Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

torri,

It's good that we have diversity, a monochrome world would be boring.  I quite like Gabriella's notion of the undefinability of God, that creates a space free from challenges of correct/incorrect right path/wrong path wherein people so inclined can give expression to their yearning for the divine.  I think this longing for god is deeply rooted in human nature hence religions haven't disappeared post-Darwin, and the subtle trick lies in realising we have to let go of simplistic notions of a supreme being out there requiring worship but rather embrace the fact that divine-ness lies in the longing itself and to give expression to that longing is to become the divine. It is not the destination that counts, but rather the journey there.

Which is fine – if people want to call various practices that make them feel all “mystically” names like “God”, “transcendental meditation”, “yoga” or something else then so be it. As I understand it though, the Abrahamic faiths at least go further – they postulate an objectively true god at the end of the journey, and moreover a god who knows and cares about his adherents, sets rules about what to eat and when, who to go to bed with and what not to do when you get there etc.

And moreover they know these things because this god’s thoughts and rules are written down in various “holy” texts.

“Divineness in the longing” is perhaps closer to Buddhism but I don’t think that that’s what Gabriella is, and it's certainly not what AB is.

[bluehillside Retd.]

I'm wondering why those who think that the concerns over antitheists equating science and religion are ''straw men'' have missed this blatant statement equating Darwin with atheism.

What "blatant statement equating Darwin with atheism"?

torri was merely referencing the disappearance of one of the planks of religioisity ("living stuff is really complex, therefore god").

[Bramble]

“Divineness in the longing” is perhaps closer to Buddhism.

Or perhaps the opposite of it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What "blatant statement equating Darwin with atheism"?

Reply 21414

Where Torrid Don stated
'' I think this longing for god is deeply rooted in human nature hence religions haven't disappeared post-Darwin,''

Why should they have disappeared post Darwin.

[Shaker]

Reply 21414

Where Torrid Don stated
'' I think this longing for god is deeply rooted in human nature hence religions haven't disappeared post-Darwin,''

Why should they have disappeared post Darwin.

Bluey told you half an hour ago: "torri was merely referencing the disappearance of one of the planks of religioisity ("living stuff is really complex, therefore god")."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

 

Bluey told you half an hour ago: "torri was merely referencing the disappearance of one of the planks of religioisity ("living stuff is really complex, therefore god")."

Non sequitur.
Torrid Don equates science with atheism. That is incontravertable. That you and Hillside seek to justify it or mitigate it is mere tribalism on your parts.

Why should religion not persist because of Darwin?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Non sequitur.

That’s not what non sequitur means. You routinely use it as a place marker for “I don’t agree” – would it really kill you finally to look up what it actually means?

Torrid Don equates science with atheism. That is incontravertable.

It’s ”incontrovertible”, and no it isn’t.

That you and Hillside seek to justify it or mitigate it is mere tribalism on your parts.

Why should religion not persist because of Darwin?

For religions that relied on “God” to explain speciation I’d have thought the answer was obvious. torri can answer for himself, but that’s what I took him to mean.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,
That’s not what non sequitur means. You routinely use it as a place marker for “I don’t agree” – would it really kill you finally to look up what it actually means?

It’s ”incontrovertible”, and no it isn’t.

For religions that relied on “God” to explain speciation I’d have thought the answer was obvious. torri can answer for himself, but that’s what I took him to mean.

Torridon, in the case we are discussing, says what he says from scientism. Any mitigation, justification or denial of that is mere turdpolishing and handwaving.

Can we move on now?

[SusanDoris]

torridon

The word, whether adjective or abstract noun, 'divine' has far too many overtones for it to be a useful, practical idea in this present time in my strongly held opinion!It gives the world of religious beliefs too much  of a foot in the door of reality.

I apologise for disagreeing with you!!!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

torridon

The word, whether adjective or abstract noun, 'divine' has far too many overtones for it to be a useful, practical idea in this present time in my strongly held opinion!It gives the world of religious beliefs too much  of a foot in the door of reality.

I apologise for disagreeing with you!!!

I think modern people want to know what people mean when they talk about stuff like ''reality '' and are less likely to nod along with you just because something is being said by someone no matter how long they have ''knocked around the block''.

[floo]

Reality is something for which you have reliable verifiable evidence, which can't be said about religion.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

No, it’s a fact – I can cite various examples of it if you want me to.

No it's just your assertion that some of my replies are the equivalent of 2+2=5.

Indeed you went off on one a while back about sending your posts to me before editing or some such.

It is one solution to you stating that you perceive things in my messages that exist only in your imagination such as me "waving a fist" and you and Ippy perceiving aggression because of my choice of phrase. Not sure what that has to do with 2+2=5 but I'm sure it made sense in your head when you wrote it.

So far as I recall in our exchanges I’ve used only arguments – and on several occasions you’ve ignored them in favour of a, “well if you don’t like the way I phrase my answers then…” type response. The obvious example is when I asked you how you think statement A led to statement B, you told me all about statement A, then when I asked again you went down the, “well if you don’t like my answer then” line. Similarly I've explained why "supernatural" isn't possible/not possible apt, only for you to dance around it rather than engage with it.

I have not ignored it. I have answered it. You are free to assert that I haven't or assert that I am not engaging with your statements and assert that your opinion is fact but it doesn't get you anywhere.

That seems evasive to me, but whether or not deliberately so I can’t tell.

It also seemed to you that I was waving my fist, being aggressive and that I was upset by your line of questioning. Given those inaccurate assessments, feel free to add "evasive" to your list of inaccuracies.

So back to cases, are we to take it that you do have a faith belief that “God” exists outside of stories in a book or you don’t?

If you don’t want to answer that, just say so – it’ll save time at least.

I did answer this in #21383. Your failure to comprehend my answer doesn't worry me - you are one of many on a message board and it goes with the territory, given how diverse people are, that some people may not, or pretend not to, understand a point that a poster is making. If it works for you - feel free to label my post as evasive and assert this to be a fact.

[Rhiannon]

Reality is something for which you have reliable verifiable evidence, which can't be said about religion.

Terms like 'reality' make me antsy.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Thanks. So would it be fair to say that your faith primarily helps provide structure, control and order in your life and that without it you'd struggle with self-discipline?

Yes. It's similar to the reason I do kung fu classes as opposed to just go the gym and go running. I do go to the gym and go running but joining a kung fu club and doing regular kick boxing and wing chun classes with an instructor at the club is a more structured way of developing certain aspects (including mental aspects) that say running or Pilates or weights doesn't give me. 

ETA: I am not sure about "primarily" - the structure is an important part. But not sure if I can analyse myself accurately enough to say that is the main purpose of my faith.

[floo]

Terms like 'reality' make me antsy.

Why?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

#21,382
Quote from: Gabriella on Today at 03:41:50 PM
You can say I don't know and stop there. Or you can take a leap of faith. It's up to the individual.
But then, like AB, you have to put on large, opaque, metaphorical blinkers since you do not want to face reality.
 I have put this here so I can see (i.e. hear) what I said.In our world, the galaxy and the universe, there has been no god ever. That is what I see as reality. I fully appreciate that the correct and logical way to think about this means that I must allow for the vanishingly small possibility or probability, whichever is the better word to use here, that one god might one day appear and be found to be objective.

 To have faith in one, i.e. a god, is an absolute right for anyone, but having long ago removed my metaphorical, very small, almost transparent blinkers, I am confident that I see reality as it is.

I am always interested in responses – that is why I spend as much time as I do on the few forums I belong to. They take the place of many things I cannot do.

That didn't take too long after all!

Ah ok - so you meant reality as in what the tools of science concerns itself with and can describe and establish. I wasn't sure if the mind's perceptions/ interpretations of feelings - which can't be objectively established was included as part of your reality.

I don't have a problem accepting the reality of what the tools of science have currently established. I find it all pretty fascinating.

[SteveH]

Reality is something for which you have reliable verifiable evidence, which can't be said about religion.

Is there evidence for the reality of love? If you reply along the lines of "millions of people experience it", I can say the same about religion.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Both based on faulty reasoning?

ippy

A leap of faith is not reasoning. Not really sure why you and BHS are struggling with the concept of a leap of faith. Trying something without knowing the outcome feels like an emotion-based decision if I analyse it.

[Nearly Sane]

A leap of faith is not reasoning. Not really sure why you and BHS are struggling with the concept of a leap of faith. Trying something without knowing the outcome feels like an emotion-based decision if I analyse it.

The other aspect is just as we don't seem to choose what we believe, if we apply that consistently we don't choose to believe what we regard as rationality. I am not sure how someone without your experiences can say that you are being irrational in what you state is true for you.

[SusanDoris]

Ah ok - so you meant reality as in what the tools of science concerns itself with and can describe and establish.

No, I did not mention the 'tools of science. There are many questions still to answer - we'll probably never run out of questions - but  those things remain 'don't knows' because Science does not have complete answers. They are stil part of the natural world, the reality all around us and have zero need for any subjective supernatural explanation.

I wasn't sure if the mind's perceptions/ interpretations of feelings - which can't be objectively established …

Why would anyone want to try to make each individual’s thoughts and feelings objective? The one thing that is objective is that the brain is the place where all such perceptions and feelings are observed via the senses and stored.

…was included as part of your reality.

I do not have a personal reality. I accept the natural world as it is and try to do my best not to damage it or the people around me.

I don't have a problem accepting the reality of what the tools of science have currently established. I find it all pretty fascinating.

However, since you need to have a god idea of some sort in your life, then perhaps you do not actually accept reality…?

[floo]

Is there evidence for the reality of love? If you reply along the lines of "millions of people experience it", I can say the same about religion.

Love means different things to different people, so that isn't something I regard as reality.

[SusanDoris]

Is there evidence for the reality of love? If you reply along the lines of "millions of people experience it", I can say the same about religion.

Millions of people experience an emotion which has various aspects, depending on whether the emotion is connected with a spouse, a child, a relative, a friend, etc. The chemicals and parts of the brain which react to and produce these feelings are, as I understand it, well tested, verified, and are understoodd in the medical and science world. Future work may improve on  current knowledge but there is no need to say that love is an unknown  experience or that it has some mystical supernatural ingredient.

It is the actual word, love, that tends to make people think it is somehow magical, etc.

[Nearly Sane]

Love means different things to different people, so that isn't something I regard as reality.

So your definition of reality is something that means the same to everybody? What example of 'reality' do you have?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No, I did not mention the 'tools of science. There are many questions still to answer - we'll probably never run out of questions - but  those things remain 'don't knows' because Science does not have complete answers.

Yes I am happy to accept the don't knows and wait for more investigation and explanations of the natural world.

They are stil part of the natural world, the reality all around us and have zero need for any subjective supernatural explanation.Why would anyone want to try to make each individual’s thoughts and feelings objective? The one thing that is objective is that the brain is the place where all such perceptions and feelings are observed via the senses and stored.I do not have a personal reality. I accept the natural world as it is and try to do my best not to damage it or the people around me. However, since you need to have a god idea of some sort in your life, then perhaps you do not actually accept reality…?

Yes I agree that the brain is the place where perceptions are observed.

What is the reality that you think I am not accepting?

[Gordon]

Love means different things to different people, so that isn't something I regard as reality.

Surely though the emotions surrounding 'love', whatever the object of affection is, involves processes in the brains of people - with the attendant biological stuff going on. So would you agree that this implies a reality?