apply the anthropic principle and the basic laws of economics (evolution)(don't think "the profit function is money" think, "the profit function is 'that which is subjectively good'") then years later things start to make a lot of sense.

Shit man I'm sooooo rambling and tired. I hope that wasn't as obnoxious as it probably came out, but I'm sure to at least someone it was/is.

 

Hey Wes,
I think what you have stated is quite correct and very rational. You have clearly stated \your case and what it would be needed to prove the existance of a "God".
But maybe that is were the logic fails us. God or the sense of God has never been rational or able to be proved except that the feeling exists.

It's a bit like sensing something that you are at a loss to fully describe, a puzzling feeling that just wont go away and drives people to endless arguments for or against but persist this feeling does.

For me the best theosophy that isn't even a theosophy is Panthenism ( if I spelt it correctly. From what I understand the word Pantheism describes the worship of reality, the whole of it and not some entiy with the title "God".

I sort of reckon if you need to worship then worship the whole sheebang ( which I suppose could be argued to be God any way). Make this word God superfluous and turn it into the word Reality instead.
All of a sudden we are just doing what we do any way and love our existance at a fundamental level and notions of "God" are simply an excersise in semantics.

When you look up at night at the stars and you feel the beauty and the dynamics of it all you can only say that there really is no word or name that you can use to describe the wonder of it all. Except that it is your feelings you are experiencing and no one elses.

I too are rambling a little and well maybe a little bored as well so ta ta and good night to you all

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

TheVisitor,

“But they were, all of them, deceived, for another Ring was made. In the land of Mordor, in the fires of Mount Doom, the Dark Lord Sauron forged in secret a master Ring, to control all others. And into this Ring he poured his cruelty, his malice and his will to dominate all life. "One Ring to rule them all." One by one, the Free Lands of Middle Earth fell to the power of the Ring. But there were some who resisted. A Last Alliance of Men and Elves marched against the armies of Mordor and on the slopes of Mount Doom, they fought for the freedom of Middle Earth. Victory was near. But the power of the Ring could not be undone.” - Galadriel, telling of the Last Alliance.

What is the difference between the bible stories and the Lord of The Rings? None – they are both great works of fiction created by man.

If by your quotes you want to reveal truth then quote from reality not fairy tales – otherwise the effect is just fanciful drama.

Kat

 

Thank you QQ

 

Good comments. Thank you for responding. Maybe we thinkers will learn something yet. I found a very interesting thing on another thread: It commences: "Peace to everybody." It is by GENOCIDER, and the thread is-Evidence for a soul? It is nice to hear interesting takes on things about which we are all so wise!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

PMT

 

So in this case if god is literally beyond comprehension, then 'he' is totally irrelevant.
----------------
Ah, but He's not.
There must be precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little there a little....
He is revealed a little at a time....like a man walking down a dark path to home with a lantern in his hand.
He can't see his home from where he is with the lantern's light....
So how does he know there is a home..?, or if he's going in the right direction..?
The lantern lights his steps only one at a time, but he knows thats enough as long as he stays on the path.
That's the way God seperates people, some will stay on the path....following one clue, one answer to one question at a time....taking that, applying it to their life, and patiently waiting for the next "revelation". Line upon line here a little there a little, the "picture" starts to become clearer.
When we see Him, we are then like Him, having been made into His image.
It's a mystery to the world........and meant to be that way.
If you want to understand, you must come "God's provided way".

 

But they were, all of them, deceived, for another Ring was made. In the land of Mordor, in the fires of Mount Doom, the Dark Lord Sauron forged in secret a master Ring, to control all others
----------------

I'm heard plenty of fairy tales and myths in my life.........
But the truth has a "Ring" to it.
There is no mistaking when it calls you, and all the other things fade away and "pale" in comparison.
I wish I could give it to you, but that's not up to me.
If you kept knocking......He would have answered.
Remember the story of the widow woman, and the unjust judge from the bible.
That's the way He has to be approached sometimes.
With reverence, humility, and perseverance.
Otherwise you'll be lost in that land of lore and never know which is "the truth" and which is an "Illusion".
For in this day, because they received not a love of the truth, God sends to the world "strong" delusion, that they might believe a lie and be damned by it.

 

TheVisitor,

Go watch a good magic show – the truth is more often not obvious and can be very elusive. But the nature of delusion is total conviction of truth – if the only way you are convinced is because of your emotions then the wise man would be very suspicious.

Delusions have the identical effect.

Don’t worry I was there when I was a youth, but discovered the deception in time. You have clearly not realized your error yet.

Repeat something to yourself often enough and you will indeed fool yourself. But self-hypnosis can have beneficial effects sometimes, but religious self-indoctrination isn’t one of them.

Not until there is at least a single scrap of evidence to show that such a stance might have value, or even some truth.

Ditto – if you studied your religion objectively without the distortion of your emotions you would stand a chance of seeing that all you have are pure mythologies, just like the Lord of the Rings, or like the Greek gods and those infamous stories. You are living a false hope – you believe a fairy tale – stories that were created out of thin air.

Of course if he really wanted people to realize the truth and his existence he could send “strong” enlightenment instead. Your convoluted Christian propaganda plainly defies at least common sense – but you have no choice but to quote such silliness because you are lost in your delusion and will twist anything rather than have the courage to face reality – there is no God.

Kat

 

.

If you want to debate the point, address it. You sweeping assertion is exactly what I irrefutably illustrated as flawed above. Ignoring it does not make it go away except in the subjective. It will keep coming back up if you analyze it, rather.. if you do so honestly.

Why? Can you illustrate how your position is not based in tautological authoritarianism? (i don't even know for sure if that last one is a word but it sounded cool and I think conveyed to point so I went with it)

As if. You know of your fanatasies, that is nice. I know of mine. I think that's nice too. I think per the qualifications I specified above, you and I are at an impass. I think your assertions are wholly indefensible.

That has nothing to do with "god" as I see it. I have shown you why the term is silly, and add that you have merely described that humans can mature as they age, coming to understand things more clearly. Tying that to "god" is unnecessary unless you are prone to answer everything with the same excuse as I illustrated above. Not too bright in my opinion, but you are obviously entitled to be as dim as you'd like and I'm guess from your own perspective I'm equally dim.

Refute each point I made directly (or show that you can directly show one that isn't valid), or I don't think your argument is worthy of consideration.

 

Ah, nuclear physics is at present incomprehensible to me.