Searching for GOD...

[Alan Burns]

 
Anyone can read the narratives in scriptures and come to an opinion about them, what parts may be plausible, which parts not. But this is not what you claim, though, you claim a personal relationship, quite a different thing, and describing that is what you are sidestepping.

I cannot describe a personal relationship.  To find out more, you have to experience it yourself, and what I am suggesting is that you start by reading the New Testament with an open mind and allow God to make Himself known to you.

[Alan Burns]

Ekim, Enki, Outrider, Maeght -

As Sassy observed in the opening post of this thread, you are all using your God given freedom to search for reasons to reject the profound truth which many people have discovered.  The truth that God has made Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ and has suffered and died and was resurrected in order to offer eternal salvation to all those who accept Him as their Lord and Saviour.

[Maeght]

Ekim, Enki, Outrider, Maeght -

As Sassy observed in the opening post of this thread, you are all using your God given freedom to search for reasons to reject the profound truth which many people have discovered.  The truth that God has made Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ and has suffered and died and was resurrected in order to offer eternal salvation to all those who accept Him as their Lord and Saviour.

You believe that, I don't. You have shown no convincing evidence for your beliefs and just make assertions and preach, jut as you have done in this post. Little point in discussing stuff with you really since you never actually answer the questions I have raised about the historicity of the Bible, the claims you make relating to historical evidence and the reliability of Christian tradition, areas which I am interested in but which you don't seem to want to look at with an open mind. A shame really.

[Gordon]

Ekim, Enki, Outrider, Maeght -

As Sassy observed in the opening post of this thread, you are all using your God given freedom to search for reasons to reject the profound truth which many people have discovered.  The truth that God has made Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ and has suffered and died and was resurrected in order to offer eternal salvation to all those who accept Him as their Lord and Saviour.

So the story goes: and in other news, Little Bo Beep reports the loss of some sheep.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Does science have a demonstrable track record of uncovering how various aspects of the physical universe operate? Does religion have a similar track record? The fallacy of modernity would be claiming that because science is newer it's better, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that science has a demonstrably better track record in this particular field, and therefore is a better bet.

On a particular question where science has a track record and religion has nothing.

You could agree that science works, or not agree that science works, and science will still be demonstrably effective. I'm not an atheist because of science, I'm an atheist because the claims of religion fail to stack up all on their own merits. Nice ad hominem, by the way - is there any brand of atheism that you don't think is 'swivel-eyed anti-theist homonculism' of one form or another?

O.

I like the way religion is held unthinkingly and irrationally by people of dubious intelligence but atheism is hard
Won by virtue of deep thinking by special people with no possibility of it being encultured in anyway.
Look out here come the Brights ha ha.

[torridon]

Ekim, Enki, Outrider, Maeght -

As Sassy observed in the opening post of this thread, you are all using your God given freedom to search for reasons to reject the profound truth which many people have discovered.  The truth that God has made Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ and has suffered and died and was resurrected in order to offer eternal salvation to all those who accept Him as their Lord and Saviour.

OK, but that is just a faith claim, not a conclusion from evidence. Many other faith claims are available for people who readily ditch their (God given) critical thinking skills.

[Nearly Sane]

Ekim, Enki, Outrider, Maeght -

As Sassy observed in the opening post of this thread, you are all using your God given freedom to search for reasons to reject the profound truth which many people have discovered.  The truth that God has made Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ and has suffered and died and was resurrected in order to offer eternal salvation to all those who accept Him as their Lord and Saviour.

oh look, and once more you return to telling people they are lying.

[Outrider]

Ekim, Enki, Outrider, Maeght -

As Sassy observed in the opening post of this thread, you are all using your God given freedom to search for reasons to reject the profound truth which many people have discovered.  The truth that God has made Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ and has suffered and died and was resurrected in order to offer eternal salvation to all those who accept Him as their Lord and Saviour.

At what point does your failure to engage in the actual arguments and continue with the ad hominems stop being just part of your style and start being considered disrespectful and rude?

O.

[Outrider]

I like the way religion is held unthinkingly and irrationally by people of dubious intelligence but atheism is hard.

Like faith is always just and atheism is always 'swivel-eyed'?

Won by virtue of deep thinking by special people with no possibility of it being encultured in anyway.

Of course they can be influenced by the culture in which they reside - if you can show that it's led them to a false conclusion, crack on, otherwise that's just throwing mud in the hope that something will leave a stain.

Look out here come the Brights ha ha.

Just in time to watch religion fade into irrelevance?

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Like faith is always just and atheism is always 'swivel-eyed'?

To be fair though, I only talked about a swivel eyed ‘brand” of atheism. Not atheism in general.

Of course they can be influenced by the culture in which they reside - if you can show that it's led them to a false conclusion, crack on, otherwise that's just throwing mud in the hope that something will leave a stain.

Concluding with atheism suggests lthe final stage in a cogent process.
This is new, it looks like you could now justify atheism without just relying on a) atheism is the default position b) atheism is merely the disbelief of Gods. I look forward to your working out in full.

[Outrider]

To be fair though, I only talked about a swivel eyed ‘brand” of atheism. Not atheism in general.

But you've seen an atheism on these boards, for instance, that you couldn't ad hominem characterise as 'swivel eyed' or 'anti-theist' or a 'homonculisation'...

Concluding with atheism suggests lthe final stage in a cogent process.

Unless you've got news that the apocalypse has been imminently scheduled, I don't know that atheism is necessarily the end point of this journey, but I don't see anywhere to go further in that direction, and I don't see any reason to go back...

This is new, it looks like you could now justify atheism without just relying on a) atheism is the default position b) atheism is merely the disbelief of Gods. I look forward to your working out in full.

Irreligion is the default position - how closely you think that intertwines with atheism is anyone's guess given where you think atheism lies. Atheism is not the disbelief in Gods, atheism is the lack of belief in gods. I don't need to show working out - you're making a claim of gods, I'm not convinced, game over. Another transparent attempt to shift the burden of proof... anything new?

O.

[Enki]

To discover what God is like, you need to read the New Testament with an open mind, rather that trying to pick fault with it.....

from post 45719 by Alan Burns.

Been there Alan. I have read the whole of the New Testament without any preconceived ideas. I found it both unsatisfying and lacking in credibility. Certainly when reading the New Testament in such a manner I did not get any intimation at all of the presence of any god. I hope that I retain that openness when dealing with innumerable ideas and attitudes that present themselves.

As Sassy observed in the opening post of this thread, you are all using your God given freedom to search for reasons to reject the profound truth which many people have discovered.  The truth that God has made Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ and has suffered and died and was resurrected in order to offer eternal salvation to all those who accept Him as their Lord and Saviour.

Post 45726 by Alan Burns

I don't think so, Alan. What you call a 'profound truth' is simply your belief. I would suggest that your way of protecting this belief is to attempt to smear those who have genuine criticisms and alternate points of view by suggesting, quite wrongly, that we recognise this 'profound truth' but are simply trying to smother it by criticising it. It would be much more fruitful, I would suggest, if instead you address and respond to those criticisms with the open mind that you suggest I should employ. So far, you either seem unwilling or incapable of doing this.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But you've seen an atheism on these boards, for instance, that you couldn't ad hominem characterise as 'swivel eyed' or 'anti-theist' or a 'homonculisation'...

Unless you've got news that the apocalypse has been imminently scheduled, I don't know that atheism is necessarily the end point of this journey, but I don't see anywhere to go further in that direction, and I don't see any reason to go back...

Irreligion is the default position - how closely you think that intertwines with atheism is anyone's guess given where you think atheism lies. Atheism is not the disbelief in Gods, atheism is the lack of belief in gods. I don't need to show working out - you're making a claim of gods, I'm not convinced, game over. Another transparent attempt to shift the burden of proof... anything new?

O.

Good, I now also look forward to your explanation for how irreligion is the default position.

[ekim]

Ekim, Enki, Outrider, Maeght -

As Sassy observed in the opening post of this thread, you are all using your God given freedom to search for reasons to reject the profound truth which many people have discovered.  The truth that God has made Himself known to us in the person of Jesus Christ and has suffered and died and was resurrected in order to offer eternal salvation to all those who accept Him as their Lord and Saviour.

Perhaps some are exercising their ability to choose what to reject based upon assessing what is presented to them so that they and others are not easily deceived.

"Beware that no one should be deceiving you!  For many shall be coming on in My name, saying that I am! and shall be deceiving many." Mark 13 5/6

[Outrider]

Good, I now also look forward to your explanation for how irreligion is the default position.

Way to laser in on the pertinent points. Religion requires a knowledge of the tenets of that religion, and babies have no knowledge - ergo, irreligion is the default.

O.

[ekim]

Religion requires a knowledge of the tenets of that religion, and babies have no knowledge - ergo, irreligion is the default.

O.

And some seem to advocate returning to that irreligious default:

Upanishads   Let a Brahman reject erudition and live as a child
Jesus (L18/17)   Whosoever shall not receive the Divine State as a little child will not be able to enter therein.
Sri Ramakrishna [19th C Hindu saint] So long as one does not become simple like a child one does not get divine illumination.

[Alan Burns]

Way to laser in on the pertinent points. Religion requires a knowledge of the tenets of that religion, and babies have no knowledge - ergo, irreligion is the default.

O.

A baby would have no knowledge of the theory of evolution nor of the concept of a creator God.  As the brain develops, many, if not most human beings will have a natural instinct to seek the truth behind their existence - there will be much data available to help them contemplate whether science can provide sufficient evidence to justify that there is no need for a creator God - but I doubt very much if this can be considered the default position.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Way to laser in on the pertinent points. Religion requires a knowledge of the tenets of that religion, and babies have no knowledge - ergo, irreligion is the default.

O.

Religion as you have acknowledged is more than merely intellectual assent. It is a warm feeling caused by some aspect
A godless universe is an intellectual construct and Goddodging the preserve of those conscious of their own sin.

Any explanation for how an atheist concludes atheism yet? Or how irreligion is the default position

[torridon]

A baby would have no knowledge of the theory of evolution nor of the concept of a creator God.  As the brain develops, many, if not most human beings will have a natural instinct to seek the truth behind their existence - there will be much data available to help them contemplate whether science can provide sufficient evidence to justify that there is no need for a creator God - but I doubt very much if this can be considered the default position.

As is usual, you have the logic back to front.  People don't use science to justify that there is no need for a crerator God, but rather that a creator God is a positive claim that requires justification. 

Give some objective evidence to back up the God claim, and then people who are seeking truth can evaluate it using their analytical skills.  Does it stand up to scrutiny ?  In the absence of any such convincing evidence, then atheism remains the default position just as aleprechanism remains the default position in the absence of any convincing evidence for leprechauns.

[Alan Burns]

As is usual, you have the logic back to front.  People don't use science to justify that there is no need for a crerator God, but rather that a creator God is a positive claim that requires justification. 

The justification for a creator god is simply based on the contemplation of how came into existence.

To presume that you are just an unintended consequence of unguided events requires deep - very deep thinking to justify such a presumption.  Do you honestly believe that this could possibly be the default position?

[Sebastian Toe]

To presume that you are just an unintended consequence of unguided events requires deep - very deep thinking to justify such a presumption.  Do you honestly believe that this could possibly be the default position?

The evidence leads us in that direction.
..unless you have been hypnotised to think otherwise?

[Alan Burns]

The evidence leads us in that direction.

It all depends on what evidence you consider to be valid.

[Sebastian Toe]

It all depends on what evidence you consider to be valid.

Stuff that isn't made up in someone's head. Tangible. Repeatable through experiment.
Not flight of fancy trying to shoehorn magic into reality.

That kind of evidence.
What kind were you thinking of?

[torridon]

The justification for a creator god is simply based on the contemplation of how came into existence.

To presume that you are just an unintended consequence of unguided events requires deep - very deep thinking to justify such a presumption.  Do you honestly believe that this could possibly be the default position?

Nonetheless the claim of a creator god is one that requires justification.  In the absence of any supporting evidence, atheism remains the defult position.  Come up with some objective evidence, then the claim could be considered seriously. 

Until that time, it remains just perhaps the most popular idea that people reach for to defray the existential angst that arises out of not knowing the answers to deep questions.  Most people at some point in their lives find themselves wondering 'where did the universe come from'.  However, the answer that 'it was created by something with universe creating powers' is a superficial and simplistic retort that should be unsatisfying to anyone with an interest in real answers.  To be satisfied with such answers, you also have to live with the dissonance that the claim is logically incoherent and to boot frequently comes laced with shades of anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism, neither of which are helpful.

[Sriram]

Nonetheless the claim of a creator god is one that requires justification.  In the absence of any supporting evidence, atheism remains the defult position.  Come up with some objective evidence, then the claim could be considered seriously. 

Until that time, it remains just perhaps the most popular idea that people reach for to defray the existential angst that arises out of not knowing the answers to deep questions.  Most people at some point in their lives find themselves wondering 'where did the universe come from'.  However, the answer that 'it was created by something with universe creating powers' is a superficial and simplistic retort that should be unsatisfying to anyone with an interest in real answers.  To be satisfied with such answers, you also have to live with the dissonance that the claim is logically incoherent and to boot frequently comes laced with shades of anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism, neither of which are helpful.

Tie this up with the idea of our lives being a simulation (the other thread) and it might work....