True Grit Lady

[Asimov]

It is through discussions like this that I came to this conclusion for myself:

 

I do personally have a rational basis for belief. It is more rational to believe there is a God over all the intricate order of creation than to not believe it, but that is my rationale not yours.

 

Unfortunately, as must every concept of knowledge, rationalizations must be logical as well.

 

So if it is more rational to believe there is a God, then explain how that is more rational. If you are unable to or if your justification is illogical, then you don't have a rational basis.

 

God does prove Himself empirically to individuals on a subjective basis.

Subjective interpretations of ones own experiences is not proof of existence, merely proof of belief. Empirical evidences are demonstrable.

 

I just don't know the how or why of faith in a person. I know you can ask for it, but why was I so ready and others aren't? don't know don't know.

 

I know, you believe it because you want it to be true. Your simple statement that it is "more rational to believe in God" is an implication of emotional need.

[truegrit]

Here I am again.

It is through discussions like this that I came to this conclusion for myself:

 

I do personally have a rational basis for belief. It is more rational to believe there is a God over all the intricate order of creation than to not believe it, but that is my rationale not yours.

 

Unfortunately, as must every concept of knowledge, rationalizations must be logical as well.

 

So if it is more rational to believe there is a God, then explain how that is more rational. If you are unable to or if your justification is illogical, then you don't have a rational basis.

 

God does prove Himself empirically to individuals on a subjective basis.

Subjective interpretations of ones own experiences is not proof of existence, merely proof of belief. Empirical evidences are demonstrable.

 

I just don't know the how or why of faith in a person. I know you can ask for it, but why was I so ready and others aren't? don't know don't know.

 

I know, you believe it because you want it to be true. Your simple statement that it is "more rational to believe in God" is an implication of emotional need.

 

"Subjective interpretations of ones own experiences is not proof of existence, merely proof of belief. Empirical evidences are demonstrable."

They are demonstrable. But that doesn't mean replicable necessarily. Something demonstrated to one person makes it an empirical evidence to them. It is like saying "If a tree falls in a forest with no one to hear it, then does it make a sound?" If only one person hears it, does that discount its verifiability?

Is it reasonable to deny rationale to someone based upon it not appearing evident to you?

 

This brings me to another part of the debate on this. What you are talking about is based in this physical world. Is this the only part of a persons reality in your opinion? Do you give creedance to the idea that there may be another reality, called spiritual that is not entirely operating on the same plane as the physical? Would it be reasonable to insist that everything on that plane ( given you allow for the possibility) is empirical according to the laws and evidences of the physical plane?

 

I know the ex-Christians here like to yuk it up about imagination, but the reality is that imagination and things like visulaization cross over into the realm of what is accepted as plain vanilla reality. So I'm just asking what you accept on this in your own thinking.

 

"implication of emotional need"

 

You know what? I'm willing to give you that. The next question I would ask, however, is whether emotional need is part of a human reality or not. Is it disconnected, or does it have some anchor in the "what is" of people and the physical world?

 

We are going into Star Trek territory here. Isn't Spock defined by his amount of emotion- what emotion he felt made evidence of his humanity, the absence of normal emotion evidence of his alien nature?

What did the writers imply about what it is that makes us human? And if so intrinsic, why is it discounted in this type of debate? It is rational to meet real need. In the scheme of things, it seems rational to look for reason for this need. Why does man feel the need for God and religion on the whole?

 

I think it is very reasonable to believe in God, while at the same time impossbile to prove He exists on the type of observable and objective basis you are describing as necessary to your idea of "proof". I agree that that is reasonable on your part, to desire that basis. Just unreasonable to think you can know absolutely that I am wrong and you are right.

 

Of course our difference is that I say I have met with God and know Christ personally- which is what most born-again type believers are saying. You can believe I am off my nut if you want, but if true it is the stronger position rationally. that is just a terrifically big "if" for you. Which is why I am back to "no one can prove God's existance". Then, they can't disprove Him by your means, either. You can't show me there is no God - empirically.

[Asimov]

Here I am again.

 

"Subjective interpretations of ones own experiences is not proof of existence, merely proof of belief. Empirical evidences are demonstrable."

They are demonstrable. But that doesn't mean replicable necessarily. Something demonstrated to one person makes it an empirical evidence to them. It is like saying "If a tree falls in a forest with no one to hear it, then does it make a sound?" If only one person hears it, does that discount its verifiability?

 

Hello,

 

I never said replication was necessary, truegrit, although that adds credence to the effect. You admitted you can't provide empirical data in the post I replied to, you just labelled it objective.

 

It would be incumbent upon the person experiencing these things to provide verification that his experiences identify the existence of God.

 

I also never said that the number of people (or lack thereof) have any influence on the truth of a matter, and I would appreciate it if you could stick to what I am saying, and not irrelevancies that I never mentioned.

 

Is it reasonable to deny rationale to someone based upon it not appearing evident to you?

 

This brings me to another part of the debate on this. What you are talking about is based in this physical world.

No, I'm not denying your rationale, I'm saying that if you can't justify your belief rationally, then I have grounds to deny your claim.

 

It's based in reality.

 

Do you give creedance to the idea that there may be another reality, called spiritual that is not entirely operating on the same plane as the physical? Would it be reasonable to insist that everything on that plane ( given you allow for the possibility) is empirical according to the laws and evidences of the physical plane?

 

I give no credence to the idea of a spiritual reality, based on the same reason that I give no credence to the idea of God.

 

Why wouldn't it be reasonable to insist that the spiritual is empirical or driven by specific laws (whatever they are)? Do you not claim to experience spirituality? Do you not claim that they exist? What reason do you have to accept this idea of spiritual realms? It appears as if you're creating semantical nonsense by claiming that empiricism (that which is experienced by the senses) is different in a "spiritual realm". How can you sense a spiritual realm without senses?

 

I know the ex-Christians here like to yuk it up about imagination, but the reality is that imagination and things like visulaization cross over into the realm of what is accepted as plain vanilla reality. So I'm just asking what you accept on this in your own thinking.

I'm not an ex-Christian, please don't assume. Imagination is a mix of reality and wishful thinking (emotional concepts). We see something in reality, and our mind concocts a wish that it were different.

 

You know what? I'm willing to give you that. The next question I would ask, however, is whether emotional need is part of a human reality or not. Is it disconnected, or does it have some anchor in the "what is" of people and the physical world?

 

It's 100% a part of human lives (perhaps there exist people who have no emotions, but I'm not aware of any). In any normal development, emotion plays a part in socialization, empathy and relationships between individuals.

 

What emotions do not do is provide an avenue of knowledge. You can't use emotions to justify your own beliefs, you can't use emotions as a venue for obtaining knowledge.

 

Emotions have their use, but in the realm of knowledge and science they play no part.

 

It is rational to meet real need. In the scheme of things, it seems rational to look for reason for this need. Why does man feel the need for God and religion on the whole?

There is no need. I have no need for God or religion. You're generalizing and discounting that a large portion of individuals feel no desire to associate themselves with God or religion.

 

Some people try to attribute aspects of their lives (whether good or bad) to some anthropomorphic being in order to explain what they cannot explain.

 

We "needed" God to explain how rain fell and why hurricanes occured. We "needed" God to explain why people have seizures, or why they contract diseases or why babies are still-born.

 

As humans progress, we realise that we don't "need" God for a lot of things. And now, we're progressing to more emotional needs. "God doesn't give up on me," "Jesus loves me no matter what", "I believe because I know it in my heart that it's true", "Don't you care about your eternal soul?".

 

They want to believe it's true, so they do.

 

 

I think it is very reasonable to believe in God, while at the same time impossbile to prove He exists on the type of observable and objective basis you are describing as necessary to your idea of "proof". I agree that that is reasonable on your part, to desire that basis. Just unreasonable to think you can know absolutely that I am wrong and you are right.

 

Where did I state that I can know absolutely that you are wrong and that I am right?

 

You haven't explained why it is reasonable to believe in God, nor have you justified any of your claims.

I state absolutely that your reasoning is fallacious and that I am right in my refutations of your beliefs.

 

Of course our difference is that I say I have met with God and know Christ personally- which is what most born-again type believers are saying. You can believe I am off my nut if you want, but if true it is the stronger position rationally. that is just a terrifically big "if" for you.

Sure, you say that, but you can't demonstrate it. Which again shows that your entire belief is based on your own emotional interpretations of events that happen in your life. You can claim that you know Christ personally, but you can't demonstrate it.

 

I don't believe you are off your nut, I contend that your interpretations of your experiences have no rational justification.

 

Which is why I am back to "no one can prove God's existance". Then, they can't disprove Him by your means, either. You can't show me there is no God - empirically.

 

Here we are again to your fallacious reasoning. Not only is it an argument to ignorance, but it's shifting the burden of proof.

[Poonis]

truegrit,

Did you see my previous post to you? Are you ignoring it or are you still formulating a reply to it?

 

We are both in the same boat: no response. A couple days ago I asked her if she can show me her god. I was hoping a yes-or-no question would warrant a quick response.

 

=(

[mwc]

MWC- you deserve your very own reply.

Well, don't I feel honored.

 

I just took a quick peek at her blog

I reposted past discussions and essays if you are interested

Perhaps I will make an effort to read your other entries since you appear to be putting an effort into taking a look at us.

 

Your experience and your assumptions about it; it doesn't really prove anything about God, on peer level I would counter with my own subjective experience. I am sorry for what you relay here, however...because hurt is hurt.

I never intended my message to be anything more than my subjective experience. If I had a mind to I could relate my subjective experience of how wonderful it was to be full of of the spirit and know the "love" of jesus. It's quite easy to relate if I'm so inclined. I can recapture that feeling any time I want to despite the absolute fact I no longer believe. So feeling or no, subjective is subjective and "proof" of nothing. On this we agree.

 

"So to minimize and generalize the events and ages of those people who choose to stop believing in the xian god is a choice that is, even by her own admission, not researched and therefore dishonest."

 

how you extrapolated this, I don't know.

As I said, I only made a quick look at your site. Perhaps I confused what you said? As I recall you mentioned this website but also mentioned you had never actually visited here. You also mentioned something along the lines of this problem pertaining to youth. Knowing that many people on this site were about my age and had similar experiences to my own I knew that your statements, in relation to us and this site alone, were incorrect, I drew the above conclusion. Again, maybe I spoke too hastily. I'm not beyond admitting I am wrong if that's the case. I'll retract this statement since it seems to be a point of contention.

 

you may get tired of my posting if I decide to stay the course;)

...

I am absolutely right on this, and frankly, I was surprised at the extent of it when I went deep into forum life for awhile. Now little surprises me.

We [sort of] welcome all views...as long as you're not simply evangelizing. But this is a place where people do come to recover from the cult of xianity so it can be...how can I put this? Difficult? Angry? Unsettling? All those and more for xians who care to be here. As you've already seen xians will also be asked to "put up or shut up" as well. It's one of those "if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen" scenarios.

 

The major misunderstanding that xians have when they stop by is that this is some sort of ex-c vs. xians debate site. Even though this place does get used for that quite a bit, its primary purpose is more along the lines of therapy. To recover from being in the cult itself. As such people are angry and just upset in general. Your shock comes from that misunderstanding of the purpose. It would be like going to any abuse recovery site and seeing the range of emotions displayed (perhaps all the "parent hating" on a site with recovering children of abuse).

 

However, debating the issues of the religion is one form of dealing with the issues. So if that's what you wish to do you will find people that will take you up on that offer I am quite certain. Telling them "Jesus loves you" probably won't fly, however (but will likely get a good laugh).

 

Presumption, presumption. I was raised by a very verbal and argumentively adept atheist, had atheistic/agnostic friends and we've talked about many issues over the years not counting extensive time on online forums. So I guess I don't slot into your neat little cubbyhole. Then, too, I am not interested in bashing atheists so much as engaging them. Likewise with pagans. I take on all comers;)

...

"I may not know each and every xian personally but my sample of xians far outweighs any xians sample of apostates. " blah. prooof-where's the proooooof?

Perhaps I was being presumptuous speaking of you but now you've clarified your situation. I don't need you to "slot into a cubbyhole." We all need to make a level of generalization in our statements otherwise we'd be spending all day itemizing and clarifying instead of making whatever point we really wanted to make. That said we have a number of xians that simply drop by and make similar statements to yours and are never seen again. It's really is refreshing to get an exception to those "rules."

 

As for my second point, the xian to apostate ratio. Seriously, do I need to prove that? Do you honestly think the ratio of xians that know apostates is higher than that of apostates that know xians? Xians that go apostate are really quite a minority so each apostate is bound to know more xians than a xian is to know an apostate. For a quick example. I went apostate. In my family they now each know 1 apostate. I, however, know about 10 xians. This doesn't take into account how many xians I really know but it demonstrates how the numbers work. With xians being 80+% of the U.S. population it's easy to see that the ratio will work in the manner I demonstrate in my subjective example.

 

It is not a lie, it is an observation... once you start responding with logical fallacy such as this you weaken all your subjective argument. Your personal experience is a small sample of the whole, and doesn't necessarily correlate to all of my sample.

I wasn't in an argument but simply making a statement. I might just be in an argument now but since xians come and go, almost at random it seems, it can be hard to tell if I am actually discussing anything with them or simply preaching to the choir. Anyhow, I don't usually care if I get caught up in "logical fallacies" or things like that when telling my personal experiences. If we move onto something else I'll see if I can't tighten up my game play a little.

 

EDIT: I didn't notice this thread had been moved. Since it's no longer in the rants section I'll try not to be so lazy.

 

One final note. You mention the prodigal son. We're not "prodigal," we're apostate.-mwc

Not all of you.

Then you don't understand the difference.

 

mwc

[Antlerman]

We don't need to prove something true absolutely to act upon it. It is not possible to do this. However, when it comes to devoting your life to belief in a god, you first of all in my opinion need to do what you are leaning towards, acknowledge that it defies reason that it is at its heart "irrationality". This then is in according with reason at least, considering there is far less compelling reasons to accept it as a valid "truth" on that level, versus something within a naturalist world-view. Secondly, you would need to show why it offers something to humanity that has value above any other aesthetic pursuit (don't confuse the word with atheist). How does it speak to people beyond any of the thousands of alternatives out there today?

 

=====

I am so entirely happy to hear a Christian finally say this! Why then do they try and try so hard to justify it then, do you suppose? I would very much appreciate your opinion on this.

 

I look forward to your response to what I said above.

 

I don't accept "leaps of faith", don't think there is irrationality to faith, and don't believe Christians need to lay aside their minds and their thinking.

 

"versus something within a naturalist world-view"

 

I find materialism at odds with ones humanity. It reduces every thing finally to the molecular level. How are you different than a log or dirt teaming with organisms? What sets you apart from that, so that human life should be valued?

But here lies the rub with the Christian world view. They somehow do think we are something NOT the rest of creation. That I consider something along the lines of a brain dysfunction where someone sees their hand as a foreign thing to their own body and want to have it surgically removed.

 

For me after many years as viewing humanity as the supposed crowning achievement of the world (thanks to the infusion of the Christian world view into my thoughts), to suddenly see that we are really just one of millions of life forms this planet has seen, blew away this bizarre distinction of man above nature and I responded with a very unexpected sense of liberation of both mind and emotion.

 

Suddenly I saw that we are beautiful. That life is beautiful. Not this sick view that we are somehow in a “fallen” world. We are not. We are very much part of this tree of life on this planet, not its crowning achievement, but uniquely beautiful as one of its millions of other uniquely beautiful.

 

There is something powerful to be gained in being humbled like this. This is where Christianity in its view that this planet is somehow ours to dominate creates this unhealthy world view, because after all we are not its master.

 

Why not grind up the disabled for fertilizer ? ... or anything we might consider "inhumane"? if there is no difference between my existance and that of an amoeba?

Why would you devalue humanity because we’re not the top of the heap? There is no rational justification to do this. See what I mean about the Christian world view? You somehow assume that because we’re not the center of creation, that we don’t have value. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t believe humans are, yet I marvel at our existence in the universe!

 

Atheists must borrow their moral arguments.

So must theists. What, you think theists are the only ones capable of coming up with codes of conduct? That’s ridiculous. Frankly, moral arguments in fact do come from just being human in societies. It’s then humans who use religions to empower their human morality by assigning to the name of a god. Think of it in terms of government. Where do you think our laws come from, God, or humans?

 

They might truly be moral in their leanings, but materialism will not give that morality any moorings, basis of why others should follow suit. "It is, because I say it is...until someone stronger than me says something different." Unless there is borrowed moral reasoning from somewhere.

Well, without trying to hone in on exactly which facet of materialism you are referencing, I would have to say as just a blanket statement that covers any philosophical world view, that your thoughts that, “It is, because I say it is.. until someone stronger than me says something different,” is a grossly oversimplified view of how morality comes into acceptance.

 

I hear again this absolutist Christian mindset that somehow everything must have an “authoritative source”. I hear it in this discussion about morality. I hear it in discussions with others about science, with them calling the Theory of Evolution as “Darwinsim” as if somehow they can put a chink into him, the whole house of cards collapses, etc.

 

Morality is something that a society accepts or rejects. It is always changing and cannot be static. This is the problem with fundamentalist Christianity: they want to stop society from changing. This is like trying to stop nature. Humans evolve socially, and especially so in a global society with exposure to other ways of looking at the world and conducting ourselves. You can try to jam an outmoded systems of ethics from one’s notion of the way things were back in the “good ‘ole days”, but society accepts or rejects it solely on the basis of whether it has value to them. This is the reality of how society works. The “church” then reflects these values of society back onto society and “enforces” them through a face of “authority”, using the name “God”, or “Truth”, “Light”, and a whole host of other power words to uphold the values of the society. But again, these values started with society (not a sole individual), and were given to “God”. Not the other way around.

 

This is why science can't keep up with the ethics of their research and discoveries while anchored in solely materialistic philosophy. Their science outstrips their ability to metabolize the morality of an action and its consequences to humanity.

Science is science. It’s not a system of ethics, nor is it anchored in any philosophy. Materialism in science is not philosophical materialism, but rather methodological naturalism. This is of course what defines science as opposed to religion. Science deals with the natural world, so for it to run to the Bible for answers, well.. makes it religion. Science deals with how the natural world works, not questions of “who did it”? That’s the theologian’s job.

 

But I do agree in principle that science is outpacing societies ideas of ethics. Society isn’t given the luxury of time to decide together on a system of values as it has done from the beginning of culture. The technology is moving faster than what has happened naturally to cultures in the past. But that’s not science’s job. It’s societies. Once we figure it out, then the church can claim it as God’s Truth.

 

No, the aesthetic is not the final litmus test. Truth is the final litmus test. There are many pleasing things that are far removed from Truth.

 

You see I have come to Big T truth in this conversation with you. There is something out there that stands unaltered by circumstance. And we keep seeking to measure against it, to seek it, even when we fail to define it.

 

What I have to know is whether something is true. And that is the result of my own discovery of it, whether by gracious revelation or by experience.... and this is what lifts one thing above the other alternatives:whether it is indeed the Truth. Each one is responsible for seeking the answer to that discovery. It is ...what do you say...non-transferable.

I don’t have a lot of time here, but will quick speak to this and get back to it later as it deserves further discussion with you.

 

I agree that we all want to have some anchor of “truth” in life, but this phenomenon does not indicate some external big T truth. There is a collective truth that society comes to that works for the majority of its participants, but that truth continues to evolve, slowly, over time though changes that occur to that society. There is also individual truth. What makes sense to your mind, to your emotional personality. But any attempts I have ever seen to claim these truths as some sort of unchanging external big T truth has failed, and is not supported by looking at history. In either case, we strive to “cooperation”, but that is more about human society than a god.

 

I believe God helps those who want to know Him, there are those who say that isn't and can't be true. We are then at an impasse, but we are not static, and thus working out things in dialog is sometimes part of the process.

 

that is my preaching side. but I would say this is what we have to look for: Big T truth. Otherwise we have no idea where we are at in this life. We need to know if there is a God and whether He is Impersonal or Personal; do we relate or not? Do we need to?

 

I suppose at this point I am on the wrong board.

Listen - if you want to engage me more you know where my blog url is. You are welcome there. I will come back if there is more to discuss, but it feels pretty much done. It is far away from the original topic.

We are not far from the original topic, nor does it matter that much in the Lion’s den. I think we should continue this discussion here where it is evolving naturally, rather than pulling it off site. What's the point of that?

[NotBlinded]

We don't need to prove something true absolutely to act upon it. It is not possible to do this. However, when it comes to devoting your life to belief in a god, you first of all in my opinion need to do what you are leaning towards, acknowledge that it defies reason that it is at its heart "irrationality". This then is in according with reason at least, considering there is far less compelling reasons to accept it as a valid "truth" on that level, versus something within a naturalist world-view. Secondly, you would need to show why it offers something to humanity that has value above any other aesthetic pursuit (don't confuse the word with atheist). How does it speak to people beyond any of the thousands of alternatives out there today?

 

=====

I am so entirely happy to hear a Christian finally say this! Why then do they try and try so hard to justify it then, do you suppose? I would very much appreciate your opinion on this.

 

I look forward to your response to what I said above.

 

I don't accept "leaps of faith", don't think there is irrationality to faith, and don't believe Christians need to lay aside their minds and their thinking.

 

"versus something within a naturalist world-view"

 

I find materialism at odds with ones humanity. It reduces every thing finally to the molecular level. How are you different than a log or dirt teaming with organisms? What sets you apart from that, so that human life should be valued?

But here lies the rub with the Christian world view. They somehow do think we are something NOT the rest of creation. That I consider something along the lines of a brain dysfunction where someone sees their hand as a foreign thing to their own body and want to have it surgically removed.

 

For me after many years as viewing humanity as the supposed crowning achievement of the world (thanks to the infusion of the Christian world view into my thoughts), to suddenly see that we are really just one of millions of life forms this planet has seen, blew away this bizarre distinction of man above nature and I responded with a very unexpected sense of liberation of both mind and emotion.

 

Suddenly I saw that we are beautiful. That life is beautiful. Not this sick view that we are somehow in a “fallen” world. We are not. We are very much part of this tree of life on this planet, not its crowning achievement, but uniquely beautiful as one of its millions of other uniquely beautiful.

 

There is something powerful to be gained in being humbled like this. This is where Christianity in its view that this planet is somehow ours to dominate creates this unhealthy world view, because after all we are not its master.

I'm going to take this wonderful bit of insight and use some of Alan Watt's speeches and some of my own insights to expound on this, Antlerman. You always bring out some of my most inner thoughts.

 

This is a common concept with western civilization. Most people see ourselves as coming into this world upon birth when in reality, we are coming out of this world. With this popular view, we see ourselves as being a soul in a body and that body being in an alien environment. Our language alone adds a tremendous amount of influence on how we view who we are. When we say "I" what are we referring to? We say that we walk and we talk, but do we ever say that we beat our hearts? We separate ourselves from ourself. Absurd indeed! So this dualistic thinking naturally lends itself to seeing ourselves as coming from somewhere other than here and this leads into the notion that something of greater power put us here and on it goes...

 

So, when the idea of an all-seeing, all-knowing god no longer makes sense to us, we turn to the other extreme and claim that the universe is simply mechanical with no intelligence. We are creatures of extremes in thought. Our universe is intelligent, IMO because I think it is equally absurd to see intelligence coming from non-intelligence. Does that mean there is a God? Not at all in the traditional sense. It means there is intelligence from which we evolved and that is ingrained in every cell of our being, IMO. One cannot separate their intelligence from which it came. That is like trying to remove the formless from the form or vise-versa. It is impossible.

 

This is why I reached the conclusion that "God" is intelligence and it cannot be separated from itself which is everything. It is a non-dualistic understanding that acknowledges that total opposites would not exist without each other. This separateness is an illusion.

 

And to see ourselves as coming into this world and not from it is indeed a brain dysfunction that is brought on by our society and our language. China doesn't understand nature in this way and see themselves as part of nature that grows with it.

 

And with reducing everything to the molecular level, we can understand that this unity is evident within everything. If it is at odds with humanity, it is only at odds with the egos of humanity.

[Antlerman]

I missed this earlier response from you to me. I’ll respond to it here.

 

"There is no such thing in the universe as evil. Everything is on a sliding scale "

 

That works as long as everythings stays all abstract and ivory tower, but as soon as we go to torturing people or considering what some call evil to be on our scale of good... that is all fine and dandy til you are on the receiving end of your existance and rights getting trampled and destroyed. Then it gets more real when we talk good and evil. It breaks down right there,...for you. Sometimes more for those who love you...

Well actually questions of ethics are on a sliding scale. The examples you give above in fact are very charged with emotional content, such as being the recipient of torture. To the ones doing the torture however, there is something being satisfied in them and to them it is “good”. If it wasn’t they wouldn’t do it. But I would say that by and large only a few benefit from that and justify it to themselves. The majority do not benefit from it, and therefore on that sliding scale it is a “bad” thing by and large.

 

The down side of absolutes is who determines (or interprets) them? Priests? No? The majority of a society then? If the majority, then how is that different than what I just stated above?

 

"Life depends on death."

 

I could agree with this if you could prove that our present reality is the only possible reality. But maybe the Bible view is a possible reality...maybe an existance without death or pain or sorrow ...or evil... is possible. What then? Life without death doesn't depend on death in that case. Just what we presently see supports that view- and so much just doesn't jive for us, that I would be willing to bet that something is wrong with this picture.

Well lets look at this. You’re saying the value of belief in the Bible is that we hope to get away from this reality to another? I don’t see that as very useful. In fact, I see it as harmful. Rather than teach us to accept life, they teach to hate life. That’s not very healthy of a philosophy, if you ask me.

 

This is what I see as one of the core problems with the Christian view of the world. We do live in this world, and in my opinion to see it as broken or evil is to hate what some call “God’s creation”. It’s to hate yourself. Think about that. If you had a child who went around calling themselves, fat, ugly, and stupid, would you try to correct them, or encourage them to be self-loathing? Would you tell them that they are all that, but if they find a good mate to marry them, then their value will be tied to their mate? How is any of this different than the message of Christianity?

 

"Everything is "good", and everything is "evil". Nothing is good and nothing is evil."

Admittedly I am entrenched in the way I believe, but I genuinely don't see how I can come up with a rationale not to do whatever appeals to me even if it harms you. If there is no "right" where is justice? Is there room for justice in your thinking here?

I have a long list of reasons why I don’t negate the value of considering others in my actions. None of those have to do with believing in some source of truth from a god. In fact, my personal sense of responsibility and value of moral “truths” went up considerably when I became an atheist. I make choices that promote community, that promote peace, and those acts benefit me. Why would I choose destructive acts? It doesn’t make sense. There is no benefit in them.

 

Additionally, I define the essence of myself through my actions. I believe in the benefit to humanity by following guidelines that allow for the greatest potentials of others. That benefits me. The whole trick to “ethics” is overcoming “greed”, the tendency to just grab for yourself, taking shortcuts. In the end, that approach is short-sighted and destructive to self. You see, no god is needed.

 

"I disagree that "atheism" is a true "ism" of any sort"

I've answered this in another post, I think you are sincere, but I think the argument is disingenuous,

 

"What about the Buddhist who does not believe in God? "

You could help me by explaining what you think the Buddhist view of the meaning of man's existance is. One of the things I like about the apologetics of Christianity is how it is cohesive in thought. It makes alot of sense to me, apart from the fact that I have "faith". The Buddhist view of unity loses the individuality of the person, so I find difficulty in rendering meaning from the "nirvana" or "bliss". It just "is". Maybe you could explain it better to me, if you wish.

My point is not the value of Buddhism to you, but to point out that it is a system and philosophy that gives people meaning in their lives. If it didn’t, they wouldn’t follow it. This is the same thing with Christianity, and same thing with any other philosophy. Neither theism, nor atheism is a philosophy in and of themselves. Atheism is not a philosophy. Theism is not a philosophy. Existentialism is a philosophy. Dadaism is a philosophy. Nihilism is a philosophy. Christianity is a philosophy, along with the rites and rituals of a religion.

 

How is this argument disingenuous?

 

"How many people do you know that believe there's a god and have no clue about how they should find meaning in their lives?"

In some ways that is a hard question. Not everyone has the same approach to thinking, some go more by say, INFP, some are more INTP ( like me) some are something else. Not everyone who seeks meaning does it through asking cognitive questions. I suppose that is like some who say they find their meaning in their experieince of life situations... only for those who beleive in God it reaches beyond their own experience, it connects them with the "what is" out there. Your day to day life experience doesn't always provide that metaphysical connection, at least not for all people.

But there are other philosophies that do connect you to something beyond yourself. In fact, I would say most all of them do. I don’t believe in God, yet I feel a strong connection to the universe. “God” is simply a language symbol that people try to express the experience of that, but that experience is very common, whether someone believes in a god or not. It’s simply a matter of a chosen language, do you see? I see “God” as along the lines of poetry or music. It’s a language by which we try to speak about those experiences. But “God” doesn’t give those experiences. Being alive does.

 

Edit to add: If any argument you could make would be to say that the use of the "god" language enhances that experience. But then so do many other languages. To me then, the question is what benefit does the language of god have over others, that it can overcome all it's accumulated negatives?

 

"I see no reason to conclude that because I gravitate towards social behavior that this indicates a god."

 

I don't see how evolution would explain any of this. It seems that it works against it, rather. To see ones finite end, and seek to always extend the final marker, because given a satisfying life few want it to end. It is very human to seek the meaning of what our purpose is, to be frustrated constantly by the way things are... fighting, but hating the fighting when able to really see its senselessness. See, that very word: we need to "make sense". Other creatures don't have to have this inner conflict, they don't have religions, although that is sort of funny to thik about....

I would argue that given enough brain mass, other creatures indeed would feel conflicted about this as we are. But you are incorrect in saying that nature works against social behavior. You can study many groups of animals and see a social order at work in them. Pay particular attention to primates, since we are of the same lineage biologically. I very much see evolution being behind our behaviors. We are not unique in this, only in the level we are able to carry it to.

 

Again, socialization is about bringing our individual drive to “get” into cooperation with others for the benefit of everyone, which benefits the individual to a higher degree than were he to do it alone. This act of society is about empowering weaker individuals from being completely dominated by the stronger. Let’s mention women’s rights here for one quick example in human society.

 

Again, society “hires god” like they would a police department, or on a greater scale, a government. It’s their rules, “God” enforces them. God is a product of our human evolution, but because not all societies need that symbol to function, then the question is does that symbol fulfill any relevant role in today’s society. That’s the question that churches struggle with in continuing their survival as a service to society.

 

BTW, I’m enjoying this discussion with you.

[Lycorth]

"Subjective interpretations of ones own experiences is not proof of existence, merely proof of belief. Empirical evidences are demonstrable."They are demonstrable. But that doesn't mean replicable necessarily. Something demonstrated to one person makes it an empirical evidence to them. It is like saying "If a tree falls in a forest with no one to hear it, then does it make a sound?" If only one person hears it, does that discount its verifiability?

 

Of course not, but it's still something that can be tested and proven - unlike a person's personal religious experiences. No matter how true those are for the believer, they cannot be accepted or promoted as empirical evidence because they cannot be tested and verified.

 

I don't need to test your mother's love for you to know she does love you (if that is indeed so), but it doesn't matter that I can't. Whether or not your mother loves you has no effect on my life or on what may happen to me after I die, nor is it purported to explain everything in the universe and its origins. However, while your personal religious experiences also have no effect on my life, etc, they are equally unacceptable as proof of religious truths that apply to all people, just like your mother's love for you is unacceptable as proof of anything that universally applies to all people. Do you see?

 

Is it reasonable to deny rationale to someone based upon it not appearing evident to you?

 

Yes, if the person claims that their rationale equates to a greater, empirical truth that applies to all mankind. Your experiences are relevant only to you. If you want to prove Jebus to others, you must cite proofs that would have universal application.

 

This brings me to another part of the debate on this. What you are talking about is based in this physical world. Is this the only part of a persons reality in your opinion? Do you give creedance to the idea that there may be another reality, called spiritual that is not entirely operating on the same plane as the physical? Would it be reasonable to insist that everything on that plane ( given you allow for the possibility) is empirical according to the laws and evidences of the physical plane?

 

This world, this plane of existence, is the only world we can be sure of. All the scientific research and experimentation has yet to conclusively discover any other "worlds" than this one. Not to say there can't be, but until it is discovered through the hard labor of scientists, it must be assumed there is nothing else but this world.

 

I believe that this "spiritual" world you speak of can exist, but isn't any different than this world in which we live. In other words, there is no difference between the "supernatural" and the "natural" because if something exists, it is therefore natural (as in part of our "natural" world).

 

I know the ex-Christians here like to yuk it up about imagination, but the reality is that imagination and things like visulaization cross over into the realm of what is accepted as plain vanilla reality. So I'm just asking what you accept on this in your own thinking.

 

Unless you can imagine something into physical reality, imagination is just imagination.

 

You know what? I'm willing to give you that. The next question I would ask, however, is whether emotional need is part of a human reality or not. Is it disconnected, or does it have some anchor in the "what is" of people and the physical world?

 

At best, emotional need would be on a par with one's personal reality, not the universal and objective reality that applies to all people. In other words, it's real to you because you "feel" and hence believe it is, but that doesn't make it a universal truth.

 

We are going into Star Trek territory here. Isn't Spock defined by his amount of emotion- what emotion he felt made evidence of his humanity, the absence of normal emotion evidence of his alien nature?

 

Spock's emotions had bearing on his humanity because Vulcans train themselves to be emotionless. That hasn't any bearing on the universal reality of one's personal emotional needs or experiences.

 

What did the writers imply about what it is that makes us human? And if so intrinsic, why is it discounted in this type of debate? It is rational to meet real need. In the scheme of things, it seems rational to look for reason for this need. Why does man feel the need for God and religion on the whole?

 

Humans do not feel the need for God (note the capital "G", implying the Abrahamic god). Most humans have religious tendencies and the desire to seek and explore things of a spiritual nature. This is a typical Xian fallacy, that because most people have some sort of spiritual desires that they are naturally yearning for Jebus.

 

Anton LaVey also noted that most people need and/or want religion of some kind. Do you think that this makes Satanism automatically true, because it acknowledges a desire present in the majority of humans?

 

I think it is very reasonable to believe in God, while at the same time impossbile to prove He exists on the type of observable and objective basis you are describing as necessary to your idea of "proof". I agree that that is reasonable on your part, to desire that basis. Just unreasonable to think you can know absolutely that I am wrong and you are right.

 

Only because your desire to believe in your god is so strong. I had the same desires once, for the Xian god and for various Pagan gods shortly thereafter. You may feel it's reasonable to believe, but I think it's unreasonable to believe because evidence cannot be shown. To believe things without real evidence is not logical, no matter how you feel about it.

 

The heart must not do the work of the brain.

 

Of course our difference is that I say I have met with God and know Christ personally- which is what most born-again type believers are saying. You can believe I am off my nut if you want, but if true it is the stronger position rationally. that is just a terrifically big "if" for you. Which is why I am back to "no one can prove God's existance". Then, they can't disprove Him by your means, either. You can't show me there is no God - empirically.

 

However, you cannot prove it to be true. You can insist on it all you like, but until you can provide universal evidence, you cannot expect others to accept it. It is genuinely arguing from ignorance; you see, while Atheists cite the lack of evidence as disproving the Xian god, there are also other factors that back this up and add to the "lack of evidence claim" - that being the fallacies and contradicitons of the Babble as well as testing the claims of Jebus in the Babble and finding them to be false (such as the claim that all prayers will be answered). These form an overall mosaic from which most folks can deduce that the Xian god cannot possibly exist; both lack of evidence and failure under examination help to form this.

[Lycorth]

And some cute bits I seem to have forgotten...

 

"moral intuition."

mmmHmmm. and what makes yours superior to others who differ with you? You still have to abide by the public consensus known as "law" on what "construct my ideas of good and evil". And that trumps your constructs every time. so there is some authority above you on the matter of "good and evil".

 

What makes yours superior? Because you claim a higher source gave it to you? You are as bound to the law of the courts as anyone else, so do come down from that high horse.

 

The law does not mean my moral intuition is wrong. If there is a law outlawing Classical music, for example, I am not wrong in continuing to listen to it, since the law is obviously unjust. Forbidding people to listen to certain forms of music is unjust because listening to music is not a harmful act. So my moral intuition trumps the law, in this example.

 

Surely you can follow my meaning.

 

"make a completely bullshit excuse to cover up the fact your god does nothing about evil because your god doesn't exist."

 

That isn't a logical statement. For one thing, how do you know that God does "nothing" about evil, since mankind is on a longer continuum than you personally are. Is justice never accomplished? Is there never righting of social wrongs? Does no one ever attribute good and obliteration of evil to God? You are in no position to make the statements you do. I made as good a statement as any, simply one that you don't like or desire. I don't like it alot myself, but I am hopeful for justice in the long run. And willing to believe that if things went like I would have it more injustice could result. 'Cause I really hate certain evils. I hate when someone molests little children, for instance. I hate the way women are treated in some countries. I would likely give them their own medicine if it were me, but would I irradicate evil? Does revolution always result in something better? Usually not.

I don't trust myself in that way... I don't think I can sit in judgment over all things. But I want to see final justice. Sometime.

 

It's a perfectly logical statement. What's illogical is your position that an all-powerful, all-good, and all-loving god would hesitate to enact justice and protect his creation from evil. In fact, according to your mythology, your god created a paradise and initially intended this to be an evil-free world, so in a way I am in agreement with the Genesis depiction of your god.

 

I am in the perfect position to make my statements, because I am a thinking human. Unlike you, I have enough self-respect to see that I can most definitely judge anything I see fit to examine. Just because something claims to be from a higher source or that humans are inferior to it doesn't invalidate my right to examine and judge it. I wouldn't have that right only if I gave it up - and on the other hand, I have that right because I choose to assert it and can defend it. Your religion may say that we cannot judge our religion because we're worthless humans compared to God, but I will not believe in any such self-hating trash. Especially spouted by a god who cannot show himself.

 

And you wonder why people like me leave your religion...

[Lycorth]

truegrit,

Did you see my previous post to you? Are you ignoring it or are you still formulating a reply to it?

 

We are both in the same boat: no response. A couple days ago I asked her if she can show me her god. I was hoping a yes-or-no question would warrant a quick response.

 

=(

 

I am also still waiting. Granted, she said she isn't able to do it, and that she's not up for the task, but if she can personally believe it and advertise it on a public forum which is opposed to her religion, she must realize that she has to back it up or else she's only reinforcing our case against Xianity.

 

Hopefully, that will shame her into rethinking her committment to that insane cult, like it did to me once upon a time...

[truegrit]

truegrit,

Did you see my previous post to you? Are you ignoring it or are you still formulating a reply to it?

 

We are both in the same boat: no response. A couple days ago I asked her if she can show me her god. I was hoping a yes-or-no question would warrant a quick response.

 

=(

 

I am also still waiting. Granted, she said she isn't able to do it, and that she's not up for the task, but if she can personally believe it and advertise it on a public forum which is opposed to her religion, she must realize that she has to back it up or else she's only reinforcing our case against Xianity.

 

Hopefully, that will shame her into rethinking her committment to that insane cult, like it did to me once upon a time...

[white_raven23]

truegrit, is that your idea of a response? Or do you not know how the 'reply' feature works?

[Lycorth]

truegrit, is that your idea of a response? Or do you not know how the 'reply' feature works?

 

It's possible that she thought it a snappy response to quote what she did. You have Poonis and euphgeek both clamoring for her to try and prove God to them like they asked, and following it you have me recapping her refusal to do so because she claims she is unsuited for the task. She may have thought that I answered Poonis and euphgeek for her.

 

Of course, I went on to state that if she's going to argue for faith in God, she should be able to convince us that God exists. Perhaps she can't use the quote function effectively or perhaps she was just being a smartass, but either way, it still stands:

 

If one is arguing for Xianity, one must be able to convince non-believers of the Xian god's existence.

[truegrit]

I am also still waiting. Granted, she said she isn't able to do it, and that she's not up for the task, but if she can personally believe it and advertise it on a public forum which is opposed to her religion, she must realize that she has to back it up or else she's only reinforcing our case against Xianity.

 

Hopefully, that will shame her into rethinking her committment to that insane cult, like it did to me once upon a time...

Shame tactics,shame tactics? Var,babe I expected something different from you somehow. I thought shame tactics and continued hammering demands were the control lots of you eschew....

 

I'm sorry but I don't see how it is my responsibility to do any of the things you say here. It is a public forum, after all. I saw some posts that complained that you don't have any takers from the Christian side of things... and what fun is it for you all to just sit around in the Lions Den with no Christians? Just doesn't seem right somehow. All dressed up and no one to poke;)

 

I still love God, I love the Son, I love the body of Christ- even though it is frustrating to deal with ( as am I myself). What can I say? I didn't get my truth from someone else... I had my own gen-u-ine experience. That doesn't get easily taken from my consciousness. I am not sure what you think I expect from you either.

 

What I don't expect:

that I will change your thinking

that I will prove God to you

that I will produce some God-puppy on a leash to do tricks for you- my own kids wouldn't even perform at my bidding...so -God? nah, won't happen.

 

I haven't even prayed for anyone here yet. I am just talking with you. I believe I offer some reasonable arguments in response to yours. You get to think about my take, if you choose to. I am not even offended with you guys...but I have to say that one post by what's her name was uncalled for. Not as bad as I have taken in some atheist forums. Really, you guys are pretty well behaved on the whole. Even when intimidation,"she has to back it up or else she's only reinforcing our case against Xianity" or shudder , don't get the preferred response. You have given me a little more ammunition in making the case for atheism as religion. It is rather like a crusade for some...and that makes it very much more of a proof that there is a God you all are dealing with.

 

You say you don't hate me, and you are not angry with me.... I believe you. But then you say: I hate your religion. That is not neutral, you have to hate something.... if it were just religion it has to be part of something...if not me, who holds this religion than maybe it must be the God of the religion. That given all the energy on this site, relates to something of a real objectivity, doesn't it? Would everyone waste so much time and effort on...nothing? You [collectively and generally] talk about Pink Elephants and Purple Dragons sometimes, but no one takes them seriously, there is no mounted attack against the Purple Dragon cult followers. Maybe because there is no reality to that and you don't waste time with it.

 

What you have given me is more confidence that when Jesus said He would ppl were hot or cold He meant it. It is the neutral that doesn't take God seriously. Those who are cold with hatred at least take Him very seriously. He is real in their way of thinking, or they wouldn't spend so much time on opposing Him.

 

And there are other things I am thinking about too... maybe I'll blog on it. You can't really make a definitive statement of your thoughts on forums- but they are great for instigating ideas. You bounce off so many ppl.

 

We can talk about something else, but I am convinced it is useless to try to prove God, I'm just not going to do that. If you wish I can explain how I came to that place. Let me know.

[white_raven23]

What you have given me is more confidence that when Jesus said He would ppl were hot or cold He meant it. It is the neutral that doesn't take God seriously. Those who are cold with hatred at least take Him very seriously. He is real in their way of thinking, or they wouldn't spend so much time on opposing Him.

 

Hey truegrit, outside of the world of fictional movies and literature....who in reality is out to hate or oppose the supreme being of your choice?

 

When I was a christian, I accepted the word of my church elders, that there were in fact people out to oppose god and persecute christians.

 

When I left christianity, and crossed the supposed "battleground", I found no foxholes, no tents, no tanks, no opposite number at all.

 

Talk about feeling lied to! Told there was an ongoing "war" only to find there wasn't even an enemy.

 

And I realized the only persecution I ever felt as a christian was when I listened to stories (that I'd not verified as being true) told by fellow christians! It was persecution by proxy that I experienced!

 

So I have to ask what "enemy" you perceive is out there opposing your god?

[Legion]

So I have to ask what "enemy" you perceive is out there opposing your god?

But White Raven we know that if you're not with them then you're against them. Right? Isn't the world that simple?

 

I think you may have gotten on True Grit's bad side. It may have been the ThunderCunt comment.

[Mythra]

there is no mounted attack against the Purple Dragon cult followers. Maybe because there is no reality to that and you don't waste time with it.

 

So, you assume that because we oppose christianity that it somehow validates the truthfulness of it?

 

This isn't ex-purpledragon.net.

 

We are animated in our response to your religion because of what it did to us. Because of wasted years, wasted money, wasted lives following what turned out to be nonsense. And because of the great difficulty we found in escaping and clearing our minds of the debris.

 

We know that yahweh is no more alive and following our every move than aphrodite or hermes. But, we didn't get messed up worshipping aphrodite and hermes.

[truegrit]

Here's stuff I didn't see...ok

And some cute bits I seem to have forgotten...

 

"moral intuition."

mmmHmmm. and what makes yours superior to others who differ with you? You still have to abide by the public consensus known as "law" on what "construct my ideas of good and evil". And that trumps your constructs every time. so there is some authority above you on the matter of "good and evil".

 

What makes yours superior? Because you claim a higher source gave it to you? You are as bound to the law of the courts as anyone else, so do come down from that high horse.

 

The law does not mean my moral intuition is wrong. If there is a law outlawing Classical music, for example, I am not wrong in continuing to listen to it, since the law is obviously unjust. Forbidding people to listen to certain forms of music is unjust because listening to music is not a harmful act. So my moral intuition trumps the law, in this example.

 

Surely you can follow my meaning.

 

"make a completely bullshit excuse to cover up the fact your god does nothing about evil because your god doesn't exist."

 

That isn't a logical statement. For one thing, how do you know that God does "nothing" about evil, since mankind is on a longer continuum than you personally are. Is justice never accomplished? Is there never righting of social wrongs? Does no one ever attribute good and obliteration of evil to God? You are in no position to make the statements you do. I made as good a statement as any, simply one that you don't like or desire. I don't like it alot myself, but I am hopeful for justice in the long run. And willing to believe that if things went like I would have it more injustice could result. 'Cause I really hate certain evils. I hate when someone molests little children, for instance. I hate the way women are treated in some countries. I would likely give them their own medicine if it were me, but would I irradicate evil? Does revolution always result in something better? Usually not.

I don't trust myself in that way... I don't think I can sit in judgment over all things. But I want to see final justice. Sometime.

 

It's a perfectly logical statement. What's illogical is your position that an all-powerful, all-good, and all-loving god would hesitate to enact justice and protect his creation from evil. In fact, according to your mythology, your god created a paradise and initially intended this to be an evil-free world, so in a way I am in agreement with the Genesis depiction of your god.

 

I am in the perfect position to make my statements, because I am a thinking human. Unlike you, I have enough self-respect to see that I can most definitely judge anything I see fit to examine. Just because something claims to be from a higher source or that humans are inferior to it doesn't invalidate my right to examine and judge it. I wouldn't have that right only if I gave it up - and on the other hand, I have that right because I choose to assert it and can defend it. Your religion may say that we cannot judge our religion because we're worthless humans compared to God, but I will not believe in any such self-hating trash. Especially spouted by a god who cannot show himself.

 

And you wonder why people like me leave your religion...

 

"Because you claim a higher source gave it to you?"

Well, actually yes. And I do have to abide by law, but if you notice history, people like me stand against things once convinced they are not given authority from that higher source, it is God's Word that trumps everything else...we are stuck with peer vlue unless invested with authority which has to take its rightful place form...somewhere. Admittedly there are horrendous mistakes in this... but what is superior is that the prevailing law of right through the ages is going to come down pretty close to the Ten Commandments for justice, and the teachings of Jesus for the best of humanity's society. Just is.

 

"The law does not mean my moral intuition is wrong." I didn't say that, I said you have to bow to the law even if it is contrary to your moral intution and the reason for that is the structure of authority. There is something on a higher plane than your personal moral intuition. And mine....

 

"If there is a law outlawing Classical music" the problem with this hypothetical is that in practical means how would this be enforced even if it could claim moral justification. Hey- doesn't your supposed law sound like Bill Gothard? oh,never mind Your moral intuition trumps nothing if the law could be enforced. Would it be worth being incarcerated in order to listen to that particular music? Maybe it would be worth dying for, or being imprisoned, but I kinda doubt it.

 

"would hesitate"

He doesn't "hesitate, not in your meaning. Even our countries "hesitate" to nuke offensive and tyrannical countries. Snipers "hesitate" to shoot hostages when they want to get the criminal. You see it all around you, this type of "hesitation".

 

"so in a way I am in agreement with the Genesis depiction of your god. "

 

Would you be meaning it is just "people" you have issues with? We could all agree on that one...but oh wait...we're one of those...

 

"And you wonder why people like me leave your religion..."

yes, still wondering, because what I read here is the "official" version. I don't know what your personal issues are yet. Did you feel bamboozled by Christianity? Lied to?

 

Was it things in the Church or the teaching and things of Jesus, Himself?

You are right... I still wonder, and maybe you will not tell me personally what it is. I am just a face behind a screen out here somewhere. You don't owe me any confessions or information.

[white_raven23]

I think you may have gotten on True Grit's bad side. It may have been the ThunderCunt comment.

 

LOL!

 

You remembered! *warm fuzzies*

[truegrit]

there is no mounted attack against the Purple Dragon cult followers. Maybe because there is no reality to that and you don't waste time with it.

 

So, you assume that because we oppose christianity that it somehow validates the truthfulness of it?

 

This isn't ex-purpledragon.net.

 

We are animated in our response to your religion because of what it did to us. Because of wasted years, wasted money, wasted lives following what turned out to be nonsense. And because of the great difficulty we found in escaping and clearing our minds of the debris.

 

We know that yahweh is no more alive and following our every move than aphrodite or hermes. But, we didn't get messed up worshipping aphrodite and hermes.

 

"it somehow validates the truthfulness of it?" It kind of works that way to my thinking. I wouldn't argue some of these things personally right now- it was just how I was seeing it.

 

"your religion because of what it did to us" This is a very interesting statement. It has strong tones of victimization. And that is where I would look for the basis of the anger and hurt. But the "religion" is not an active entity. If it is as false as you say, it has no power. If no power, then someone else is to blame, but you seem to be blaming God for having this religion about Himself. Not that you are, because I can't say I fully understand victimization. I've been a doormat at times, but I tend to take control of my life and responsibility for myself -probably more than is truly healthy... but the Lord that you describe is not the one I know, even though we think we are addressing identical terms here.

 

Now if you want to say that you were abused and exploited by those in this religion, I understand that- I've seen it, and I oppose it with more than just a "tsk tsk". I am sometimes hated by my own for my confrontational ways. I have had to have more than one dressing down myself. That is why I don't see my refusal to sit in judgment and execution as weakness. And further... I have found when you stand for what is right that you can be accused of being judgmental when that is not the case. The right thing is what places the judgment by virtue of its antithesis.

 

See, if you've been hurt, then that is what I am really unhappy about...what I would like to shame out of my fellow Christians and convict myself if guilty of it( ahem, I never said I was above shame tactics...they are simply useless here...) This is if I can see the case, I guess...

 

{sorry for the typos, had to edit a bit}

[Antlerman]

I think you may have gotten on True Grit's bad side. It may have been the ThunderCunt comment.

 

LOL!

 

You remembered! *warm fuzzies*

Oh yes, that one went into my bag of sweet stinging epithets from the scintillatingly hot White_Raven!

[Lycorth]

Shame tactics,shame tactics? Var,babe I expected something different from you somehow. I thought shame tactics and continued hammering demands were the control lots of you eschew....

 

I wasn't trying to shame you, chickie babe. In other words, I was hoping aloud that the shame of not being able to defend something you claim is so truth-filled and obvious may make you reconsider your religious position. It did for me, once, and was a small contributor to my decision to leave Xianity; if I can't defend it, and don't want to, why be a part of it?

 

Also, it's your responsibility to prove God because if you defend the Xian faith, it naturally follows that you should gives reasons as to why we should accept it. Part of that includes convincing us that Jebus is real and not just make-believe. Basic Xian apologetics, no?

 

I saw some posts that complained that you don't have any takers from the Christian side of things... and what fun is it for you all to just sit around in the Lions Den with no Christians? Just doesn't seem right somehow. All dressed up and no one to poke;)

 

Wow, what fun.

 

I still love God, I love the Son, I love the body of Christ- even though it is frustrating to deal with ( as am I myself). What can I say? I didn't get my truth from someone else... I had my own gen-u-ine experience. That doesn't get easily taken from my consciousness.

 

That's fine. Believe what you will. Just don't try to publicly defend it or encourage anyone else to believe in it and get all confused when people ask you to prove that what you believe is real.

 

If you keep your beliefs personal, that's one thing. But when you try to defend them or suggest they are real, that's when the shit hits the fan. Come to expect this.

 

I am not sure what you think I expect from you either.

 

What I don't expect:

that I will change your thinking

that I will prove God to you

that I will produce some God-puppy on a leash to do tricks for you- my own kids wouldn't even perform at my bidding...so -God? nah, won't happen.

 

Good, glad to see you will not try to do any of the above anytime in the future.

 

And I know you can't produce God - no one can.

 

I haven't even prayed for anyone here yet. I am just talking with you. I believe I offer some reasonable arguments in response to yours. You get to think about my take, if you choose to. I am not even offended with you guys...but I have to say that one post by what's her name was uncalled for. Not as bad as I have taken in some atheist forums. Really, you guys are pretty well behaved on the whole. Even when intimidation,"she has to back it up or else she's only reinforcing our case against Xianity" or shudder , don't get the preferred response. You have given me a little more ammunition in making the case for atheism as religion. It is rather like a crusade for some...and that makes it very much more of a proof that there is a God you all are dealing with.

 

Atheism isn't a religion, but in my case, it's part of my overall religious outlook.

 

Just because some people believe in something strongly enough to publicly "crusade" for it doesn't make it a religion. Women's suffrage was strongly advocated publicly, as were civil rights, and the idea of the American Revolution. None of these have any elements of a religion. Believing in something strongly isn't a characteristic of a religion, anyway.

 

Not that there is a problem with religion, per-se, as a general concept. Xianity, yes - religion as a concept, no.

 

And to say that the strong "crusades" of some Atheists prove that God exists is absurd. Atheists who strongly "crusade" against Xianity are fighting against an idea, a body of beliefs with a label and a set of associated practices - a religion.

 

Or do you also believe that the actions of the Xians who spread Xianity so forcibly during the Conversion of Europe prove the existence of Pagan gods? Did their fight to stamp out Paganism prove that all the old gods were real, or were they really fighting against religions they found unacceptable?

 

You say you don't hate me, and you are not angry with me.... I believe you. But then you say: I hate your religion. That is not neutral, you have to hate something.... if it were just religion it has to be part of something...if not me, who holds this religion than maybe it must be the God of the religion.

 

If by all that jibberish you mean to suggest that I really hate God and that God is therefore real, then I say you're nuts. I do hate the Xian idea of God and everything that goes along with Xianity, but it doesn't prove that I hate a real deity. All it proves is what I said - I hate Xianity.

 

That given all the energy on this site, relates to something of a real objectivity, doesn't it? Would everyone waste so much time and effort on...nothing? You [collectively and generally] talk about Pink Elephants and Purple Dragons sometimes, but no one takes them seriously, there is no mounted attack against the Purple Dragon cult followers. Maybe because there is no reality to that and you don't waste time with it.

 

Xianity is real, even though its god isn't real. The damages and dangers of Xianity are also real. Non-xians can either ignore this or choose to do something about it. The webmaster of this site chose to create this place because many people have had a hard time with Xianity, and it serves as a place for those harmed by this religion to gather and discuss - and overcome. It has also developed into a place where anti-Xian thoughts and opinions may be discussed and the case built against Xianity by those who participate.

 

None of that means your god is real, only that your religion is, which any dope can acknowledge. Again, the murderous passion of early Xian missionaries and armed men, who forced Xianity at sword-point on others and destroyed Pagan shrines and temples, do not prove Pagan gods exist. The Crusades, also, do not prove that Allaaaaah exists or that Is-lame is true just because some people took aggressive action against it.

 

What you have given me is more confidence that when Jesus said He would ppl were hot or cold He meant it. It is the neutral that doesn't take God seriously. Those who are cold with hatred at least take Him very seriously. He is real in their way of thinking, or they wouldn't spend so much time on opposing Him.

 

Wishful thinking. Those who hate Xianity do not prove that God exists. It's possible to hate concepts (such as racism or sexism) without having to believe in a real being to hate along with it.

 

Anything Jebus "said" can be traced back to the handwritings of humans. Therefore, there is all the reason to believe humans and humans alone thought this stuff up. No god gave it to anyone. Moreover, cultists with complicated beliefs are certainly intelligent enough to put clauses in their holy books that will explain away the unbelief of others. Stuff like "in the end times, many will fall away from the faith and be led by doctrines of demons" and so forth are just clever little verses designed to appear prophetic, inserted into the text by people who wanted to demonize those who found their religion unacceptable. It proves nothing, except that people can be tricksy when they want to be.

 

And there are other things I am thinking about too... maybe I'll blog on it. You can't really make a definitive statement of your thoughts on forums- but they are great for instigating ideas. You bounce off so many ppl.

 

You can make them if you have them.

 

We can talk about something else, but I am convinced it is useless to try to prove God, I'm just not going to do that. If you wish I can explain how I came to that place. Let me know.

 

I don't care how you came to Xianity and have no desire to ask into it. The only thing that matters to me is that you leave it someday, or that if you insist on defending it, that you are well-answered and rebutted.

[roman]

I was actually hoping for something new, from this person. But it seems to be, no matter how dumb or how smart they may appear to be, with Xians who come here It's The Same Old Shit.

 

And all of them think they're the first ones to say it to you.

 

For the benefit of this Xian who doesn't know me, let me reiterate what most others here already know: I am 64 years old and a former United Methodist Sunday School Superintendent. I am an ex-Christian and an atheist. Does this mean anything at all to you?

[truegrit]

I think you may have gotten on True Grit's bad side. It may have been the ThunderCunt comment.

 

LOL!

 

You remembered! *warm fuzzies*

Oh yes, that one went into my bag of sweet stinging epithets from the scintillatingly hot White_Raven!

 

REally, Atnlerman, if you have read much about forum dynamics it was simply the little attack dog nipping at the heels... I haven't figured out who the "Big Dog" is yet. But I kind of think you are the Kung Fu master.