Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Do you believe in God? Do you believe in God?

01-11-2023 , 07:13 PM
+1
Do you believe in God? Quote
01-11-2023 , 07:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FellaGaga-52
Agree. And so what needs to be done is move "religion" to "spiritual," thus moving the search from mythical to mystery but of this world. What things affect the human spirit and how ... in this world, in this life. Instead of the Pearly Gates magic story. Supernatural religion from magic believing times only diverts from this more real ideal.
You seem to be convinced that a top-down solution is how we reach the ideal. You seem to presuppose this with so much certainty that you assume everyone else agrees with that idea and we are all competing to enforce our preferred top-down system. I don’t agree and that’s not what I’m doing.

The idea that if we enforced your preferred top-down system on everyone in the world and we all shared the same propositional beliefs, then we will instantly attain the ideal - it’s a misunderstanding of what a human being is, what this world is, and what reality is.

Christianity, for instance, is not simply a top-down system for disseminating a set of propositional beliefs. If we only view it through that perspective and get rid of it, we risk throwing out the baby, not just bath water.
Do you believe in God? Quote
01-12-2023 , 12:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig1120
You seem to be convinced that a top-down solution is how we reach the ideal. You seem to presuppose this with so much certainty that you assume everyone else agrees with that idea and we are all competing to enforce our preferred top-down system. I don’t agree and that’s not what I’m doing.

The idea that if we enforced your preferred top-down system on everyone in the world and we all shared the same propositional beliefs, then we will instantly attain the ideal - it’s a misunderstanding of what a human being is, what this world is, and what reality is.

Christianity, for instance, is not simply a top-down system for disseminating a set of propositional beliefs. If we only view it through that perspective and get rid of it, we risk throwing out the baby, not just bath water.
It's not top-down as much as it's "this world versus made up world." I'm not certain, I exist in the mystery. I moved it from dogmatic religious certainty to The Great Mystery. It is the religious who claim certainty and that they have the answer. Instead of beginning with presupposing some other world, just keep it in this one. You don't get to make up another world and then say you can't throw out the other world, any more than I can make up a pink polka dot unicorn and then tell a zoologist you can't throw out my pink polka dot unicorn. It puts the whole thing outside of established reality.
Do you believe in God? Quote
01-12-2023 , 12:57 AM
+1
Do you believe in God? Quote
01-12-2023 , 01:45 AM
What does it mean when it is pointed up and established, even accepted, that the doctrine one is espousing is based on magic, the response, instead of "Whoops, maybe I should at least consider re-considering," is to incorporate magic expressly into the belief system? And then for good measure throw in insults about the irrationality about the person pointing out the magic.

It's rhetorical. There is a saying about a mind that can't or won't change is no longer mind. It's a good saying.
Do you believe in God? Quote
01-12-2023 , 04:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FellaGaga-52
It's not top-down as much as it's "this world versus made up world." I'm not certain, I exist in the mystery. I moved it from dogmatic religious certainty to The Great Mystery. It is the religious who claim certainty and that they have the answer. Instead of beginning with presupposing some other world, just keep it in this one. You don't get to make up another world and then say you can't throw out the other world, any more than I can make up a pink polka dot unicorn and then tell a zoologist you can't throw out my pink polka dot unicorn. It puts the whole thing outside of established reality.
Can you not see that an imagined better version of this world is a 2nd world? Anyone who desires this world to be better believes in multiple versions of this world, or multiple worlds.

Before converging the idealized version of this world with the present world, it’s necessary to first bi-identify with both the present world and the better world. This requires separating the two worlds.

You speak of improving this current world, but from the other side of your mouth you insist that the current version of this world is the only reality. The latter negates the former since you are resisting the necessity to divide your identity by dividing reality between the two worlds.
Do you believe in God? Quote
01-12-2023 , 04:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig1120
Can you not see that an imagined better version of this world is a 2nd world? Anyone who desires this world to be better believes in multiple versions of this world, or multiple worlds.

Before converging the idealized version of this world with the present world, itís necessary to first bi-identify with both the present world and the better world. This requires separating the two worlds.

You speak of improving this current world, but from the other side of your mouth you insist that the current version of this world is the only reality. The latter negates the former since you are resisting the necessity to divide your identity by dividing reality between the two worlds.
Adam identifies with the current world. The Son of Man identifies with the ideal world. Adam and the SoM are one who then become two.

Jesus calls himself the SoM but he has also been called the second Adam.
Do you believe in God? Quote
01-12-2023 , 05:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig1120
Can you not see that an imagined better version of this world is a 2nd world? Anyone who desires this world to be better believes in multiple versions of this world, or multiple worlds.

Before converging the idealized version of this world with the present world, itís necessary to first bi-identify with both the present world and the better world. This requires separating the two worlds.

You speak of improving this current world, but from the other side of your mouth you insist that the current version of this world is the only reality. The latter negates the former since you are resisting the necessity to divide your identity by dividing reality between the two worlds.
first off , a better world idea has many different ideas of what it should be because everyone can have imaginary different ideas (ie: many different religions )

why focus solely on reality ?
because reality is the true link that attach us all together regardless what we think the ideal world should be (ie: advanced in medical science that benefit us all, regardless our beliefs/faith).
Do you believe in God? Quote
01-12-2023 , 05:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrealcorp
first off , a better world idea has many different ideas of what it should be because everyone can have imaginary different ideas (ie: many different religions )
Reality checks gradually mold and prune the multiple into the one within each individual.
Do you believe in God? Quote
01-14-2023 , 11:47 AM
Do you believe in God? Quote
01-20-2023 , 11:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lunkwill
I did not know the the word "Fideist". So I looked it up.
Definintion: "Fideism is an epistemological theory which maintains that faith is independent of reason, or that reason and faith are hostile to each other and faith is superior at arriving at particular truths."

The definition makes clear why we can never agree.
In science, we try extremely hard to remove subjectivity and bias from experiments. It sounds like you value your biases above objective evidence!

So.... I don't see any hope of resolving diametrically opposing viewpoints.
The following is an excerpt from a debate that took place on the now-defunct website debate.org. I don’t know the “real” identities of either debater. I made of “hard copy” of this debate (which commenced 1/9/2017) about two years ago.

I made some minor edits since I had to retype the original to make this post.

Quote:
Resolved: The only Scriptural (Biblical) apologetic is Fideism.

Pro: I_believe_in_God

Con: zevallos927

Affirmative Opening Statement:

Before delving into why I believe Fideism is the only proper and suitable Scriptural apologetic, it will serve us well to offer up a definition. What is Fideism generally taken to be? Fideism, as defined by The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, is, “best understood as the claim that one’s fundamental religious convictions are not subject to independent rational assessment (W.Has. 294).” While this definition is useful, it is too strong for my taste. The working definition of Fideism that will be used by the Affirmative is as follows:

Fideism: the epistemological thesis that certain truths (for the purpose of this debate,
Fideism deals in religious) are only knowable by faith.

A working comprehensive definition of faith will be provided in the following sections. I wish my opponent the best and wish to give all glory and honor to God our Heavenly Father and His Son, Jesus Christ.

What does faith mean?: An Initial Definition

Since this debate is foremost about which epistemology is most Biblical, it will be assumed that the primary mode of argumentation will be taken from an interpretation of the Bible. To begin, it will serve us well to quote from the eleventh chapter of Hebrews; the definitional chapter on faith in the New Testament. The first verse says:

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
-Hebrews 11:1

Faith, according to Hebrews 11:1, is the “substance” of something. The word substance in the Greek is ὑπόστασις, or hypostasis. This word means, in this instance, a steadfastness of mind or confidence (Thayer’s Greek Lexicon). Another way of phrasing Hebrews 11:1 would be to say that, “Now faith is the firm confidence/belief in things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” With this new translation now in mind, we may understand the second clause in vs 1 a little better. Faith, then, is the internal apprehension of truths not attested to by reason, intuition, or sensible experience.

What is apologetics?

Apologetics is the defense of something. It is commanded of Christians to be apologists in some capacity in 1 Peter 3:15. It says:

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every
man that asketth you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.
-.Peter 3:15

This command has spawned centuries of apologetic work that is as varied as the people who came up with those different methods. All apologetic methods have one thing in common, they aim to “give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.”

What is faith?: A means to acquire knowledge.

We return to faith after our initial definition. Earlier, it was sad that faith was, according to Hebrews 11:1, the evidence and confidence of and in things “not seen.” Our working definition coincides with this by adding the clarification that things “not seen” includes truths graspable by reason, intuition, and sense experience. This makes faith into a unique cognitive capacity that may be possessed by human beings. Now we shall examine some of the Scriptures relating to the acquiring of knowledge, specifically religious truths.

1 Corinthians 2:4-14

4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect; yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to naught:

7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:

8 Which none of the princes of this world knew; for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us in God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

This passage of Scripture is the crux of my argument. Paul begins the second chapter of the first epistle to the Corinthians with an interesting statement; Paul did not speak with the wisdom of the world, but the with Spirit and with Power. The idea of speaking with the Spirit of God is something that Paul will use to develop an argument. The Spirit is the one who reveals and testifies of spiritual knowledge. Paul calls this spiritual kind of knowledge “faith” and contrasts it with the wisdom of the world: elsewhere equated with vain deceit and philosophy. He then goes on to develop the argument and says that he speaks the wisdom of God in a mystery. That mystery is that which is discerned not carnally but spiritually by the testimony of the Spirit. The princes of this world, Paul says, would not have crucified Christ had they known what the Spirit reveals. Vs 9 is the metaphorical “nail in the coffin” for any epistemology of religious truth that goes beyond what is accepted by man after the testimony of the Spirit. Paul says that no experience or thought could begin to put together God’s magnificent plan for his children; however, in vs 10 Paul does reveal how we can know this plan: through the Spirit of God in faith (vs 4-5). Vs 12-14 are the final line of development for the argument. There are two types of men: natural and spiritual. The natural , having the spirit of man (vs 11) knows not the things given by the Spirit for they are only spiritually discerned; however, the spiritual man may know the things of the Spirit because he has received the Spirit through faith (vs. 12).

I wish to close with one final piece of Scriptural evidence: 2 Corinthians 5:7. Paul plainly states that:

7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight - 2 Cor 5:7

I pray that we follow God’s truth that He has revealed. We go through our Christian walk walking in faith, which is a God-given cognitive capacity that we exercise in response to the revelation and testimony of the Spirit of God.
Do you believe in God? Quote
01-22-2023 , 12:09 AM
This is the brain on religion:

If all the children, infants and fetuses on earth are killed because of what previous adult did, because they have "inherited" those transgressions ... we call this righteous, holy, and loving.

If a bigoted culture claimed once upon a time in a superstitious and magic believing time that bigotry is good, then we are justified in AND THAT IS OUR REASON for espousing bigotry today. Again, it's holy and good.

"We are justified in killing infidels" ... flying planes into buildings and suicide bombing is good, holy, and righteous.

There is a spaceship tailing a comet to take us to paradise ...and this is the true way and path.

"I believe in utterly transparent fraud prophet stories as a function of faith."

"I believe the pharaoh or the emperor is god."

"I exempt religious and metaphysics beliefs from the nature of reality ... mostly because that is the only way to believe the outrageous that I have been indoctrinated in."

Etc. etc. Times a million (not times a million minus one).

Of course there is the option to reassess and acknowledge the problems, and employ religion in a different way.
Do you believe in God? Quote
01-23-2023 , 09:06 PM
"I exist on the foundation of something I do not know." -- Carl Jung.

A beautiful sentiment by Jung. One familiar with him can hear the unspoken: "And you don't get to make up what that foundation is, and if you choose to swallow the foundation imagined thousands of years ago by magic believers, you aren't even attempting to be in the discussion of the reality we pursue, but have defaulted on that sacred task. It's okay as a throwback sentimental poem, religion is, but we are looking for more than just that."

End of thread.
Do you believe in God? Quote
01-24-2023 , 02:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FellaGaga-52
"I exist on the foundation of something I do not know." -- Carl Jung.

A beautiful sentiment by Jung. One familiar with him can hear the unspoken: "And you don't get to make up what that foundation is, and if you choose to swallow the foundation imagined thousands of years ago by magic believers, you aren't even attempting to be in the discussion of the reality we pursue, but have defaulted on that sacred task. It's okay as a throwback sentimental poem, religion is, but we are looking for more than just that."

End of thread.
ď you aren't even attempting to be in the discussion of the reality we pursueĒ

Is that what itís about for you? The discussion? Or is it about actually attaining the pursued reality?

If the only thing that you allow yourself to identify about the pursued reality is that itís a mystery, then you will never attain it. The wise person imagines something about the pursued reality ó beyond its mystery ó so that he actually gives himself a chance to attain it.

You are right that the people who allow for no mystery are not in the game of truth seeking, but neither are the people who believe itís all mystery. Again, itís about holding the contradiction.
Do you believe in God? Quote
01-24-2023 , 10:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig1120
“ you aren't even attempting to be in the discussion of the reality we pursue”

Is that what it’s about for you? The discussion? Or is it about actually attaining the pursued reality?

If the only thing that you allow yourself to identify about the pursued reality is that it’s a mystery, then you will never attain it. The wise person imagines something about the pursued reality — beyond its mystery — so that he actually gives himself a chance to attain it.

You are right that the people who allow for no mystery are not in the game of truth seeking, but neither are the people who believe it’s all mystery. Again, it’s about holding the contradiction.
"Quantum fields in place of god" (they are omnipresent, house all knowledge, create all by amplifying it into existence), my idea, is a far cry from surrendering to unknowable mystery. And some magic supernatural god poofed everything into existence and then started murdering his loved ones, because they believed such thousands of years ago, is the abandonment of the pursuit.

You know this trumps your position so why don't you admit it? It's more honest. Some things are far more moral than apologizing for the bizarre.
Do you believe in God? Quote
01-24-2023 , 11:23 PM
Try serving life rather than the intellect.
Do you believe in God? Quote
Yesterday , 06:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig1120
Try serving life rather than the intellect.
Serving life and serving a murderous myth are two different things ... he conveniently neglects to mention.
Do you believe in God? Quote
Today , 12:15 AM
Certainly did not believe in god growing up. At 11 it became clear that lolreligion was ridiculous, on many counts. I had associated religion with the existence of god, and did not believe in any of it.

Life events happened questioning my entire frame-work of reality. I kept trying to calc odds of chance/coincidence or give excuses about cognitive biases perceptional errors etc... Yet, life events kept happening, more intense and with more serendipity. Eventually I had no explanations other than a higher power at work.

It was easy to go from a confused young child to not believing. It was much more difficult to go from not believing to believing. I think it would be an order of magnitude more difficult to go back to not believing.
Do you believe in God? Quote
Today , 04:05 AM
Man are know to be extremely bad at evaluating odds .
Do you believe in God? Quote
Today , 11:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrealcorp
Man are know to be extremely bad at evaluating odds .
Yeah I'm aware, I mean as a seasoned pro-poker player and amateur psychologist that was quite clear me, of course. I've always been the type of under-estimate my abilities, not over-estimate.

In retrospect, I was so stuck in mainstream western scientific dogma.. Upon scrutiny. I didn't even hold rational beliefs, and reason was my supposed god. Underlying it all, I had a set of assumptions built up from the programming via culture/society. There were bugs and it crumbled with enough questioning.

Modern science(esp quantum physics and related fields) can actually support the existence of god in many cases. I simply was mostly exposed to secondary sources that suited the cultural narrative. I didn't really investigate some primary sources of modern science and sort of brushed them off as interesting.. I believed that critical mass in science was my god, and strange new ideas that were not completely supported by everyone didn't hold water. So, my lol-belief system was resting on the decisions of funding members of a global industrial complex. I didn't even realize how corrupt science is..

For me, It had to be a series of undeniable, obscure events that finally slapped me in the face. Slapped me hard enough to be undeniable. Intense enough that I couldn't rationalize the experience away to a series of biases'.

Anyways, given the length of this thread I'm sure that my comments are echoing the experiences of dozens. I'm mostly sharing for the sake of expression, I don't expect to be changing anyone's mind with my sharing here.
Do you believe in God? Quote
Today , 09:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmckendry
Yeah I'm aware, I mean as a seasoned pro-poker player and amateur psychologist that was quite clear me, of course. I've always been the type of under-estimate my abilities, not over-estimate.

In retrospect, I was so stuck in mainstream western scientific dogma.. Upon scrutiny. I didn't even hold rational beliefs, and reason was my supposed god. Underlying it all, I had a set of assumptions built up from the programming via culture/society. There were bugs and it crumbled with enough questioning.

Modern science(esp quantum physics and related fields) can actually support the existence of god in many cases. I simply was mostly exposed to secondary sources that suited the cultural narrative. I didn't really investigate some primary sources of modern science and sort of brushed them off as interesting.. I believed that critical mass in science was my god, and strange new ideas that were not completely supported by everyone didn't hold water. So, my lol-belief system was resting on the decisions of funding members of a global industrial complex. I didn't even realize how corrupt science is..

For me, It had to be a series of undeniable, obscure events that finally slapped me in the face. Slapped me hard enough to be undeniable. Intense enough that I couldn't rationalize the experience away to a series of biases'.

Anyways, given the length of this thread I'm sure that my comments are echoing the experiences of dozens. I'm mostly sharing for the sake of expression, I don't expect to be changing anyone's mind with my sharing here.
It's hard to answer your post as it is devoid of specifics and only speaks in vague generalities and references subjective experiences.
Do you believe in God? Quote

      
m