It's all about the Moderates
Offline Moderates seem to be all the buzz right now, so I'm going to try one more time to explain why moderates are not just facilitators, but are the cause of the fundamentalist takeover of American politics. First, so that the Brits are happy, I'm going to make sure we're all talking about the same thing.
Moderate: A Christian, or pseudo-Christian, who believes in God, and probably Jesus, and also believes in science, evolution, and logic.
Fundamentalist: A Christian who believes in the literal interpretation of the bible, and believes that America ought to be a Christian nation... literally.
Ok. This is very simple.
Moderates and Fundamentalists both believe in faith. They must. Without faith, belief in the Christian god is impossible. Let me say that again. Without the notion that "Faith is a Virtue," belief in God is impossible.
Moderates ostensibly use faith only for believing in God. If we are to believe the moderates, they apply logic to everything else. There are two very big problems with this assertion. First, it's not true. Second, even if true, it doesn't get them off the hook for validating fundamentalism.
In recent polls covering topics as far reaching as abortion, stem-cell research, prayer in schools, ID in schools, gay marriage, women's rights, and foreign policy, there is a marked tendency for all Christians to lean right on all of these issues. Are there some Moderates who lean left? Of course. But, if we compare the opinion polls to the number of moderates vs. fundies in the country, we find that a large number of moderates do lean right. The conclusion is simply unavoidable.
In thinking about each of the above issues, it's important to realize that with many of them, the only justification for a right wing stance is religious in nature. As always, there are exceptions. If you dig far enough, you can find someone who is against gay marriage for some bizarre constitutional reason, or who is against stem cell research because of some non-religious objection to the use of human tissue, but it's fair to say that virtually 100% of the arguments used by the public are religious in origin.
(For those who will nitpick over women's rights, foreign policy, and possibly abortion, don't make me bitch slap you. I realize that there are some issues within these topics that are not religious. I'm trying to write an essay, not a book. Don't go down that road. I really don't want to spend the hour and a half necessary to refute this silly objection.)
So, it's not true that moderates only apply faith to the existence of God. The fact is, moderates may not believe the bible is literally true, but they adhere to the spirit of the Bible. Most will tell you that there is something bigger than human morality. They will say that some things are "just wrong," and don't need an explanation. These views are harder to pull out of them, because they realize how untenable their postion is, but at the heart of a moderate is a person who believes in some aspects of religion simply because it feels right to them. Think about it another way. If moderates only applied faith to the existence of god, their voting patterns would be identical to non-theists in the same demographics. But they're not.
Now, why is this important, and why does it mean that moderates are responsible for the fundamentalists' success in politics? As I've written before, moderate Christianity is simply a kinder, gentler version of Fundamentalism. Moderates look at the world and see that some of the Bible is not applicable to their lives, so they discard those parts. They pick and choose what they will believe based on their own conceptions of the world and morality.
Think about Fundamentalists now. They are just like the moderates. They pick and choose the parts of the bible that reflect their view of the world. There's simply no such thing as a real fundamentalist. What we call fundies are actually people who take a harsher cherry-picking approach to the bible. They take a lot of the meanness, bigotry, and hatred, and incorporate it into their belief system. However, if you are ever brave enough to go to one of their churches, notice that the women speak, and that the men wear their hair however they want. Notice that children are not stoned for disobedience, and there are very few witch burnings these days. Fundamentalists are the same as moderates. They pick and choose what they will have faith in.
Moderates have faith that god exists. They ostensibly choose to limit faith only to the existence of god, but that is simply not an option. Faith asserts that some things are true despite all the available evidence. Moderates have good logical evidence that faith should not be applied to things like Abortion Clinic Bombings. They're right to decry the activity. But, they have no leg on which to rest their objection. The fundamentalists are correct when they say that they have faith that the moderates are wrong. Once we have admitted that some things can be true despite being logically false, we have no way of saying which things fall under that category. After all, if god is real despite being logically impossible, it makes sense that abortion clinic bombings are actually a good thing, despite being socially unacceptable and demonstrably wrong by our social standards.
If faith is necessary for anything, it can be used for everything. There is no logical way to draw a line and say "Here is where faith ends." At any point that we use logic, those of faith can simply retort that "This is not about logic. It's about faith."
So, moderates provide the groundwork for fundamentalism. Eighty five percent of Americans (or so) believe in god. That means that eighty five percent believe that faith is a virtue. Sixty percent (or so) of Americans claim to be Moderates. Now, suppose that those sixty percent rejected faith as a virtue. That would mean that seventy five percent of Americans would not give the fundamentalists the time of day because of the ridiculous nature of their beliefs -- not ridiculous because of their content, but because of their foundation! If seventy five percent of Americans simply demanded scientific evidence, there would be no fundamentalist movement. There would be no debate over ID in schools.
Might there still be a debate over abortion, gay marriage, and women's rights? Yeah. There might be. But, we'd be on a lot higher ground arguing over the facts as opposed to how many of the facts we can overlook because of faith. Each and every moderate is partially responsible for the fundamentalists precisely because he does not repudiate the very foundation of fundamentalism. Unfortunately, he cannot do that because he would be repudiating his own "Kinder Gentler" version of insanity. Kinder, gentler insanity is still insanity.
This whole discussion of moderates is not over whether their beliefs are reasonable. Most of their political views are reasonable. Most of them are good people. Most of them think that fundamentalists are crazy. They tell Ray Comfort jokes and drink a beer during the game after going to church. They are very reasonable people. Unfortunately, the very foundation of their belief is what gives permission to those who would turn America into a theocracy. Their complicity is mostly through ignorance, so it is hard to hate them for what they believe to be a perfectly innocuous existence.
Nevertheless, they are responsible.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
It's a figure of speech. But then again how can a speech be a figure? I mean can a build a statue out of speech?
I'm not only anti-theism, I'm anti-bad cliches (and/or figures of speech.) Pot calling the kettle black is another one I think is lame.
I was speaking more in terms of certain memes that aren't necessarily recognized as being religious in origin, but are, and lack a counterpart in a materialist view. I don't have the figures, but anecdotally, I'd say dualism has more of a shelf life than, say, transubstantiation (at least with people I've met who consider themselves "spiritual" ), even though concepts both can be traced to religious sources. Add to this other memes, like "We only use ten percent of our brains, what is the rest for? (Communication with the soul!)" and you've got a bastardized religious belief adapted through pseudo-scientific myths, to seem plausible in the face of modern science. The soul is something assumed by a lot of people because it's introduced early, and in a variety of contexts, so it receives a kind of quasi-validation as an idea. Add to this the notion that the soul is introduced into a zygote at the moment of conception, whether it's recognized as a religious belief by the person holding it or not, and you've got what, IMO, amounts to a religious basis for decision making.
This is one of those threads I have to scan through repeatedly to remember what the point was. I've noticed a lot of objections to the indictment of US moderates are coming from outside the US. I don't know what the religious-political climate is in Australia, Canada or England, but in the US, pandering to religion in politics has been very fevered since the '80s, with the rise of Falwell's Moral Majority. Elsewhere, there was a distinction made between moderate Christians and right wing voters, but the two concepts are very much fused at this point in history, so that it's notable, say, when an American neo-conservative/neo-liberal isn't a Christian, or that a fundamentalist Christian isn't a conservative. It doesn't limit itself to extremes, though: there are gradations in the sense of obligation I think moderates feel to do their duty and vote conservative; and here, I think those memes play a role in making certain things sound "right" to people.
And, yes, mental laziness is a factor in most things in this country.
[Mod Edit: Forgive me Magilum, but I couldn't read your tiny print. I edited your post for font size.]
[magilum: OK, I've edited too, to fix a quote
]
Here I interject to note a false dilemma.
Moderates and Fundamentalists both believe in faith, but moderates apply faith differently. the two groups adhereing to the spirit of the bible differently is established in that premise when it is noted that moderates apply faith to an objective belief by definition, this precludes that the premise of adhereing to the bible spirit in moderate theism is application of faith to subjective belief as occurs in fundamentalism. Or in other words, if a moderate, by definition, believes in logic and only applies faith to belief in an objective question of a god, then they do not apply faith to the question of the bible witnessing its own authority (the fundamentalist spirit of the bible)
On those grounds I reject point 3.
I think that is a lot of blame and vehement self-serving bias, but I don't think it is a point supporting this argument, sorry.
If it was that, it could not accomodate a belief in logic. This goes to my counter-point that what is being blanketly called faith here is more what I would call faith in authority. I won't dictate to you what the reality of the moderate christianity you've encountered in your life is, that is your own expereince to be judged by you and not me. But I will say that there are contradictions in what you are describing to me as moderate christianity.
I think that Hamby's argument attempts to say both this, and something which basically contradicts this, at the same time.
This is the point that Cpt is dealing with, if it were true then wherever moderate theism exists we would see the same pattern evolving. We don't, so it is a falsified conclusion.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
That's why I said, even if you were right about politics (which I don't believe you are - but I will assume you are for the sake of argument) there are still other problems with moderate theism. (All theism is dangerous, IMO.) You must be getting tired Pineapple because you're beginning to argue my points for me. I'm pretty tired too, so I'll be going to bed now.
That is the key to my argument. Oh wait, that is my argument.
Irrelevant to my argument.
Thank you pineapple. This is exactly what I was hoping you would say. I think it's great that you've found an exception to Hamby's argument. (I don't agree with you but I'm going to just pretend for now that your word is good enough evidence.) Now my point was that Hamby had a big huge argument and you just whipped past the crucial stuff and took one small aspect of it and (still pretending here!) proved it false. Some how, some where in pretend country there are moderate theists believing in God in a totally isolated portion of their brain while the other 99% acts without this belief. Great. So we are now supposed to throw out the whole argument?
I'm done pretending for now so can we please see some evidence? While you're at at, why don't you tell us who your Prime Minister is. I already know the answer to that one but I'll let you break the evangelical news.
No, but you can throw out this strawman.
I presented evidence.
That would be Stephen Harper, and yes he is Christian (I'm not sure if he's evangelical), but what's your point?
These memes are intertwined in my argument, and are the more or less direct result of accepting faith as a virtue.
This is a good illustration of how things go haywire when we allow faith to have any appearance of validity.
My thesis is broader than this, but this is close. My point is that despite the capability of many moderates to make good moral decisions (and thus vote appropriately, etc), they carry a "virus" of sorts. Faith may lay essentially dormant in most moderates, but they are carriers of the meme and propogate it.
Again, my thesis does not hinge on U.S. voting patterns. Rather, it is an example of what happens when the virus propogates. I agree with your statement, and I stand by my example, but I refuse to allow it to be misconstrued as the brunt of my argument.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
In the case of a military dictatorship, I conditionally agree with you. Justification of power in military dictatorships is entirely dependent on the number of guns pointed at dissenters. However, and this is a really big point, if you can't convince anyone to shoot the guns, you have no power, so ideas are still the foundation of authority.
In non-totalitarian governments, the political authorities are a reflection of the culture itself. Again, try to imagine a U.S. congress with only one openly atheist member if 75% of America was atheist. It simply couldn't happen.
Authority is a product of the acceptance of ideas. Ideas are the product of our rationale. Faith is invalid. Rationale including faith propogates more rationale including faith. It's really a very simple chain of causation.
I really don't want to get hung up on government. As I have repeatedly said, it is not critical to my argument.
No. Absolutely not. That is not the antecedent of my argument. Faith itself is the meme by which faith in ineffable authority can come to exist. Faith is the root cause of faith in ineffable authority. Just look at the definitions and you can see that it is necessarily true.
If and only if reason is the ultimate judge. However, if faith has been allowed at all, it falls to the faithful only to produce a compelling enough appeal to emotion, patriotism, or whatever else will work sufficiently, to convince the powers that be that this is an instance where faith trumps reason.
After all, faith is about what you "feel" to be true, not what you can demonstrate to be true.
As I have demonstrated, there may be political moderates and fundamentalists, but anyone who adheres to faith as a virtue is not moderate with regard to the foundations of truth -- only in their personal interpretation of it.
And I don't disagree with you. However, you're not talking about faith anymore. You're talking about intuition, which, all people of reason will agree, requires external verification before it can be taken seriously.
You feel that intuitively, but there is no way to prove it externally because you also feel that some things should be taken on faith.
You're saying exactly what I've already said. Moderates embrace a less extreme version of Fundamentalism. They reject what they intuitively feel to be extreme, but once again, they have no basis other than their intuition. Logic will fail them because they have allowed faith into the equation.
It's not that their logic will be wrong. If they make a valid argument, it will be logically true. However, their own admission that some things are illogical, yet true, invalidates their conclusion. They simply can't respond to the rebuttal, "Yes, that's all very logical, but that's the wisdom of man, and God says that is foolishness. Therefore, I am right."
It will result in a neverending circle of logic vs. faith, with each side screaming louder each time, and neither having any way to come away with a clear victory because there is no objective measure by which to judge either side. The only hope is that more moderates than fundies will vote for the moderate view. Sometimes this happens. Often, it doesn't.
This is irrelevant to my argument, even if true. I have already addressed this multiple times. I am not saying that there would no longer be any debates about religious issues, or that issues that are currently argued on religious grounds would not be issues without the religious foundation. So long as the religious foundation is there and given public validation, the fundamentalists stand on equal ground with everyone else, and that is the difference that moderates make. If 80% of moderates voted with atheists, they would still be silently validating fundamentalists.
Let me make this very clear. The voting patterns of moderates have absolutely nothing to do with my arguments.
I appreciate your concern here, but so long as you promote faith as a virtue, you have no leg to stand on.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Not only this, but he's theoretically only proven the existence of a situation in which moderates don't vote with the fundamentalists. He's still plugging away at this despite the fact that I have demonstrated that this is completely irrelevant to the crux of my argument.
In even simpler terms, I've done this...
Point one.
Point two.
Point three.
Conclusion.
Example: Some countries' voting patterns demonstrate how this argument works.
***********
Pineapple: I can show one example where the voting patterns don't demonstrate how this argument works. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
Looks pretty silly when you put it this way, doesn't it?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
You want my argument in point form? Fine. First I'll set up a base. Then I'll proceed.
- Moderates take secular things on logic (evolution etc..) Fundies take it on faith (ID/creation etc..)
I'm sure we both agree on this.
-Moderates take the existance of God on faith.
Agreed?
-You argue this faith of the moderates justifies the faith of the fundies since there is no line of where faith should stop. If we take one thing on faith, what's stopping us from taking something else on faith?
Correct?
Now mine:
P1: It is unethical to force your views based on faith onto another. For example, I have faith you robbed a bank. That is not good enough.This affects you directly, so I need evidence/logic if I were to take away your freedom.
P2: It is therefore unethical for the fundies to force their religious beliefs onto others since they are based on faith.
C: The moderates do have a leg to stand on. You may regonize it as little documents known as the constiution and the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. The freedom TO and FROM religion.
The reson I brought up the Canadian stats is to show you how a country is suppose to work. You yourself said Canada's political climate is much different than the U.S, yet we have a Christian majority. The Canadians are following the law. The U.S is not.
Let me do this by analogy.
Social drinkers justify drunk drivers. Social drinkers don't have a leg to stand on to talk down to drunk drivers since they drink themselves ergo justifying the drunk driver's actions. After all, where do we draw the line of how much drinking is too much?
Sound absurd? I hope so.
Pineapple, I'm going to explain this to you exactly one more time, then I'm going to completely ignore you every time you repeat the same thing.
This is your point.
This is not an example of your point. This is an example of why, logically, evidence is necessary to prove an assertion. Your use of faith is not consistent with the theological definition, and so this whole point is irrelevant, even if it did match your point.
Furthermore, you have not demonstrated the proof of your claim. You have only asserted it. In order to prove this, you must do so with theological faith included in the proof, since you assert that faith and reason can stand side by side.
You must prove, using logic, that logic is not valid when faith is, but only when faith is valid logically. Good luck.
Technically, this should be C1, since it starts with Therefore, but no biggie. It doesn't follow because you haven't proven P1, so we may discard it.
You have given an example of a document that asserts freedom to and from religion. This is a very nice example of such a document, but it is utterly, completely, and in all other ways, irrelevant and inconsequential to the argument I have made.
You have made a naked assertion without a logical proof as a response to a thoroughly explained and logically backed argument. Until this situation changes, I will not be explaining it to you each and every time you repeat the mistake.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Okay before I continue, I want something cleared up.
You said my example on bank robbery is irrelevant, because it's a different type of faith from the theological.
I think I get it now, but I want to make sure:
Are you asking how we (or moderates) can logically argue against a fundie that says "God wants us to do X"?
AHA! moment.
I have just seen the centre of your argument, I think, so I will skip straight to it. (maybe answer the rest afterward)
Well the answer to that is that God doesn't say that it is foolishness, he just says he can trump it. So what? he not thee..
it's written:
Wisdom, like an inheritance, is a good thing and benefits those who see the sun.
Well moderates have a tendency to be able to argue faith vs faith as well as faith vs logic. The difference is that a moderate is more likely to use faith vs logic argument for their own personal beliefs and faith vs faith when confronted by someone who only goes on faith.
The third option works. There is always the option that we will come together over better solutions that don't even polarise us.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
I'm talking more about the idea of God (ergo the Bible) as the ultimate authority. It is this I think you are referring to most of the times you say 'faith' in your argument.
Faith isn't invalid it is completely possibly to 'hold certain' things that are not visible or tangible, it's entirely true that affirmation has a psychological and physical, real, effect on human experience. It's not invalid at all.
Now, the idea of the bible witnessing it's own authority without ever being questioned, that's invalid.
There seems to be a correlation fallacy in your argument which is giving me no end of frustration. Please define faith as you are meaning it.
I don't see how that is necessarily true. What's your argument for it?
You must be kidding? No, you're not, are you?
well I guess that can happen, but the idea that allowing faith at all is the sole or even major facilitator of such ludicrous behaviour is overgeneralising a bit I think.
yeah, but the faith you're talking about above requires a demonstration, so it's not the same is it?
the foundations of truth? who has those?
No I'm serious, a moderate who doesn't question any claim of having the foundations of truth, I'm yet to meet.
No I'm talking about faith. You can't see intuition, but you can believe in it. Intuition doesn't require external verification before it can be taken seriously, but if you don't at least seek some in regard to taking it seriously then your actions could be taken as less moderate than moderate.
No, not really. A moderate is not likely to just "take something on faith", or feel that anything should be just taken on faith, I shouldn't think. It still seems to me that you are talking of a specifc culture of moderate thinking rather than a generalisation of moderate thought from the basis of the definition you outlaid originally.
I'd best be the judge of that myself.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Bah, disregard this post. I shouldn't post when I'm in a hurry and thinking too fast.
Don't blame the moderate theists! It's the moderate atheists' fault for not uniting in the fight against faith! Their refusal to cry out against irrationality gives moderate theists the opening of social acceptance to freely believe in whatever nonsense they choose to douse themselves in! They lay the groundwork for moderate theism! Really!
For the record, I consider myself all of a fundy, a moderate, and a liberal in my religion. When you make things up for yourself, you tend to expand across the whole of the theological spectrum.
You seem to be missing the key difference between moderates and fundies.
Why do moderates accept evolution, science etc...?
The answer is simple. There are facts about evolution. There are facts about science
I saw in another thread, where you wrote
So there are two parts of faith:
1: despite evidence to the contrary
and
2: complete lack of evidence.
Moderates work on 2. (I actually disagre with this, but for the sake of argument, say there is no evidence for God)
You see, if there is no direct evidence for God, they have to use faith, there is no data to look at. In the secular world however, there is science/logic. They don't have to use faith as there is data to look at. There is evidence all around them. For example, they may see evidence that homosexuality is perfectly natural. The views on the secular world are falsafiable. The existance of God is not.
The fundies however work on the first part
despite evidence to the contrary, they say evolution is a lie, or homosexuality is a sin.
This is why I said it is unethical. By saying homosexuality is a sin or evolution is invalid, they are being decieving, going against the data.
We can test for stuff like this, because the data is accesable.
There's a point at which I have to just assume you either don't want to get my argument or are not going to. Please stop with this ultimate authority bit. It's not necessary for faith to be in any particular authority.
You've been on the boards long enough to have seen this argument. I will not deflect this thread to explain it again. Please review the following essays if you're still not convinced. Your denial of this fact is not relevant to my argument because you're just plain wrong.
The Two Meanings of Faith
Does Everyone Start With an Assumption?
For this essay, when I use the word faith, I am referring to the theological sense of the word. I will review to make sure I have not used faith in the colloquial sense in any instance. If I have, I will change it to "reasonable certainty."
Are you serious? If you have faith in ineffable authority, you must have faith. I need not have faith in ineffable authority to have faith in something, but I must have faith in something to have faith in ineffable authority.
The fact that it doesn't happen in all instances has no bearing on the fact that it could happen in all instances.
The fact that other facilitators could lead to such behaviour has no bearing on the fact that faith does lead to such behaviour.
You're deflecting just like Pineapple now. You're pointing out the existence of non-related but similar phenomena and suggesting that they somehow invalidate my argument.
I'm not going to continue pointing out the same kinds of deflections. There's a point at which I'm just going to have to decide that you're not going to get it. Please try to understand why your objection is not relevant. Do you know how to represent arguments symbolically? Maybe if you reduce it to symbols it will be easier to understand. I dunno.
In my previous response, I explained that it is you, not me, who is equivocating the colloquial and theological versions of faith. Please review that response.
I'm starting to get aggravated. I've spelled this out in the plainest English I know how to use.
Moderates do not question faith as a means of acquiring knowledge. If they do question it, they do not arrive at the correct answer, or they would not still be moderates.
The essay I linked above, about assertions, explains the foundations of knowledge. I should have used the word reality instead of truth, but it's a minor point. They may be used essentially interchangably in that context.
Please read This Essay again, and again if necessary until you understand the difference between colloquial and theological faith. I refuse to type for an hour explaining something that has been explained brilliantly already. If you don't know why we (humans) believe in intuition, you need to learn more about what intuition is. There are tons of good books about it. Just do an Amazon search, and pick one written by a scientist, not a layman, or worse... a theologian.
This is officially the last time I'm going to answer the same objection. What you do individually, and what any or all moderates do individually, is not in any way relevant to my argument. I am specifically not taking any particular moderate. I am taking the entire group of moderates and demonstrating the very thing that allows the group to exist -- literally, its defining feature.
Everyone makes their own decisions. I'm trying very hard to give you enough information to make the correct one.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
... said the pot to the kettle.
This is the closest thing you've had to an actual argument, but it's still not right. With regard to any and all gods defined as supernatural, there IS evidence to the contrary. You, better than any theist here, know that supernatural literally refers to nothing. Any supernatural god is literally defined as nonexistent.
I'm not going to quote the rest of your post, or respond to it because your premise is demonstrably false.
[edit: furthermore, one need not believe in a god. Any thing defined as supernatural is necessarily nonexistent.]
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
This essay is manipulative and dishonest.
For example:
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Bible: New Testament. Hebrews 11:1.
i.e., it is belief without justification.
Huh? No it's not.
The substance of things hoped for - ie: if they come to pass then faith is just future configurations of energy, if they don't then it is imaginative potential. Future and potential are justifiable to believe in, I don't see how they are not.
and:
Furthermore:
Romans 8:24-25: “For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.” (NKJV)
Here Paul makes it clear that one cannot have non contingent faith is one has facts! If one has a reason to believe, he cannot have theistic faith by definition!
No he doesn't!
why does one still hope for what he sees? : ie why bother hoping for what you already have when you can hope for what you can imagine.
Hamby, it's Tod that's making an equivocation, of faith and stupidity. That whole essay is impolite, presumptious, biased, self absorbed nonsense.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Here, we are at an impasse, and the debate is over. If you cannot understand this equivocation, it will be impossible for you to understand my argument.
Perhaps the tone is impolite, but the conclusions are valid, and your estimation of the self-absorption of the author has nothing to do with the validity of his argument.
I think it's very telling that you have resorted to angry ad hominems... the last resort of the defeated.
In any case, I'm not going to debate with you any more on this subject. I'm sorry that you can't understand it, but I think you have demonstrated clearly why religious indoctrination is so dangerous.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I've been wondering what the supposed distinction is between the dictionary definition of faith as a belief requiring no proof, and what many believers allude to it being. Either I'm no closer to understanding it, or there's nothing to understand. In the common religious use, I take the term to mean unconditional belief: that which confirms my beliefs confirms them, that which contradicts them can be rationalized to confirm them.
I watched a segment on YouTube of a discussion between Richard Dawkins and Alistair McGrath that had been cut from "The Root of All Evil?" in which Dawkins challenges McGrath on the meaning of faith. Having talked at length about what he saw as the explanatory potential of the existence of a god as justification for his beliefs, McGrath says that's not the main reason he believes. He then says that there is a limit to science and reason where faith must take over, but that his faith is rationally informed by his view that the gospel authors were impressed enough by the explanatory potential of a god to believe it themselves. Aye-ayeayeayeayeayeaye...
I have never said it is. I am pointing out the lurking variable of your correlation fallacy is AUTHORITY. For fundamentalists, authority is what they have faith in (this is where the contenders Tod is answering, in the second essay you linked, are coming from), this is not the case for moderates who repsect the authority given by hard work, honest effort and reason and believe in what has come of that, ie science, evolution, humanitarian philosophy.. etc
When you say that the religious rely on faith as a source of knowledge you are not accurately representing your definition of moderates as believers in evolution, science and jesus etc.
Cpt picked up on this as I said it and you didn't, what does that say about moderate theists then, Hamby? We understand each other, but you're the one who is right about us? I think not.
You started your argument, with the premise that moderates apply 'reasonable certainty' to everything with the one exception of the existence of God. Now I have so far left that statement untouched in this thread, I figured it for irrelevent, while your offering though, perhaps you could include in your premise the moderate religious following known colloquially as 'seekers' and note that their faith in god is of a contingent nature (hence the name seeker).
AHHH but the authority comes first, the faith follows because of the authority. You might know this better as the Fear of God. To have this faith you must acknowledge the authority. It's fear-based (or stupidity based) faith but it's still faith because it has the same tendency to produce psychological and physical effects on the person and their experience.
it seems to me our major contention is that I am questioning the religious notion of 'faith alone' from a psychological standpoint and you're not. Strangely ironic isn't it?
I, respectfully, disagree.
Let me spell it out in plain english. Bullshit.
That is an assertion of the non-existence of God, careful there Hamby, or you'll turn the burden of proof against yourself.
arrogant.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
You're not going to debate because you can't prove your case against mine. you are being intellectually dishonest and resorting to ad hominem yourself. My ad hominem is not fallacious, I am attacking the credibility of the argument, it is written with presumption and bias, by an person who is obviously too absorbed by their own self-importance to see the ad hoc, non sequitur lies they are using to justify their position.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
As I've already said, I refuse to debate you while you are simply resorting to ad hominems and angry attacks.
Call me what you will, but if you cannot refute the arguments, then you have clearly lost the debate. Until and unless we come to an agreement on the definition of faith, it is pointless to discuss your other objections.
The argument has been presented clearly in the essay I linked. If you cannot refute it, you must concede the point or plead ignorance. In either case, you cannot maintain your position in a debate.
Call me rude if you like, but I will not let you gloss over this point, as it is crucial to the argument. Either refute it or admit defeat.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Then refute it.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I did. you have not answered my refutation on tod's definition of theological faith.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
you're dreaming Hamby, where have I not refuted? How quickly you resort to telling me I must take tods essay on faith when I find it completely invalid.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Your refutation is that Todangst is a prick, so he's wrong?
Please step back for a minute and think about this. A refutation consists of either:
1) Demonstrating the logical impossibility of the argument
2) Proposing an argument that is demonstrably more likely than the one given. (This cannot actually apply because Todangst's argument is not one of probability.)
3) Demonstrating a fallacious premise
4) Demonstrating inaccurate data. (Also highly unlikely, since Todangst is not building a case from accumulated data.)
In all of these cases, demonstration must be either logical or factual, where the facts are empirically true.
You have not done any of this. You've attacked Todangst's tone, and asserted (with no backing) that his argument is twaddle.
Again, for the last time, I challenge you. Refute the position or admit defeat.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
There's nothing to understand besides that religions, over the centuries, have probably (almost certainly) tried to hone the impact of their 'selling point' somewhat to make it sound like there is something further to understand when there is not.
that sounds right I should think, but this is not a stand alone principle, faith is supposed to move mountains, to bring validation, to make it's own evidence. And these both need to reconcile somewhere, it's a mystery (challenge, puzzle, mindgame for your entertainment), even by biblical definition, and mysteries are contingent.
That sounds like a selling point for stupidity.
would you call McGrath a moderate? sorry, I don't know the name, I'll look him up.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Thank you for accurately reproducing my text. Now provide the demonstration, please.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
It's been done. you're just ignoring it.
Tod's argument is that:
Premise: A=a
Premise: B=b
Premise: b and a are not equal
Conclusion: therefore A and B are not equal.
And if you look upthread a few posts you will see I refuted the premise that A=a
edit: furthermore I noted that it was ad hoc bullshit written with a tone of obvious scathing and bias seemingly intended to pass for argument.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Eloise, you're embarrassing yourself. Please stop.
A bunch of symbols are not an argument. If you are going to refute him symbolically, you must first accurately represent his argument symbolically. You have not done this.
Before you waste your time, you don't get the priviledge of simply declaring what his definitions are. You must use his if you are to refute his argument. It is the claimant who declares the meaning of his words within epistemological rights. If you find a definition to be outside of the claimant's epistemological rights, you must defend this position.
I'm not blind. I know what you feel your refutation is. You think his definition sucks. But, Eloise, that's not a refutation. That's a baseless asssertion. If you don't know how to establish a definition, you're not going to be able to do this.
I'll even get you started on this, because I really want you to learn why you're wrong. Todangst has made a distinction between contingent and non-contingent faith.
So, Todangst's assertion is that some things are believed based on experience and induction, and others are based on exactly the opposite -- lack of experience or induction, or experiences and inductions contrary to the belief.
To prove that this is the case, Todangst need only demonstrate the existence of one example of each. I'll provide you with two of my own now, and justify his distinction.
1) I believe that when I sit in my chair, it will not fall down.
This is contingent belief. I do not have certainty, but I do have the prior knowledge that each of the thousands of times I have sat in this chair, it has held my weight. Furthermore, I don't weigh significantly more than I did last time, and the chair appears to be in more or less the same state of repair as it was last time I sat in it. I therefore have reasonable certainty that my chair will bear me up with aplomb.
2) My friend believes that picking her daughter's birthday as lottery numbers will increase her chance of winning.
This is non-contingent belief. There is simply no experience in recorded history that supports this idea. First, the mechanism by which lottery balls are chosen can be empirically demonstrated to be as close to random as humanly possible. Second, adhering to the principle of statistics and confirmation bias, we can reasonably conclude that any winners who actually did pick their daughter's birthday were statistically consistent based on the number of participants who adhere to the practice. In other words, if 999 out of 1000 people pick their daughter's birthday, the odds are that the winner will have done this. This does not increase the odds of any individual winning over the others. Furthermore, there has been no demonstrated physical difference between my friend and any other human, such that the difference would lead us to conclude that she, alone among humans, has the ability to influence lottery numbers.
I could go on listing hundreds of reasons why this belief is not supported either logically or factually, but the point is sufficiently made. There is both a complete lack of evidence for the belief and a slew of contradictory evidence.
Now, I have demonstrated that these two types of belief exist. For the purpose of this proof, I will assign the definitions as such:
Faith(C) = Contingent Belief
Faith(N) = Noncontingent belief
At this point, I am able to make my claim:
Faith(N) is the type of belief held by those who believe in God.
In order to prove this false, you must either:
1) Demonstrate that there is valid, non-fallacious evidence for a positively defined god
2) Invalidate my example by proving that there is a reason to believe that my friend can influence the lottery numbers, forcing me to either A) Abandon my definition, or B) Produce another example that I believe to be better.
Please, procede with your refutation. Your Nobel Prize awaits.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
http://www.eppc.org/Conferences/eventID.121/conf_detail.asp
There's a link to watch a video of the event in blue right after the first paragraph.
Oh, the point wasn't that he was a moderate (he's an apologist), but that I found his explanation of a different definition of faith confusing and circular.
Hamby, I QUOTED his definition. don't be so ignorant.
first I think i'll defend the existence of my challenge. When you acknowledge it exists, then we'll decide what I am challenging.
Pathetic, Hamby. I showed his definition to be non-sequitur. there is justification for belief or 'faith" which is "the substance of what is hoped for". Future and potential. Don't ignore the facts Hamby.
cut the crap. You resort constantly to this patronising tone as though it actually proves something about my argument. Please stop.
And it is false. The theology he quoted did not support his definition of non-contingent faith so he just used an ad hoc interpretation and filled in the gaps with Martin Luther rambling.
extraneous.
The point is:
A. the definition of colloquial faith = contigent
B. the definition of theological faith = non-contingent
C. to prove theological faith is non contingent look at my ad hoc position on these bible passages <insert non-sequitur>
C is false reasoning. Argument refuted.
you have not demonstrated that contingent and non-contingent is the difference between theological and non-theological faith. Where have you correctly linked theological faith to the non-contingent?
No you can't. I gave you an example of contingent believers already in this thread. pay attention.
I do not. You have fallaciously linked the contingent belief to belief in God (unless you are speaking of a specific culture in which there is proof positive of it like Tod's Martin Luther King example) so you first have to prove that your generalisation holds where you're arguing for it.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Thanks Shelley, I will look into it.
Magilum:
yes I saw that point, I read it that you found his definition reasonable up to the point where he was cornered by Dawkins applied it to himself and came up contradicting. Was I right to think that?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Gotcha. It's not just some random video though - it is long but it does relate to this discussion.
I'm sorry. I can't do this anymore. You're just getting more and more beligerent, and you're not even remotely addressing the issue.
No, you claimed it is a non-sequitur. You don't just get to claim something and then it's real. You must prove it. Claim does not equal proof.
Future and potential are contingent.
I quoted myself so that we can sort out who's resorting to what.
But, Eloise, that's not a refutation. (That's pretty straight forward. Do you object to the use of the word, "But"? The fact that I used your name? Surely it's nothing in "That's not a refutation." It couldn't be more straightforward.)
That's a baseless assertion. (Neutral. After saying what it is not, I have told you what it is.)
If you don't know how to establish a definition, you're not going to be able to do this. (This is completely true, and based on your complete lack of refutation after multiple attempts, it seems a reasonable conclusion. Note, I didn't say, "You don't know how..." I said, "If you don't know how." If anythinig, I'm giving you more benefit of the doubt than you deserve.)
Now, let's look at what you said:
cut the crap. (No indication what the crap might be.)
You resort constantly to this patronising tone as though it actually proves something about my argument. (Actually, all I've done this whole time is explain to you why your argument is wrong. 'm sorry that you feel that telling you the truth is patronizing. Perhaps you'd like me to simply agree with you so you'll feel better? Now THAT was a patronizing thing to say. See the difference?)
First, I'm not going here with you because it's unnecessary. I gave you an example of non-contingent faith. I have established its existence and asserted that it applies to God. Now you must prove that God is a contingent belief, or you must abandon your claim.
Second, claiming it does not support the definition is another baseless assertion. You must demonstrate your claims.
Well, it's really obvious. I didn't think you needed to be spoon fed. (That, too, was patronizing. I want you to be clear on the difference.)
My claim: There is no valid evidence for the existence of a positively defined god.
Your refutation is stupid simple. Provide a positive definition and valid evidence for a god.
Stop bitching about my link and refute it, or give up this insipid argument.
You made a naked assertion that they exist, but you have yet to provide a positive definition for god with supporting evidence.
This is honestly just getting stupid. This has been done over and over, and you've watched it over and over. I'm sorry it makes you mad that you can't refute this, but neither has anyone in the history of mankind been able to. Why don't you just suck up your pride and admit you can't do it?
You have claimed that it is a fallacious link, and you have not demonstrated the fallacy. My link rests on the following:
1) There is no positive definition for a god that is coherent. (Phrased positively, "All positive definitions of god are incoherent." )
2) There cannot be any evidence for a thing which is incoherently defined. (Necessary, by definition)
3) Therefore, (1,2) there cannot be any evidence for god.
4) Therefore, belief in god is non-contingent. (By definition)
It's there for you, point by point. Demonstrate the fallacy. Better yet, drop this and admit you can't. I'm getting really tired of trying to find ways to explain the same thing to you repeatedly.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I don't know what you're referring to, actually. You don't mean something in the Hitchens/McGrath video linked to by Shelley, do you? I haven't watched that.
I took his explanation of his faith to Dawkins as this:
1. "Explanatory power" reinforces belief, but isn't primary basis.
2. Primary basis for belief is faith, but faith is based on evidence.
3. Evidence being that biblical author's believed in "explanatory power."
4. Evidence has limits, so faith takes over.
It sounds like he's positing faith as a hypothesis, yet he's starting with the assumption that it's accurate, which leads me back to the unconditional belief view of faith.
It think it's clear who has spent many posts avoiding (read denying) the issue.
You pointed me to tod's essay to counter my argument which was that the definition of faith you're using is in your OP is an equivocation. I read Tod's argument refuted everything it had to say in relation to my position and awaited your reply. Since that time your replies have been ad hominem, denying the facts, or just plain hollow and extraneous. until now...
I moment ago you said I wasn't even using his definition. see how you're backpedalling? is this because you were wrong to begin with and the essay doesn't even refute my position ?
as for a demonstration of my claim, you're addressing that below yet still, here, denying it exists.
Well DUH! The theology quoted refers to contingent faith. That is all the proof necessary for refuting the premise of the claim that theological faith is non-contingent.
No, this is just silly and going in circles, I do not have to prove that God exists to argue that contingent faith in God existing is a moderate standpoint.
hmmm?
spoon fed much?
http://www.masterpath.org/sriGaryOlsen/index.htm
http://www.sahajayoga.org/seekersguide/
http://www.tylwythteg.com/seeker.html
I don't have to refute it when my whole argument rests on the fact that christian theology advocates contingent faith (many many times) and tod's argument (yours by-proxy) rests on the fallacy that it does not.
It doesn't make me mad that I haven't refuted your ignostic standpoint, all my exasperation has been directed at your insistence that it is relevant to the original point of debate between us. You haven't established that. Establish that moderates put themselves in this position without equivocating your definition of faith and then I'll take the time to discuss the coherence of god.
I've been here before in another thread; we have naturalistic proof that a 'thing' can be what it is not, I reject (3).
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
yes I realise you meant that. I thought, because you were replying to my specific point, that you saw my argument in the notion of 'explanatory potential'. Since your objection was to his circular reasoning around his own statement "that's not why I believe" I figured that perhaps you are receptive to the idea that explanatory potential is a valid argument for contingent faith.
In other words, If I said my point of difference with McGrath is that potential is a basis upon which I believe and am a theist. What would be your reply?
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Ok, Eloise. I'm not going to keep going back and forth about what you think you have or have not done.
This thread isn't about contingent faith vs. non-contingent faith, anyway, so I'm not going to derail it more by addressing each of your links. I'll start another thread soon for that purpose -- not because it's particularly important to this thread, but because I don't feel like having you say I refused to do so.
Just to be clear, the proof that an "All" statement is false is the existence of one contradictory example, so in order to claim that the statement, "All god-belief is non-contingent," you must first provide a coherent definition of god, and then you must provide evidence for it.
I will get on those links in another thread soon. I'm done arguing this with you in this thread. It's been derailed enough, and I think anyone watching has enough information to make their own decisions.
[Edit: Christ on a fucking pogo stick... I'm not going to sort through all that drivel to find the definition. You quote the positive definition for me, or paraphrase it in your own words. I don't have time to hunt through all that twaddle to find these supposed definitions. If you know what the definitions are, you tell me.]
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
This thread is about non-contingent faith as you purport it applies to moderate theism. You brought the definitions in to prove moderates were non contigent in their faith by virtue of being theist and I have over and over adhered to my rejection of that issue. Abandon it if you must.
You are refusing to deal with my defense that your definition is equivocal and thus does not support your assertion of moderates in general who believe in both science and theological teachings of god, applying non-contingent faith arbitrarily. This all goes to your original argument and nothing needs be derailed here unless you are unable to challenge my objections directly.
No, I merely need to prove that existence of god is still contigent on evidence and can be trusted, which I did in the last post.
Those links were in support of the claim that there are contingent god-believers. You said it was a naked assertion, I clothed it.
Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist
www.mathematicianspictures.com
Ok. I'm so aggravated at being sent to this link that I'm going to debunk it, if for no other reason, it will work off some frustration for me to do so. Anyway, without further ado, I give you the debunking of some retard or other who Eloise thinks is awesome.
From http://www.masterpath.org/sriGaryOlsen/index.htm
Unsupported statement. Presupposition of the existence of God. God is not defined. Presupposition of spirit. Presupposition of spiritual desire. Presupposition of inner consciousness. No definition of "inner consciousness." Presupposition of evolution of inner consciousness.
Wow. What a great thinker. That's seven fallacies in the first sentence.
God is not defined. Presupposition of Infallible truth. Undefined term: true self. Presupposition of existence of god invalidates the assertion of the desire to know god.
Long winded way of saying, "If you believe god exists, or want to believe, you'll be interested in knowing how to believe god exists." Brilliant. Also circular.
No true Scotsman -- Honest spiritual seekers. Undefined term: Path. Sweeping Generalization: All personal ills. Presupposition: institutionalized religion and traditional ideals of modern society are flawed. Sweeping Generalization: How are they flawed? With regard to what?
One long "No True Scotsman." Ad hoc explanation for why spiritualism/mysticism/religion has failed in the past.
No information. Rhetorical nonsense.
The first piece of information in the entire thing. Nevertheless, it presupposes the existence of "psychic science," which, as James Randi and others will attest, has never been verified. It is, however, true, that each of these things was created by humans.
Establishes a false dichotomy: Either Humans/imperfect or God/perfect. Notice the subtle inculcation of an unstated premise: spirituality has failed because of human imperfection, not because of the nonexistence of the spirit!
Presupposition: Existence of Divine Creator. Undefined term: Perfectly pure. Logical impossibility: perfect in every regard. Unsupported assertion: God has a divine will. Presupposes intelligence.
Unsupported Premise: Enlightenment. Unsupported premise: existence of spiritual nemesis. No True Scotsman: "Keenly yearning, etc..." Unsupported premise: All are ashamed. Unsupported premise: misrepresentation. Unsupported premise: Undeniable knowledge of god's properties. Unsupported premise: many have found it.
Unsupported premise: Divine purpose (implied by the term, rudderless, in reference to empirical existence). Unsupported Premise: only with the unsupported, unproven, undefined god can we achieve the unproven, unsupported, undefined enlightenment.
Encouraged to abandon reason. No supported explanation given as to why.
Unsupported premise: existence of the third eye. Unsupported qualities of this unsupported assertion are asserted.
Blatant contradiction. If the dimensions are unknown to the conscious mind at this time, it is impossible to speak of them.
Undefined terms: microcosm, macrocosm, outlying universe.
Undefined term: inner cosmic worlds.
Undefined term: Light and Sound Teachings
Undefined terms: veils that serve as barriers, secret door.
Undefined terms: Liberation from what? Salvation from what?
Undefined terms: Self and God Realization, cosmic consciousness, redemption from what?, Kingdom of Heaven.
~sigh~
Naked assertions, all.
No justification for any of this. Simply naked assertions.
No True Scotsman again. Assertion that knowledge of the spirit is beyond comprehension. Another blatant contradiction.
In other words, you have to want to believe before you can believe. Duh. It's honestly getting really difficult for me to continue this. My brain is melting, and I'm starting to lose vocabulary. I can feel the sucking of my intellect out through my nose.
Preach on, brother!
(cough, cough, cough... um... all together, class... PRESUPPOSITION! )
If you've made it this far, hang with me, ok? Eloise assures me there's a coherent, positive definition of god in this tripe. I'm bound and determined to find it, because dag-nab-it, Eloise asserts it, therefore it must be true.
No wonder Eloise is mad at me that I don't respect moderates. Here's where we see the very message I've been warning against being preached.
So, all we've done in these two paragraphs is insert the unsupported premises that 1) All faith should be respected, and 2) Faith has value regardless of its objective truth. Notice that this is simply asserted. There's no rationale given. There's no discussion on the reason that non-truth is valuable, or explanation of what the value is in relation to. It's rubbish. Pure garbage.
Sometimes life sucks, and people wish it didn't. Wow. Deep stuff. Religion seeks to propogate itself... Wow.... My brain is like... you know... turning over in my cranium.
Not a bit of supporting evidence for any of this! Not one iota.
~sigh~ My eyes are glazing over. Where's my definition of God, Eloise??
Seriously. Where's my definition?
Seriously... Really. Where is my definition?
1. unsupported premise.
2. Unsupported premise.
3. Unsupported premise.
4. Unsupported premise.
5. Unsupported premise.
Great. Wonderful goals. All based on completely unsupported assertions.
WHERE'S MY DEFINITION OF GOD????
Oh, my fucking lord jesus christ on a fucking pogo stick. Seriously, Eloise, I'm not trying to be mean. I really thought you were smarter than this. Do you really buy this drivel?
Not a single, coherent definition to be found. Just unsupported premises and presupposition. I wasted over an hour of my one and only life reading this because I respected you enough to give you the benefit of the doubt. This is some of the most insipid, banal, cliche, platitudinous nonsense I've ever read, and I've read more than my fair share.
I feel extremely comfortable ignoring your arguments from this point on. You clearly don't have a clue how to separate faith from reason.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
If you, too, are looking for the absolute Truth, you are a seeker. Within all seekers there is a drive that keeps them looking, that keeps them questing. Their Spirit thirsts for a union with its Greater Self. From communism to transcendentalism, from drugs to psychic phenomena, a seeker's journey can be a long one.
Only the Mother can make the Child a Master, and only the Motherhood in any guru can make the disciple a guru.
NOT EVERYTHING THAT IS BEYOND IS DIVINE.
That same journey can also be dangerous. We have all heard of the damaging effects wrought by drugs. Many psychic, spiritual, New Age and superconscious groups are like drugs. They entice and entrap the seekers. They are insidious - their dangers are not apparent until it is too late.
Shri Mataji Nirmala Devi
A Seeker's Guide
Everything that is transient is not necessarily Divine. Not all powers contribute to a righteous path. Visions, voices, astral projections, auras, levitation, predictions, communications with the dead and other similar feats are dangerous. They are all possible, but they do not lead to God. They empower us temporarily. They make our ego believe that we are special. But all these powers soon sour, cause illness, distress and depression. They are clear invitations for spirit possession. They are detours that confuse, if not destroy our true seeking.
When choosing a guru or seeking groups, ask the following questions:
- Is money taken at any time? (the truth cannot be owned, nor can it be bought or sold).
- Do your teachers pressure you like salesmen? (you should know the value of their path by your own conviction, not by the number of books you read, classes you attend, or pledges you make. Truth is not dependent upon salesmenship).
- Can you, yourself, feel the effect of the technique? (do not be satisfied that you will be in an "inner circle" at some time in the distant future).
- Do they clothe you in unusual dress, seat you in strange postures or submit you to wild chanting ? (the truth is not something that has to be attained through strenuous efforts. It is the strength of your desire that counts, not the harshness of their tests).
- Is the new path you've chosen dharmic ? (that is, is this a the path of the center, similar to that followed by the sages, yogis, and great men and women of the past, or will it lead to frightening experiences of a subconscious or super-conscious nature ?)
- Are the members of the organization, especially the leader, founder, or guru, people you can trust? (are you comfortable with them? Do they display love and joy? Is their warmth genuine? Is the value of what they are teaching evident in their eyes ?)
- Do you have the freedom of choice to leave or continue? (follow your heart, not your ego. If you have fears or misgivings, give them heed. If you are in doubt or under duress, leave. Do not be bullied.)
YOU CAN BE YOUR OWN GURU.Any worthwhile view of the Divine realizes that God resides within each of us. He is there to be awakened as we become a part of the Greater Self.
WHERE'S MY DEFINITION OF GOD? Nothing coherent in here. All naked assertions with no logical explanation whatsoever
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I'm not going to post your last link. It's just the same nonsense.
Now that I know what you believe, I can understand why you can't grasp my argument. I'm a lot less aggravated now because I realize the depth of your delusion. I actually thought for a while that you might be on the edge of reason, but I can see that you're much farther gone than that.
Thanks for your debate, but I simply refuse to debate you anymore. You're going to have to display an understanding of some basic metaphysics before I'll believe you're capable of grasping my argument. Until then, I'm convinced it's a waste of time.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism