They're Wrong About Pi [Archive]

16th November 2005, 20:33

One of my truths is my belief in that of God in everyone. It is my truth - not my opinion - because I cannot produce evidence to others to convince them of that. A personal truth can only be discovered by experience. Like I said in one of my journals for my philosophy class:

So you can't prove your religion then?

"I believe that, as a way of knowing, art, music...and religion fall in, basically, the same category.

You're wrong. You can't compare art and music to religion because art and music aren't making claims of anything. Religion, on the other hand, does.

They are all extremely personal experiences...[and] cannot be communicated to other people. For example, take something like a symphony. Now try to explain its beauty to someone. It cannot be communicated. Each person must experience it for themselves to find their own truth in it. Any attempt to communicate one’s own truth to another person will, ultimately, fail. " (Oct. 12, 2005)

There is no "truth" being experienced when you experience a symphony. Again, music isn't trying to prove anything. Music isn't trying to explain anything. Religion, on the other hand, is. When it makes these claims, it must be logically proven or thrown out. If either of these isn't followed, then you are being illogical, irrational, idealist, etc...

So I tell you again; prove your religion or stop believing in it.

LSD

16th November 2005, 20:36

Lastly, not all people who believe in the Bible believe in an omniscient God.

They do it they're at all intellectually consistant.

The Bible explicitly states, numerous times, that God is omniscient. Therefore "believing in the Bible" means by definition believing in the God it describes, with all of his ludicrous "abilities".

One of my truths is my belief in that of God in everyone. It is my truth - not my opinion

No, it's your opinion.

It's a groundless opinion based in emotionalism and superstition, but it's an opinion nonetheless. A "truth" cannot be "personal", it can only be "true". What you personally consider to be "true" is called an opinion.

...unless you'd care to provide evidence to back it up?

A personal truth can only be discovered by experience.

Bollocks!

The question of whether or not a "God" exists is not a "personal" question, it's an objective one.

Either a God does exist or he does not. If he does, then he exists in the real world and affects us all. Those who claim this carry the burden of proof of establishing their case.

So far, despite millenia of trying, that case has yet to be made.

I believe that, as a way of knowing, art, music...and religion fall in, basically, the same category.

No they most certainly do not.

Art and music are experiences, they do not make positive assertions about the world. What makes religion unique is that it is, fundamentaly, a "theory of everything". It claims to describe the world and offer moral guidance. Neither art nor music make anything near this claim. That's why they don't need to be justified, there's nothing to justify; art and music aren't demanding anything of us.

But if you want to make assertions about the nature of the universe or how society should be organized, you must be prepared to give us logical reasons!

Any attempt to communicate one’s own truth to another person will, ultimately, fail.

And yet scientists do it all the time.

It's called materialism and it rids us of all this "subjective truth" crap.

CCJ

16th November 2005, 20:42

So you can't prove your religion then?

I can prove it to no one but myself. But, because my religion is my own, I am the only one to whom I must prove it.

There is no "truth" being experienced when you experience a symphony. Again, music isn't trying to prove anything. Music isn't trying to explain anything. Religion, on the other hand, is.

I beg to differ. People create music, poetry and other creative means of expression because they wish to express something. Do you think that love songs, songs of mourning, and songs of joy exist just because people got bored?

When it makes these claims, it must be logically proven or thrown out. If either of these isn't followed, then you are being illogical, irrational, idealist, etc...

Ah. So you do not love? Do you not feel pity? Do you not become angry? None of these emotions can be logically justified - in fact, it would make sense to never become angry, for one accomplishes far more that way. To live in a world in which everything must be logically justified, that would be to live in a world of robots. Call me what you will, but I still believe.

So I tell you again; prove your religion or stop believing in it.
Why?

16th November 2005, 20:44

I can prove it to no one but myself. But, because my religion is my own, I am the only one to whom I must prove it.

Then I am afraid you are completely irrational and you deserve nobody's time here.

I beg to differ. People create music, poetry and other creative means of expression because they wish to express something. Do you think that love songs, songs of mourning, and songs of joy exist just because people got bored?

And what claims are they making? None!

Ah. So you do not love? Do you not feel pity? Do you not become angry? None of these emotions can be logically justified - in fact, it would make sense to never become angry, for one accomplishes far more that way. To live in a world in which everything must be logically justified, that would be to live in a world of robots.

Love, pity and anger are feelings and not claims.

Why?

Because if you can't then you must either throw it out or continue to believe it and be irrational.

CCJ

16th November 2005, 20:49

They do it they're at all intellectually consistant. The Bible explicitly states, numerous times, that God is omniscient. Therefore "believing in the Bible" means by definition believing in the God it describes, with all of his ludicrous "abilities".

And yet one may infer from Genesis that God lacks the ability to kill.

...unless you'd care to provide evidence to back it up?

Perhaps, then, we just have different definitions of truth. Would you care to provide me with yours?

The question of whether or not a "God" exists is not a "personal" question, it's an objective one. Either a God does exist or he does not. If he does, then he exists in the real world and affects us all. Those who claim this carry the burden of proof of establishing their case.

Perhaps you would care to, instead of just throwing out every anti-religion argument you have, hear what I actually believe?

Art and music are experiences, they do not make positive assertions about the world. What makes religion unique is that it is, fundamentaly, a "theory of everything". It claims to describe the world and offer moral guidance. Neither art nor music make anything near this claim. That's why they don't need to be justified, there's nothing to justify; art and music aren't demanding anything of us.

You mistake a religious experience with the Bible. The two are far different.

And yet scientists do it all the time.

Once again, a difference in our definitions.

It's called materialism and it rids us of all this "subjective truth" crap.

Call it what you will.

16th November 2005, 20:51

TRUTH: A statement proven true.

CCJ

16th November 2005, 20:52

Then I am afraid you are completely irrational and you deserve nobody's time here.

I will leave that judgement up to each person to decide for himself.

And what claims are they making? None!

There is, you know, more than one way to look at a thing. An apple may be red, and an orange may be orange, but they are both round.

Love, pity and anger are feelings and not claims.

Please, inform me of the difference.

Because if you can't then you must either throw it out or continue to believe it and be irrational.

I shall, then, go on loving.

TRUTH: A statement proven true.

You cannot use any version of the word in its definition. That's cheating. :D How, exactly, would you prove something true?

encephalon

16th November 2005, 20:54

BAH.

CCJ

16th November 2005, 20:55

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 08:59 PM
BAH.
I love the emo joke in your sig, by the way.

16th November 2005, 20:59

I will leave that judgement up to each person to decide for himself.

You don't have to. You admitted to being irrational when you failed to defend your religion yet you keep on believing.

There is, you know, more than one way to look at a thing. An apple may be red, and an orange may be orange, but they are both round.

A right idea and a wrong idea are both ideas. An apple and an orange are both fruit. So what?

Please, inform me of the difference.

A feeling isn't something that someone is assuming as a truth.

I shall, then, go on loving.

You shall keep being irrational. Because you can't justify the existence of god, much less your religion.

You cannot use any version of the word in its definition. That's cheating. biggrin.gif How, exactly, would you prove something true?

You use logic. I'm not playing this game anymore, though, about what truth is. This is all a semantics game. I ask you to justify your claims and you fail to do so. You have proven my point.

CCJ

16th November 2005, 21:04

You don't have to. You admitted to being irrational when you failed to defend your religion yet you keep on believing.

Is irrationality inherently bad?

A feeling isn't something that someone is assuming as a truth.

So, when you're angry, you don't assume that it's true that you're angry?

You shall keep being irrational. Because you can't justify the existence of god, much less your religion.

It is a real pity that you never bothered to find out what, exactly, my religion is, much less what I believe.

You use logic. I'm not playing this game anymore, though, about what truth is. This is all a semantics game. I ask you to justify your claims and you fail to do so. You have proven my point.

I'm not playing a game. I'm using logic, the thing you think so highly of.

C_Rasmussen

16th November 2005, 21:10

CCJ: The way people look at it is if you believe in religion, on this site at least, then you're irrational. Its just like any religious forum, if you don't go along with their thinking then you must be irrational.

16th November 2005, 21:11

Is irrationality inherently bad?

Yes

So, when you're angry, you don't assume that it's true that you're angry?

When I'm angry, I'm not claiming that I'm angry. I'm just angry.

It is a real pity that you never bothered to find out what, exactly, my religion is, much less what I believe.

It doesn't matter what your religion is.

I'm not playing a game. I'm using logic, the thing you think so highly of.

No, you're not. You are playing a semantics game by asking me what the meaning of all these words is.

Prove your belief or leave.

CCJ

16th November 2005, 21:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 09:16 PM
When I'm angry, I'm not claiming that I'm angry. I'm just angry.

You've just made a claim. Prove it.

CCJ: The way people look at it is if you believe in religion, on this site at least, then you're irrational. Its just like any religious forum, if you don't go along with their thinking then you must be irrational.

I've never been on a religious forum, but I'd imagine it would be that way.

16th November 2005, 21:31

You've just made a claim. Prove it.

I'll do that when you prove your religion and drop this stupid semantics game.

CCJ: The way people look at it is if you believe in religion, on this site at least, then you're irrational. Its just like any religious forum, if you don't go along with their thinking then you must be irrational.

You are the one being irrational. If you can prove your religion, then so be it. There is nothing unreasonable about proving your claims.

CCJ

16th November 2005, 21:38

You are the one being irrational. If you can prove your religion, then so be it. There is nothing unreasonable about proving your claims.

I apologise if I cannot live up to your standards of rationality. Sometimes, however, one must simply have faith. How can you prove to me that after the revolution there won't be another bout of authoritarian socialism? How you can prove to me that everyone will be better off after the revolution? Up until now all evidence has pointed to oppression as the result of a communist revolution. But, you see, you can't prove this. You simply have faith.

Zingu

16th November 2005, 21:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 08:07 PM
I would prefer if you would not make such large generalisations about my religious beliefs.

In any case, no one - not even the Christian Fundamentalists - claim that the Bible is the direct word of God. Christian Fundamentalists believe that the Bible was written by those who had "divine inspiration", Orthodox Jews believe that the Bible was written by Moses (I don't know whether or not they believe he was Divinely inspired, but they probably do).

Lastly, not all people who believe in the Bible believe in an omniscient God.
So, religon is like different flavors at the Ice cream shop, wheres the validity in that?

LSD

16th November 2005, 21:49

And yet one may infer from Genesis that God lacks the ability to kill.

um... isn't that the book where he unleashes a "global flood" and kills several hundred million people? Or where he destroyes the cities of Soddom and Gomorra and kills another couple thousand?

All that one may "infer", is that "God" is a genocidal psychopath.

Perhaps, then, we just have different definitions of truth. Would you care to provide me with yours?

Truth is that which is empirically or logically established and verified.

What else could it be? "Personal"? :lol:

You mistake a religious experience with the Bible. The two are far different.

I'm not talking about the Bible, I'm talking about "faith", which by definition is the rejection of logic and the assertion of belief.

If you claim that "God" exists, whether that's a Bibilical "God" or not, you are making a claim about the universe. The owness is on you to defend that claim, otherwise we must conclude that it is false.

Please, inform me of the difference.

A feeling expresses something, but it does not make claims.

If I feel sad, it does not mean that I am justified in feeling sad, it just means that that is my present emotional state. Since the existance of such feelings are long established, me expressing said feelings does not demand any illogical assumptions.

If one claims, however, that one has "relationship with God", it implicitly requires that God exists. Something which has most assuredly not been established. Religion claims that God exists. It does not make "personal" claims, it makes objective ones.

Is irrationality inherently bad?

Of course it is, it's groundless.

It's unfalsifiable and hence static. Unless one is willing to put everything on the table, society is trapped with regressive and reactionary paradigms.

So, when you're angry, you don't assume that it's true that you're angry?

No.

You know that you're angry because of the physical and psychological effects that anger has.

Others observing you can often verify this deduction by analyzing behaviour and physiological signs.

It isn's an assumption if you have evidence.

Sometimes, however, one must simply have faith.

NO!

That's like saying "one must have syphilis", it's yet another groundless assertion, only this time is directly contrasted by all the available evidence.

"Faith" is one of the most corrosive and dangerous influences in human history. More people have died because of "faith" than any other social phenomenon.

Remember, the Nazis had "faith" and the Crusaders had "faith". There was not rational reason for the Massacre of Jerusalem, but there sure was a religious one!

How can you prove to me that after the revolution there won't be another bout of authoritarian socialism?

By outlining a plan for revolution and post-revolutionary society that would prevent such an occurance.

In fact that's an essential part of revolutionary thinking!

It's "having faith" that got us into the messes in the former Soviet Union and PRC!

"Faith" in the party is what lead to Leninist disasters, and rational analysis is the only way to prevent it from happening again. Unless we take positive action to prevent "authoritarianism", it will re-occur. But "faith" is not taking action, it's "believing" that things will get better.

If history has taught us anything, it's that "believing" doesn't change things. Only action does.

How you can prove to me that everyone will be better off after the revolution?

By outlining the nature of post-revolutionary society and how it contrasts with current society ...obviously.

If you don't have material reasons for beliving in a revolution, you shouldn't be a revolutionary. Period.

CCJ

16th November 2005, 21:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 09:51 PM
So, religon is like different flavors at the Ice cream shop, wheres the validity in that?
Regardless of flavor, is not all ice cream still ice cream?

CCJ

16th November 2005, 22:06

I would first like to thank you for a well thought out response. Now, onto the discussion.

um... isn't that the book where he unleashes a "global flood" and kills several hundred million people? Or where he destroyes the cities of Soddom and Gomorra and kills another couple thousand? All that one may "infer", is that "God" is a genocidal psychopath.

Here is a midrash that I did of the first part of Genesis:

The serpent says to Eve, “…God knows that as soon as you eat of [the fruit of knowledge] you will be like divine beings who know good and bad.” and later on in the passage God says to His/Her/Itself, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!”

These two passages hold a great deal of meaning via implication. Even if one only interprets this passage literally, there still remains a great deal of meaning remaining in it.

The second passage basically says that God is merely a being that both lives forever and knows the difference between good and bad. I make this conclusion because through the way He/She/It speaks, God implies that there are essentially two things that make Him/Her/It divine: ability to tell the difference between good and bad, and eternal life. Furthermore, this passage also tells us that God does not have the power to kill. This conclusion is derived from the words “…what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!” Within those words that God spoke lays the idea that someone could live forever and that God would be incapable of stopping it. Thus, God cannot kill. It follows, then, that if even God cannot kill, wherefore are we justified in the taking of life?

The first passage implies that to be a “divine being” one must simply know the difference between good and bad. The fact that the procurement, as it were, of a proverbial ‘moral compass’ equates to divinity means that all humans are divine. In my humble opinion, this grants further credence to my belief in non-violence: if I would not harm God, why would I harm other divine creatures?

Truth is that which is empirically or logically established and verified. What else could it be? "Personal"? :lol:

Please do not laugh at my beliefs, I do not laugh at yours.

I'm not talking about the Bible, I'm talking about "faith", which by definition is the rejection of logic and the assertion of belief.

If you claim that "God" exists, whether that's a Bibilical "God" or not, you are making a claim about the universe. The owness is on you to defend that claim, otherwise we must conclude that it is false.

I'm not asking you to believe in what I believe. I do not need, nor do I want, to prove to you that you should believe what I believe. Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant in this debate: I posted a response pointing out that the original post made some unfair and untrue generalisations. I was then accused of being "irrational" and people demanded that I "prove the existence of God". I happily tried to explain why I could not do so, and things went from there.

If one claims, however, that one has "relationship with God", it implicitly requires that God exists. Something which has most assuredly not been established. Religion claims that God exists. It does not make "personal" claims, it makes objective ones.

Not at all. I'm not absolutely convinced that "my way is the right way". I, therefore, act in a way that seems like the way I think any God worth worshipping might like and I accept that my beliefs might be wrong. Nonetheless, I fail to see how my belief in God applies to you.

So, when you're angry, you don't assume that it's true that you're angry?

No.

That makes no sense. Of course, I suppose that, coming from me, doesn't really mean much, does it?

Remember, the Nazis had "faith" and the Crusaders had "faith". There was not rational reason for the Massacre of Jerusalem, but there sure was a religious one!

A common logical fallacy. Hitler wore khakis. Does that make khakis bad? And surely, as a Marxist, you realize that, along with religious reasons, the Crusades were prompted by economic reasons. The Middle East at the time, in fact, was "prime real estate", as it were.

If you don't have material reasons for beliving in a revolution, you shouldn't be a revolutionary. Period.

I was using it as an example.

LSD

17th November 2005, 00:46

Furthermore, this passage also tells us that God does not have the power to kill. This conclusion is derived from the words “…what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!” Within those words that God spoke lays the idea that someone could live forever and that God would be incapable of stopping it.

The Bible, especially the earlier parts, is hardly consistant. And you're right in that the abilities of god tend to swing back and forth between the omnipotent monotheistic god of post-diasperic Judaism and the limited deity of henotheistic monolatrous first temple Judaism.

But regardless of whether God is capable of preventing immortality once the "magic fruit" has been eaten, he is clearly capable of killing regular people. That is, those who have not gained immortality through fruit.

As, for example, 99% of the world in the "global flood" of Genesis!

Thus, God cannot kill.

Except he does!

Again, see "global flood" and "Soddom and Gomorra". Not to mention the attrocities he commits against the Egyptian people in Exodus or against the Kaananite people in Joshua.

Please do not laugh at my beliefs, I do not laugh at yours.

That's because I don't have "beliefs", I have convictions.

Opinions and ideas which I am prepared and willing to rationally defend at great length.

If one is unwilling to do so, what recourse do we have but to "laugh"?

If someone claims that the world rests on the back of an infinite number of turtles, should we "respect that"? Should we "honour" his "beliefs"? :rolleyes:

Honestly, when you run into a member of the "flat earth society", don't tell me you aren't chortling just a little! :lol:

No one here is proposing that we "arrest" or "kill" those of "faith", but like with any misguided "belief system", we will attempt to correct their mistaken ideas. Try and bring them into the modern world and educate them about rationality and materialism.

That's respect. Believing in them enough to trust that they are capable of understanding the world as it is, and caring enough to be unwilling to allow them to remain in ignorance.

I'm not asking you to believe in what I believe.

No, but you are asking me "not to laugh at your beliefs", or, in other words, to take them seriously.

I cannot do that unless you give me reason to.

Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant in this debate

:huh:

It is most certainly not!

This thread began with a challange to the notion of an "all-knowing God", it has since moved on to question the notion of any sort of "God".

Clearly then, the question of "God"'s existance is essential to this debate!

Nonetheless, I fail to see how my belief in God applies to you.

Because religious convictions rarely remain private. When you honestly believe that you have "pipeline to the divine", you tend to tell people.

It is no "accident" that the most reactionary are almost always the most religious, nor that progressive forces are always challanged by the clergy and its minions.

Religion is not a "personal matter" any more than ideology is, not when it deals with how you interact and shape society. I will oppose a fascist even if he keeps his fascism "personal" because I recognize what happens when he gains even a smidgeon of power.

The same goes for the religious.

Our ideas shape our actions. Contending that ones religious beliefs will not affect ones behaviour is patently ludicrous. Not only does your belief determine how you interact with the world, but should you convince others or reinforce the "faith" of others, you affect their behaviour as well.

Religion must be destroyed entirely -- not religious people, just religion -- just as fascism and sexism and racism must be. Because it is too corrosive a force to be allowed to remain a part of our society.

A common logical fallacy. Hitler wore khakis. Does that make khakis bad?

Hitler? I wasn't talking about Hitler.

...I was talking about Nazis.

You know, the thirty odd million members of the National Socialist German Workers Party. The largest party in the Reichstagg in 1932, the head of the "government of national concentration" in 1933.

The rank and file as it were.

The leadership, Hiter, Goerring, Rohm, they had a great deal to gain from siezing power (as, for example, power), but the average Nazi voter; the solider, the SA recruits, the Freicorps converts, the 33% of the German population that voted for Hitler for president in '32, they had "faith".

There was no evidence that the "Jewish conspirators" or "november criminals" were anything more than a myth, but for the nationalists, "belief" was enough to sustain them.

If they had relied on reason, they would not have fought for Hitler. But they didn't, instead they had "faith".

and surely, as a Marxist, you realize that, along with religious reasons, the Crusades were prompted by economic reasons.

As an historical materialist I also recognize the role of religion in keeping the underclasses oppressed.

For the pope, for the Kings of France and England, hell even for the Byzantine Emperor at first, there were indeed material reasons to invade the Levant.

...but not for the actual crusaders. Not for the common soldier and footman. For every noble knight that an estate to win, there were thousands of peasants and serfs fighting because their church and their "God" told them to.

That's the power and danger of religious belief.

I was using it as an example.

Yes, an example which I hartedly refuted.

I would contend that you'd be hard-pressed to find an example that I couldn't dispatch with as much ease. There is simply no evidence that "faith" is of any use whatsoever.

And, by the way, I trust that you recognize the irony of using the tools of empiracy induction to demonstrate the validity of a concept that inherently rejects empiracism. It only goes to show that even for the most "believing", in the end, there is no alternative to logic.

CCJ

17th November 2005, 00:59

:huh:

It is most certainly not!

This thread began with a challange to the notion of an "all-knowing God", it has since moved on to question the notion of any sort of "God".

Clearly then, the question of "God"'s existance is essential to this debate!

No. The thread began with a challenge to inaccurate information. Lazar then decided to turn it into a debate about God. In my opinion, at least, I've tried to remain respectful and steer clear of ad hominem attacks. You and Lazar, on the other hand, have mocked both me and my beliefs. Regardless of whether or not God exists, it would behoove you to act, if not respectfully, then decently in your interactions with other human beings.

So, until you two have quite finished demanding that I become an atheist, I've finished any discussion with you.

Goodbye.

LSD

17th November 2005, 02:23

I've tried to remain respectful and steer clear of ad hominem attacks.

As have I.

You and Lazar, on the other hand, have mocked both me and my beliefs.

Please show me where I have "mocked you"?

Insofar as your ideas, the rational critizism of opposing ideas is the cornerstone of intelligent debate. I'm sorry that you don't see that.

Regardless of whether or not God exists, it would behoove you to act, if not respectfully, then decently in your interactions with other human beings.

I fear that you are personalizing this discussion and equating the idea with the person.

If I attack capitalism, it does not mean that I am attacking all those who participate in it. Indeed I participate in it, as do all of us living in the 21st century.

Likewise, when I attack the concept of "God" and "religion", it is not a "personal" issue.

Frankly I am offended that you would characterize any of my statements as "indecent". Unlike you, I have made no assertions about your character or person.

So, until you two have quite finished demanding that I become an atheist, I've finished any discussion with you.

Again, the attempt to convince an opponent of the veracity of one's position is the entire function of any issue-debate.

That you would abandon the discussion because you are "offended" at the prospect of being asked to defend your position strikes me as rather odd.

If you did not wish to engage in a religious discussion, why on earth did you post in this forum?

Surely it was obvious to you from the the first post, that the concept of "God" and specifically the biblical "Christian God" was being attacked. If you were not prepared to present the opposing viewpoint, why did you post in this thread?

Goodbye.

I'm sorry that you feel the need to leave. But please understand, this in no way will stop me or others from attempting to correct ignorance and superstition when we see it.

Religion is a relic of a bygone era, it is a destructive and reactionary force that is a perpetual enemy of progress.

If it pains you too much to have your "beliefs" challanged, I would advise you to avoid the Religion forum in the future.

Free Palestine

17th November 2005, 02:40

I've tried to remain respectful and steer clear of ad hominem attacks. You and Lazar, on the other hand, have mocked both me and my beliefs.

You'll have to acquit LSD on this account, he is quite frankly an innate asshole.

CCJ

17th November 2005, 03:16

I have no intention of leaving.

C_Rasmussen

17th November 2005, 03:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 03:36 PM

You've just made a claim. Prove it.

I'll do that when you prove your religion and drop this stupid semantics game.

CCJ: The way people look at it is if you believe in religion, on this site at least, then you're irrational. Its just like any religious forum, if you don't go along with their thinking then you must be irrational.

You are the one being irrational. If you can prove your religion, then so be it. There is nothing unreasonable about proving your claims.
Wow way to jump to conclusions there. No matter how much CCJ or anyone of faith TRIES to prove their case they'll be shot down just like anyone of anti-faith tries to prove their claim on a Christian or other religious board. The vicious cycle of closedmindedness never ends <_<.

LSD

17th November 2005, 04:01

No matter how much CCJ or anyone of faith TRIES to prove their case they'll be shot down

Not at all.

Like in any reasonable argument, we are prepared to consider any evidence that you present. What's so maddeningly frustrating about these religious discussions, however, is that the proponents of religion never seem to present any!

Often, in fact, they even reject the fundamental notions of logic and empiracism!

If these kind of debates often seem to degenerate into semantic arguments and petty non sequiturs, it's mainly because of the refusal of the religious to rationally defend their claims.

17th November 2005, 06:20

Sometimes, however, one must simply have faith.

And what times would those be? When logic can't be used to prove something, but you want to believe it so bad that you ignore the logical fallacy inherent in it (i.e. you become illogical)?

LSD, have you ever thought about writing a book on this issue? You seem very knowledgable in this field.

LSD

17th November 2005, 07:34

LSD, have you ever thought about writing a book on this issue?

Honestly, no. Maybe one day. For now, I'm focusing on finishing my education before I start educating others! :D

You seem very knowledgable in this field.

Well, it's long been a focus of mine.

I've never really understood religion nor it's appeal so I've dedicated a good part of life to studying it. As I went on, the more I learnt, the less I liked.

eyedrop

17th November 2005, 14:08

CCJ:

Here is a midrash that I did of the first part of Genesis:

The serpent says to Eve, “…God knows that as soon as you eat of [the fruit of knowledge] you will be like divine beings who know good and bad.” and later on in the passage God says to His/Her/Itself, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and bad, what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!”

These two passages hold a great deal of meaning via implication. Even if one only interprets this passage literally, there still remains a great deal of meaning remaining in it.

The second passage basically says that God is merely a being that both lives forever and knows the difference between good and bad. I make this conclusion because through the way He/She/It speaks, God implies that there are essentially two things that make Him/Her/It divine: ability to tell the difference between good and bad, and eternal life. Furthermore, this passage also tells us that God does not have the power to kill. This conclusion is derived from the words “…what if he should stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever!” Within those words that God spoke lays the idea that someone could live forever and that God would be incapable of stopping it. Thus, God cannot kill. It follows, then, that if even God cannot kill, wherefore are we justified in the taking of life?

The first passage implies that to be a “divine being” one must simply know the difference between good and bad. The fact that the procurement, as it were, of a proverbial ‘moral compass’ equates to divinity means that all humans are divine. In my humble opinion, this grants further credence to my belief in non-violence: if I would not harm God, why would I harm other divine creatures?

How can you use parts of the bible as evidence to Gods nature? You`ve already stated that you believe that the bible is not the "word of God" and therefore implied that it`s not right about everything. For all your knowledge the passage you quoted could just be total bollocks.

When you have already said that the bible ain`t true on all accounts you cant just pick and choose which parts of it you would like to be true and think of them as truths. When you denounce the bible as the truth you know nothing about the religion. You know nothing about what parts of the bible that are the true ones and what should you base your knowledge of the religion then?

If you want to use a part of a book you know is wrong about several things you have to use some outside sources to at least imply that the part you believe is true actually is true.

CCJ

17th November 2005, 16:15

How can you use parts of the bible as evidence to Gods nature? You`ve already stated that you believe that the bible is not the "word of God" and therefore implied that it`s not right about everything. For all your knowledge the passage you quoted could just be total bollocks.

I'm not using it as evidence of God's nature at all. I was merely explaining how one might come to the conclusion that God cannot kill by using Genesis. Also, I believe that we may have a misunderstanding here. I do not think everything in the Bible happened as it was written, or even necessarily happened at all.

You know nothing about what parts of the bible that are the true ones and what should you base your knowledge of the religion then?

For me, the Bible is merely secondary. I base my religion upon my religious experiences. I'm not claiming that God talked directly to me, nor am I claiming anything like that.

I have no exact religious doctrine, nor do I have an answer to every question. I do not adhere to organised religion either. My beliefs are still evolving. Therefore, if I seem to contract myself or switch positions at times, it may be because I actually have switched positions - my beliefs are not written in stone, as it were.

eyedrop

17th November 2005, 17:08

I'm not using it as evidence of God's nature at all. I was merely explaining how one might come to the conclusion that God cannot kill by using Genesis. Also, I believe that we may have a misunderstanding here. I do not think everything in the Bible happened as it was written, or even necessarily happened at all.

OK. What I was trying to say was that one can't use Genesis as a basis of Gods nature without acknowledging the entire Bible. In the example you used it to show how one could conclude that God can't kill. Thats a part of his nature.

I didn't think you believed that everything in the bible was true, I tried to show that it was quite useless as a basis for anything as one can't just pick and choose what is right in it. Since it is secondary and you think parts of it is wrong don't you just pick the parts of it that fits in overall with your views? Doesn't that make it just a confirmation of the views you got from other sources.

For me, the Bible is merely secondary. I base my religion upon my religious experiences. I'm not claiming that God talked directly to me, nor am I claiming anything like that.

Can I ask what religious experiences?

CCJ

17th November 2005, 17:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 05:13 PM
OK. What I was trying to say was that one can't use Genesis as a basis of Gods nature without acknowledging the entire Bible. In the example you used it to show how one could conclude that God can't kill. Thats a part of his nature.
Yes, yes. There are, in fact, many different instances in which God seems to have a different personality.

Since it is secondary and you think parts of it is wrong don't you just pick the parts of it that fits in overall with your views? Doesn't that make it just a confirmation of the views you got from other sources.

You might say it does. However, there are also specific reasons why I discount some parts and not others. For example, when I read the Bible I keep in mind the social and economic context of the historical period.

For example, in a passage that is often used to condemn homosexuality by the Religious Right, I keep in mind that (1) it is the intention of the men of Sodom to rape the visiting angels. Obviously, rape is bad. (2) "Sodomy" was often used to humiliate enemies.

Perhaps, however, one might say that I use the Bible more to persuade people who believe strongly in the Bible to become leftists and to argue against Christian Fundamentalists than anything.

Can I ask what religious experiences?

Of course. I was born and raised Jewish, and I had my B'nai Mitzvah. However, I soon realised that I wasn't really getting anything out of the religious services of my synagogue, so I gave up on religion for the time being. In 9th grade my parents took me out of public school and sent me to a private Quaker school (which I continue to attend to this day). At my school we are required to attend at least one Meeting for Worship every week. I probably have some explaining to do here. I'll put it in one paragraph so you can skip over it if you already know all of this.

Quakerism is founded on the belief that there is "that of God in everyone," or that God is both within and without of each person. Quakers also believe that in order to make it easier for us to hear the voice of God within we should gather together (hence, "Meeting") and worship (hence, "for Worship"). In Meeting for Worship, Friends (another word for Quakers) gather together and sit and pray in silence. If they feel moved to speak by the Spirit within, they stand up and they say whatever they have to say. Meetingn for Worship has been described by some to be an "experiment in religious anarchism." (Please note that this is not all of the Quaker beliefs: it's just what's important to the story).

At first, I did not enjoy Meeting very much. In fact, I really disliked it all of freshman year. At the beginning of my sophmore year I still didn't like it, though towards the end I began to enjoy it. I viewed it as a chance to relax and reflect on the day, a time in which I could catch my breath for what was next. I had often heard Quakers talk about how they felt the Spirit move within, but I had never understood what they meant. However, one Meeting, I felt the Spirit move within me, and suddenly I understood what it meant. It is a great feeling, much different than I'd ever felt before, something between stagefright and joy. When I stood up to speak, I quaked. (Quakers are officially called "The Religious Society of Friends". They acquired the name "Quaker" because when they would stand up to speak in Meeting they would quake.) This feeling, however, was not unique to this one occasion: I have the same feeling often when I am in Meeting, though not every time.

This, however, was not my only religious experience. Soon after this first religious experience, I began to feel more of a connection with other people. I do not mean to say that I could read their mind, but I do mean that I felt as if there were a line that connected me to every other person in the world. I was always a very violent person, and I would sometimes hit people when they got me really angry, but I began to notice that when I hit people, I began to feel the pain, too.

17th November 2005, 18:30

How about addressing LSD's post?

eyedrop

17th November 2005, 18:31

When I stood up to speak, I quaked.
:D What do you mean by this?

You might say it does. However, there are also specific reasons why I discount some parts and not others. For example, when I read the Bible I keep in mind the social and economic context of the historical period.

Good, as an atheist I dismiss all the supernatural parts of the book as just crap, the history part of it an inaccurate and biased. What I'm left with then is morals who are outdated by 2000 years.

Personally I got no use for morals that was produced in that social and economic context, modern society can produce much better.

At first, I did not enjoy Meeting very much. In fact, I really disliked it all of freshman year. At the beginning of my sophmore year I still didn't like it, though towards the end I began to enjoy it. I viewed it as a chance to relax and reflect on the day, a time in which I could catch my breath for what was next. I had often heard Quakers talk about how they felt the Spirit move within, but I had never understood what they meant. However, one Meeting, I felt the Spirit move within me, and suddenly I understood what it meant. It is a great feeling, much different than I'd ever felt before, something between stagefright and joy. When I stood up to speak, I quaked. (Quakers are officially called "The Religious Society of Friends". They acquired the name "Quaker" because when they would stand up to speak in Meeting they would quake.) This feeling, however, was not unique to this one occasion: I have the same feeling often when I am in Meeting, though not every time.

I gotta feel something like this for myself before I believe it. Besides meditation can give you strange feelings you haven't felt before, so there's nothing special about getting your mind into a new state( of mind). No need for any religious explanations. (If quake doesn't mean to levitate or something.)

This, however, was not my only religious experience. Soon after this first religious experience, I began to feel more of a connection with other people. I do not mean to say that I could read their mind, but I do mean that I felt as if there were a line that connected me to every other person in the world. I was always a very violent person, and I would sometimes hit people when they got me really angry, but I began to notice that when I hit people, I began to feel the pain, too.

If we take away the superstitious part about the connection "to every other person in the world," it just seems like your empathy got a boost. Most people feel bad when hitting other people. I know I do at least.

Don't Change Your Name

17th November 2005, 18:33

Originally posted by CCJ+Nov 16 2005, 09:43 PM--> (CCJ @ Nov 16 2005, 09:43 PM) Sometimes, however, one must simply have faith. How can you prove to me that after the revolution there won't be another bout of authoritarian socialism? How you can prove to me that everyone will be better off after the revolution? Up until now all evidence has pointed to oppression as the result of a communist revolution. But, you see, you can't prove this. You simply have faith. [/b]
You don't "have to have faith".

You change things and if they don't work you change them again and if they still don't work we accept the failure and go "back to the past". There is no faith involved. If anything, just "hope that it will go on well", which is not the same thing. We don't pick a "revolutionary strategy" and then "have faith in that it will work". We think about the "alternatives" and pick the one which makes more sense to achieve the ends. THIS IS NOT A RELIGION!

Stop comparing politics with silly old superstitions.

However, one Meeting, I felt the Spirit move within me, and suddenly I understood what it meant.

Yeah, sure...I also feel ants or maybe other bugs over parts of my body, but when I look for them they're not there. And sometimes people talk about getting AIDS by having sex or getting hit in the balls and suddenly my genitals hurt.

I began to feel more of a connection with other people. I do not mean to say that I could read their mind, but I do mean that I felt as if there were a line that connected me to every other person in the world.

I can easily imagine a line doing the same thing without a need for a religion.

I was always a very violent person, and I would sometimes hit people when they got me really angry, but I began to notice that when I hit people, I began to feel the pain, too.

Or maybe it means you need to start going to the gym and to boxing classes again because you're losing your strength. Or maybe it is because all this utopian religion bullshit makes you think about how it hurts to other people and you imagine the pain. Or maybe you're just lying.

eyedrop
I gotta feel something like this for myself before I believe it.

Most people feel bad when hitting other people. I know I do at least.

Amen!

eyedrop

17th November 2005, 18:54

As far as I can see what you base your believes on is that you got a special sensation in a quaker meeting, that you feel more connected to people now and other experiences somewhat like them. Ain't this a very weak base to believe anything on? Especially if your belief is any specialiced at all. It seems lke you can't draw any other conclusions than that you feel connected with other people and that being in such a meeting puts your head in a different state. (maybe brainwash would be a good word :P )

CCJ

17th November 2005, 19:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 06:59 PM
As far as I can see what you base your believes on is that you got a special sensation in a quaker meeting, that you feel more connected to people now and other experiences somewhat like them.
You are correct.

Ain't this a very weak base to believe anything on? Especially if your belief is any specialiced at all. It seems lke you can't draw any other conclusions than that you feel connected with other people and that being in such a meeting puts your head in a different state. (maybe brainwash would be a good word :P )

Yes and no. I suppose it would seem like a very weak base to believe anything on, but like I said earlier, my experience is unique to me, and it is unlikely that anyone else will be able to understand that experience without experiencing it themself. I know it sounds like I'm a bit crazy, and perhaps I am, but this is just something I believe.

I would like to thank you for...I guess acting like an adult would be close to what I mean. :)

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

17th November 2005, 22:53

I get a special sensation inside me sometimes. No wait, that's Delhi Belly.

17th November 2005, 23:14

How about addressing LSD's post, CCJ?

eyedrop

17th November 2005, 23:45

Yes and no. I suppose it would seem like a very weak base to believe anything on, but like I said earlier, my experience is unique to me, and it is unlikely that anyone else will be able to understand that experience without experiencing it themself. I know it sounds like I'm a bit crazy, and perhaps I am, but this is just something I believe.

I would like to thank you for...I guess acting like an adult would be close to what I mean.

I'm just interested in why people end up believing such irrational conclusions. The whole concept is so alien to me that I can't understand why people decide to quess and believe in it.

I remember myself concluding at the age of 7/8 that it couldn't be any gods that interacted with the real world.

What I have concluded with is that you just have some weak experiences and just have quessed everything else, or accepted the parts you follow in accordance with other religions. I still don't understand why a mind would follow such a way.

From what you "know" from your experiences there is a 1/x chance that you are right with x->eternity

I don't see why you would pick such an impropable explanation, I prefer Occham's razor. (Aint that the name?)

Publius

17th November 2005, 23:56

I've stayed out of the debate thus far because you were getting a sufficient ass-kicking, but this mad me scratch my head:

Yes and no. I suppose it would seem like a very weak base to believe anything on,

That's because it is.

Even you realize it.

Why do you persist?

but like I said earlier, my experience is unique to me,

And what 'experience' would that be?

Do you know of any specific times that you met God? Talked to him?

Do you know of any real experiences or are you simply hiding behing the word?

Something tells me there has never been a single religious 'experience' in your life and you're doing nothing other than making up a poor rationalization.

Tell me about your religious experiences. Describe them in excruciating detail. Can you?

Or are your experiences:

A) Non-existant
B) Figments of your imagination
C) Insane delusions

?

Which is it?

and it is unlikely that anyone else will be able to understand that experience without experiencing it themself.

Which means roughly what?

I would say they could be understood.

Any physical phenomena can be explained, at least in a cursory manner.

Attempt an explation.

I know it sounds like I'm a bit crazy, and perhaps I am, but this is just something I believe.

Is your 'belief' the highest standard you should be striving for?

What does belief, when divorced from logic, even mean?

Insane/delusional people 'believe' all sorts of things, things that are demonstrably untrue and illogical.

Should they be allowed to persist in their delusions (If there is an option.)? ARe these delusions good for them?

18th November 2005, 00:07

I've stayed out of the debate thus far because you were getting a sufficient ass-kicking, but this mad me scratch my head:

There's no such thing as too much ass kicking!

A) Non-existant
B) Figments of your imagination
C) Insane delusions

D) All of the above. Don't forget that option.

Publius

18th November 2005, 02:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 12:12 AM

There's no such thing as too much ass kicking!

Actually I was just too bored to wade through the entire debate so I just responded to his last post.

:lol:

John Dory

18th November 2005, 19:33

um... isn't that the book where he unleashes a "global flood" and kills several hundred million people? Or where he destroyes the cities of Soddom and Gomorra and kills another couple thousand?

Is there any geological evidence of this flood?

LSD

18th November 2005, 19:43

Is there any geological evidence of this flood?

Of course not. it's mythology.

But since it's his mythology, he should be prepared to defend it.

Surely you are not accusing me of being religious! :o

CCJ

19th November 2005, 03:08

Defend your beliefs or leave, LSD. Justify your belief in Communism. In Karl Marx. In everything that you believe in. Tell me exactly why you believe what you believe. Tell me what led you to believe what you do today. Then, when you're done struggling over doing that, we'll talk.

LSD

19th November 2005, 04:57

Defend your beliefs or leave, LSD.

I have done so at great length.

Since that is rather vague request, I invite you to look over my 3186 posts on this board. I'm sure I've addressed your specific interest at one time or another.

Justify your belief in Communism.

Well, that's a big one, isn't it!

In brief, communism will result in increased living standards and greater freedom by dispensing with hierarchy and disparity and by making production more efficient and egalitarian.

For a more spefic answer, I suggest you ask a more specific question.

In Karl Marx.

I don't "believe" in Karl Marx. He was right about some things, he was wrong about others. I agree with those things he wrote that can be empircally and logically confirmed.

For example, I find his historical materialism to be a rigorous and effective means of examining historical trends. If you would like to debate this or any other relevent subject, I invite you to start a thread.

In everything that you believe in. Tell me exactly why you believe what you believe.

Clearly you are not interested in the answers to these questions and are trying to make some rhetorical "point".

What you've missed here, however, is that it is not the answers that are important. Not mine, and not yours. What matters is an understanding that answers are nescessary.

I am not going to spend my time recounting the myriad of things that I consider true and the myriad of things that I consider false and explaining all of them. Frankly, that's an insane request.

On the other hand, however, I am more than willing to discuss any relevent subject, at greath length, relying solely on logic and rationality.

Can you say the same?

Remember, you entered this thread of your own "free will". You decided to present an argument in support of Christianity, and in support of "God". Now you are attempting to evade this discussion by challanging my "logical creditials". :lol:

Well, again, look over my posts. See if I ever resorted to "faith" or superstitious dogma. See if I ever demanded that others "respect my beliefs" without presenting cause to do so.

You see, ultimately, this is a question of fundamental philosophies. I understand that my convictions must be rigourusly based in impeccible logic or are worthless. I recognize the fact that unless an idea can be rationaly verified, it is of no value.

You, on the other hand, believe out of "faith". You reject empiracism and ask that we "respect" this.

I cannot.

Tell me what led you to believe what you do today.

Rational analyses. You?

Then, when you're done struggling over doing that, we'll talk.

How about you do me the common forum courtesy of responding to my last post and then "we'll talk".

If you are unable to rebut my arguments, be upfront and admit it; this "struggling" charade is tired and pointless.