Searching for GOD...

[Gordon]

ippy,

As you know by now, I share your thoughts re the divine bit but you have to allow that Gonners is a lot more nuanced than the nursery rhyme theology of an AB or the disordered crassness of a Vlad. His position reminds me a bit of (his hero) Einstein's thought - something along the lines of, "I believe in god, but only if by "god" you mean "the universe"". He seems to be saying that what Jesus (supposedly) said and did matters more to him than the notion that he was also supernatural.

Seems fair enough to me - if only more theists were like Gonners I say.

I'll second that.

[ippy]

ippy,

As you know by now, I share your thoughts re the divine bit but you have to allow that Gonners is a lot more nuanced than the nursery rhyme theology of an AB or the disordered crassness of a Vlad. His position reminds me a bit of (his hero) Einstein's thought - something along the lines of, "I believe in god, but only if by "god" you mean "the universe"". He seems to be saying that what Jesus (supposedly) said and did matters more to him than the notion that he was also supernatural.

Seems fair enough to me - if only more theists were like Gonners I say.

Read his posts to me.

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

ippy,

Read his posts to me.

Which ones?

[ippy]

ippy,

Which ones?

The last three or four on this thread'll do.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderer,

Dr Finkelstein, come quick - he's been at the Random Word Generator 2000 again! I thought we locked the key away after that last incident with Vlad when he accidentally invented alphabet soup?

Yeh........silly comparisons with small Irish chaps and invisible ponies and a regular spew of category confusions are about your mark Hillside.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderer,

Yeh........silly comparisons with small Irish chaps and invisible ponies and a regular spew of category confusions are about your mark Hillside.

Blimey, still hungry trollster?

The comparisons are of course not silly and there is no category error when the arguments you make for your god ("experience", "intuition") are qualitatively identical to those that others make for leprechauns and unicorns.

Will this ever sink in I wonder, or are the implications so scary for you that you must keep running away from the problem?

I guess we'll never know eh?

[bluehillside Retd.]

ipster,

The last three or four on this thread'll do.

Done that. What's your point?

[jeremyp]

Dear Blue,

Real!! is God real, hell mate!! we go spiralling all the way back to the question, define God?

I read a wee story a couple of days ago, a Pope once asked Michaelangelo how he created his statue of David, the reply was, I took everything away that was not David.

The myth of Job in the Bible, is my God some kind of Greek god who uses humans as some kind of pawn in a game, no, God has no point to prove to me.

But I have a get out clause in any discussion regarding God and it relates to the above, God has already proved his point to me, through his son Our Lord Jesus, my Salvation, so when the subject of God is raised I point to the Gospels, that is the nearest definition I can make for God ( although ransacking a temple, not very God like ).

Is God real, yes! but..................................

Gonnagle.

With all those fine words, you still forgot to define God. Or was the idea to hope that, in admiration of your stream of consciousness, we would not notice that you still have not provided a definition.

By the way, Gonagle, I am a firm believer in the idea that , if you can't express an idea in your own words, it means you do not understand it. If you can't define your god, how do you expect anybody else to acknowledge its existence?

[ippy]

ipster,

Done that. What's your point?

Whether intentional or not you gave me the impression you think I should in some way back off of Gonners a little, well if that's what it was you were conveying, I think I matched his posts like for like no more or any less.

If anyone supports this god idea as far as I'm concerned it's open season any time, going along with them in some way, just because someone is a good old boy doesn't wash with me, treating some of them as the acceptable face of religions, lends on a certain amount of credibility to the more extreme exponents of these questionable beliefs and for that reason alone I don't see why there would be a reason to soft peddle, treat the ideas of one of them with more respect than any another.

I don't dislike Gonners in any way or any of the other religosos I have a go at on the forum it's their ideas I'm going for and I would guess all of them are very good well intentioned people too.

Crudely I was answering Gonners like for like, if for some reason you don't like it Blue, well.

ippy


 

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jeremyp,

I did define my God, but please don't reply that my definition is not good enough or that you don't see it, that's your problem, not mine.


Dear ippy,

Come and get me old chap.

Love and kisses from your old mate,

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi ipster,

Whether intentional or not you gave me the impression you think I should in some way back off of Gonners a little, well if that's what it was you were conveying, I think I matched his posts like for like no more or any less.

Well, comments like "You're very welcome to your narrow mirage like view Gonners" did seem snippish to me, yes.

If anyone supports this god idea as far as I'm concerned it's open season any time, going along with them in some way, just because someone is a good old boy doesn't wash with me, treating some of them as the acceptable face of religions, lends on a certain amount of credibility to the more extreme exponents of these questionable beliefs and for that reason alone I don't see why there would be a reason to soft peddle, treat the ideas of one of them with more respect than any another.

Actually I agree with you re the thin end of the wedge problem - indeed it's an argument I've made myself: when one person justifies his benign action with a "because that's my faith", how then should we treat another person's malign action for exactly the same reason? My sense though (rightly or not) was that Gonners was backing away from that a bit in favour of "I just like what Jesus the man said and did" without the superstitious baggage (analogous to Aristotle for example), so I was responding to that.

I don't dislike Gonners in any way or any of the other religosos I have a go at on the forum it's their ideas I'm going for and I would guess all of them are very good well intentioned people too.

I wouldn't be so sure of that given some of the "you're doomed" hellfire and brimstone types here, but ok.

Crudely I was answering Gonners like for like, if for some reason you don't like it Blue, well.

Charming. My impression was that he was responding to your sniping rather than the other way around, but there you go. Either way, I thought his "Jesus the man" take was a bit more enlightened than much of the arrant tosh many Christians here post so I wanted to tease that out a bit.

No biggie I guess.

[Gordon]

If anyone supports this god idea as far as I'm concerned it's open season any time, going along with them in some way, just because someone is a good old boy doesn't wash with me, treating some of them as the acceptable face of religions, lends on a certain amount of credibility to the more extreme exponents of these questionable beliefs and for that reason alone I don't see why there would be a reason to soft peddle, treat the ideas of one of them with more respect than any another.

I'd have to say, ippy, and as a fellow atheist, that this one-size-fits-all approach of yours to theists is just as blinkered and dogmatic as the most intransigent examples of theism we see in this wee Forum.   

[Alan Burns]

How can you know God's purpose is wonderful if it is beyond your understanding.

You seem to be putting a lot of trust in a being that wants to see most of us dead.

I put my trust in God who wants me (and you!) to join Him in heaven.

[Alan Burns]

Haven't we done this countless times before, Alan?

It's usually very small children who need the reassurance of constant repetition.

P.S. The Bellman's Rule doesn't apply. It's still believe, not know, no matter how many times you repeat it and however hard you clench your fists and insist that it's so.

In order to be totally honest with myself, I simply relate what is real in my perception of existence.

[Shaker]

In order to be totally honest with myself, I simply relate what is real in my perception of existence.

Who doesn't do that?

This is about your conflation of the concept of knowing with the concept of believing.

[ippy]

I'd have to say, ippy, and as a fellow atheist, that this one-size-fits-all approach of yours to theists is just as blinkered and dogmatic as the most intransigent examples of theism we see in this wee Forum.

Fine we're all entitled to a view, evidence, any evidence at all would make me revise my thoughts, cant see anything on it's way, so until then.

ippy

[ippy]

Hi ipster,

Well, comments like "You're very welcome to your narrow mirage like view Gonners" did seem snippish to me, yes.

Actually I agree with you re the thin end of the wedge problem - indeed it's an argument I've made myself: when one person justifies his benign action with a "because that's my faith", how then should we treat another person's malign action for exactly the same reason? My sense though (rightly or not) was that Gonners was backing away from that a bit in favour of "I just like what Jesus the man said and did" without the superstitious baggage (analogous to Aristotle for example), so I was responding to that.

I wouldn't be so sure of that given some of the "you're doomed" hellfire and brimstone types here, but ok.

Charming. My impression was that he was responding to your sniping rather than the other way around, but there you go. Either way, I thought his "Jesus the man" take was a bit more enlightened than much of the arrant tosh many Christians here post so I wanted to tease that out a bit.

No biggie I guess.

I'm quite happy with like for like, you dont think my posts are like for like, well that's up to you, looks like we differ on that one, is there anything else?

I dislike his god ideas or however he wishes to term them, not the man himself, I don't know him, apart from the nonsense god stuff he comes out with he seems to be OK to me.

lppy

[ippy]

Dear Jeremyp,

I did define my God, but please don't reply that my definition is not good enough or that you don't see it, that's your problem, not mine.


Dear ippy,

Come and get me old chap.

Love and kisses from your old mate,

Gonnagle.

Can't say I want to get anybody Gonners even if you wanted to think the pink unicorns pressed the button on big bang day to start it all off, that's fine, trouble is when someone anyone mentions they think pink unicorns started it all off it would be even stranger if that idea wasn't challenged by someone.

ippy

[Leonard James]

Morning Alan,

In order to be totally honest with myself, I simply relate what is real in my perception of existence.

And in your perception of existence is there no place for the fact that the human mind is capable of being misled/deceived ... particularly in the case of "god" beliefs?

[torridon]

In order to be totally honest with myself, I simply relate what is real in my perception of existence.

And apparently you continually fail to address or incorporate into your understanding the related experience given by others, not to mention the knowledge base accrued through research. A holistic understanding needs to be a collective one that takes due account of the diversity of experience and knowledge.

[torridon]

Dear Blue,

Real!! is God real, hell mate!! we go spiralling all the way back to the question, define God?

I read a wee story a couple of days ago, a Pope once asked Michaelangelo how he created his statue of David, the reply was, I took everything away that was not David.

The myth of Job in the Bible, is my God some kind of Greek god who uses humans as some kind of pawn in a game, no, God has no point to prove to me.

But I have a get out clause in any discussion regarding God and it relates to the above, God has already proved his point to me, through his son Our Lord Jesus, my Salvation, so when the subject of God is raised I point to the Gospels, that is the nearest definition I can make for God ( although ransacking a temple, not very God like ).

Is God real, yes! but..................................

Gonnagle.

This sort of testimony validates the reality of God in personal terms; in your case you reference mythologies, from apsects of which you mould a personal god. That's how it seems to me, a personal God, is just that, a creation within a personal subjective mind. That doesn't establish an objective god. An objective god with its own distinct ontological existence would have to be established through de-personalised objective means, such as scientific method. God exists, yes, but in the sense that, say, exchange rates exist, or nations exist or philanthropy exists; these are all extended conceptual products of human mind and culture. If an asteroid takes out planet Earth tomorrow, then God will disappear along with exchange rates, philanthropy and the rest.

[Sriram]

And apparently you continually fail to address or incorporate into your understanding the related experience given by others, not to mention the knowledge base accrued through research. A holistic understanding needs to be a collective one that takes due account of the diversity of experience and knowledge.

Not that science enthusiasts are very willing to incorporate in their understanding 'the related experiences given by others'!! LOL!

'A holistic knowledge needs to be a collective one that takes into account the diversity of experience and knowledge' ....wow.....well said... except that science enthusiasts disregard all spiritual experiences and philosophies of perhaps 6 billion people around the world.  Not very holistic IMO!! 

[Alan Burns]

Morning Alan,
And in your perception of existence is there no place for the fact that the human mind is capable of being misled/deceived ... particularly in the case of "god" beliefs?

Good morning Len,
I know you have put a lot of faith in the process of evolution, but I can't accept that the human mind could exist without God.  So any deception or misleading of the human mind is irrelevant to God's existence.
And may I wish you a happy new year 

[torridon]

Not that science enthusiasts are very willing to incorporate in their understanding 'the related experiences given by others'!! LOL!

'A holistic knowledge needs to be a collective one that takes into account the diversity of experience and knowledge' ....wow.....well said... except that science enthusiasts disregard all spiritual experiences and philosophies of perhaps 6 billion people around the world.  Not very holistic IMO!!

I don't think that is right.  Given what we have learned through neuroscience, cognitive science and evolutionary psychology, we would predict a diversity in personal phenomenology that is consistent with the particular cognitive biases and historical cultural development of our species.

[Shaker]

Good morning Len,
I know you have put a lot of faith in the process of evolution, but I can't accept that the human mind could exist without God.

Your personal incredulity has no bearing on what's demonstrably true.