|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
I'm a believer in God. Can you please help me fix it? [Trollville]
Posted on: March 13, 2008 - 1:03am
   Offline
I'm a believer in God. Can you please help me fix it? [Trollville]
I'm a believer in God. Can you please help fix it?
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
You are under the false assumption that panentheism is incompatible with Christianity and with the idea that "God is love."
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Let's be clear here: we're not dealing with data. We're barely even dealing with ideas (certainly not coherent ones). Since there's nothing at stake, and no way to be right or wrong when arguing something as vacuous as you are, you're afforded infinite latitude in how you frame your arguments. And you did so in a very telling way.
You said that before but which of the following does this mean?
a) Yes, I refuse to accept it because it is an unreasonable or illogical worldview.
b) Yes, I refuse to accept it because it is a worldview that doesn't have an ultimate meaning.
Or do you mean something entirely different?
I quoted your statement word for word (except that I switched nouns and corrected the grammar) only to illustrate a point to you. We don't continue to post b/c you are making points and "we know it", just in the same way that you don't continue to post b/c you know we're making points and "you know it". At least, you don't think we're making points. What makes you think we are convinced of your points?
Or do you think that we are making points, and you're struggling with them so you project? Really I can't know what you think, but all-in-all my whole point here is this: you really ought to know better (or not I guess) than to say something like you did. We don't continue to post b/c you are "making points". If anyone are making points it's the majority here who see it, and not the few who seem deluded enough not to see it.
Why would you say something like you did? Was it your intuition?
I take it what you mean by "point" is "sound argument", or at the very least "valid argument", just to clarify.
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to fix my Aphrodite belief #844, though I may convert to MattShizzle's "sect"
Perhaps, I should adopt your beliefs and delude myself into thinking that I don't need evidence for my intuitive beliefs. Huh? Sounds rational?
I am under the impression that most people here do hold beliefs. It's just that, many of us here tend to hold beliefs that are backed up by evidence, and minimize beliefs that aren't.
There is something at stake here - namely, your insecure ego. You're attempting to "save face" now because you can't bring yourself to honestly admit that you know absolutely nothing about panentheism. If you did, then you would not have made the insinuation that the idea "God is love" is incompatible with panentheism. The truth is that both western philosophy and theology are replete with panentheistic thought. Certainly, there are prominent Christian theologians who can be properly characterized as panentheists.
As usual, you're more intent on making sarcastic barbs than sound, logical arguments. By doing so, you marginalize yourself as a debater.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
These criticisms are fully addressed by the "Parapsychological Association." Here's the link to their website:
http://www.parapsych.org/faq_file2.html#18
Science is not based on the consensus but on the evidence provided by experimental data. The truth is that parapyschology has moved beyond the "proof" stage. Criticism by scientists clinging onto a materialistic ideology is cheap. Refuting the actual data is quite another task. In his book entitled "Entangled Minds," Dean Radin stated....
These are astronomical odds.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I'm asking because you're demanding a mute button to silence my voice.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I'm asking because you're demanding for a mute button in order to silence my voice.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Nihilism is the BELIEF that one has no beliefs. As such, it is inherently self-refuting. Enough said.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Nice try, but "compatibility" doesn't apply here. You could have framed your ineffectual security-blanket philosophy in any way, and you chose the way that was familiar to you (retarded Christian apologetics). Are you so ashamed of your roots you can't admit it?
Since we're so far into the thread, I also wanted to take the time out to point and laugh at the concept of "meaning" Paisley insists atheists are so deprived of. The bible-thumper cum Birkenstock-wearer, Paisley, believes that life is "absurd" if it doesn't go on forever. His solution? A magic extra-dimensional monster made of human emotions will curate his life after he dies, maintaining a giant scrapbook of his MySpace photos and toenail clippings.
Awesome.
Awesome indeed, wish it could be ... ahhh and to be 21 again ... Is god mean or what!
What and indian giver god is, I must invent a truly loving god .... Reality ain't good enough .... Who done this to me ? I must tell that god a thing or two ..... But wait , I AM GOD
Atheism Books.
Free will (libertarian as opposed to compatibilism) is not determined by prior causes. To insist that you have free will is to make a tacit argument for the existence of a soul. This would be incompatible with the worldview of atheistic materialism.
What does this mean? It means that atheists cannot claim to be "free thinkers." Why? Because their worldview dictates that every thought or belief they have was predetermined and could not have been otherwise. This hardly conjures up the idea of an independent free thinker.
I think this bears repeating: ATHEISTS cannot honestly claim to be "FREE THINKERS" because their worldview of deterministic materialism precludes the very possibility.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Bullshit, I AM just not going to worship the unknown as you do Mr. P. Why would I ?
I AM in AWE , now what, make dogma shit up ? I like sci fi , that's different .....
Atheism Books.
The truth can only be defined in like terms.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Is this where you begin cursing the Pillsbury Doughboy?
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
The employment of profanity is a symptom of a mind not at peace with itself and others.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Correction: It's what you call "The Truth®" It's really the fallacy of circular reasoning.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
This may come to you as a newsflash but atheists don't have a monopoly on science. The difference between my worldview and yours is that I have not decided to limit my avenue of inquiry only to that which can be ascertained and validated by the scientific method. You may prefer to have a closed-mind but I don't. I am open to more possibilities.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
You are very opinionated for someone who professes to have no beliefs.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I am clearly aware of what you have said and do not choose the route of the non-rational and mystical. Enjoy your life dude. Have fun now.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
And you are very opinionated about BMcD's opinion.....but that's just my opinion.
Did you say the "enjoyment" of profanity ? because I really enjoy cursing you....
No, it's the part where the Pillsbury Dough Boy comes back from the dead and teams up with Godzilla to attack the The Universal Mind monster that lives on Panentheistic Island. It's a great Japanese monster flick. You should check it out.
From a true LOVING CARING WISE prophet,
George Carlin- "some people are stupid" [ and full of SHIT ] 3 min http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=oboyox3L_MI&feature=related
I love you Paisley , even tho you and me are absurd !
Heal brother , we are "ONE" ..... we are 'gawed' ..... now what ?
War is proof we are absurd. Are you born from this planet ? .....
What's the real cure ? Thanks again for caring ......
Atheism Books.
Thanks dude. I will.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I wouldn't expect you to understand the importance of fidelity in personal relationships.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
I have said that to view the world as being ultimately absurd is to have an absurd worldview. How is that conflating two different meanings of the term? It's simply restating the obvious.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Equivocation.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I am not making excuses for crimes committed in the name of religion. I was simply objecting to your underhanded tactic to implicate all believers.
You are confusing declining church attendance with a waning religious or spiritual impulse. My guess is that the "void" is being filled by "new age" spiritualities. And even in the so-called atheist movement, I see advertisements for "atheistic and agnostic" spirituality. This leads me to believe that the spiritual impulse is alive and well.
What? Atheists are an oppressed minority?
The basic lack of civility and respect on this forum from atheists like yourself does not bode well for you or your movement.
There are atheists on the extreme left (marxists). There are atheists on the extreme right (libertarians). And there are atheists in between. The same can be said for theists. Quite honestly, I see little difference politically between the Ayn Rands and the Rush Limbaughs of this world. So I fail to see the significance that this new atheist movement will have on the political landscape.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
and...
Except that this isn't nihilism. Nihilism is an assertion that nothing matters, everything is worthless and doomed, so why not embrace it? I have no proof of anything, save that I exist. As such, I cannot hold beliefs, which are assertions of knowledge, if I seek to be intellectually honest. I can, however, accept the universe I perceive as one I must interact with, without ascribing an ounce of surety to its truth. I hold no confidence in it, but at the same time I do not attempt to refute it. This is not belief. Belief is active. This is passivity. And for some reason, it seems to really hork you off. Why's that? Why are you so inherintly unable to come to terms with the concept that someone might respond to the reality they perceive with passivity, instead of declaration?
And, if you're referring to Nihilism in the sense of denying that there is any objective truth... there is objective truth. I exist. That cannot be denied (by me), and is necessarily true, which puts it beyond the purview of mere belief or non-belief. It simply is.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Not if you delude yourself, no. On the other hand, if you truly do manage to get to the point where you can leave beliefs behind, then yes, it would appear (as nothing in text 'sounds' at all, unless you read it aloud) rational. Again, I have to wonder why the very idea of someone who has questions, not beliefs, is so difficult for you.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Maybe you don't actually remember what you said. Just in case, I'll remind you:
From your quote, it's fairly obvious why your conclusion simply doesn't follow.
Those shots are specifically at me, ctressle, as I have drawn his specific ire by stating that, given that the only thing I can be sure of beyond doubt is that I exist in some form, that is all I am at all sure of. All else is simply my perception, which I cannot trust. If I cannot trust it (including my doubt of it), then I can hold no confidence in it, and cannot make a positive assertion of its truth, which is what belief is: an assertion that 'I feel this is true'. Active disbelief is really the same thing, merely a belief in the negation. Instead, I accept that the universe I perceive is the one I must interact with, but in the end, I don't know anything about reality, or the truth of anything, other than that I exist in some form, which cannot be a matter of belief, as it must be true (from my perspective. From yours, should you exist, my existence is eminently questionable... and should be questioned
).
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
Actually, I'm just interacting with the universe that I perceive. That doesn't mean I hold any confidence in it. It's a way to pass the time and stave off utter madness... maybe.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
'Faith', in the sense of belief, != 'Faith' in the sense of holding to one's commitments. The two meanings derive from a common earlier beginning, but fidelity and belief are not synonymous. Loyalty is a virtue. Faith is not.
(or, since you seem to be getting pissy about my using linguistic shorthand...)
'Faith', in the sense of what appears to be belief, does not seem to be the same as 'Faith' in the sense of what my senses tell me the apparent words 'holding to one's commitments' probably means. The two meanings, under the framework I can perceive, would appear to stem from a common earlier form, but based on the unreliable evidence of what my brain tells me of the universe, fidelity and belief would not seem to be synonymous. Loyalty, or what I understand it to seem to be, would be considered a virtue, should it exist. Faith does not appear to be.
Frankly, it seems to me to take less motion through what I appear to interact with under the labels 'time' and 'effort' to not provide the additional clarity on my unsurety of the veracity of the seemingly coherant framework my mind presents me with as reality, so I generally dispense with it... or think I do. I could be wrong.
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons." - The Waco Kid
This "fidelity" you speak of... is based on evidence, really that's pitiful of you. Why do you think people develop friendships, and date, etc...? If people had "faith" in each other, I don't mean the metaphor but faith as in the set of beliefs without evidence, first impressions would equal life-long friendships and immediate marriage. But we don't see that, instead these various relationships are earned, surely you understand this?
I can't speak for BMcD, but "faith" = (set of beliefs without evidence) is not a virtue. Maybe connotative use of faith, maybe. But not the denotative.
"What does this mean? It means that atheists cannot claim to be "free thinkers." Why? Because their worldview dictates that every thought or belief they have was predetermined and could not have been otherwise. This hardly conjures up the idea of an independent free thinker.
I think this bears repeating: ATHEISTS cannot honestly claim to be "FREE THINKERS" because their worldview of deterministic materialism precludes the very possibility."
I must admit, I have only read the last page, coz I was wondering why this post has lasted so long... But what the hell?
Atheists don't believe in god, that is all. I don't remember any criteria for having a deterministic materialism pov which dictates that everything is predetermined. That is a religious pov if you believe this is all part of god's plan. I believe that nothing is predetermined (apart from that predicted by scientific theory, don't light a match near an open gas tap). So we are all free thinkers unless burdened by dogma.
I also consider myself quite open minded. I am willing to consider things that have not been validated by science, as long as they do not go against our pool of scientific knowledge (or, as I like to call it: my BS meter). This is actually essential for scientific progress, we need to think about what we don't know so that we may hope to learn.
What has the comment you quoted got to do with Fidelity? I am exceedingly loyal in personal relationships. Do you only show fidelity because god told you to?
Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.
Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
YUP, story Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51
The main obstacle of Peace on Earth is religion.
Thanks atheist story book jesus , we are still at it , "loving ( trying to understand) the enemy", the ones that do religion B.S. ......
Atheism Books.
You mean your posthumous relationship with an extra-dimensional monster made of human emotions?
Wasn't that the bad guy from Forbidden Planet?
So, you contribute to science by avoiding its defining characteristic: its objective rigor.
Like Deepak Chopra, The Secret, etc., you merely name-check scientific ideas, and throw them into a bucket, with no awareness of the necessity to reconcile them into anything cohesive. On one end of your awareness you have the goal of diminishing the fear of the irrelevance that follows your death (which likely will not really have waited until then, judging by the quality of our discourse), and on the other end you have a few half-baked metaphors from your days in the church, free-floating comforting ideas you ply to your emotional baggage like Preparation H for the psyche, and assorted paragraphs from that lulztastic book you repeatedly quote.
ummm , "faith" ? I have faith that this atheist chick could make Paisley's love mojo stir. Will he turn it into dogma ? Bet he can ... bet ya, bet ya ! But P won't play my game ..... I don't like his god, (it's still the clever devil, but not as bad as devil god of abe, thank god! ) .....
help him ! 
Transvision Vamp - I Want Your Love
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_N8bGHtUGJU
Am I serious? What's that ? ..... oh, yeah, the suffering , the bummer ..... what to do ???
Is, "God is Love" a her (too) ? COOL
Man and Women ! Godly love !
Celebrate God Love .... The real god and me are ONE .... U2 .... ain't no master .....
Atheism Books.
Yes, quite. The use of profanity will be the death of civilization.
Actually you fail to see anything that doesn't support your panentheistic delusions....( to pick and choose is the very essence of religious thought. )
Hey you smug, panentheistic, dick head ( oops, there goes that lack of civility again ! ) it's nice to know that we atheists can actually force you to do something.
So...according to your own words, as long as we atheists continue to reject "the logical consequences" of our world view we will actually be forcing you to give up your own time and compelling you to toil away at your computer keyboard ? That's hilarious !
So you're really just a plaything for us, aren't you ?
I am being forced to repeat myself because the religious are refusing to accept the logical consequences of their worldview .....
The christ is in me, I AM atheist. I AM GOD. U2. No master!
Good pantheists are in awe of consciousness and all the universe, but don't invent dogma .... I AM in awe too .... My religion is AWE , science is my dogma .... Okay no one's perfect !
Atheism Books.
Some questions:
1) How does not believing in God make you a deterministic materialist? One specific belief of most atheists, the Big Bang, is indeterministic in that most atheists don't think that the universe necessarily had a cause while most theists think it's illogical to think of anything but God not having a cause.
2) Why is making an argument for free will also making an argument for a soul?
and to repeat my other question:
Paisley wrote:sandwiches Paisley wrote:You said that before but which of the following does this mean?
a) Yes, I refuse to accept it because it is an unreasonable or illogical worldview.
b) Yes, I refuse to accept it because it is a worldview that doesn't have an ultimate meaning.
Or do you mean something entirely different?
1,000 posts