Impact of male god on human genders

[Age]

Well, I think I'm really done now.

Be well.

So, maybe my clarifying questions posed to you actually SHOW that really you do NOT actually KNOW as much as you think you know?

If you can not answer very simple clarifying questions about what you, yourself, write, then that could imply very matter of factually that you really do NOT know what you are actually talking about and saying.

[Age]

If you are absolutely certain about your God, and it's gender and it's existence, then why bother arguing with other people about what you are already absolutely certain about in your own mind? what do you hope to gain by discussing what you are already sure and certain about with others? What's the point in that?

My decision not to deal any longer with "Age" has nothing to do with the discussion itself, or whether or not I'm willing to consider particular issues. It has to do with "Age's" conversation style. It's unnaturally antagonistic and defensive.

I'd be curious to know how old she is, and whether or not she has any Autism-related condition, as she seems to have revealed in conversation with others. But there's definitely an obsessive-compulsive element, sort of a narrow-focus circling back. It's non-linear, recursive, and highly emotive rather than sequential and rational. And it's highly defensive, manifested as aggression and insults. She doesn't know the difference between attention and provocation of people...she thinks she has to do the latter in order to get the former. That's why she chooses the aggressive, unsubtle style.

Each or EVERY one of these ASSUMPTIONS being made here could actually be true, or they could actually be completely and utterly wrong, or partly wrong.

I've seen it before. I've known similar people, and I'm not put off by Asperger's Syndrome or related conditions. I'd like to understand the situation there, but she won't give me enough information -- or trust -- to know how to respond so as to be helpful. I certainly don't want to become confrontational with her, and certainly not insulting. But her aggressive attitude doesn't allow for another kind of conversation, and she doesn't respond to understanding, at the moment.

On the other hand, if you wish to discuss the issue, I'm quite happy to. But I think I've gotten as far as I can get with "Age."

What's on your mind?

[Immanuel Can]

If something has not been proven to YOU, would you say that your mind is closed to it...or simply that it has not been proven to you?

I would say a couple of things.

Firstly, its not possible that an Atheist can have "proven" that God does not exist. Even Richard Dawkins admits this. The Atheist has simply arbitrarily closed his/her mind to the possibility that God can exist...and that's quite a different action than "proving" it.

Secondly, it takes only one definite proof to show that God does exist. If any such proof exists, in any point in human history -- one genuine revelation, one genuine miracle, one genuine vision, one genuine incarnation, or even just one genuine existential contact with the Divine through prayer or meditation -- then Atheism is simply "proven" 100% wrong, in that very instant.

"Closing the mind" is, as you say, not an accurate characterization of every kind of belief. A scientist who has "proved" a hypothesis may "close his mind" to other explanations of that hypothesis, it's true; but he may not -- he may, instead, accept his "proof" as indicating only the most probable explanation, and reserve some critical distance in case his hypothesis is later refuted or in need of further refinement.

Human belief, at its best, is like that. It decides what is most probable, and works on that basis; but it need not close itself off to the possibility of further information.

However, the Atheist has already decided his/her position. He/she has decided it not on any evidentiary basis, but rather on the personal decision not to accept any evidence now, or any possible evidence in the future. If he/she were open to evidence, he/she would have stayed merely an ardent agnostic, and would not have tipped over into declarations that God does not exist.

But to say that other people's minds are closed because they do not think/believe the same way as you is arrogant and inaccurate.

As you can see above, I do not say that. I say that people ought to believe, tentatively, what is most probable to them. But I suggest that "closing one's mind" changes that equation.

Atheists want to say, "There's no God" -- meaning, "I refuse to believe there's one," and as well, "You have no right to believe in God either." That's what makes guys like Dawkins so evangelistic -- they're not content merely to BE Atheists...they want to say that everybody else (everybody they won't heap scorn on, that is) ought also to be just as Atheistic as they are.

But why? Why must others close their minds, just because Mr. Dawkins does? Since even he admits he lacks the evidence to disprove God, what compels others to think as he does? But he really does think they owe him that.

Whether they're correct to come to that conclusion is, of course, a different question. And whether they are wise, judicious and safe in doing so is yet another. But it would seem that they will do it anyway.

And of course the same can be said about you and what you believe.

Absolutely. We are all wagering ourselves in this situation. That's not "safe," if you get it wrong.

As the Bible puts it, "What shall it profit a man, if he gains the whole world but loses his own soul?"

But the Atheist thinks he can avoid that wager, simply by putting his hands over his eyes and saying to God, "You can't see me!"

I wish it were possible to get past the insistence on "what is" (which varies for everyone),

It's possible to get beyond insistence, but it's not possible to get beyond the question of reality itself. It really does make a difference what's real and what's not. And everybody knows this first hand.

... in order to have interesting discussions that are not built on any particular religious or political beliefs. It seems to me that theists and non-theists should be able to talk about shared spiritual issues, values, and dynamics -- and that people of varying political parties should be able to talk about dynamics and discrepancies between actual words and shared values.

I think we ought to. And I think we do. We're doing it right now.

But it's not possible to get beyond the question of reality, in these matters, because it a) every person on every side of every ideological debate begins from the position that his/her view is somewhat more right and true than others -- if he/she does not, he/she doesn't bother with the debate at all; b) reality the basis on which all this discussion is to be decided, and indeed, the only basis on which it can ever make progress, and c) It really does matter whether one "values" something true or something false.

Instead, we continually war from our fortresses...and I think that disempowers us -- and keeps some "others" in power. It keeps us focused on warring rather than shared strength.

That's partly so...and partly just a surface assessment.

I know Nietzsche said that all ideology, and all religion as well, is merely a hidden form of "the will to power." But he wasn't really right, unless you define "power" differently than political, economic or social power. For certainly, some ideologies and religions have no interest in these things. However, if you include in the idea of "power" psychological/spiritual "power," one might take Nietzsche more seriously on that point. Every ideology and religion does aim at some power of conviction in the individual, and at some reorganization of the values. But that's just part of what it means to be human, really: we all have to organize our inner lives and values somehow.

Mere Atheism gives us only a vacuum in that regard, which is why even Nietzsche saw that stopping with nothing but Atheism left only a destructive Nihilism. Some belief must be overlaid on that, if people are to have any positive values at all. And that's why you never find Atheism alone -- you find people are Atheists-plus-socialists, or Atheists-plus-libertarians, or Atheists-plus-Randians, or more commonly, Atheists-plus-self-worshippers, or something else to add what Atheism itself fails to provide.

Your idea of god is meaningless to anyone else...and for good reason...because it has not been proven to them in the same way, if at all.

Ah, but to say, "It hasn't been proven to me" is a very simple, modest claim. It's not Atheism. Because it allows people to say, "Well, I've seen it," and to go unchallenged for that. No, Atheism wants not only to say, "God has never appeared to me," but also, it wants to go on and say, "And because of that, God is not allowed to prove Himself to you either." And that's just obviously irrational. After all, there is much that you know that I do not, and much that I know that you do not -- such as the colour of each other's eyes, or where each other lives. There is no logical link between the claim, "I have not seen God" to "Nobody else can either."

Yet you insist that it applies to them, whether they believe it or not.

Certainly. And that's a completely ordinary claim, too.

After all, gravity does not ask whether or not you believe in it. The growth and aging process does not require our assent in order to work on us. Lithuania does not ask for our approval before it can exist. And death does not beg permission before it takes people.

Likewise, the Bible says that God will judge the living and the dead. No Theist can make it so if it is not; but equally, no Atheist can make it not so simply by wishing it weren't. Either way, reality will be reality, regardless of wishes and preferences.

What would you think if someone did the same thing to you, about something you absolutely didn't share their belief in?

I would expect it. Absolutely.

If I were not talking to someone who was sincere in his/her belief or disbelief, why would I be wasting my time? If we are not talking about what is true, we are just swapping fairy tales, not doing any serious business. I genuinely hope you believe your Atheism is true, and true in a universally valid way. If you don't think that, why would anyone rightly claim to believe it at all?

You see, even the so called "tolerant" universalist, who thinks everybody gets to be right at the same time, thinks also that people are better to be universalists than not to be. If he doesn't think that, he has no incentive to argue at all. So a person who argues for tolerant universalism is, ironically, arguing for the exclusive rightness of his own view -- he's just perhaps not realized that's what he's doing.

It also seems strange that you cannot explore the impact of any god, believed to be male, on a civilization that is living surrounded by symbols and institutions and patterns and rules based on the "maleness on high" (real or imagined). I'm guessing (based on your responses) that such a conversation is just too "edgy" somehow, and fires up the mechanisms of your fortress.

Not a bit. If it were too "edgy," would I not run off and avoid the question? But here I am, fearful not at all.

Rather, I take a definite position on it: that what God reveals of Himself is true. That revelation is Biblical. And what we wish to imagine about Him is only a bunch of stuff we wish to imagine; it only has value if it reflects the reality of God. That's a pretty clear position, I think. And if it's a "fortress," it's the kind that offers itself to be besieged. That's hardly an action of fear.

I think that maybe what's too "edgy" here is a person who DOES take a firm position and present a challenge. Our society is quite used to people saying, "Well, I'm okay, you're okay; and whatever you believe is true for you." There's nothing "edgy" at all about that -- it's entirely tame, entirely unthreatening to the status quo. It weasels away from every confrontation. It hides its head in shame, because it cannot believe anything firmly. It has no "fortress," because it has no place to stand, and will not defend itself.

Now, that would be fearful. But here I am: take a shot.

[Immanuel Can]

Each or EVERY one of these ASSUMPTIONS being made here could actually be true, or they could actually be completely and utterly wrong, or partly wrong.

I've got your number. I know who you are -- psychologically, if not personally. You spelled a lot of it out in your self-introduction, but I already had the map in hand. Your writing style says everything.

I wish you'd been more forthright with me, and risked trusting my offer of understanding. I would not have been mean. I would understand, at least in part, what you're struggling with. But those who will not trust get no friends, it seems -- that's just the rule of life.

Sorry we can't have a mutually-helpful conversation. I'm just not interested in reflexive aggression. It does not lead to quality discussion or to good relationships.

So again, be well.

[Age]

Each or EVERY one of these ASSUMPTIONS being made here could actually be true, or they could actually be completely and utterly wrong, or partly wrong.

I've got your number. I know who you are -- psychologically, if not personally. You spelled a lot of it out in your self-introduction, but I already had the map in hand. Your writing style says everything.

I think you do NOT know me at all really.

I wish you'd been more forthright with me, and risked trusting my offer of understanding.

What do you think I have NOT been forthright and NOT telling you?

I would not have been mean.

But, to me, you have NEVER been mean at all.

I would understand, at least in part, what you're struggling with.

What do you think or believe that I am struggling with?

But those who will not trust get no friends, it seems -- that's just the rule of life.

Has this got to do with any thing in particular?

If yes, then what is that exactly?

Sorry we can't have a mutually-helpful conversation.

We can.

But if you are NOT forthright with me, but NOT answering my clarifying questions, then you are NOT be helpful at all.

Remember it is YOU who BELIEVES things, AND when I ask you to clarify your BELIEFS, you freeze up and will NOT be forthright with me.

If I recall correctly there has only been one question that you posed to me that I have NOT yet answered because I have asked you to clarify some thing FIRST, which you FAILED to do. You have frequently been very closed with me, and thus NOT forthright, OPEN, and Honest with me at all either really.

I'm just not interested in reflexive aggression.

What is 'reflexive aggression', to you?

And what examples do you have where you perceive that that was what I was doing?

It does not lead to quality discussion or to good relationships.

NOT answering OPEN clarifying questions asked also does NOT lead to quality discussions. NOT being OPEN and Honest will OBVIOUSLY NOT lead to good relationships.

So, if these things are what you are seeking, then maybe you NEED to LOOK AT yourself, AND CHANGE, for the better.

So again, be well.

Is this your way of getting out of just answering my very simple and OPEN clarifying questions posed to you?

I have asked you a few, so that I could get to understand and know you/your views better, but you seem to have a very strong TRUST issue, as you would frequently never even attempt to be OPEN and Honest with me, let alone being that way at all.

[Lacewing]

If something has not been proven to YOU, would you say that your mind is closed to it...or simply that it has not been proven to you?

I would say a couple of things.

Firstly, its not possible that an Atheist can have "proven" that God does not exist...

I asked you that simple question above, and your response is to go on and on about atheists. (This is like asking someone about Trump's own words/behavior, and they go on and on about Obama.) The question is to you directly I.C. Are you able to answer it about yourself?

However, the Atheist has already decided his/her position. He/she has decided it not on any evidentiary basis, but rather on the personal decision not to accept any evidence now, or any possible evidence in the future. If he/she were open to evidence, he/she would have stayed merely an ardent agnostic, and would not have tipped over into declarations that God does not exist.

Not true. My mind can be changed at any time...and HAS CHANGED all throughout my life based on new information and awareness. I used to be a Christian, and now I'm not. I've had many informative and spiritual experiences that have led me to my current perspective.

Your continual accusations about what atheists are and are not -- ARE APPARENTLY YOUR WAY of avoiding the truth about what YOU are and are not. Stop talking about atheists when you are asked about yourself! Do you see me talking about theists when you ask me about myself? It's an evasive and convoluting tactic, and I wonder if you are aware that you are avoiding questions put to you, or are you so entrenched that you just automatically start spewing half-baked accusations about other people?

they're not content merely to BE Atheists...they want to say that everybody else (everybody they won't heap scorn on, that is) ought also to be just as Atheistic as they are.

I think this is an interesting thing to discuss... and I think theists are doing the same thing in reverse... but can you start a different thread for it?

We are all wagering ourselves in this situation. That's not "safe," if you get it wrong.

This would be another good thread. I don't think there is "a wrong"...but I'd like to discuss it further elsewhere.

the Atheist thinks he can avoid that wager, simply by putting his hands over his eyes and saying to God, "You can't see me!"

This makes no sense to the non-theist, as there is nothing to hide from.

in order to have interesting discussions that are not built on any particular religious or political beliefs. It seems to me that theists and non-theists should be able to talk about shared spiritual issues, values, and dynamics -- and that people of varying political parties should be able to talk about dynamics and discrepancies between actual words and shared values.

I think we ought to. And I think we do. We're doing it right now.

Not when you're spewing accusations about atheists...which are, to me, distorted and uninteresting. Again, if I were doing that about theists, you would think it distorted and uninteresting.

But it's not possible to get beyond the question of reality, in these matters

It is possible to be open-minded about "reality"... to accept that it varies for everyone... and to accept that ones own view and understanding can evolve. It is your choice to think that your reality is the only correct one, and to impose that on every discussion.

As I read through the rest of your post that claims what atheists are and think and do...it just seems that you have such blindness or dishonesty (I'm not sure which). You are not asking non-theists about their perception and then ACCEPTING that as true. You are assigning characteristics to them regardless of what they say. How is there to be any discussion when you do that?

Are you able/willing to answer these questions directly about yourself:

A) If something has not been proven to YOU, would you say that your mind is closed to it...or simply that it has not been proven to you?

B) If someone believes something that you don't, does that mean your mind is closed to it... or does it simply mean that you do not believe as the other person does?

[Immanuel Can]

If something has not been proven to YOU, would you say that your mind is closed to it...or simply that it has not been proven to you?

I would say a couple of things.

Firstly, its not possible that an Atheist can have "proven" that God does not exist...

I asked you that simple question above,...The question is to you directly I.C. Are you able to answer it about yourself?

Of course. But why would you believe me, if all I did was say it?

After all, if I were "closed," would I be likely to be proud of that? Rather, I was trying to explain to you why "closed" is best applied to the other side.

Not true. My mind can be changed at any time...and HAS CHANGED all throughout my life based on new information and awareness. I used to be a Christian, and now I'm not. I've had many informative and spiritual experiences that have led me to my current perspective.

I didn't mean to pin you, in particular. I was just commenting on the opposing position generally.

That's interesting. If you don't mind me asking, what sort of Christian were you, and what, for you, was your moment of change? I'm sincerely interested in how that process went.

they're not content merely to BE Atheists...they want to say that everybody else (everybody they won't heap scorn on, that is) ought also to be just as Atheistic as they are.

I think this is an interesting thing to discuss... and I think theists are doing the same thing in reverse... but can you start a different thread for it?

I could, but I don't know exactly what to start. What's the "interesting" bit?

We are all wagering ourselves in this situation. That's not "safe," if you get it wrong.

This would be another good thread. I don't think there is "a wrong"...but I'd like to discuss it further elsewhere.

Maybe there's a way to capture both.

the Atheist thinks he can avoid that wager, simply by putting his hands over his eyes and saying to God, "You can't see me!"

This makes no sense to the non-theist, as there is nothing to hide from.[/quote]
He may think that. However, he's in no better position to know that than the Atheist is.

Indifference to truth is actually worse than antagonism to truth, whatever that truth may be. Because at least the person antagonistic to the truth (like Mr. Dawkins) is agreeing that truth itself matters, and that "religion" has claims to truth in it. But the non-Theist is not even sufficiently committed to truth to be aware that anything is at stake. He's just asleep, or so contemptuous of the whole question that he will not even ask it of himself.

in order to have interesting discussions that are not built on any particular religious or political beliefs. It seems to me that theists and non-theists should be able to talk about shared spiritual issues, values, and dynamics -- and that people of varying political parties should be able to talk about dynamics and discrepancies between actual words and shared values.

I think we ought to. And I think we do. We're doing it right now.

Not when you're spewing accusations about atheists...which are, to me, distorted and uninteresting. Again, if I were doing that about theists, you would think it distorted and uninteresting.

No. I'd think it interesting, for the above reasons. Why I find uninteresting is the viewpoint that says, "I don't even get what all this is about."

I mean, really, LW...if I were reluctant or fearful to put my views out there, and if I were uninterested in debating them, then how could I possibly choose a worse place to be than an open forum like this?

But it's not possible to get beyond the question of reality, in these matters

It is possible to be open-minded about "reality"... to accept that it varies for everyone...

No, that's not possible. The first is, but the second clause falls afoul of basic laws of logic, like the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-Contradiction. In fact, a person who doesn't believe in the existence of an objective, common reality can't even find a place in which to stage a debate.

You are not asking non-theists about their perception and then ACCEPTING that as true.

Of course not. That would be silly. That would be like asking cosplayers about their "perception," and then accepting that superheroes exist.

They have a right to their view...that doesn't imply I owe it to them to say their view is right.

Are you able/willing to answer these questions directly about yourself:

A) If something has not been proven to YOU, would you say that your mind is closed to it...or simply that it has not been proven to you?

Sure. The latter.

B) If someone believes something that you don't, does that mean your mind is closed to it... or does it simply mean that you do not believe as the other person does?

It means more than that. It means one of three things...either that I'm wrong, or that they are, or that we both are. The one thing it will never logically mean is that we are both right. And that's not merely my opinion: that's what the Law of Non-Contradiction itself tells us.

[Lacewing]

If something has not been proven to YOU, would you say that your mind is closed to it...or simply that it has not been proven to you?

The question is to you directly I.C. Are you able to answer it about yourself?

Of course. But why would you believe me, if all I did was say it?

Because it's simply asking you what you think. I'm most likely going to believe what you say about what you think.

Not true. My mind can be changed at any time...and HAS CHANGED all throughout my life based on new information and awareness. I used to be a Christian, and now I'm not. I've had many informative and spiritual experiences that have led me to my current perspective.

I didn't mean to pin you, in particular. I was just commenting on the opposing position generally.

Anytime you make blanket statements to me about non-theists, I am going to point out examples where you are wrong...because I am the proof (and my experience is the proof) that it doesn't ALL FIT UNDER the limited assignments you make. Don't you know that there is always more to consider... and more than you are seeing? Isn't that logical of a vast Universe? You don't really think you have it all figured out and defined precisely, do you?

If you don't mind me asking, what sort of Christian were you, and what, for you, was your moment of change? I'm sincerely interested in how that process went.

I'm sorry I.C., but the convoluted and evasive nature of your communication FROM MY PERSPECTIVE does not inspire me to share such personal experiences during this discussion. At this point, I do not trust you to handle such information with honesty and clarity. I think you would distort it for your own purposes, and I'm not interested in sharing myself with you for that.

I've genuinely been trying in THIS CONVERSATION to find some areas of ease and agreement... in hopes of establishing some trust. But simple questions directed to you seem to elicit your endless spew about atheists, and why in the world would that have any meaning/interest for me? If you can't focus on what is being asked or presented in the moment, without drudging up all of your stories and distortions, then it's going to be next to impossible to develop trust in conversing with you.

they're not content merely to BE Atheists...they want to say that everybody else (everybody they won't heap scorn on, that is) ought also to be just as Atheistic as they are.

I think this is an interesting thing to discuss... and I think theists are doing the same thing in reverse... but can you start a different thread for it?

I could, but I don't know exactly what to start. What's the "interesting" bit?

How about something like: "The impacts of beliefs that don't allow other beliefs" ? It applies to both, theists and non-theists.

the Atheist thinks he can avoid that wager, simply by putting his hands over his eyes and saying to God, "You can't see me!"

This makes no sense to the non-theist, as there is nothing to hide from.

He may think that. However, he's in no better position to know that than the Atheist is.

What? You said "the Atheist thinks he can avoid...". He's not going to be thinking that if he doesn't think there's anything to hide from. You make is sound like atheists are running and hiding in the shadows, looking over their shoulders to see if the god they deny is coming for them. That's melodramatic and doesn't make any sense. Non-theists obviously don't think there is an entity who is watching and judging and coming for them.

the non-Theist is not even sufficiently committed to truth to be aware that anything is at stake.

Their idea of truth is different than yours. And a lot of non-theists were once theists.

He's just asleep, or so contemptuous of the whole question that he will not even ask it of himself.

The same could be said about you -- not asking/answering questions that challenge your own ideas of truth. You are locked in, and have a very difficult time even considering other potentials.

I mean, really, LW...if I were reluctant or fearful to put my views out there, and if I were uninterested in debating them, then how could I possibly choose a worse place to be than an open forum like this?

You're not reluctant to put your views out there, you're reluctant to answer questions that show cracks in what you say...and then to acknowledge those cracks. You are a master dancer at keeping your god, beliefs, and ego intact above all else. Even when it's inconsistent and dishonest and distorted and blind. To refuse to acknowledge truth beyond yourself or your own ideas is...well, insane or evil. What else could it be?

But it's not possible to get beyond the question of reality, in these matters

It is possible to be open-minded about "reality"... to accept that it varies for everyone...

No, that's not possible.

For you. I just told you it's possible for me.

a person who doesn't believe in the existence of an objective, common reality can't even find a place in which to stage a debate.

Sure, there is LOTS OF COMMON AREA of reality to debate on a stage. That's what I've been trying to do here. But "reality" for people depends on all kinds of factors like culture, beliefs, religion, gender, etc. So, "reality" VARIES for people. If you believe that there is one ultimate truth that resides over all whether they see/believe that way or not, that's YOUR belief about reality. There ARE other beliefs about reality. How could there not be?

You are not asking non-theists about their perception and then ACCEPTING that as true.

Of course not. That would be silly.

I'm not saying that you accept it as true for yourself, but that you accept that it's true FOR THEM. As you just showed above, where you said it's not possible for me to see reality as I do. If you negate what is possible for other people, then you shut down the conversation to all but that which fits into your own thinking.

If something has not been proven to YOU, would you say that your mind is closed to it...or simply that it has not been proven to you?

The latter.

Same is true of non-theists.

If someone believes something that you don't, does that mean your mind is closed to it... or does it simply mean that you do not believe as the other person does?

It means more than that. It means one of three things...either that I'm wrong, or that they are, or that we both are. The one thing it will never logically mean is that we are both right. And that's not merely my opinion: that's what the Law of Non-Contradiction itself tells us.

You don't think two people can both be right while disagreeing?

And you still didn't answer that question posed to you, by the way.

[Nick_A]

Lacewing

I'm not saying that you accept it as true for yourself, but that you accept that it's true FOR THEM. As you just showed above, where you said it's not possible for me to see reality as I do. If you negate what is possible for other people, then you shut down the conversation to all but that which fits into your own thinking.

But you and people who think as you do are not open to the idea of an objective reality. The Secular Intolerance thread proved that.

Two weeks go I visited Montauk point in New York. I and some others enjoyed a sunrise. I began talking with a witch who was also ejoyed the sunrise. She claimed that God is nature. I argued that she was responding to "dunamis" or the power of God within the machine she calls nature but God is not a machine. We could discuss it at great length. It couldn't happen with those of your mindset since the concept of dunamis is far too divisive to be tolerated.

[Immanuel Can]

I'm sorry I.C., but the convoluted and evasive nature of your communication FROM MY PERSPECTIVE does not inspire me to share such personal experiences during this discussion. At this point, I do not trust you to handle such information with honesty and clarity. I think you would distort it for your own purposes, and I'm not interested in sharing myself with you for that.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

How about something like: "The impacts of beliefs that don't allow other beliefs" ? It applies to both, theists and non-theists.

I think that the Law of Non-Contradiction covers that topic nicely. I don't know there's any more to be said.

What? You said "the Atheist thinks he can avoid...". He's not going to be thinking that if he doesn't think there's anything to hide from.

Well, you see it when you say to an Atheist," God will judge," and he responds with "Yeah, but I don't believe in God."

Does he think his disbelief is a shield of some kind?

If I said to him, "There's a tiger in your house," would he say to me, "Yeah, I don't believe in tigers." And if he did, would that change anything about what would happen to him?

Their idea of truth is different than yours. And a lot of non-theists were once theists.

I'd like to explore that thought. But as you say, the trust might not be there.

I mean, really, LW...if I were reluctant or fearful to put my views out there, and if I were uninterested in debating them, then how could I possibly choose a worse place to be than an open forum like this?

You're not reluctant to put your views out there, you're reluctant to answer questions that show cracks in what you say...and then to acknowledge those cracks. You are a master dancer at keeping your god, beliefs, and ego intact above all else. Even when it's inconsistent and dishonest and distorted and blind. To refuse to acknowledge truth beyond yourself or your own ideas is...well, insane or evil. What else could it be?

It could be I'm telling you the truth.

But it's not possible to get beyond the question of reality, in these matters

It is possible to be open-minded about "reality"... to accept that it varies for everyone...

No, that's not possible.

For you. I just told you it's possible for me. [/quote]
You can believe it, sure; that won't ever make it true. Reality is what it is, whether or not we like it.

a person who doesn't believe in the existence of an objective, common reality can't even find a place in which to stage a debate.

Sure, there is LOTS OF COMMON AREA of reality to debate on a stage.

No, no...I don't mean a literal "stage." I mean that there will be no way to arbitrate any progress or decision. The whole argument will start nowhere and go to nothing, because it has no criteria of judgment.

There ARE other beliefs about reality. How could there not be?

Sure there are. There are all sorts of beliefs. But some of them are just not true.

You are not asking non-theists about their perception and then ACCEPTING that as true.

Of course not. That would be silly.

I'm not saying that you accept it as true for yourself, but that you accept that it's true FOR THEM.

That's also not possible. That which is true and real is true and real. The "for them" part only refers to the level of realism or delusion they may have.

As you just showed above, where you said it's not possible for me to see reality as I do.

It's possible for one to "see it" any way they want. It's just not possible for them to be right.

You're making a common mistake: you're conflating persons with beliefs. You can respect a person, and disagree entirely with his or her beliefs. You can respect a Communist person, while telling him his Communism is toxic. You can respect a Randian while pointing out to him/her the toxic selfishness of Randianism. In other words, respecting a person as a person does not entail believing all they say. It just means you agree with their right to hold their view...not that their view must be right.

If something has not been proven to YOU, would you say that your mind is closed to it...or simply that it has not been proven to you?

The latter.

Same is true of non-theists.

I have no objection to that. But the question follows: if such proof were available, would you be willing to believe it? Or would you be so committed to non-Theism that you would refuse to entertain any thought that your experience was not yet complete?

You don't think two people can both be right while disagreeing?

It's a basic law of logic: "two genuinely equal and opposite arguments cannot be true at the same time and in the same way."

So no, I do not think they can. In fact, I know they cannot. Not because I say so, but because to depart from that belief is to depart from logic itself.

And you still didn't answer that question posed to you, by the way.

Which was?

[Lacewing]

You said "the Atheist thinks he can avoid...". He's not going to be thinking that if he doesn't think there's anything to hide from.

Well, you see it when you say to an Atheist," God will judge," and he responds with "Yeah, but I don't believe in God." Does he think his disbelief is a shield of some kind?

Seriously, what's wrong with your comprehension? Do you need a nap? The non-theist doesn't believe in a god that he needs to hide or be shielded from!

If I said to him, "There's a tiger in your house," would he say to me, "Yeah, I don't believe in tigers."

Well you can say anything you want -- that doesn't mean or prove that it's true for anyone else.

To refuse to acknowledge truth beyond yourself or your own ideas is...well, insane or evil. What else could it be?

It could be I'm telling you the truth.

And THAT TRUTH is that there is NO TRUTH BEYOND YOURSELF OR YOUR OWN IDEAS???

It is possible to be open-minded about "reality"... to accept that it varies for everyone...

No, that's not possible.

For you. I just told you it's possible for me.

You can believe it, sure; that won't ever make it true.

It's true for me...it works for me...so that means it's possible for me. I don't know why it's not possible for you.

I don't mean a literal "stage."

Neither did I.

There ARE other beliefs about reality. How could there not be?

Sure there are. There are all sorts of beliefs. But some of them are just not true.

Who decides which beliefs about reality are true? Is it possible for everyone to agree on that?

Do you think that you are a better judge of truth and reality than billions of other people who perceive different truths and realities than you do?

Are they all wrong? Are their cultures and histories wrong? Are the proven results of their first-hand experiences wrong? Is their spirituality wrong?

if such proof were available, would you be willing to believe it?

Yes!

Would you? No matter what it might be?

You don't think two people can both be right while disagreeing?

It's a basic law of logic: "two genuinely equal and opposite arguments cannot be true at the same time and in the same way."

They don't have to be "opposite". They can just be different.

So no, I do not think they can. In fact, I know they cannot. Not because I say so, but because to depart from that belief is to depart from logic itself.

Perspective reveals different sides of a coin... or different facets of a diamond... or different interpretations of life. Perspective pretty much affects everything. There are countless perspectives about gods and reality and truth.

And you still didn't answer that question posed to you, by the way.

Which was?

"If someone believes something that you don't, does that mean your mind is closed to it...or does it simply mean that you don't believe as the other person does?"

I.C., you've had certain things "proven" to you in your life, and I've had certain things "proven" to me in my life. Would you say that something is proven when it is consistently reliable, accessible, and verifiable through results? That is my experience. The "realities" and "truths" and "perspectives" that I see -- which you say are impossible -- have consistently worked and delivered for me. They may not work or resonate for you, but they have for me, and continue to do so. So why would your idea of "reality" and "truth" cause me to reject what has been proven to me over and over?

I do not expect you to abandon what works for you, I simply challenge you to notice that the Universe is vast enough for there to be much more than YOU are utilizing/recognizing. I suppose, however, that NOT NOTICING/RECOGNIZING IS WHAT WORKS FOR YOU.

[gaffo]

Does the MODEL of a male gender assignment to a GOD...

A) Tend to give males automatic superiority over females?

yes to a degree, as you may know near est understanding 2000 yrs ago was that women were a lesser form of man (refer to Gosp of Thomas and other Christian Gnostic works of that time to understand the metality)

and

B) Enable males to be lazier and more ignorant in actually developing and demonstrating their spiritual potential?

probably.

sadly.

Seriously, I'm asking what are the impacts to human genders, of assigning a male gender to A SINGLE GOD?

its a good question, though not into the gender wars, i know of the history and religion of 2000 yrs ago and your post is apt to that time at least.

[gaffo]

Gender assignment? Of the Supreme Being?

If God actually exists, He isn't assigned a gender by us...it's the other way around.

YHWH is male, His wife is Ashira.

you being a Christian should know of at least this per Judiasm.

[gaffo]

What is the definition of male and female?

Is there a god that you refer to as "he"? If so, why?

YHWH is male, his wife is Ashira. the latter was removed from social memory by the Judiac authorities 2400 yrs ago.

YHWH remains a male god.

- of course his brother is also a male God - Baal, as is thier daddy -= yes "God's Dad" - El.

both Baal and El have wives, but i do not know their names.

[gaffo]

To me, it is ludicrous enough to assign genders to human beings and to then separate them and label them as being either a male or a female,

why? oustide of the one in 430 with xxy - the rest of us (and animals) are either xx(female) or xy (male).

self evident.