God is "dead"

And what would be this "superior arrangement of things"? Please, i'm clueless.
Say, a "particular person in a particular environment" can also have a transcendent meeting with his/her god, would it make the occurrence factual? No, it wouldn't. As much as a "particular person in a particular environment" can also verify that there is no evidence of a superior deity, being actually existent. Yes, we observe these two 'facts', BUT, one of them does not give evidence to prove itself, what to say about it's bigger context?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By superior arrangement I mean an arrangement that contextualizes one's existence.
Just like the vastness of clouds that can block off a portion of the sky and render it beyond one's vision.

why not?
If you step outside and there is not a cloud in the sky and you can see the sun, is your experience of the sun not factual?
If someone else is in a heavily clouded sky suggests otherwise, does seeing the sun become lesser or questionable?

The only one with the problem of evidence is the person in the clouded sky.
IOW the nature of the problem of the seer (the person seeing) and the object that they are trying to see (that is necessarily greater than them) is problematized by there being a third element that is also greater than the seer.

IOW its not just god that is greater than the living entity but also illusion ... and this is due to illusion being a concomitant energy of god (much like the clouds are a concomitant phenomena of the sun)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The really interesting thing about beings alleged to be everywhere at once is that they are indistinguishable from beings that exist nowhere in particular. Omnipresence then as the ultimate theological rationalization for a being who is nowhere and at no time ever seen anywhere by anybody. Hey! Maybe unicorns are omnipresent too! That'd explain why we never see them either! lol!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not at all since one can surmise whether it is day or night even in a heavily clouded sky.

On the contrary, its the ultimate atheistic rationalization on the subject to prohibit any other individual from anytime from anywhere to have a more elevated perspective on things than themself... despite the same said atheist being "stacked to the hilt" in activities described as being unconducive to such goals.

:shrug:

 

If you can please, forget this sun analogy would be nice.
Still, the "particular person in a particular environment" leaves too open for subjectivity in the first case and, goes beyond the scope of our reality or, what can be comprehended real or better yet, skeptically analized and deemed real.
On the second case, the same does not apply since it is the result of the same skepticism, i think that you believe in god (it's ok no problem, i once believed), and whenever asked "Have you ever seen God or Jesus? Can you prove them real with something tangible?", you would probably say (or a religious person, in case you are not), "Nope, but i have faith.", and the faith, besides being something beautiful, applies as the damn 'clouds' in the second situation. You get my point, right? It will always swirl around this.

 

why?
It explains precisely the nature of your questions, even if only in an analogous way.

Which is why an extremely important issue commonly neglected in discussions of reality - namely an analysis of the seer and their environment - needs to also be included in these sorts of discussions

More to the point,if you neglect the issue mentioned above, there is absolutely no value in you asking such questions since you have no means to analyze such an answer. IOW regardless if I answer yes or no, you are still left to either accept or reject my answer on faith since you have no functioning further avenue of inquiry to work out if I am being truthful or not.

IOW just like you are left to either accept or reject god from the position of faith, you are also left with no alternative but to accept or reject on faith the answer to this question you ask.

:shrug:

Kind of like me asking if you can operate an automated external defibrillator (AED) and being totally clueless even what purpose its used for, much less how to recognize an authorized operator.
Actually you are not alone since its kind of surprising that even socially designated priests and what not sometimes give totally ridiculous or vague definitions of god that are also similarly useless : Eg God is the smile of a baby, god is so big that you can't step far enough back to see him etc etc ...
:shrug:

 

Of course it is. Like already noted earlier, according to some definitions of the term "God," God is already making an unmistakeable public appearance 24/7.

 

You seem to think that the only relevant kind of evidence of anything is a third-party observer kind of evidence; and too, that as soon as any third-party observer does not see what a particular person sees or claims to see, that automatically invalidates said particular person's observation.

By that reasoning, since people are so different and make such different claims, nothing is ever true or factual, since any claim that one person makes can be invalidated by any claim any other person makes.

 

Still dodging!


I want you to talk about about your fears and concerns - as they are personally relevant to you. Don't hide behind "society." For example, the fear of the implications that follow if we are to take just any person's claim of divinity seriously; or the fear that God is in reality a vengeful monster and that everything you now consider good and real, is actually false and you will burn in hell for all eternity etc; or that there is no God, and life is nothing but suffering. Etc. etc.

 

God is dead but Christianity is not dead, why?

 

So God is like the sun except for the fact that he cannot be seen anywhere at any time. His presence is like a special kind of sunlight that is totally invisible and unseeable. What a crappy metaphor.

 

Here's my response, and a question for you in return;
What exactly does religion offer with regard to the demand for respect that atheism does not?

Do you, too, subscribe to the theory that a thing demands respect simply because it exists?

 

If anyone chooses to ignore this fact, it is probably because science and religion are not, and have never been, incompatible. The majority of actual scientists probably don't really give a damn whether another scientist is religious or not, unless that other scientist chooses to bring it up... or make it obvious.
Atheism is usually reactionary. The unfortunate thing about atheism is that a lack of belief is often forced to assume a defensive position in the face of the believer - or even the agnostic. It is difficult to maintain equanimity in the face of belief, and that statement applies not only to religious disputes.

Theists don't really understand what a lack of belief actually means. Atheists don't understand belief. Both pretend to.

The only thing which renders science and religion incompatible is doctrine. This has become more pronounced in the modern world, by dint of the fact that believers have begun to assume a more personal belief. Gone are the days where god was whatever the church deemed him to be. In place of that, the believer is often forced to adjust his own philosophy to adhere to personal opinion.
The result, in modern times, is a thousand believers all with a different interpretation of what god should be, what god is, and the moral codes god might follow.
Doctrine is on the way out. "God", as a single pure entity, no longer exists. Belief has come full circle; where once there were many gods, eventually there was only one. Now, there are many once more.
The difference lies in the curious pattern of those many believers in addressing him by the same name; in perceiving god with a single point of reference.

Most theists fail to realise that in recognising there are so many "personal" gods, is proof in itself to the atheist that there are none at all. Either that, or the theist must consider that god has lost control of man - a point as theologically dangerous to theists as god not existing at all.

The Catholic church, by way of example, has fought hard in the last century or two to remain relevant in the modern world. The reason this is so is that their own doctrine - as defined by the bible itself - has come under attack from more relaxed social attitudes. The Catholic believer is forced to confront and examine church doctrine in light of his own moral codes (as dictated by society in place of the church) and often ends up having a personal god. This is a compromise. God, as an entity defined by the church, does not compromise; yet social evolution demands it.
The Church responds by relaxing its own historical attitudes in order to retain significance and power - and in doing so, denies its own doctrine and, by way of extension, its very reason for existence.
Pope Francis probably doesn't even realise he is only buying time for a dying institution. The Church has become a franchise whose only real product is its appeal to belief, a business which relies solely upon the economic concept of goodwill.


By contrast, Science is constant. In itself, it does not recognise the difference between a scientist who is a theist, and one who is atheist or agnostic. Science does not care. Only scientists do.
Science retains both relevance and significance in a world perpetually subject to change, where theism often fails to remain relevant. Where science seeks answers, theism claims to provide them. Where science does not have an answer, it attempts to explain why, and to find one.

Theism simply changes its doctrine; or the theist adopts his own. Either way, god is denied final authority.

 

Absolutely nothing - neither is superior in any way. Is respect not a two-way street?

The Marquis, I am not sure that "a thing" demands anything.
As far as people go, though...again, is respect not a two-way street?

My issue is with Self-Assumed Superiority - is it not odd, and somewhat ironic, that someone with seemingly a "laughable" disrespect for Theists - holds in so much esteem their own delusional Messiah Complex?

No single human being, or group of human beings, is ultimately superior or deserves any more respect than any other individual or group.
More often than not, it is the person/group that "demands" the most, that, in all reality, actually "deserves" the least!

The Marquis, all people have my utmost respect - unless/until they command/earn anything less.

A real man suffers not the delusion of superiority nor inferiority!

The Marquis, may you and, (if in existence?), The Marchioness and any little Marqui Marqs in your household experience a Joyous And Happy Holiday Season.

 

"According to Paul van Buren, a Death of God theologian, the word God itself is "either meaningless or misleading".[2] He contends that it is impossible to think about God. Van Buren says that


"we cannot identify anything which will count for or against the truth of our statements concerning 'God'".

Most Christian atheists believe that God never existed, but there are a few who believe in the death of God literally. Thomas J. J. Altizer is a well-known Christian atheist who is known for his literal approach to the death of God. He often speaks of God's death as a redemptive event. In his book The Gospel of Christian Atheism he speaks of how


"every man today who is open to experience knows that God is absent, but only the Christian knows that God is dead, that the death of God is a final and irrevocable event, and that God's death has actualized in our history a new and liberated humanity".---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Yet his shadow still looms. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"--—Nietzsche, The Gay Science, Section 125, tr. Walter Kaufmann

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No, it isn't.

You should reflect upon your first sentence. Does a thing demand anything?
Does respect demand respect? Further, and to clarify... should respect be accorded respect simply for itself? Would you respect Anders Breivik only because he respected you?

It does not matter in what esteem an individual holds themselves. What matters for the individual is the esteem in which an individual is held within the community he respects.

Of course they are, or do. The greater the respect for an opinion, the more prevalent that opinion becomes. That's social evolution.
Are you aware, by way of example, that the only reason gay marriage was still frowned upon until recently is because most people frown upon it?
What causes change?
A lack of respect for that viewpoint.
Those who say "I respect your opinion, but..." are only paying lip service.

This is the kind of statement one might find on a Hallmark greeting card, a desktop calendar, or a collection of "wise quotations".
It sounds good. It caters to the individual who desires respect but does not have it.
But is it true? No. There is absolutely nothing which redeems that statement for me, other than a nod toward the "squeaky wheel" theory.

Apply your sentence to, say, race relations. Most minorities run around demanding all sorts of things. Are you saying they don't deserve them?

This is a fine philosophy.
It's like a game of tournament poker. All begin with the same starting stack of chips.
Over the course of the game, some lose, and some win. All one need do is conceive of that starting stack of chips as initial respect.
In this place, your words are the hands you choose to play. Odd thing being that it is both those who play conservatively and those who play aggressively who can win the game.
Often, it dpeends entirely upon how those cards fall.

i agree. Its probably unfortunate that this real man probably doesn't exist. One can only try.

Why, thank you. You and your funky bunch as well. Let neither of us ever learn the reality.

 

Errrr .... no .....not unless we are forced to accept the opinion of perpetual cave dwellers on this subject
:shrug:

 

Seems he has difficulty being obedient to this idea of his
:shrug:

 

@wynn
Exactly the opposite, a third party can most of the times, influence negatively, in this specific case. And no, i'm not trying to follow that reasoning. What i am trying to imply (sorry if hermetically), is that if you do not bring a tangible proof of an occurrence, be it transcendent or empirical, we can not deem it factual. We are, on this specific case, dealing with a "preternatural occurrence" (read as god's existence). Wether or not, it is deemed by most as a preternatural occurrence of any sort, related to christianism or to UFO sightings, unless brought attainable proof, can not be deemed factual, and, between the ones who deem factual the "preternatural occurrence", bringing proof is not exactly a rule of thumb, as most of things deemed "preternatural" rely on superstition and/or faith. Still on the subject, any proof bought on these terms will suffice to convince and be accepted by the subjects who have said superstition/faith but, will, most of the times, fail to do outside this scope due to subjectivity, as it would render skepticism non applicable. Even if you believe in such "occurrence" or not.

 

There is no reasonable basis to take any notion of divinity seriously. That most in my society and those of the rest of the world do continue to take it seriously is a continued impediment to a better understanding the human condition and reality in general. The time, energy and resources devoted to this addiction to divine obscurity would be better applied to more tangible pursuits. I realize that human devotion to divine delusion was an evolutionary necessity, but for the sake intellectual advancement I can only hope that its abandonment is imminent.