Post Reply
Page 6 of 28  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 28 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Why Theists Won't Think
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 9:59AM #51
teilhard
Posts: 51,364

ALL Religions are in PART Human Constructions/Activities ...


HUMAN  BEINGS are the Problem -- not "God" ...


OTOH, in my own Real Life Experience, People of Faith of ALL Traditions increasingly observe and celebrate ALL that we have in COMMON ... 


May 1, 2012 -- 1:48AM, Knowsnothing wrote:


Apr 30, 2012 -- 9:55PM, teilhard wrote:


Who says they're "mutually exclusive" ... ???  Yes, indeed, Islam and The Christian Movement DO agree about some important Theology ...


Apr 30, 2012 -- 9:24PM, Knowsnothing wrote:


Here is a little thinking that does it in for me.  Islam and Christianity are two mutually exclusivistic religions that claim they alone are the truth.  In both, God is said to be perfect and love.


Does not compute.








They themselves do.  I didn't make this up.  Read Jesus' words in the NT or Jihad in the Koran.


It's stands that if a God of love and justice existed, such a thing would never occur.  Alas, things in the world appear exactly as they should if no God existed.





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 10:29AM #52
steven_guy
Posts: 11,750

May 1, 2012 -- 8:06AM, ctcss wrote:


Steven, my friend, what you have posted is a series of assertions and assumptions about what you consider to be "reality" because, as far as you can determine, they seem to be factual to you. But if you were a "brain in a vat" or a character in a game of the Sims, they would seem equally as real (and even operate in a defined, repeatable way) and yet not be real.

So, no cigar then, as regards to "proving" anything.

That's why I was simply saying that we all are merely trying to go forward based on our best sense of things.




The brain in the vat idea doesn't stand up to Occam's Razor.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 10:33AM #53
F1fan
Posts: 11,620

May 1, 2012 -- 7:51AM, ctcss wrote:

You are correct Ken, Radical skepticism is a very awkward position which is why people hate even going there. It leaves one with absolutely nothing "solid" to stand on. But that is the point I am trying to make. From a human perspective, to claim we "know" anything in an absolute way is naive. And to claim we "know" it in a relative way should make us realize that any assertion we make is simply begging the question. After all, relative "truth" isn't actually "truth" at all. It's just our best intelligent take on things at any moment.



It comes down to whether we can trust our sensory apparatus, and if it is reliable.  This includes how our brains make sense of the data.  The mechanism is complex, but how we use it is not.  For example, we don't have to work very hard to discern trees from rocks.  And science uses this reliable process to define what we do sense of nature and how it works.  When you say "absolute" it seems to imply some sort of god's eye view.  But we can use absolute in the sense of human limits and the word be valuable.


I see your perspective as casting human perception into some imaginary sense of absolute, a religious ideal that doesn't mean much in reality SINCE by definition you can't make a case for it due to being human yourself.  There's an absurdity to promote some sort of "reality" beyond human senses (because human sensing is so limited) because it claims a knowledge beyond the very limits being used to claim it exists.


But realizing that we don't know "truth" or "reality" shouldn't cause us to freeze in our tracks. (After all, even from a material standpoint, we must acknowledge that we are limited beings in knowledge, ability, and understanding.) We simply proceed from where we are and go forward (with as helpful a sense of integrity, humility, humor, patience, kindness, wisdom, intellect as we can muster) based on what seems like the most likely path to take and then see where it goes.


The non-believers here seem most comfortable following a path that is based on a material sense of things. That is quite fine since they, like everyone else, should acknowledge that what they know and perceive of the "truth" is going to be imperfect.



This all sounds so disingenuous.  We know that human perception is limited.  But we don't pretend to know something exists beyond this limited ability, as you do.  You are deflating sensory perception while inflating some sort of extrasensory perception.  What we call truth has to be verifiable, and materialism offers the only reliable means for that.  No one is claiming it is perfect.  But it is reliable if certain rules are applied, namely that one discerns imagination from sensory data.  We non-believers discern ideas about gods very well, while theists do not. 

Similarly, believers such as myself are most comfortable following a path that is based on a spiritual (relating to God, that is) sense of things. That too, is quite fine since they, like everyone else, should acknowledge that what they know and perceive of the "truth" is going to be imperfect.



 What exactly is it you think you are relating to?  can you explain why it is that people relate to versions of gods they have only been introduced to conceptually?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 11:16AM #54
redshifted
Posts: 2,283

Apr 30, 2012 -- 10:17PM, ctcss wrote:


While I applaud your efforts to pursue what you consider to be a "reliable" way of getting to the truth of things, the idea that the human mental framework is capable of "objective" anything is rather naive IMO. The scientific method, while very useful, is still dependent on obtaining valid or accurate information. And as long as we are trying to puzzle out things from within the human mental framework (as opposed to having an objective "outside" view of what is going on),  we are never going to be able to absolutely determine what is actually real.



No one said anything about determining absolutes. In my experience, it's the religionist who claims absolute knowledge of the universe by claiming they somehow know the mind of God. The human mind is very capable of maximizing objectivity which is the best we can ever do. While not perfect, it's much better than minimizing it.


Basically, it has long struck me me that the non-believing segment of the population is entirely focused on the "inside" view (matter and materialism) which it considers to be all that there is. Since the idea of God doesn't fit at all in such a limited framework, the "evidence" for God (couched in materialistic terms) seems non-existent, and thus the (matter-oriented) existence of God is largely dismissed. (And oddly enough, I agree with the idea that God is not matter-oriented.)



This is the crux of the problem for believers. I'm focused on what's true in reality. On all available evidence, materialism wins. But I'm always open to evidence to the contrary. Believers never seem open to the evidence in front of their face. You have to first imagine some other realm where God is possible on absolutely no evidence or good reason. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 11:58AM #55
JCarlin
Posts: 6,770

May 1, 2012 -- 7:51AM, ctcss wrote:

The non-believers here seem most comfortable following a path that is based on a material sense of things. That is quite fine since they, like everyone else, should acknowledge that what they know and perceive of the "truth" is going to be imperfect.

Similarly, believers such as myself are most comfortable following a path that is based on a spiritual (relating to God, that is) sense of things. That too, is quite fine since they, like everyone else, should acknowledge that what they know and perceive of the "truth" is going to be imperfect.


Where the "truth" can be found from either side of the path is where the path leads in terms of what we are sure of.  Namely how we are lead to treat the rest of the inhabitants of this limited planet, and how we are lead to deal with the with the life we are certain of that which is our own defined by birth and death. 


It would seem readily observable from both sides of the path that certain religious beliefs fail in one or the other or both of these considerations.  Many religions for example teach that only a certain tribe or group is "chosen" and the rest of the planet is not worth thinking about.  I think it can be observed even from a viewpoint relating to God as a truth, that these religions are false.  Therefore believers and materialists should unite to oppose these dysfunctional religions. The fact that they all claim an unknowable God should not be an excuse to observe how that unknowable God affects the life we must live.


It seems to me that it can be readily observable from both sides of the path that any religious belief based on Pascal's wager leads to dysfunctional management of ones life in this existence we are sure of.  For example I can respect any believer in a God mediated afterlife if and only if how they live this life determines how they will experience eternity with God.  Again I think this is a readily observable "truth" whether or not one depends of God or naturalistic observations.   





J'Carlin
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't cram your foot in it and complain.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 2:24PM #56
Knowsnothing
Posts: 1,150

May 1, 2012 -- 9:59AM, teilhard wrote:


ALL Religions are in PART Human Constructions/Activities ...


HUMAN  BEINGS are the Problem -- not "God" ...


OTOH, in my own Real Life Experience, People of Faith of ALL Traditions increasingly observe and celebrate ALL that we have in COMMON ... 




At the end of the day, all you have is an unverifiable assertion.  A belief, if you will.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 4:50PM #57
Ken
Posts: 33,859

May 1, 2012 -- 7:51AM, ctcss wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 2:00AM, Ken wrote:

If there is some other mental framework than the human, you, being human, cannot know of it. And if you further claim that we can't determine that what what we're perceiving is real, you cannot know anything. You can't even know that you posted in this forum and that I'm replying to you. Radical skepticism is a very awkward position. By claiming that it's true, you rule out the possibility of claiming that it's true.



You are correct Ken, Radical skepticism is a very awkward position which is why people hate even going there.


I see no reason to go there. Our senses are adequate to give us a very good idea of what is. If they weren't, our ancestors would have perished long ago from eating things like asphalt and wolfsbane instead of proper food and leaping into deep mountain gorges under the delusion that they're refreshing streams. We also have our powers of reason with which we can sort the true from the false. I think we can be quite certain of a great many things.


May 1, 2012 -- 7:51AM, ctcss wrote:

The non-believers here seem most comfortable following a path that is based on a material sense of things. That is quite fine since they, like everyone else, should acknowledge that what they know and perceive of the "truth" is going to be imperfect.


It's fine because mass-energy is the most exquisite stuff imaginable. Everything beautiful is composed of it, from the wonders of nature to Botticelli nymphs and Mozart string quartets. So, unfortunately, are the schlocky daubs of the late Thomas Kinkade, but we can't have everything.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 5:30PM #58
teilhard
Posts: 51,364

"Objectivity" DOES always finally turn out to be shockingly "Subjective" ... I agree ...


May 1, 2012 -- 2:24PM, Knowsnothing wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 9:59AM, teilhard wrote:


ALL Religions are in PART Human Constructions/Activities ...


HUMAN  BEINGS are the Problem -- not "God" ...


OTOH, in my own Real Life Experience, People of Faith of ALL Traditions increasingly observe and celebrate ALL that we have in COMMON ... 




At the end of the day, all you have is an unverifiable assertion.  A belief, if you will.





Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 5:41PM #59
Knowsnothing
Posts: 1,150

May 1, 2012 -- 5:30PM, teilhard wrote:


"Objectivity" DOES always finally turn out to be shockingly "Subjective" ... I agree ...


May 1, 2012 -- 2:24PM, Knowsnothing wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 9:59AM, teilhard wrote:


ALL Religions are in PART Human Constructions/Activities ...


HUMAN  BEINGS are the Problem -- not "God" ...


OTOH, in my own Real Life Experience, People of Faith of ALL Traditions increasingly observe and celebrate ALL that we have in COMMON ... 




At the end of the day, all you have is an unverifiable assertion.  A belief, if you will.








What do you offer as proof?  I think that is fair to ask.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 01, 2012 - 8:46PM #60
teilhard
Posts: 51,364

"Proof" ... ???  "Whiskey," please, straight up ...


May 1, 2012 -- 5:41PM, Knowsnothing wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 5:30PM, teilhard wrote:


"Objectivity" DOES always finally turn out to be shockingly "Subjective" ... I agree ...


May 1, 2012 -- 2:24PM, Knowsnothing wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 9:59AM, teilhard wrote:


ALL Religions are in PART Human Constructions/Activities ...


HUMAN  BEINGS are the Problem -- not "God" ...


OTOH, in my own Real Life Experience, People of Faith of ALL Traditions increasingly observe and celebrate ALL that we have in COMMON ... 




At the end of the day, all you have is an unverifiable assertion.  A belief, if you will.








What do you offer as proof?  I think that is fair to ask.





Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 6 of 28  •  Prev 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 ... 28 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook