Bless yall

[Myrkhoos]

You feel Jesus in your heart. What does that mean, exactly? You have a physical sensation in your chest area? There could many good medical reasons for that. My mother has heart disease so I witnessed a little about that.

      Or do you mean that religious beliefs /practices have an emotional effect? Well everything does that. My emotional state changes day/night, sun/clouds, cold/warm, with friends/with strangers, drunk/sober, etc. Emotional states change frequently. Plus some religious practices are naturally trance inducing,  like long chanting/praying, large crowds, extensive fasting.

     Also beliefs impact your emotional state. If I believe my girlfriend loves me, I feel one way, if I do not, I feel another way. This regardless of the truth value of my beliefs.

     

      

[Joshpantera]

21 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

You feel Jesus in your heart. What does that mean, exactly?

 

If I may, it means that he has a wholly subjective based assertion for the existence of jesus and has deluded himself into believing that it translates to an objective truth. On no other basis than a personal opinion that jesus exists. 

[Myrkhoos]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

If I may, it means that he has a wholly subjective based assertion for the existence of jesus and has deluded himself into believing that it translates to an objective truth. On no other basis than a personal opinion that jesus exists. 

But it is so vague also. :). Like I want him saying I see Jesus everynight from 1 AM to 3 PM, in my bedroom. He gives sermon and I ask some questions. He then makes me mana like the Jews. Then I fall to sleep and wake up thoroughly refreshed.

[Joshpantera]

It's a quite condescending gesture here in the south to say of someone, "bless your heart!" I take this thread to mean just that. 

 

'You poor ex christians, you don't have a clue, is what it translates to. You deluded souls worship science. The evidence of god is all around and you willfully deny it.'

 

Making the transition from assuming apriori, and without any objective footing, that something must have created everything in order for anything to exist, is obviously difficult for a lot of people. Especially considering a majority theistic world population. But at the same time, that's the more realistic, "Bless your heart," scenario. 

 

You don't understand what it means to make a baseless apriori assumption, well "bless your heart!"  

[Edgarcito]

35 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

It's a quite condescending gesture here in the south to say of someone, "bless your heart!" I take this thread to mean just that. 

 

'You poor ex christians, you don't have a clue, is what it translates to. You deluded souls worship science. The evidence of god is all around and you willfully deny it.'

 

Making the transition from assuming apriori, and without any objective footing, that something must have created everything in order for anything to exist, is obviously difficult for a lot of people. Especially considering a majority theistic world population. But at the same time, that's the more realistic, "Bless your heart," scenario. 

 

You don't understand what it means to make a baseless apriori assumption, well "bless your heart!"  

Well my friend, what IS the correct standpoint given the two factions...

[Myrkhoos]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

It's a quite condescending gesture here in the south to say of someone, "bless your heart!" I take this thread to mean just that. 

 

'You poor ex christians, you don't have a clue, is what it translates to. You deluded souls worship science. The evidence of god is all around and you willfully deny it.'

 

Making the transition from assuming apriori, and without any objective footing, that something must have created everything in order for anything to exist, is obviously difficult for a lot of people. Especially considering a majority theistic world population. But at the same time, that's the more realistic, "Bless your heart," scenario. 

 

You don't understand what it means to make a baseless apriori assumption, well "bless your heart!"  

From my own experience, it takes a lot of work reflection to even see that apriori assumptions are apriori assumptions and not obvious reality. 

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Well my friend, what IS the correct standpoint given the two factions...

 

Correct, can only be one conclusion. It's unknown to us. We don't have the answer. To go further and suggest that we do know over steps what can be established as true, let alone THE correct answer. 

 

So the gnostic theist that admits, "I don't know," but I believe, has given a correct answer. Because it's honest. He doesn't know, he just believes. Same with magick. Same with pagan beliefs. Same with anything similar. You don't know, and you don't claim that you do know. But you believe and understand that your belief has no factual basis in objective reality in which to formulate and absolute argument. So you refrain from going there and don't try to frame impossible debate positions. And keep your beliefs where they belong, as personal beliefs and nothing more. 

 

Where people get stuck, like the guy in question, is when they overstep what can be established and claim that something like subjective experience (talking to jesus, or krishna, or the buddha in your own mind or out loud) equates to objective truth of the existence of something.

 

He may think that everything must have been created, but, that's just it. It's just something that he thinks. It's not a universal truth. So he, you, or anyone else who may try and take up an argument or defend similar claims, will always fail in the process. And may or may not ever learn anything from the repeated failure. 

 

What I'm saying here is ultimately a helpful hint. A heads up. And an attempt at helping people who are clearly not aware of this problem, made aware of this problem. So that corrections can be made going forward and you guys can avoid unnecessarily being placed into an impossible situation like this. 

[Joshpantera]

25 minutes ago, Myrkhoos said:

From my own experience, it takes a lot of work reflection to even see that apriori assumptions are apriori assumptions and not obvious reality. 

 

Yeah, it takes some work to self evaluate like that. Work that a lot of people either never get around to doing, or willfully refuse to do. That's all fine and well. Everyone's free to their own choices and opinions. But they'll have their asses tanned in debate all through life if they don't learn to identify the problem and do something to change their approach. 

[Myrkhoos]

56 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Yeah, it takes some work to self evaluate like that. Work that a lot of people either never get around to doing, or willfully refuse to do. That's all fine and well. Everyone's free to their own choices and opinions. But they'll have their asses tanned in debate all through life if they don't learn to identify the problem and do something to change their approach. 

The moment that REALLY kind of sent me wandering was actually the realisation that, well, I could believe just about anything if the rule is obey your spiritual authority. I mean, why not worship the tooth fairy? I have not, until now, gotten an answer to the certainty problem. What I can , not worship, but express my amazement towards, is the mystery of existence. This great unknown.

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

 

He may think that everything must have been created, but, that's just it. It's just something that he thinks. It's not a universal truth. So he, you, or anyone else who may try and take up an argument or defend similar claims, will always fail in the process. And may or may not ever learn anything from the repeated failure. 

 

What I'm saying here is ultimately a helpful hint. A heads up. And an attempt at helping people who are clearly not aware of this problem, made aware of this problem. So that corrections can be made going forward and you guys can avoid unnecessarily being placed into an impossible situation like this. 

You sound sincere and I appreciate that.  My issue is that you don't place yourselves in the same impossible situation regarding objective "truth".  Particles, sub atomic particles.....,sub, sub matter?  Dark matter?  Sub sub sub?  The universe, multi-verses?  My satisfaction with the answer doesn't lie with certainty.  And I don't agree that someone should lecture me that our level of certainty is sufficient to say the discussion is over.  Especially when the story talks about "spirit".  Is spirit consciousness?  Can we possibly define anyone's consciousness or objective reality?  I seriously seriously doubt it.  

 

It's ok that people find peace on one side of the fence or another, but the options are not impossible, because, like you say, we don't know. 

[Joshpantera]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

You sound sincere and I appreciate that.  My issue is that you don't place yourselves in the same impossible situation regarding objective "truth".  Particles, sub atomic particles.....,sub, sub matter?  Dark matter?  Sub sub sub?  The universe, multi-verses? 

 

You can find people like that, but for the most part I find that non-believers will fess up to the underlying admission of uncertainty. Especially if pressed that far. Particles are taken as more objective than dark matter or multiverses. But at the end of the day, with something more objective like particles, it's the case of something existing that we still don't understand completely. Particle wave duality is one popular example. What is a particle of matter anyways? We don't yet fully understand the answer. 

 

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

My satisfaction with the answer doesn't lie with certainty.  And I don't agree that someone should lecture me that our level of certainty is sufficient to say the discussion is over.  Especially when the story talks about "spirit".  Is spirit consciousness?  Can we possibly define anyone's consciousness or objective reality?  I seriously seriously doubt it.  

 

I don't think the discussion is over based on that premise, either. Something exists, we observe what ever it is according to our own species specific abilities to interpret and observe. But we know there's nothing blue about the sky or green about the trees. That doesn't mean they don't exist, either, it just means that we have an incomplete ability to perceive what does exist in full. Some will say all of objective reality only exists in our minds, but that argument doesn't hold up well. The representations of an external reality are in our minds, but not the entire existence of the objective reality out there. We have to be perceiving energies out there in order to put up the representations in our minds. Philosopher Peter Russell handles this very well. 

 

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

It's ok that people find peace on one side of the fence or another, but the options are not impossible, because, like you say, we don't know. 

 

This is where it lands. We don't know why anything exists or how it all came to be. And that's the honest evaluation that I choose to encourage. Not worship science. I never take that position. I like science. I want to see more and more discovery. But I do not confuse the facts. I understand that we are here, but neither religion nor science has the ability to give us absolute answers to the hard questions right now. 

 

I enjoy the quest to try and discover more about it. Which means that if the bible were true, we ought to be able to see the evidence of it being true. But what we find when looking, is the opposite. Old not young. The order of creation is wrong against what we can observe from the cosmological, geological, and anthropological records. We don't believe it, because it's been systematically incorrect as we make discoveries and new insights. 

 

So the idea that we don't know how anything came to be, involves the ability to start crossing off possibilities that come from assertions. No mythological or religious creation story pans out against the existing evidence. Not Genesis and not the creations myths that preceded Genesis. These can be set aside as valid possibilities. Because they are in stark contradiction to what can be observed. Now we could also set aside any scientific assertions that don't pan out against the evidence either, but that does not reinstate the myths and religions as possible. And they do get tossed aside. The Hawking - Penrose singularity theory is a good example. It didn't work out. 

 

So Genesis and the Singularity Theory are off the table as credible answers to these hard questions as of 2020. 

 

That's where a lot of people seem to be very confused. They think that if they can poke holes in scientific theories like abiogenesis, or the Singularity Theory, for instance, that by default their personal belief system in a creation account is automatically correct, or proven. But that's not how it works at all. The creation account was off the table well before the scientific theory was taken off the table, due to a lack of evidence for the assertion. Now each claim is dismissed as not likely or not possible with respect to the evidence that does exist. 

 

So that puts us all back to the drawing board to try and figure out the hard questions, in reality. Back to looking forward, not backwards for true answers as to our origins.

 

The default that I'm seeing is that the real answers allude us out into the future. They are not behind us. We still have to find and locate them, if it's possible. The mindset has to be an open one set to seeking true answers, not settling for long outdated assertions which have already been demonstrated as such. This is the most fair minded perspective that I have come up with in life, as of yet. 

 

Not married to mythology, not married to any fixed scientific theory either. Open to new discovery and evidence as an unwed philosophical bachelor of sorts.......

[sdelsolray]

9 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

If I may, it means that he has a wholly subjective based assertion for the existence of jesus and has deluded himself into believing that it translates to an objective truth. On no other basis than a personal opinion that jesus exists. 

 

I suspect he is chasing endorphins.

[AliT]

I get the thinking about Creation, because matter had to come from somewhere. So, let's assume God created matter; Then we have to ask, who created God? 

 

Suddenly I find myself looking back at an infinite amount of time trying to figure out how it all started. It blows my mind and I just can't comprehend it. 

 

So I just focus on the present and observable facts, such as I can see Uranus from my back window right now. (Cue  'put some pants on' comments :-) )

[WalterP]

If I may just comment on the recent dialogue between Edgarcito and JoshPantera...

 

 

For me, the acid test isn't what we profess to believe, but how we actually live.

 

So, theists like HaveFaith can believe all they want that their faith trumps reality.

 

But, HF and every other theist who's visited here uses science and not faith to do so.

 

Science underpins everything they do, where and how they live, what they do, etc., etc.

 

So, the bottom line is this.

 

Theists claim to live by faith, but in reality they live by science.

 

Everything else they claim or assert is just wilful denial, self-delusion, wishing thinking or as sdelsolray put it...

 

...chasing endorphins.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[Astreja]

7 hours ago, AliT said:

I get the thinking about Creation, because matter had to come from somewhere. So, let's assume God created matter...

 

No, one can't assume that, and this is why:

 

Any action, including creating, requires an expenditure of energy.

 

The equivalence of energy and matter means that potential matter coexists with energy.

 

Therefore, the most a "creator god" could do is to rearrange the matter/energy that was already there, rather than creating matter from nothing -- because there wasn't actually a true "nothing" to begin with.

[Astreja]

On 10/1/2020 at 12:36 AM, HaveFaith said:

 

Are the atheists moving the goalposts again? That's what happens when you rely on science. "We have some new evidence....move the goalposts again."

 

Science has to "move goalposts" -- to get increasingly accurate picture of reality as new information is discovered.

 

Far, far better than trying to view the modern world through a limited, fuzzy lens that hasn't been adjusted in 2000 years.

[Joshpantera]

5 hours ago, Astreja said:

 

No, one can't assume that, and this is why:

 

Any action, including creating, requires an expenditure of energy.

 

The equivalence of energy and matter means that potential matter coexists with energy.

 

Therefore, the most a "creator god" could do is to rearrange the matter/energy that was already there, rather than creating matter from nothing -- because there wasn't actually a true "nothing" to begin with.

 

They believe in creation ex nihilo? Well, bless their hearts.....

[Robert_Tulip]

17 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

it takes some work to self evaluate like that. Work that a lot of people either never get around to doing, or willfully refuse to do. That's all fine and well. Everyone's free to their own choices and opinions. But they'll have their asses tanned in debate all through life if they don't learn to identify the problem and do something to change their approach. 

The modern worldview in philosophy regards evidence and logic as the highest values.  That means all presuppositions should be subjected to rigorous skepticism.  Such a modern attitude is anathema to the conventional religious faith mentality which sees tradition and authority as the highest values.  Science is slowly but steadily replacing religion as the basis of the accepted consensus moral framework for society.  That is a change that is far from complete, perhaps because some religious ideas have an enduring validity that has not yet been accepted within the liberal political vision widely accepted by proponents of modern science. 

[HaveFaith]

On 10/2/2020 at 10:28 AM, WalterP said:

 

Are you Troy Brooks, by any chance?

 

 

 

 

 

No.

[HaveFaith]

On 10/2/2020 at 4:58 PM, AliT said:

And there are billions of people who don't believe who are living productive lives.

 

And there are Christian scumbags lying, cheating, stealing and raping in the church. (I know this through having had to work with the self-righteous lowlifes).

 

My point being that believing in Jesus does not make you mentally ill. Nor does believing in Jesus mean you will turn into a scumbag. 

 

There are scumbags of all faiths and non-faiths. 

 

 

[HaveFaith]

On 10/3/2020 at 7:09 AM, Myrkhoos said:

You feel Jesus in your heart. What does that mean, exactly? You have a physical sensation in your chest area? There could many good medical reasons for that.

      

 

Wow, if you dont know what that means, I can't help ya. 

 

Are you sure yall were ever Christians? It sounds you never were otherwise you would be to answer this question.

[HaveFaith]

17 hours ago, WalterP said:

If I may just comment on the recent dialogue between Edgarcito and JoshPantera...

 

 

For me, the acid test isn't what we profess to believe, but how we actually live.

 

So, theists like HaveFaith can believe all they want that their faith trumps reality.

 

But, HF and every other theist who's visited here uses science and not faith to do so.

 

Science underpins everything they do, where and how they live, what they do, etc., etc.

 

So, the bottom line is this.

 

Theists claim to live by faith, but in reality they live by science.

 

Everything else they claim or assert is just wilful denial, self-delusion, wishing thinking or as sdelsolray put it...

 

...chasing endorphins.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

If science is your hero then you might say that science underpins everything. But the world is not science. Science is some idea you apply to the world. It's some framework that gives you comfort. If scientists take an interest in some phenomena they give it a name and try to own it by calling it science. 

 

I believe in Jesus so I believe that He underpins everything. No I dont have evidence. Evidence aint really my gig. 

 

Chasing endorphins? Aren't we all. Does science and logic make you feel good, Walter? Does evidence and science and all that atheist stuff give you a sense of security and warm fuzzy? 

 

Yall are chasing endorphins as much as us Christians are. Everybody likes to feel good. People aren't logical because logic is the logical thing to be. But if that's what you think you're lying to yourself. Living your own delusion. I guarantee if science and logic and all that nonsense started to 'feel' bad, and I mean REAL bad,  you would toss it out just like you did my Jesus. Emotion always trumps logic.

 

Anyway, I'll pray for yall.

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, HaveFaith said:

 

Wow, if you dont know what that means, I can't help ya. 

 

Are you sure yall were ever Christians? It sounds you never were otherwise you would be to answer this question.

...And there you have it folks.  Y'all were just never real christians.  

 

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 minutes ago, HaveFaith said:

Anyway, I'll pray for yall.

And we'll think for you.

[◊ DestinyTurtle ◊]

28 minutes ago, HaveFaith said:

Yall are chasing endorphins as much as us Christians are. Everybody likes to feel good. People aren't logical because logic is the logical thing to be. But if that's what you think you're lying to yourself. Living your own delusion. I guarantee if science and logic and all that nonsense started to 'feel' bad, and I mean REAL bad,  you would toss it out just like you did my Jesus. Emotion always trumps logic.

Translation: "Hey buddy, take a hit from this pipe! Everybody likes to feel good! All the cool kids are doing it! What's wrong with you? Do you think you're better than us? All the cool kids are doing it. You don't want to be a buzzkill do you?"

 

Note I'm not making a statement for or against recreational drug use, or medication in any way. I just thought the transparent "pusher" energy was kind of hilarious and wanted to point it out

 

What y'all need is to fill the turtle-shaped hole in your heart, I tell yah.