God in the Forest

WRONG. God is not natural to humans. It's LEARNED. It was NOT there first, it was LEARNED. Thus, it is a choice for everyone.

If it were not, then you could not explain different religions. All would believe the same.

Why is that riduculing? The thing is WATER, even those who agree on god DO NOT AGREE ON GOD. You are all separated by the tao no matter how much you plea with your projection of self for it not to be so. Honesty is a bitch, deal with her.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Which god?

Whose idea thereof?

The greek gods are the true gods. No it's Allah. No, it's Jaway or whatever. No, it's the sun god.

Theists can't agree on shit. They only agree that their knowledge usurps all others, even when others are as convinced of their different knowledge is just as valid.

You're chasing a farce.

Bullshit. Faith in god is emotional dependence. It's self, projecting self into something it proclaims isn't self.

You have the authority of your impression of your environment. To proclaim more is to overstep your authority. If you want to lie to yourself about the validity of your claims in "objective reality", you obviously can. That won't change that it's a lie.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are assuming that the only valid kind of evidence is that one which exists independent from observers.
There is no such evidence.

No, valid evidence simple exists.

water sez: Faith is given by God.

southstar disagrees: Now that is 100% wrong.

It appears gods knowledge has not come to you. Either that or you are seriously misunderstanding the message. What other knowledge of god are you misunderstanding?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I saw that story. T'was coolio. I want to take a different approach on this
puppy as I think the assertion of my being part of realtiy is a statement
of faith has led to the evil tao paradigm trap that may be overcomable.

Is there anything that you are very strongly attracted to? It could be a
person, color, object, sensation, sound, etc.

 

Water,

I assert my way of thinking has alignement towards getting to the truth. Reality validates this.

Use what reality provides to update the method.

You'll get old and your life will pass either way.

The assertion that emotion doesn't affect reason is simply false. Information is processed emotionally FIRST in the brain.

 

There are different religions because of people, not because of God.
Disagreement about God among people does not disprove God.

And I don't know how you can prove that "we are all separated by the tao". This is a statement of faith.

 

Says you, based on your particular dislike for God and me.

 

And you firmly believe that my way of thinking has no or little alignment towards getting to the truth ...

Has been done.

Only that if I live your way, I am bound to be miserable, as I have to treat myself as a dead thing.

Funny you should say this -- when you also rail so much against emotions.
You've just stated that emotions are inescapable, while before, you claimed you try to get past emotions and not let them influence your understanding of reality.

 

Disagreement about God among people does not disprove God.

That simply cannot be. If knowledge of god is universal to all, there would be only one religion, one god, and everyone would have equal and identical knowledge.

It may not entirely disprove god, but it comes very close.

 

Water,

Given these quotes:

So, you imply that:
1. God makes its presence known to selected individuals
2. This presence felt by the individual is the only way God is known to exist. There is no other proof which does not rely on these "observers" of its presence.
3. Nonetheless, nobody can figure out what or who this presence is or what it wants, because humans fail to interpret this presence correctly. Given the significant differences between the many belief systems the world has seen, this presence has completely failed to communicate its wishes and identity clearly.

Now, others suggest that:
1. Religion is a social construct, invented by humans in different places at different times.

What seems more likely to the objective observer?

 

Never once have I attempted to disprove god. I've disproven its knowability and thus, relevance.

Of course it is. It depends on us agreeing on the ground rules. Did you read the story?

You are free to reject what I deem reasonable as not, and I you. Thus, relativism is established and my point trumps your own to me. You will likely continue in grasping your own, which IMO, simply proves my point beyond reasonable doubt.

 

It is ridiculous of you to presume you understand the basis for my objection without my proclamation thereof as other than "this is how things seem to me". The basis of my opinion has nothing to do with my distaste for some of your opinions, or a "dislike of god". How can I like or dislike something that I can't know?

I dislike claims of knowledge related to the obviously unknowable, and have demonstrated ad nauseum why it is indeed unknowable. Obviously you reject my argument, but that doesn't invalidate it. It simply means you can't relate, as I cannot relate to yours. Each is a consequence of the acceptance of our respective premise.

You NEED the idea of god, so you project it and proclaim it valid, based on jack shit but YOU.

 

Gah. I hate it when points are just washed away with a proclamation of gut feelings. Where is my argument weak? Analyze damn you!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I give you my brain, now you share yours!

*shrug*

Sure. Let's say sciforums for kicks. I gravitate here for a number of reasons.

 

Doesn't follow.
Knowledge of God is not universal to all.
Also, the knowlegde that people do have about God depends also on how they act on their free will to obey God. If they don't obey God properly, they also have lesser knowledge.

 

What I see in you is somoene who rebels against God.

... and all the theists in the world.

You, on the other hand, denigrate your need for God, and ridicule God, insisting that you do not need God, and support this with saying that God is unknowable.

 

There is no such thing as an "objective observer".
According to common sense reasoning, the theory that religion is a social construct is of course more likely.
But truth is not simply that which is more likely.

 

The knowability of anything can be disproven -- one only needs to lack the according experience.
Thus, anything is irrelevant.

I know relativism and agnosticism well enough to know their implications.
Of course, in your eyes, your point trumps mine. In my eyes, my point trumps yours.

 

And what I see in you is condescending presumption that frames me in a mold you made for me, and a lack of humility regarding the extent of your authority. I have no chance of leaving the box you frame me into in your mind unless you allow it.

You're tiassa I suppose.

A claim of god is simply dishonest, as it fails to acknowledge the possiblity of irrelevance.

Yup. Does that make it such that "god" is real?

Why on earth would your pretentious ass presume your own emotional neediness projects to ME? Why would you presume your own emotional neediness is relevant outside yourself? I have no need for your constructs. I'm perfectly capable of constructing my own comprehension. Perhaps you aren't and as a consequence, cannot understand how someone else might differ.

 

Knowledge of God is not universal to all.

:bugeye:

So, who gets access to knowledge of god and who doesn't? Why and why not?

If they don't obey God properly, they also have lesser knowledge.

If by obeying god properly, you mean they must follow scriptures to the letter?

Already we've seen that others here appear to obey god with more diligence than you, yet you've disagreed with them vehemently in opposition and damnation. In fact, I've yet to see one theist back down from his/her belief system from being the absolute correct one, you included.

You all can't possibly be right about the same thing if you all disagree.

 

Ok.

As long as we agree that "meaning" and "meaninglessness" are arbitrarily ascribed; no one (rationalist or not) has the objective perspective with which to determine this. Unless of course you know of a rational methodology for doing so. Like water was saying to wesmorris, the theists think their reasoning is right and the atheists think they are reasoning is right. JamesR also said something very poignant to me in another discussion, something I have been trying to get across: the only difference between (strong) atheists and theists are their preliminary assumptions. All other philosophies and theologies follow with logical consistency (for the most part, at least).

So that it is illogical for an atheist to say a theist's assumption is wrong because his assumption is right. The independent method of arbitration is what you rationalists have for this and I'm interested in knowing what it is.

That is sophistry. You are not saying you are the sum of your body parts, are you? For that would mean you would be changed if a hair were to be plucked from you. So:

In a rational and non-circular manner, please define "I". Failure to do so will only indicate that we cannot define ourselves, a point I don't think is worth bickering over; too off-topic.

What is "unnecessary" to you might not be unnecessary to someone else. In retrospect, I see Christianity (and religion in general) as "fantasy" but before, I knew it to be both "real" and "necessary".
All that has changed is my perspective. I can call religion a potent deluding force all I want and a theist can disagree. We will each claim that our reasoning is rational because we have no objective perspective with which to settle our issues.

Now.. what were we talking about again?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Nobody is consistently rational. But that's a whole other topic I don't want to talk about here for reasons of laziness and redundancy; I'm having the same conversation in the thread 'Bad Religion', if you care.

Ok. Then any positive/negative opinion would, necessarily, only be based on this subjective understanding. But this goes without any saying because all our knowledge ostensibly seems to be that way. I say ostensibly because I hold suspicions that there are subtle roots to understanding. But that is more of a psychology issue so nevermind..

And who is the arbiter to say what reality is and isn't? Scientists, the popular majority ("most people"), the individual, the atheist, the theist?

More specifically, how do we know whose reason is "congruent with reality"? Is there any standard for determining this that you have in mind?

I don't know that emotion can corroborate logic. Do you have any examples to the contrary?

Secondly what do you mean when you say "validate". A belief is only necessary "validated" in the eyes of the belief-holder. If you don't agree with the belief, surely, it is not because you have an objective perspective with which to arbitrate?

Why, then, would you become an atheist, if you did not believe it would make you better? Your switchover from agnosticism was for a reason, surely. Did you feel it made you more honest with yourself, or rational etc etc?