Righteous Reverend Willie G.
Offline Recommended here by an athiest and I have heard this is a sensible place to discuss topics most find abrasive and hard to swallow. I love politics, religion and all of the things you should never discuss at work. So I guess the next this is what am I? I beieve in a higher power, my viewpoint is constantly changing and forever in a flux of learning. I hold nothing sacred except for maybe star trek and star wars, *note: space balls is sacriligeous*. I am the God of where I stand and due to the essence of free will the heighths of my divinity is matched only by the depths of my depravity. I hold organized religion in contempt and dogmatic views from any perspective is fairly rediculous. I am curious as to see what some people think of my ramblings so I am welcome for discussion. so fire away and I really believe I will learn a lot from being here. Happy Honnika and have a good day. 
I am the God of where I stand
- Login to post comments
Offline Sapient wrote:So do you believe in the snarfwidgets? Can you see that there is no difference in the amount of proof we have for both snarfwidgets and gods?
Yes I believe in snarfwidgets, it is my God. :D Heh, yes I get your point and you are correct but is not proof in the eye of the beholder. We weigh proof by what probability, personal experience, evidence that is proven? Since nothing can be proven snarfwidgets have as much existence as God, albeit maybe in my imagination. Does lack of proof make it that snarfwidgets don't exist? You don't know nor do I know so then all we have left until God or Snarfwidgets show up and dispel all doubt is our personal belief.
Reverend Willie G.
You are definitely wrong here.
Lack of proof of something does not put it on the same likelihood as anything else that cannot be 'proven'.
Your statement about probability, etc, is fine, apart from your use of the word 'proof'.
We assess likelihood of truth, how much confidence we are justified in placing in any claim, by weighing all those factors. Which will in general gives us a basis for saying one proposition is more likely to be true than another, strict 'proof'' is not applicable - as you said, "nothing can be proved". To jump from the lack of proof to the assertion that either proposition is as likely as the other is flat out wrong.
We have a detailed and rigorous mathematical process for assessing interconnected claims and uncertain and/or incomplete evidence.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline Welcome Rev, I am the resident verbal boxer and do have very sharp fangs when it comes to debate, but rest assured whatever I say to you here is about your claims and not you the person.
I'll also cut to the chase and call it as I see it.
"You cannot disprove god" is a cop out excuse to avoid providing positive evidence for the claim you make.
There are claims you, yourself, without disproving them, rightfully reject without thinking about it. You reject Vishnu as a claim and you spend no time going out of your way to disprove the existence of Vishnu.
Bendtrand Russell's "teapot" example explains why this is a bad tactic to take in terms of burden of proof and use of logic. Look it up if you haven't already.
Secondly, and I apply the same standard of rejection to all god claims, past and present. THOUGHTS require a material process to exist, therefor the claim that a disembodied brain with magical super powers is an absurd claim, given any name you want to give it.
I would suggest you try understanding WHY you reject other's god claims to understand why we reject yours as well. The only difference between you and I is that I reject one more god claim than you do.
Cognition is an emergent property of biological evolution. Cognition is not required for the sun to exist or for a hurricane to be set in motion. Cognition is not required for the universe to exist, nor is it needed to start the big bang.
Gods are all the same, from Thor, to Vishnu to Allah and Jesus. They are nothing but ignorant placebos humans invent and market to placate their emotions. They are all merely fantasy falsely believed to be fact. Nothing but super hero worship.
Well howdy Brian glad to meet you, I hope to be a worthy verbal sparring partner 
However at no time have I discounted Vishnu or any others I simply use the term "God" as my idea or label for that which I cannot explain but believe to be a being that created existence and life or in short "God", or vishnu or zeus or the great spirit or the great nebulon cloud whatever. For all I know life could have been created by aliens but who created them and who created that, ad infinitum. I think it was Bertrand russell who quoted "I would never die for my beliefs because I could be wrong" I may have got that wrong so correct me if you would please, but the idea is that you can't fully reject or accept anything because as in theory nothing is concrete and could change with the next bit of evidence or another viewpoint.
Now you say cognition or sentient thought is an emergent property of biological evolution, and you postulate that it is not needed to start the big bang you may be correct? Now I have a theory about DNA how it is similar to a language and that languages have to have an intelligence to make it but like I said it is a theory I am studying now. DNA supposedly didn't happen by accident but again I am theorizing I am wondering if the creation of DNA would be similar to 100 monkeys after a year of pounding on typewriters would somehow write the play macbeth. So the Cognition being an emergent property is again a debatable point since we have no way of knowing if 2 billion years ago there was a self sentient being running around.
Reverend Willie G.
I am the God of where I stand
- Login to post comments
Offline [You are definitely wrong here.
Lack of proof of something does not put it on the same likelihood as anything else that cannot be 'proven'.
Your statement about probability, etc, is fine, apart from your use of the word 'proof'.
We assess likelihood of truth, how much confidence we are justified in placing in any claim, by weighing all those factors. Which will in general gives us a basis for saying one proposition is more likely to be true than another, strict 'proof'' is not applicable - as you said, "nothing can be proved". To jump from the lack of proof to the assertion that either proposition is as likely as the other is flat out wrong.
We have a detailed and rigorous mathematical process for assessing interconnected claims and uncertain and/or incomplete evidence.
So you would say God in all LIKELIHOOD does not exist? Maybe? Hmmm! you seem to have studied philosophy logic, now all things are theory albeit taken through the rigorous mathematical process to make whatever it is in all likelihood true or false, but are we not talking about something that possibly has a far higher IQ that we? Could it be that maybe we have not found the proper formulae to prove everything we have learned so far is false. As you stated by weighing all these factors (that we know of at that point in time). Now these are far reaching statements but you have to take them into account. If God did exist it would be unprovable even by your most rigorous mathematical processes, if God does't exist it is still unprovable, so far that I have found. So what is the point of trying to prove it, it is a personal perception.
Reverend Willie G.
I am the God of where I stand
- Login to post comments
which was jehovahs witness then went to southern baptist after my mother threatened to beat the preacher, was with my step father in the peote waterbird religion when I was around 10, studied many forms of religion after that and discovered my issue wasn't with the religion itself but with the heirarchy of the religion, the people in power. I studied other forms of thought and finally came up with the idea that in order for true free will to exist God had to be absent so one of two things either God doesn't exist or he has removed himself from the picture. Now as a matter of personal choice until further evidence arrives I choose to say that God exists simply because of the fact 1. I want to and 2. that existence of time, space, matter, energy had to start from something.
Welcome aboard! Cutting right to the chase... can you tell me more about this god you believe in? Obviously my interest is in hoping to steer you away from that which is not rational due to it's lack of scientific falisifiability. So give me specifics... are you your own god, is that what you're saying?
For what it's worth: normally I apply a "theist" label to your name at this point however I have a hunch we'll have to remove it in a few days after you stick around...
you seem like the type that would be able to shred it once you heard some good arguments.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
I believe that there will be no way to prove or disprove God, simply put because I could get into a thesis here but i will keep it short, God being all cannot be discovered unless God wants to be. A perfect being which is all is quite simply beyond the ken of man, now does this prove God's existence, no. It doesn't matter if I prove God's existence it is only my belief in God that matters. I believe that God gave me free will and an imagination so God made me equal in that regard hence the I am God of where I stand viewpoint. I think God doesn't want a bunch of sycophants as followers but would prefer to walk with us, experience the world through us, be us as well as everything else. Now here is the funny part, I share almost every athiest view except that God exists, note that is my opinion and really matters not in the scheme of things. I despise organized religion because it is used to control man, I think jesus was a smart man who had a clue on how things worked but the son of God, no. At least not in the way the bible states it for we are all the children of God. I believe all religions have a kernel of truth as well as any other viewpoint. I feel that there are as many paths to God as there are people. Now do I think Athiests are going to hell, no, God wouldn't be that stupid. The idea of hell or an eternal torment is a tool used to control man. Would it not be pointless to give us free will just to say worship me, that isn't free will but an illusion of free will. I believe we will never find the existence of God because if we did find proof of God we would no longer have free will. I hope this clears a little murkiness. So now I am curious on what you will say.
Reverend Willie G.
I am the God of where I stand
Of course there is a 'higher power', or more correctly, many 'powers' that are 'higher' than us. But we have no warrant to assume any such powers are sentient or aware. WE are the awareness of the Universe, along with whatever other intelligences exist WITHIN reality.
By what standard do you claim your God is 'perfect'? Claiming something is 'perfect' in an abstract sense is meaningless.
'Free will' in the metaphysical sense is also an empty concept, since it implies making choices in a total vacuum, ie not based on any criteria whatever, which is indistinguishable from flipping a coin.
Jesus, as recounted in the Book, also had some silly and conflicting ideas.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
So that you understand how much we have in common, you should know that I share that viewpoint. I believe that since he can't be proven or disproved the only logical position is to abstain from believing in a god. Imagine if I presented the concept of snarfwidgets to you. Snarfwidgets are small blue creatures that govern the Universe, without them constantly watching over us we would not be able to sustain ourselves. It is only because of the snarfwidgets that we exist.
Now... do you accept that snarfwidgets exist? If not... why not?
I propose that god belief is very prevalent in society, that society makes god belief feel normal. Snarfwidgets don't have the benefit of a society that mostly believe in them and therefore you see snarfwidgets differently than god... but you shouldn't. It's a common flaw in philosophy to believe that because a large portion of people believe something it lends credibility to that thing. At one point we all believed the Earth was flat... we were wrong.
This is an amalgamation of Christianity, you borrowed it, and made it yours. Why? Why create a god to believe in a god?
Your posts are almost identical to those that I wrote myself about 11 years ago when I first came online to explore my beliefs. Within a year I was a proud atheist dedicating his life to ending religion. It only took me a few days though... to leave the god belief in the dust. In fact, I'm going to send this thread to the man that helped me see the light and invite him to comment. His name is Jake, if you happen to see him post.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
You refer to a pecking order that there are powers higher than us, what makes you think that? There is nothing higher or lower than us and that is including God. I was given free will so that makes me equal to all, hence me being the God of where I stand. Now something being higher or lower is nothing but a personal perception an assumption on your part.
Free will is in all actuallity finite, think like a chess board you have many choices to make but you only have so many due to the restrictions of the board. You may have billions of choices so it may seem that your free will is infinite when in reality it is not, simply because you are finite and can only effect a few things in the grand scheme of things. Now the viewpont of silly and conflicting ideas is again a perception and an assumption on your part. It may simply be that you are unable to capture the grand scope of things. You may be right to some degree and I will think on that but sometimes Albert Einstein was seen as silly and conflicting when in all actuality he was just simply thinking outside the box. I take nothing as silly even though it may well turn out to be, wisdom shows in humor as well as tragedy, spoken from the mouth of babes or the scriptures of the ancient. Question everything know nothing. Just a question, you say claiming something is "perfect" is meaningless, I disagree, but it is a moot point and irrelevant. My question is can you even understand what perfection is? It is a perception and that perception is different per individual. You can claim what is perfection to you but that wouldn't be perfection to me. Now with my understanding of God which is all, perfection is an abstract and cannot be explained nor can God which incidently is pointless and irrelevant to do, since the aspect of God is yet again a perception. I don't try and put God into a box and explain what God is or isn't, God as we should be simply is, what it is I don't know and that is the eternal quest which will never be completed, could be just aliens flying around in invisible space ships, kinda doubt it but you never know.
Reverend Willie G.
I am the God of where I stand
It really comes down to a personal viewpoint of which cannot be proven or disproven. My belief in God dictates that we were created via evolution or whatever, how is irrelevant, but created to have free will and at no point does God interfere with us in anyway or if God does it is undetectable. If God did interfere left books for us or whatever, it would interfere in our free will. Now this would mean that supposedly God made us then left us to our own devices, wouldn't that be in all ways the same as an most athiests view with one small exception I believe there is a God, we will eventually make it back to God, sort of like the Ba'hai faith, but on our own time and will not God's. I guess my point is this why would God give us free will and then say there is only one path? We are here to learn for ourselves and any interference would hinder that process of learning. Do I think God is an uncaring God that sits outside of existence watching us like a sitcom no, but there is no way of knowing. Now there is no way to prove God or disprove God so whether being an athiest or a thiest is simply a matter of perception. Just a thought. Oh and thanks for the reference to Jake I would love to listen to what he has to say, thank you.
Reverend Willie G.
I am the God of where I stand
You opened with the claim that you believe there is a 'higher power', so you are contradicting yourself.
Are claiming you can control the formation of starts and galaxies? If not there are manifestly more powerful forces in reality. Then it depends what you mean by 'higher'.
I agree that our choices are finite, that is not the point.
Those choices, to be meaningful to us, would be based on our personal preferences, thoughts, beliefs, urges, emotions, etc. IOW determined by those factors.
Conflict between ideas is determined by applying logic. It won't tell us what is 'true', but the core utility of logic is to allow us to determine when two sets of propositions are in conflict or not.
Perfection is exact conformance with some standard form or definition. In the absence of such a standard, it is meaningless.
God is a purely subjective concept, which exists only within the imagination of the individual. If you feel that framing your personal mental model of reality in terms of some concept of a 'God' is what 'works' for you, then fine.
I find reality far easier to comprehend without introducing such primitive concepts.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Willie, I'm sort of busy with housework but checked back in because I wanted to see how you'd answer my questions. It seems you added a little to your argument but basically restated the same concepts. Would you please take another look at my last post and try to answer some of the questions I posed?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Yep I did say a "higher power" good catch
however it is purely a descriptive term kind of like how I refer to God as a "he", my apologies I didn't catch that one. Now creation of galaxies is in my imagination now whether or not that is reality to something else I don't know. Now you bring up the point of conflicting propositions, why should they be conflicting. The only time any proposition should be conflicting is when one wishes to impose on the other, then its not the proposition that's conflicting but the individuals or groups. You postulate that perfection is exact conformance with some standard form or definition, why? and you are correct it is meaningless. You are right God is a purely subjective concept however the existence only within the imagination of the individual is purely an assumption on your part. I have noticed that you like to use demeaning descriptives in your posts such as "silly" and "primitive" and it shows that you have a tendancy to look down on people with any view other than your own. I may be incorrect there and if I am I apologize but it is still an observation. I hold no notion as silly or I try not to, I'm not perfect by the way and some things may be truly silly as my viewpoints may be silly but in my perception they are not. I will not espouse saying my view is right for the world because it is not, it is right for me. Everyone must find their own path to their perfection whether that be athiesm or christianity or the peote waterbird religion of the Kiowa indians. Belief whatever it is, is a personal path and no one has the right to force anyone to another path.
Reverend Willie G.
I am the God of where I stand
I love this
"This is an amalgamation of Christianity, you borrowed it, and made it yours. Why? Why create a god to believe in a god?"
This is kind of like asking what came first the chicken or the egg. Did I create God or did God create me? No way to know. I have things that I could say help me in my belief with God but they are debates that have been raging for eons, such as the debate with DNA and tons others. It still comes down to a personal belief that is neither provable nor disprovable. It really comes down to a matter of choice. Many people will think I am crazy and that's okay because I probably am
, however I hold no anger to any viewpoint unless it has been forced upon me, conform or be cast out kind of thing. I like all of the differing views and opinions I try and see from every aspect. I guess you would label me as an agnostic thiest there sapient, according to your video, because truly I have no way of knowing but a personal belief, but that is part of the quest, quest for what you may say? Who knows maybe it's to find out if there is a God or if we are nothing more than the byproduct of alien poop from eons ago. I have many theories and ideas of course which I will get to in time on this board and I am always willing to listen to what other people say as long as it is civil and not demeaning. I see a lot of interesting posts here that are rife with all kinds of information and I am fairly chomping at the bit to follow the threads, I may not comment too much at the beginning because there is a lot of reading and a lot to take in. I hope I clarified a little and like you doing other things while reading here so I may miss a post or two. 
Reverend Willie G.
I am the God of where I stand
So do you believe in the snarfwidgets? Can you see that there is no difference in the amount of proof we have for both snarfwidgets and gods?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Conflicting propositions are ones which cannot logically both be true at the same time. Nothing to do with whether you are imposing them on anyone, at least in the way I was using the term.
You seem to be the term 'conflicting' in the sense of being related to, or leading to, conflict between groups holding to different propositions. OK, I guess, but that means you misunderstood my statement.
The idea of God is a primitive one, I was not applying the term to persons who hold to some idea of God.
On 'perfection', unless you define it that way, it becomes purely subjective. It is alternatively defined as "without flaw", but you then still need to define what counts as a flaw. It normally means something which departs from some ideal, ie a "standard".
I "look down on" ideas which are nonsense, or without coherent definition, or have no real objective justification. Like 'God'.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Yes I believe in snarfwidgets, it is my God. :D Heh, yes I get your point and you are correct but is not proof in the eye of the beholder. We weigh proof by what probability, personal experience, evidence that is proven? Since nothing can be proven snarfwidgets have as much existence as God, albeit maybe in my imagination. Does lack of proof make it that snarfwidgets don't exist? You don't know nor do I know so then all we have left until God or Snarfwidgets show up and dispel all doubt is our personal belief.
Reverend Willie G.
I am the God of where I stand
Welcome Rev, I am the resident verbal boxer and do have very sharp fangs when it comes to debate, but rest assured whatever I say to you here is about your claims and not you the person.
I'll also cut to the chase and call it as I see it.
"You cannot disprove god" is a cop out excuse to avoid providing positive evidence for the claim you make.
There are claims you, yourself, without disproving them, rightfully reject without thinking about it. You reject Vishnu as a claim and you spend no time going out of your way to disprove the existence of Vishnu.
Bendtrand Russell's "teapot" example explains why this is a bad tactic to take in terms of burden of proof and use of logic. Look it up if you haven't already.
Secondly, and I apply the same standard of rejection to all god claims, past and present. THOUGHTS require a material process to exist, therefor the claim that a disembodied brain with magical super powers is an absurd claim, given any name you want to give it.
I would suggest you try understanding WHY you reject other's god claims to understand why we reject yours as well. The only difference between you and I is that I reject one more god claim than you do.
Cognition is an emergent property of biological evolution. Cognition is not required for the sun to exist or for a hurricane to be set in motion. Cognition is not required for the universe to exist, nor is it needed to start the big bang.
Gods are all the same, from Thor, to Vishnu to Allah and Jesus. They are nothing but ignorant placebos humans invent and market to placate their emotions. They are all merely fantasy falsely believed to be fact. Nothing but super hero worship.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Conflicting propositions are ones which cannot logically both be true at the same time. Nothing to do with whether you are imposing them on anyone, at least in the way I was using the term.
You seem to be the term 'conflicting' in the sense of being related to, or leading to, conflict between groups holding to different propositions. OK, I guess, but that means you misunderstood my statement.
The idea of God is a primitive one, I was not applying the term to persons who hold to some idea of God.
On 'perfection', unless you define it that way, it becomes purely subjective. It is alternatively defined as "without flaw", but you then still need to define what counts as a flaw. It normally means something which departs from some ideal, ie a "standard".
I "look down on" ideas which are nonsense, or without coherent definition, or have no real objective justification. Like 'God'.
So you know beyond the shadow of a doubt what is false and what is true? I only know what I percieve is false or true and I guess any form of conflict is based on perception. You are correct that I take the term conflict to be between groups. Now the idea of God is an old one but I won't say primitive that is an opinion. Now on the idea of perfection you are correct it is defined as without flaw, since we can supposedly only percieve the finite we cannot percieve perfection but it is subjective and perfection is different for everybody and it is of my opinion so is the term flaw, purely subjective. Now you say you look down on ideas which are nonsense or without coherent definition, again a perception. You perceive things to be without coherent definition when it may simply be beyond your understanding, probably not because you sound intelligent, a bit cynical but very intelligent. However you cannot discount the idea that appearances are deceiving and so truth is subjective.
Reverend Willie G.
I am the God of where I stand