Christianity

[Harbal]

I disbelieve in lots of things that some others believe in, and God is just one of those things I don't believe in.

Okay. That makes you an agnostic. You're saying you just don't personally believe, for no particular reason, and you don't expect anybody to have to agree, because no reasons are attached, right?

Not exactly. I don't disbelieve for no particular reason. I disbelieve because there is no reason to do otherwise.

And, okay, you may say that, technically, I am agnostic, and it is the case that I do not assert the none existence of God, but I consider the likelihood of his existence to be so small as to make it negligible. Also, even if I were to concede the tiniest possibility of God's existence, it would certainly not be the God decribed in a collection of writings produced by primitive, Middle Eastern desert dwellers, somewhere back in the mists of time.

[Gary Childress]

AND, if God ever does reveal him/herself to me and tells me to go spread the word to others, then I'll take that as a reasonable indication that whoever said that to me isn't really God. If God is too lazy or impotent to do the work of enlightening others, then I'm sorry for that God. I can't do it for her or him.

[Gary Childress]

... if God wants my worship, then he knows where to find me and what to do to get it.

He's done that. You don't want to listen, it would seem. And that's your choice.

No. He hasn't, IC. You're not living my life, don't pretend to know what I know and how I understand things. Go enjoy your God and mind your own business.

[Harbal]

My own view is that, over time, we have been edged away from *depth* understandings. I have concluded that it is through education primarily. But there are many other factors -- TeeVee and entertainment certainly playing their part.

One of the reasons I cannot get on very well with 'standard atheists' is that their perspectives, often, are intense reductions (as Immanuel rightly or validly points out). But in this sense he is right: the standard atheist simply intoned "no god" or "no gods' and that is the limit of his understanding of the issue of the rejection of god.

There is a great deal that could be said to be gained by the rejection of metaphysics; but there is a great(er) deal that is lost as well.

Throwing the bathwater out with the Baby Jesus is the humorous way I have put it.

Here, on this thread, simplistic and elementary battles are performed by rather crude performers. If the players were better informed the level of discussion would be on another level.

In much of what IC says, I get the implication that, even if God didn't, or doesn't exist, it would still be better that we believed he did exist. Are you also implying that?


I don't have a TV, btw.

[Dontaskme]

That won't do. If a totalitarian knows what the consequences of his actions will be, and makes his own value judgments, and chooses between alternative courses of action, he rounds up his opponents and has them shot, puts dissenters into the gulags, and tyrannizes the people. But I don't think you would say that's moral.

That will very much do. I mean how else would one possibly discern what is moral or immoral without the innate capacity to be able to choose our actions and to know their subsequent consequences as in knowing which is which. Which morally makes a very huge difference to one’s quality of life.

I mean personally I would feel pretty darn lousy causing someone else intentional harm. That in itself is harmful to only yourself because no one hardly ever intentionally asks to be harmed by another.

[Immanuel Can]

I disbelieve in lots of things that some others believe in, and God is just one of those things I don't believe in.

Okay. That makes you an agnostic. You're saying you just don't personally believe, for no particular reason, and you don't expect anybody to have to agree, because no reasons are attached, right?

Not exactly. I don't disbelieve for no particular reason. I disbelieve because there is no reason to do otherwise.

All that really means, then, is "I don't have any experience with X, therefore I have no reason to believe X." Okay. That's agnostic. But if you add, "there IS no reason," then you're setting yourself up to be asked how you know that. So I have to assume you mean, "It happens that I personally know of no particular reason," not "There IS none."

I consider the likelihood of his existence to be so small as to make it negligible.

On what basis? It can't be merely because it exceeds your personal experience...on that basis, you probably can't believe in Oslo, birthing pangs or space travel either.

Also, even if I were to concede the tiniest possibility of God's existence, it would certainly not be the God decribed in a collection of writings produced by primitive, Middle Eastern desert dwellers, somewhere back in the mists of time.

Why not? Would it be even remotely surprising IF there was a God, that He had been speaking for a long time, throughout human history?

[Immanuel Can]

... if God wants my worship, then he knows where to find me and what to do to get it.

He's done that. You don't want to listen, it would seem. And that's your choice.

No. He hasn't, IC.

I just told you how to find Him. And you won't even try. I don't know what else anybody can tell you. But one day, you're going to have to explain why you just weren't interested. So it might be worth thinking of what your answer, then, will be.

[Immanuel Can]

That won't do. If a totalitarian knows what the consequences of his actions will be, and makes his own value judgments, and chooses between alternative courses of action, he rounds up his opponents and has them shot, puts dissenters into the gulags, and tyrannizes the people. But I don't think you would say that's moral.

That will very much do.

Really? So you think totalitarian dictators are "moral"? They certainly meet every feature of the definition you gave.

I mean how else would one possibly discern what is moral or immoral without the innate capacity to be able to choose our actions and to know their subsequent consequences as in knowing which is which. Which morally makes a very huge difference to one’s quality of life.

I don't argue that the three things you listed are part of the necessary background for morals. I simply point out that they're nowhere near enough. And that's quite obvious...unless, of course, you have no problem with such things as totalitarian dictators.

[Dontaskme]

So you don't have any children, I guess. Because one of the things you learn very quickly is that they all come fully ready to rage, demand, hit, steal, hate, and eventually lie...so that even a pre-articulate two-year-old can be one of the nastiest types of people on earth, if only for the period of the famed "terrible twos," as every parent experiences. It's like the only word they know is "NO!" shouted at full volume, if they know any word at all; and boy, can they ever throw a tantrum magnificently.

Who taught them that? Did you?

Mathew doesn’t agree with you IC

What's your understanding of that incident, DAM? Is it that Christ is saying, "All children are without sin"?

Well let’s just say I personally never once told any of my 4 children they were a sinner.

That doesn’t imply they weren’t anything but saintly children because exposure to the sensation of sentient life has both its pains and pleasures. And in being totally free to explore this for themselves without judgement for doing so has subsequently helped them to become mentally and emotionally and intellectually well adjusted moral law abiding adults.
They were in fact self taught. I had nothing to do with how they turned out.

[Harbal]

I consider the likelihood of his existence to be so small as to make it negligible.

On what basis? It can't be merely because it exceeds your personal experience...on that basis, you probably can't believe in Oslo, birthing pangs or space travel either.

I have witnessed "birthing pangs", and there is acceptable, documented evidence of Oslo and space travel, but if I did have a nagging scepticism, and sufficient curiosity, it would be possible to verify the existence of those things via direct research.

Also, even if I were to concede the tiniest possibility of God's existence, it would certainly not be the God decribed in a collection of writings produced by primitive, Middle Eastern desert dwellers, somewhere back in the mists of time.

Why not? Would it be even remotely surprising IF there was a God, that He had been speaking for a long time, throughout human history?

Seriously?

[Dontaskme]

That won't do. If a totalitarian knows what the consequences of his actions will be, and makes his own value judgments, and chooses between alternative courses of action, he rounds up his opponents and has them shot, puts dissenters into the gulags, and tyrannizes the people. But I don't think you would say that's moral.

That will very much do.

Really? So you think totalitarian dictators are "moral"? They certainly meet every feature of the definition you gave.

I mean how else would one possibly discern what is moral or immoral without the innate capacity to be able to choose our actions and to know their subsequent consequences as in knowing which is which. Which morally makes a very huge difference to one’s quality of life.

I don't argue that the three things you listed are part of the necessary background for morals. I simply point out that they're nowhere near enough. And that's quite obvious...unless, of course, you have no problem with such things as totalitarian dictators.

What can I personally do about the choices other people choose to take regarding the life and welfare of others? I can’t control their actions so how would the notion of problem be an issue for me?

I make my choices and pay my own prices. There’s no requirement for me to be anyone but my own judge and jury as to how I choose to live my life. Personally I choose peace because it would be rather stupid not to want that mindset to be totally rational and honest.

[Harbal]

I don't argue that the three things you listed are part of the necessary background for morals. I simply point out that they're nowhere near enough. And that's quite obvious...unless, of course, you have no problem with such things as totalitarian dictators.

So what are the conclusions to be drawn if we do have a problem with such things as totalitarian dictators?

[Dontaskme]

That won't do. If a totalitarian knows what the consequences of his actions will be, and makes his own value judgments, and chooses between alternative courses of action, he rounds up his opponents and has them shot, puts dissenters into the gulags, and tyrannizes the people. But I don't think you would say that's moral.

That will very much do.

Really? So you think totalitarian dictators are "moral"? They certainly meet every feature of the definition you gave.

I mean how else would one possibly discern what is moral or immoral without the innate capacity to be able to choose our actions and to know their subsequent consequences as in knowing which is which. Which morally makes a very huge difference to one’s quality of life.

I don't argue that the three things you listed are part of the necessary background for morals. I simply point out that they're nowhere near enough. And that's quite obvious...unless, of course, you have no problem with such things as totalitarian dictators.

The only problem lies in your insatiable personal addiction of wanting things to be different from what they actually are.

Both morality and immorality are impermanent features of existence. That knowledge will never change just because one believes in a just creator of the universe. So even the idea of a created universe is impermanent because any thing that is KNOWN to live will surely die.


Only in Not knowing unknowing is nothing living or dying and is why knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of reality in that reality cannot be divided into a creator and the created. There’s simply no division there except as imagined.

[Dontaskme]

So you don't have any children, I guess. Because one of the things you learn very quickly is that they all come fully ready to rage, demand, hit, steal, hate, and eventually lie...so that even a pre-articulate two-year-old can be one of the nastiest types of people on earth, if only for the period of the famed "terrible twos," as every parent experiences. It's like the only word they know is "NO!" shouted at full volume, if they know any word at all; and boy, can they ever throw a tantrum magnificently.

Who taught them that? Did you?

Mathew doesn’t agree with you IC

What's your understanding of that incident, DAM? Is it that Christ is saying, "All children are without sin"?

My understanding is zero.

It’s about as non sensical as accusing a zygote of being a sinner.

How do you personally feel about your precious little story book contradicting and undermining your personal belief structure the one that you’ve personally invested all your moral value in?

[Alexis Jacobi]

...