Immanuel Can, iambiguous and the Christian God

[Flannel Jesus]

“Reasonable Faith” sounds great in theory - how is it in practice?

Is it a lot of dogma, faith crisis or questioning?

It's almost certainly an exercise in confirmation bias. That's a really hard trap to avoid though, I don't begrudge anyone for getting sucked into that. We all do, from time to time. Some more than others.

[Immanuel Can]

“Reasonable Faith” sounds great in theory - how is it in practice?

Is it a lot of dogma, faith crisis or questioning?

It's almost certainly an exercise in confirmation bias.

How can you know without checking? What would you ever fear?

[promethean75]

The Reaper?

If so, I've heard it said that one should not fear the Reaper.

[Immanuel Can]

The Reaper?

If so, I've heard it said that one should not fear the Reaper.

Yeah, it's okay...if you don't pay the ferryman.

[Fairy]

The Reaper?

If so, I've heard it said that one should not fear the Reaper.

Do you fear the Reaper?

[Perspective]

“Reasonable Faith” sounds great in theory - how is it in practice?

Is it a lot of dogma, faith crisis or questioning?

You could have a look, and find out...and why wouldn't one do that?

The site came up in connection with an old discussion I had with Biggie. He boldly claimed there was "no evidence for God," and I said there was. He said "Where?" and I said, "There."

…Biggie's test for the existence/non-existence of God might be. He said that stopping all suffering of children would do it, and I was curious as to why he thinks that ought to work for him.

… just take a peek for yourself. The site's got short videos, and they're very entertaining to watch, and short. But they give a person a good idea of how the arguments for God go…

Thank you for your feedback. I did look at the forum but to view discussion, it seems I must open an account. Maybe I can view videos without that. Good idea.

Personally, I see the agnostic view as most logical, when it comes to a belief in a higher power (God), but practically, it makes more sense to use our power of belief to work for us, rather than against us, including a sense of priorities (highest GOoD).

It really depends on how God is defined. It seems much more rare to define God than to argue about it. If God is intelligent design, we are walking proof. But I think God is more than that.

What are your beliefs?

[Perspective]

“Reasonable Faith” sounds great in theory - how is it in practice?

Is it a lot of dogma, faith crisis or questioning?

It's almost certainly an exercise in confirmation bias. That's a really hard trap to avoid though, I don't begrudge anyone for getting sucked into that. We all do, from time to time. Some more than others.

I admire your self awareness & humility. How else can we grow?

It’s been +10 years since I had a faith crisis after growing up in a cult. Are you familiar with Fowler’s stages of faith?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/38/b4/28 ... bc77d7.jpg

It’s not perfect (what model is?), but it gives a general map of development, kind of like Erikson or Piaget‘s theories of human development. For Fowler’s model, I see myself now about stage 5 (though somewhat stages 3 & 4).

How would you describe your beliefs?

[promethean75]

"Do you fear the Reaper?"

Fuck yeah I fear the Reaper. I don't wanna die, do you?

Hey all i said is that I've heard it said, even sung, that one should not fear him. I didn't say it was doable.

[Flannel Jesus]

“Reasonable Faith” sounds great in theory - how is it in practice?

Is it a lot of dogma, faith crisis or questioning?

It's almost certainly an exercise in confirmation bias. That's a really hard trap to avoid though, I don't begrudge anyone for getting sucked into that. We all do, from time to time. Some more than others.

I admire your self awareness & humility. How else can we grow?

It’s been +10 years since I had a faith crisis after growing up in a cult. Are you familiar with Fowler’s stages of faith?

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/38/b4/28 ... bc77d7.jpg

It’s not perfect (what model is?), but it gives a general map of development, kind of like Erikson or Piaget‘s theories of human development. For Fowler’s model, I see myself now about stage 5 (though somewhat stages 3 & 4).

How would you describe your beliefs?

I think I've heard of those stages of faith but I'm not super familiar. Where are you in it?

My belief is, when it comes to the literal interpretation of religions, they all have approximately equal epistemic justification and are most likely all equally incorrect.

[Fairy]

"Do you fear the Reaper?"

Fuck yeah I fear the Reaper. I don't wanna die, do you?

Hey all i said is that I've heard it said, even sung, that one should not fear him. I didn't say it was doable.

Maybe you fear the unknown, the uncertainty of death, or what you imagine death to be.
But we cannot know what is going to happen next, maybe that's a good thing, imagine knowing what is going to happen before it happens, wouldn't that spoil the surprise and mystery of life?

Maybe you fear the pain that a dying body might feel? We cannot know death no more than we can know our own birth experience. But it can be reflected to us in someone else, an other. So we know birth and death is real. But then again, birth and death is not an actual direct experience.

Isn't that just the most amazing mystery?

[iambiguous]

The Reaper?

If so, I've heard it said that one should not fear the Reaper.

Do you fear the Reaper?

Then the part where any number of Christians will claim they are not afraid of dying because they "just know" they are going to Heaven. Still, if this assumption is based on a leap of faith or a wager, there may well be a part of them that has doubts.

On the other hand, there are those like IC and the RF folks. In other words, beyond leaps and wagers and Scripture, they insist there is actual evidence -- historical and scientific -- that permits them to know that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven.

And, for some of us grappling with a fractured morality, an essentially meaningless existence and oblivion, of course there is going to be an interest in exploring this evidence.

[iambiguous]

Just for the record...

Immanuel Can wrote:

You have, at the minimum, the very "evidence" you demanded -- that you know as certainly as you "know" the Pope is in Rome, that you know God exists.

You say that the way you "know" that the Pope is in Rome is by the testimony of others -- for you say you have not been there yourself.

Yet others also declare their knowledge of God, and tell you that He exists. I would be one of those, but so would all the writers of the Bible, and millions of other Christians and Jews.

So the standard you said you wanted has been fully met. What do you want now?

iambiguous wrote:

Note to others:

The only way most of us might argue that there is not sufficient evidence that the Pope, really, really, really does reside in the Vatican is to suggest something akin to solipsism or sim worlds or dream worlds or something out of the Matrix.

I don't know if he even looked at it. If he did, he seemed to learn nothing at all from looking.

Blinded by the light, as it were. Instead, the only way others will be applauded for looking at the evidence is if they agree that, in fact, it is enough evidence to convince them that the Christian God does reside in Heaven. That's the beauty of religion for a lot of us. One simply has to believe that a God, the God is their own God. That's what makes it true...believing it.

After that, he became determined to try to get me to do for him what he could do for himself...namely, chew down the data from the site for him, and regurgitate it to him. I declined, and have declined since.

I was reluctant at first because it would involve a huge commitment to view and react to all 17 videos.

As for IC "declining" to go here -- viewtopic.php?t=40750 -- all I can note is that even if his assessment of me was correct, what about all the other non-Christians here who might be entirely more receptive to the videos.

But he can't even bring himself to note the evidence that most convinced him that, scientifically and historically, virtually all of these folks -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- are going to Hell if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior.

While, of course, any number of them will insist that, on the contrary, it is IC who will be damned if he doesn't come around to their own One True Path.

Now, if you look, you'll see that this thread started with a different topic: namely, what Biggie's test for the existence/non-existence of God might be. He said that stopping all suffering of children would do it, and I was curious as to why he thinks that ought to work for him. But no sooner was he asked, when he reverted to a sort of "regurgitate Reasonable Faith to me" position, and I again brushed that off. All that, you can see from looking at page 1, if you're in doubt.

I'll stick with this:

My guess: if we were to actually wake up to a world in which the truly innocent children no longer suffered and natural disasters were a thing of the past, IC would be among the very first to insist it was all the Christian God's doing.

Come on, can anyone here think of something other than a God, the God who could actually accomplish this?

Perhaps the Pantheists should weigh in here.

So if you want to know, I can only recommend that you do what Biggie apparently wasn't able to do (or wasn't able to understand, if he did bother even to look); just take a peek for yourself. The site's got short videos, and they're very entertaining to watch, and short. But they give a person a good idea of how the arguments for God go.

This is just confusing. Is he actually saying that I did not create the thread above -- viewtopic.php?t=40750 -- in order to explore the evidence? Or is he talking about some other evidence.

[Immanuel Can]

“Reasonable Faith” sounds great in theory - how is it in practice?

Is it a lot of dogma, faith crisis or questioning?

You could have a look, and find out...and why wouldn't one do that?

The site came up in connection with an old discussion I had with Biggie. He boldly claimed there was "no evidence for God," and I said there was. He said "Where?" and I said, "There."

…Biggie's test for the existence/non-existence of God might be. He said that stopping all suffering of children would do it, and I was curious as to why he thinks that ought to work for him.

… just take a peek for yourself. The site's got short videos, and they're very entertaining to watch, and short. But they give a person a good idea of how the arguments for God go…

Thank you for your feedback. I did look at the forum but to view discussion, it seems I must open an account. Maybe I can view videos without that. Good idea.

Personally, I see the agnostic view as most logical, when it comes to a belief in a higher power (God), but practically, it makes more sense to use our power of belief to work for us, rather than against us, including a sense of priorities (highest GOoD).

It really depends on how God is defined. It seems much more rare to define God than to argue about it. If God is intelligent design, we are walking proof. But I think God is more than that.

What are your beliefs?

I believe God is personal, not merely a sort of "force" or "out-there-ness." But then, I'm a Christian, so that goes along with that.

[Fairy]

The Reaper?

If so, I've heard it said that one should not fear the Reaper.

Do you fear the Reaper?

Then the part where any number of Christians will claim they are not afraid of dying because they "just know" they are going to Heaven. Still, if this assumption is based on a leap of faith or a wager, there may well be a part of them that has doubts.

On the other hand, there are those like IC and the RF folks. In other words, beyond leaps and wagers and Scripture, they insist there is actual evidence -- historical and scientific -- that permits them to know that the Christian God does in fact reside in Heaven.

And, for some of us grappling with a fractured morality, an essentially meaningless existence and oblivion, of course there is going to be an interest in exploring this evidence.

I personally don’t think about God in the ordinary Christian traditional style. I’m not a Christian. I believe no human being was ever born a Christian. It’s just a false label people have attached to. It’s a secondary identity. Not a real character. God for me simply means life, and how life has been able to lift itself off it’s own starting block. To me, that’s all a miraculous mystery, it’s very God like.

Some drawbacks of Christianity in my opinion is that it tends to make some followers of the doctrine feel morally superior or at least induces moral superiority in them. It makes them blind to their own manipulations and judgements. It leads to extreme moral policing and judgement, to the point of hypocrisy and delusion. Makes them walk away from emotional truthness and actually deeper into sin as they begin to slander and judge even someone who might be or definitely is completely innocent.

[Fairy]

And I guess I would have to agree with Immanuel Can. I too believe God is personal.

I personally don’t think it’s necessary to be a Christian to understand God, because God is of my own private understanding of what I perceive God to be.

Simply I just trust in the process of life that’s living as me, a process I have zero control over, and that is a good thing as it feels as though I’m already being carried effectively, and it’s just so easy to surrender to this mysterious and miraculous process.