Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Conversations with God
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 106 of 530 (884573)
02-25-2021 6:32 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Stile
02-24-2021 12:26 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
Stile writes:
Scenario #1: Think of a man in a cell who has lived his entire life in this cell.
There are no windows, but there is a door, and there's no lock.
Food is delivered, and all the man's needs are met.
Scientifically, how does the man leave the cell?
-there could be wonderful things to learn outside the cell
-there could be terrible danger awaiting outside the cell
-but, there is no need to leave the cell.
Without any data, the man can never, scientifically, learn or guess of "a need" for him to leave the cell.
Therefore, scientifically, the man awaits "more data."
Maybe this never comes.
But, using a belief-based method - the man could leave the cell at any time, for almost any imagined reason, even - believing it's "for the better."
Maybe he'll die.
Maybe not.
But - it is a much faster decision then waiting around for "more data."
I see ringo as a man who once attended church (perhaps in what he saw as a cell of ignorance) and being dissatisfied with the whole idea of trusting God and other fellow believers, went outside the cell in search of more rational truth/data. I joke to him that now, rather than marrying the One Who comes for his Bride, ringo will stand at the altar forever if necessary awaiting evidence that the communion is even necessary.
Perhaps some of you see me as a tragic figure trapped in the cell of organized religion.
I see myself not as in a cell but as in the house of God. Life outside of that is quite scary, and I don't trust humans alone as capable of providing the final answer. To our credit, we do comfort each other and add to our collective knowledge base. And the fact that so few of you see the idea of One God as rational and anything other than human-centric shows me that I see you as trapped in a cell where evidence and rationality rule.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.- Dr.John Lennox
The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.
- Criss Jami, Killo
The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him. Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Stile, posted 02-24-2021 12:26 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Stile, posted 02-25-2021 9:17 AM Phat has replied
 Message 113 by ringo, posted 02-26-2021 11:30 AM Phat has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 107 of 530 (884576)
02-25-2021 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by hooah212002
02-24-2021 4:20 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
hooah212002 writes:
It seems as though neither of us can actually do that because obviously, his curiosity is a need that cannot be met else we wouldn't be discussing the prospect of his departure from this cell.
Curiosity is not a need.
It's a feeling.
It can be fulfilled in many ways.
One is, yes, opening the door.
Another would be using your imagination to fill your time wisely otherwise.
I am curious as to what life-sustaining planets beyond the Milky Way look like.
This need will never be filled - and it's certainly not scientific.
"I wonder what happens if I do this" is not a phrase I am inclined to associate more with a religious person or some other person that values belief to such a degree.
That's curiosity, and it's a feeling.
It's not scientific.
A scientific phrase would be more like "If I flip the switch, the light turns on... what happens if I flip the switch back?"
To be scientific, you need data and to move your thoughts ahead.
There is no scientific way to say "What happens if I flip this switch?" It is simply a feeling of curiosity.
Curiosity can lead to scientific discovery - absolutely (which is one reason why I think feelings and decisions-based-on-feelings are so important.)
But that doesn't make "curiosity" scientific.
If you think "curiosity" is scientific "just because" - then you just turned "I want to cure cancer with research in this lab - I'm curious as to how rubbing dog-shit on my face will help?" into a very scientific plan.
Curiosity can be scientific, if it's based on data.
But curiosity in and of itself (when it's not based on data) is not scientific.
Does this person just suddenly get some mysterious urge yet is prohibited from investigating his surroundings?
The urge is not mysterious.
It's a feeling - of curiosity, or a desire for something more, or to possibly expand his knowledge.
Feelings are very well understood (even scientifically understood) aspects of being human.
But - the fact is that opening the door could easily lead to these things... or it could lead to instant death.
He doesn't know - because there's no data - therefore, there's no scientific reason to attempt to open the door.
Only irrational reasons, based on feelings.
Does he never jiggle the door handle?
Maybe, maybe not.
The point is - there's no scientific reason for him to do so.
Is there only complete silence? How does he get his food? Is he a vegan so he just has some grow lights and seeds?
It's a thought experiment to show the difference between scientific decisions and decisions-based-on-feelings, and how decisions-based-on-feelings can also be "important."
For the purposes of the thought experiment - "all his needs are met."
It doesn't really matter how.
In the absence of EVERYTHING else, all these little things add up to some sort of evidence
They do not.
Not at all.
You just want them to.
If they did - you'd be able to point it out.
So the idea of some human person being completely isolated and locked in a cell while also having ALL their needs met is a completely foreign concept because to make it work
I understand that the idea may be difficult to understand if you, personally, would have an extremely hard time being in an isolated cell.
All I can say is that people are different - and many people would like (even prefer) to be in a situation like this.
This is, actually, partially proving my point. Decisions based on feelings are different than decisions based on evidence - because evidence is "the same for everyone" while feelings are "different for everyone" (or, at least, exist on a spectrum-scale.)
hooah212002 writes:
Stile writes:
My point is that belief-based-decisions can be for important things.
I am not coming to that conclusion from this example.
1. The man has no scientific reason to leave the room.
2. The man may have a feelings-based ("belief-based") reason to leave the room.
3. If the man does have a feelings-based reasons to leave the room, and he decides to do so - then this decision was very important (according to my personal value-scale of freedom being "important.")
But, if you don't like this example - we can use another.
Like me choosing to pursue my wife based on feelings:
1. There are scientific reasons for me to pursue a mate.
-but I did not follow these reasons to make my decision.
-like: someone who is financially sound, someone who I find attractive, someone with similar interests, someone who is about-my-height
2. I followed feeling-based-reasons for me to pursue my wife.
-how I felt while being around her
-how I felt while not being around her
3. The person I'm going to spend most-of-my-time-with for the rest of my life is, to me, a very important decision.
Further, I don't agree that it is evidence that just because you can make important decisions based on belief (or faith), you should.
I am not implying that one ever "should" in some sort of "all-around" sense of keeping balance or something.
I'm implying that we should judge each situation on it's own merit and make our own decisions on which kind of method we should use for which situation.
Some situations will be better used for scientific-methods (like identifying "reality.")
Some situations will be better used for feelings-based-methods (this, inherently, only applies if your feelings on the matter are very strong.)
For example: Many people actually want a completely scientifically-approached method for finding a wife.
-there's nothing wrong with this
-it can be extremely successful
-it just wasn't the path for me, personally
If this person is a loner and all his needs are met, of what importance is leaving this cell? is it important to him? Or is it important to us because, as outside agents
It may not be important to him at all.
That's precisely the point.
If it isn't important to him, but he decides to leave the cell anyway - then it was not for scientific reasons.
If it is important to him, and he decides to leave the cell - then it's still "not for scientific reasons."
-either way, if he decides to leave, I (personally) find such a decision of freedom to be very important.
...we know what he is missing out on?
-we don't know either
-perhaps he immediately dies.
-if he decides to leave, and immediately dies... I still (personally) find the decision to be a very important one to make (although, in this case, possibly wrong,) and it was still "not for scientific reasons."
I apologize for getting hung up on this hypothetical if it derails the thread.
Ah - yes.
I agree.
I find this fun to discuss, though - which gets me carried away quite easily

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by hooah212002, posted 02-24-2021 4:20 PM hooah212002 has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 108 of 530 (884577)
02-25-2021 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by AZPaul3
02-24-2021 9:55 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
Your entire post is not something I disagree with.
The change is summarized here:
AZPaul3 writes:
Uhh, no. For personal decisions the facts differ for each person in each situation. For larger more important decisions, especially those exposing great harm, the facts must be ascertained and separated from the feelings. Just the facts, Ma'am.
I completely agree that all decisions are based on "facts."
If the decision is scientifically based - there are (obviously) scientific facts involved.
If the decision is feelings-based - then it is a fact that the feelings exist and are being felt.
Therefore - all decisions are "based on facts."
And there is no "other side to this coin" and nothing to debate or discuss.
Therefore - your entire post is something I agree with.
It is, however, entirely irrelevant to the point I'm making.
Regardless of "facts" being involved... there is a difference between "decisions based on a scientific-method" and "decisions based on a feelings-method."
Do you agree?
Or do you think that all decisions are science-based and feelings-based at the same time?
I am attempting to differentiate decisions that "follow the evidence" vs. decisions that "come from personal inspiration."
Like the difference between "deciding to cross the river because I see food on the other side and I'm hungry" vs. "deciding to cross the river because I think it will be fun."
One is scientific.
The other is based on feelings.
I see a very, very big difference between these types of decisions - do you?
I see that both kinds of decisions can be for important things - do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by AZPaul3, posted 02-24-2021 9:55 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by AZPaul3, posted 02-25-2021 9:21 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 109 of 530 (884578)
02-25-2021 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Phat
02-25-2021 6:32 AM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
Phat writes:
I see ringo as a man who once attended church (perhaps in what he saw as a cell of ignorance) and being dissatisfied with the whole idea of trusting God and other fellow believers, went outside the cell in search of more rational truth/data. I joke to him that now, rather than marrying the One Who comes for his Bride, ringo will stand at the altar forever if necessary awaiting evidence that the communion is even necessary.
I see ringo as someone who follows the evidence for identifying reality.
And if that evidence leads to God - then ringo will accept God as being real.
And if that evidence does not lead to God - then ringo will not accept God as being real.
This will always lead ringo to being able to identify reality correctly - he cannot possibly be wrong (in the end.)
Perhaps some of you see me as a tragic figure trapped in the cell of organized religion.
I see you as a man like every other man - trying his best to figure his way through life.
I see myself not as in a cell but as in the house of God.
If that gives you needed-comfort, I will defend your wishes as best I can.
If you attempt to suggest that others should also see themselves in the house of God - I will defend them and their wishes as best I can.
Life outside of that is quite scary, and I don't trust humans alone as capable of providing the final answer.
I don't see a need of getting a "final answer."
In fact, I don't understand how any answer could ever actually be "final" in any way.
Sounds too simplistic for how complicated we know this existence is (at a minimum, from what we know at this time.)
To our credit, we do comfort each other and add to our collective knowledge base. And the fact that so few of you see the idea of One God as rational and anything other than human-centric shows me that I see you as trapped in a cell where evidence and rationality rule.
Although it irks me (because I'm human and don't like negative things projected at me in any way) - I don't really care how you see me.
I care how I see me.
I'm the one who has to go to sleep with my own thoughts every night.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Phat, posted 02-25-2021 6:32 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Phat, posted 02-25-2021 2:12 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 110 of 530 (884584)
02-25-2021 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by Stile
02-25-2021 9:17 AM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
Stile writes:
I see ringo as someone who follows the evidence for identifying reality.
And if that evidence leads to God - then ringo will accept God as being real.
And if that evidence does not lead to God - then ringo will not accept God as being real.
This will always lead ringo to being able to identify reality correctly - he cannot possibly be wrong (in the end.)
First of all, thanks for your courage to be honest and unafraid of discussing the possibility that God exists. Most Humanists here at EvC say that they are science fact based rather than leap of faith based yet they also want God to be more in line with how they see Him logically being rather than the common apologetic version...which jar repeatedly points out as reprehensible. You once started a topic titled I Know That God Does Not Exist where you defended your choice of rational choice based on facts or data rather than feelings and leaps of faith.
I see ringo as someone who follows the evidence for identifying reality.
And if that evidence leads to God - then ringo will accept God as being real.
You and ringo are similar. I like your arguments better for they respect my choice, whereas many others attempt to forc me into throwing my preferred fantasies away and doubling down on logic, reaso and reality as many of you have done. Personally I feel that ringo--nor anyone else--will EVER find raw data based objective evidence leading to God.
Many of you see that as unimportant. I see it as crucial, for I believe that through Him ALL things were created and where we live and breathe and have our being. I will agree that caution and patience are warranted before taking any leaps of faith. Perhaps you feel that IF God existed He would understand.
Stile writes:
I see ringo as someone who follows the evidence for identifying reality.
And if that evidence leads to God - then ringo will accept God as being real.
And if that evidence does not lead to God - then ringo will not accept God as being real.
This will always lead ringo to being able to identify reality correctly - he cannot possibly be wrong (in the end.)
First of all, thanks for your courage to be honest and unafraid of discussing the possibility that God exists. Most Humanists here at EvC say that they are science fact based rather than leap of faith based yet they also want God to be more in line with how they see Him logically being rather than the common apologetic version...which jar repeatedly points out as reprehensible. You once started a topic titled I Know That God Does Not Exist where you defended your choice of rational choice based on facts or data rather than feelings and leaps of faith.
Even though I am a believer who would say that God created/imagined us long before we imagined/created Him, I can totally see your logic and honesty and do not disagree with you.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.- Dr.John Lennox
The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.
- Criss Jami, Killo
The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him. Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Stile, posted 02-25-2021 9:17 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 111 of 530 (884596)
02-25-2021 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Stile
02-25-2021 9:08 AM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
Therefore - your entire post is something I agree with.
Then you agree as I have stated, that simple personal decisions of no consequence to others can be decided by any means. Achieving some nice warm and fuzzy feelings seems the favored means in this thread giving Gwyneth higher hopes for future sales.
You then also agree, as I have also said, that all decisions made by or for groups, especially those decisions that may cause harm, should be more responsibly decided than the after affects of a scented candle as I contemplate in my happy place. The facts should be the only deciders in these cases.
You are right, Stile. There are, for this thread, just the two decision methods: fact-based and feelings-based. You established that some time ago and I never objected. Where I object is when some seek to confuse the two methods as somehow being of equal scope and decision-making power.
You profess an appreciation for touchy-feely decision making. It has its place, as I have said. You seem to go beyond that limitation to countenance its use in cases it hasn't the power to resolve with any efficacy. Cases like who am I going to marry, or what school should I attend next.
Surface emotions may seem important in deciding who to marry but it is the facts that will determine if that choice is any good for your wealth, health and future which should be more important than whether I like her hair. Of course you like her hair. You're in love, lunkhead.
Yes, they certainly do invoke a lot of emotion, and that is a component that needs to be examined. But that examination of feelings is not just one of how it impacts the decision but also one of whether the feeling is actually valid. Is it applicable or is it distraction?
Yes, yes, sure, we can decide to use feelings to decide anything our patchouli wax melt allows our musically enhanced imaginations to wander into. (say what?) We can select which stocks to buy or select which stores to rob.
But the facts are vital before the emotions on anything but the most trivial of questions. It might be nice to know the fact that one of the stores on your list is Ft. Knox and that you really don't want to try that no matter how good your emotions feel at the idea ... of getting shot ... and imprisioned ... or getting dead.
Fact-based decision making is not a panacea, of course. Chasing reality can lead to some really screwed up assumptions and decisions. It can be way wrong depending on the depth of the question so buyer beware. But its history, side-by-side with touchy-feely, is stellar in comparison. Yes, a personal judgement.
When it comes to decisions for groups of people, be it a small group, a community, a nation or a globe, being right goes a long way to making happy. And that is supposed to be the goal, yes?
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Stile, posted 02-25-2021 9:08 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Stile, posted 02-26-2021 8:27 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 112 of 530 (884602)
02-26-2021 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by AZPaul3
02-25-2021 9:21 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
AZPaul3 writes:
Fact-based decision making is not a panacea, of course. Chasing reality can lead to some really screwed up assumptions and decisions. It can be way wrong depending on the depth of the question so buyer beware. But its history, side-by-side with touchy-feely, is stellar in comparison. Yes, a personal judgement.
Again. All decisions are fact-based.
History is only on the side for evidence-based decision making for things like "identifying reality."
History is on the side of feelings-based decisions for things like "finding your spouse."
Surface emotions may seem important in deciding who to marry but it is the facts that will determine if that choice is any good for your wealth, health and future which should be more important than whether I like her hair. Of course you like her hair. You're in love, lunkhead.
But you haven't shown this, and you're wrong.
1. I'm not saying that emotions are important in looking for who to marry.
-I'm saying that if you find them to be important for such a decision - then you need to acknowledge that and make your decision based on it.
-For many, emotions are not that important for finding someone to marry, and they would much rather focus on evidentially-prosperous things like wealth, health and future.
-but if your emotions are really important to you for this decision, and you then make the decision based on wealth, health and future instead - then you will not find happiness.
-and if your emotions are really important to you for this decision and you follow your emotions regardless of wealth, health and future - then you will find happiness.
History shows all of this.
Wealthy People More Likely to Cheat
-people born workaholics tend to chase money, and are not happy in their "married" relationship choice
-even though they married for wealth, this important decision was not made well
-the ones who are not happy with their married relationship choice should have listened to their feelings more
-they should have identified that they were after the wrong spouse, or perhaps monogamy isn't something that's good for them and they should be single or in a polyamorous relationship
-these are feelings-based-facts the unhappy wealth-chasers should have taken into account and their lives would be better off. For one, they wouldn't have to get divorced... which is very expensive.
There's nothing "wrong" with chasing money.
But, if that's the feeling you have - then it should be acknowledged and put into your decision making process instead of simply looking at evidential-based goals that will not necessarily make you happy.
And if chasing-money makes you sad - then again, such a feeling should be acknowledged and put into your decision making process instead of simply looking at the evidentially-based "best way to find a spouse" as described by averages and historical trends.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by AZPaul3, posted 02-25-2021 9:21 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by AZPaul3, posted 02-26-2021 1:41 PM Stile has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 113 of 530 (884605)
02-26-2021 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Phat
02-25-2021 6:32 AM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
Phat writes:
I see ringo as a man who once attended church (perhaps in what he saw as a cell of ignorance) and being dissatisfied with the whole idea of trusting God and other fellow believers, went outside the cell in search of more rational truth/data.
Y'see, people think you're making up your own God because you make up your own beliefs about me too - despite the fact that I have told you repeatedly that your beliefs about me are not true.
I didn't leave the church because any dissatisfaction. Write that down so you don't forget it.
Phat writes:
I don't trust humans alone as capable of providing the final answer.
Neither do I - but we're all we got.
I rejected creationism, for example, because I went looking for evidence to prove it - and there isn't any. The same applies to gods - in particular, YOUR made-up god.
I would be comfortable enough inside the church because so many of the people I know are in there. Facing reality is harsh. It is not a pleasant escape.
Phat writes:
I joke to him that now, rather than marrying the One Who comes for his Bride, ringo will stand at the altar forever if necessary awaiting evidence that the communion is even necessary.
I would definitely want evidence. Who knows if she even used her real picture on the Internet?

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Phat, posted 02-25-2021 6:32 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Phat, posted 02-27-2021 1:54 PM ringo has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 114 of 530 (884607)
02-26-2021 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Stile
02-26-2021 8:27 AM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
But you haven't shown this, and you're wrong.
How is "should be more important" wrong?
The emotion is already there, established. The act of marriage does not alter that. Marriage is not just a statement of love but is, and should be seen as more importantly, a sign of the couple's legally binding social contract for the future.
Seems to me that the important decision elements in marriage are how you two plan to negotiate the future path of life together and that involves finances, homes, personalities and dozens of other factors that reach far beyond the foundational fact that you have emotional feelings for each other.
The love is there. The emotional feeling is a fact already known and accounted for. Now an analysis of the facts of each others other assets and attributes is prudent to determining if the legal state of matrimony is conducive to what you want for your future together.
Of course it's not wrong. You may decide to ignore the reality about to impact all aspects of your life but it is not wrong that there are facts and realities in such decisions that impact far more significantly than your view of your emotions.
And I submit it is prudent and necessary for a thinking man to consider those aspects of such life-changing choices outside the mere emotion of the situation. This has nothing to do with chasing money or cheating on your spouse. That is just a useless diversion of the topic.
Still the point is that important decisions, those that impact others or are life changing, SHOULD require a full fact-based decision method. The wishy-washy feelings-based method open to changing emotions as a function of body chemistry SHOULD be relegated solely to the mundane, the unimportant.
addendum
In fact-based methods no one is saying you ignore the emotions in the same way your wishy-washy feelings-based method says ignore the facts. Again, emotions are facts to be considered in the analysis. That’s why I went on that tirade about facts are this and facts are that. Everything pertinent to the issue, ALL the facts, which includes emotion, is considered (or at least should be considered). And no, you don’t have to sit down with a slide rule and a copy of Atlas Shrugged to figure it out. The brain, when trained to so, can process through a bevy of facts in mere fractions of a second.
On the other side, your feelings-based method can also arrive at a quick decision since emotions are ever-present and require no hard thinking to assess. It’s famous in all of human society throughout all of history. We call it knee jerk. It ignores the pertinent facts. If it didn’t it would be fact-based decision making not feelings-based.
Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
Edited by AZPaul3, : too much thinking

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Stile, posted 02-26-2021 8:27 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 343 by Stile, posted 04-28-2021 1:06 PM AZPaul3 has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 115 of 530 (884625)
02-27-2021 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by ringo
02-26-2021 11:30 AM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
ringo writes:
Y'see, people think you're making up your own God because you make up your own beliefs about me too - despite the fact that I have told you repeatedly that your beliefs about me are not true.
I didn't leave the church because any dissatisfaction. Write that down so you don't forget it.
You were dissatisfied with God, or as you may have seen it, "The God Concept." For whatever reasons, you were unable to relate to or have communion with God. To you, He became a manufactured myth rather than a living reality. I'm not sure how this happened...though you have said it before.
ringo writes:
Neither do I - but we're all we got.
I rejected creationism, for example, because I went looking for evidence to prove it - and there isn't any. The same applies to gods - in particular, YOUR made-up god.
Mine and everyone elses "made-up god" either exists or does not exist. You concluded that He did not. To me, that is what I mean by dissatisfaction. You elevated yourself and your own critical thinking process above the thinking/believing process of the rest of us. You became better satisfied with yourself and less satisfied that a God existed who cared about you and loved you. (and Who was quite capable of Communion with you)
Now...before you go off on me, I will give you credit for taking the message to heart and doing more in your community to help the needy than many Christians do. I seriously doubt that "my god" as you so glibly put it would have a problem with you for simply and honestly ceasing to believe in Him.
I rejected creationism, for example, because I went looking for evidence to prove it - and there isn't any.
Biblical Creationists are a bit different than believers in my experience.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.- Dr.John Lennox
The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.
- Criss Jami, Killo
The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him. Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by ringo, posted 02-26-2021 11:30 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by ringo, posted 03-01-2021 11:26 AM Phat has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 116 of 530 (884661)
03-01-2021 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Phat
02-27-2021 1:54 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
Phat writes:
ringo writes:
I didn't leave the church because any dissatisfaction. Write that down so you don't forget it.
You were dissatisfied with God, or as you may have seen it, "The God Concept."
Read what I wrote. I was not dissatisfied. It was like standing on a street corner and realizing, "I have no reason to be here." You don't have to be dissatisfied to move on.
Phat writes:
For whatever reasons, you were unable to relate to or have communion with God.
Nobody is. Some people are able to delude themselves into thinking they are able.
Phat writes:
To you, He became a manufactured myth rather than a living reality.
He was never a "living reality" to me or to anybody else. That's a delusion that many people grow out of, like belief in Santa Claus.
Phat writes:
Mine and everyone elses "made-up god" either exists or does not exist. You concluded that He did not.
Same with leprechauns.
Phat writes:
You elevated yourself and your own critical thinking process above the thinking/believing process of the rest of us.
I chose the process that works best. You know that critical thinking works best - you don't drive down the street blindfolded, praying to God to protect you. You only elevate belief above critical thinking in areas where you can't be proven wrong.

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Phat, posted 02-27-2021 1:54 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Phat, posted 03-01-2021 3:04 PM ringo has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 117 of 530 (884666)
03-01-2021 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by ringo
03-01-2021 11:26 AM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
ringo writes:
It was like standing on a street corner and realizing, "I have no reason to be here."
You rationalize by saying that you in effect "grew up" and that many of the rest of us cling to childish fantasy regarding our religious beliefs.
Some people are able to delude themselves into thinking they are able.
We are able to choose. You simply swapped God (and in your mind unicorns and Leprechauns) for Critical Thinking and scientific standards. Which then begs the question of why some of our best scientists are also believers.
He was never a "living reality" to me or to anybody else.
Lies. You cant crawl inside our head and tell us what we have experienced. You cant even assume the nature of why we experienced it.
Stay in your own lane.
I chose the process that works best. You know that critical thinking works best - you don't drive down the street blindfolded, praying to God to protect you. You only elevate belief above critical thinking in areas where you can't be proven wrong.
The idea that you could be proven wrong was your faux pas. You only proved that the belief that you chose to have regarding God was juvenile and simplistic. Indeed you chose the process that worked best for you at that time and nobody is trying to take that away from you. I am only suggesting that you chose prematurely. Its your choice, however. Dont pretend you only had one option.

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.- Dr.John Lennox
The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.
- Criss Jami, Killo
The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him. Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by ringo, posted 03-01-2021 11:26 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Tangle, posted 03-01-2021 3:59 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 119 by ringo, posted 03-02-2021 11:42 AM Phat has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 118 of 530 (884668)
03-01-2021 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Phat
03-01-2021 3:04 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
Phat writes:
We are able to choose. You simply swapped God (and in your mind unicorns and Leprechauns) for Critical Thinking and scientific standards.
Just to butt in here for a mo'. Like everything else spoken here now, you've had this explained to you dozens of times but you never, ever incorporate it. Instead you put your own spin on it to suit your own agenda. I really don't know what to do about that except keep bloody explaining it.
For me it was just a gradual realisation that what I'd been told was bullshit. Bore no resemblance to reality. A very similar experience to realising that Father Christmas didn't exist. I did not swop god for critical thinking, or science or humanism - belief just dissolved and life went on exactly as normal.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Phat, posted 03-01-2021 3:04 PM Phat has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 119 of 530 (884679)
03-02-2021 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Phat
03-01-2021 3:04 PM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
Phat writes:
You rationalize by saying that you in effect "grew up" and that many of the rest of us cling to childish fantasy regarding our religious beliefs.
It's not a rationalization. It's a rational conclusion, like concluding that Santa Claus doesn't bring your presents.
Phat writes:
You simply swapped God (and in your mind unicorns and Leprechauns) for Critical Thinking and scientific standards.
Nonsense. That's like saying I swapped Santa for critical thinking and scientific standards. The critical thinking and scientific standards are there whether belief in God is there or not. YOU use critical thinking and scientific standards in practical areas of your life. You only compartmentalize God as immune to them.
Phat writes:
You cant crawl inside our head and tell us what we have experienced.
YOU told us what you experienced. According to YOUR description, I have had the same or similar experiences. YOU are the one who is trying to crawl inside MY head and claim that my experiences are less valid than yours.
Phat writes:
You cant even assume the nature of why we experienced it.
You're the one who's assuming. My conclusion is based on fact. We know that intellectual aberrations do occur. And your assumption is contradicted by the existence of other religions, which all make the same assumptions about their own gods.
Phat writes:
The idea that you could be proven wrong was your faux pas.
Nonsense. You can always be proven wrong if you are wrong.
Phat writes:
You only proved that the belief that you chose to have regarding God was juvenile and simplistic.
Well, I proved that YOUR belief is juvenile and simplistic. I'm not saying that ALL beliefs about God are necessarily juvenile and simplistic.
Phat writes:
Indeed you chose the process that worked best for you at that time....
It's the best process, period. As I have pointed out umpteen-squared times, YOU use the same process in 99% of your life - because it works best. You just keep your precious Sky-Daddy belief protected from scrutiny - likely because you know deep down that it can not pass any scrutiny.
Phat writes:
I am only suggesting that you chose prematurely.
"If somebody told you to jump in the river, would you do it?"
And now you're saying it's "premature" NOT to do it?
Phat writes:
Dont pretend you only had one option.
You're the one who claims that Hell is a choice. Why would I trust your opinion about choices?

"I've been to Moose Jaw, now I can die." -- John Wing

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Phat, posted 03-01-2021 3:04 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by AZPaul3, posted 03-03-2021 2:41 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied
 Message 121 by Phat, posted 03-03-2021 4:00 PM ringo has replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 120 of 530 (884686)
03-03-2021 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by ringo
03-02-2021 11:42 AM


Re: Charismatic Chaos Revisited
I'm not saying that ALL beliefs about God are necessarily juvenile and simplistic.
Ohhh! Ohhh! Me!
Can I say that for you? Please?

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by ringo, posted 03-02-2021 11:42 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024