The Sunday Assembly - Surprising BBC?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sweet Pea,

The thing is Blue, spiritual experiences have nothing to do with the brain. It's nought to do with 'thinking'. Thinking actually inhibits a spiritual experience.

Let go (of everything.... all thoughts) and..... "Be still* and know that I am God".

*in every sense...

If not in the brain where else would you "know" this, and in any case what distinguishes what you call "spiritual" from just feeling deeply about something?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Not sure that anyone has said anything about anything 'without the brain's involvement', Maeght.

Yes they have. Read what Sweet Pea said.

SweetPea highlihted the fact that these experiences have nothing to do with the 'thinking' part of the brain.  For instance, do we feel the pain of a bee-sting by thinking about it, or does it bypass that section?

What about the many involuntary actions one's body performs - the brain is still involved without any thought.

No, it's still "thought". Some thoughts we're conscious of (from the pre-frontal cortex) and others we're not conscious of (from the limbic system we share with lizards and such). It's all still thought though. "Ouch that bee sting hurts" for example is a thought.

More to the point though, attributing causal agency - God, Zeus, whatever - very much is a conscious thought process and I dare say in your case one that would have led you to a different conclusion had you been enculturated into the Roman or the Sumerian gods rather than the Christian one.   

   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Would you desire a pet dragon called Percy who eats Ritz crackers and likes having his tummy tickled?

I suggest you are on the wrong forum then.

Since this is the religion forum the question"Do I want a relationship with God" is valid.

Sebastian Toe I take it would......and in saying that I take it that he has asked himself the question.

But I believe there are people who would not even entertain the question or even answer in the negative.

The next question of course is why would you want to avoid this question or answer in the negative?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I suggest you are on the wrong forum then.

Since this is the religion forum the question"Do I want a relationship with God" is valid.

Sebastian Toe I take it would......and in saying that I take it that he has asked himself the question.

But I believe there are people who would not even entertain the question or even answer in the negative.

The next question of course is why would you want to avoid this question or answer in the negative?

Er, no. The first question you need to address first is why on earth you think that "desiring to have a relationship" with something has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not that something exists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Er, no. The first question you need to address first is why on earth you think that "desiring to have a relationship" with something has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not that something exists.

And yet you had no trouble posing a question about whether one would want a dragon whose tummy you could tickle.

So......what we can conclude from your post is that somehow God questions are a special case........because you made this one so.

Either Sebastian Toe is getting it when he says, even as an atheist that he would like a relationship with God or you are.

Would you want a relationship with God?
Would you want a pet dragon?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

And yet you had no trouble posing a question about whether one would want a dragon whose tummy you could tickle.

Yes. It's called an analogy - if you think that desiring a relationship with a conjectural entity has anything to say to whether that conjectural entity exists at all, then you have no choice but to afford the same treatment to any other conjectural entity - pet dragons included.

So......what we can conclude from your post is that somehow God questions are a special case........because you made this one so.

No, I do precisely the opposite of that. Your (frankly bizarre) "desiring something makes it somehow more likely to be real" schtick either applies across the board or not at all. Your choice.   

Either Sebastian Toe is getting it when he says, even as an atheist that he would like a relationship with God or you are.

What possible relevance do you think that has to whether there is a "God"?

Why the continued ducking an diving - it's a simple enough question isn't it?

Would you want a relationship with God?

Which "God"? If you mean the Christian god of the omnis you'd have to be suffering from borderline Stockholm syndrome to want a relationship with such a sociopath, though being in a position to ask "Him" what the fuck "He" thinks he's playing at might be quite satisfying I suppose. 

Would you want a pet dragon?

Why not - would save me a fortune on BBQ firelighters if nothing else.

So do you plan ever to tell us what possible connection desiring a relationship with a god or a dragon alike has to do do with whether either of them exist in the first place?

[Maeght]

Not sure that anyone has said anything about anything 'without the brain's involvement', Maeght.  SweetPea highlihted the fact that these experiences have nothing to do with the 'thinking' part of the brain.  For instance, do we feel the pain of a bee-sting by thinking about it, or does it bypass that section?

What about the many involuntary actions one's body performs - the brain is still involved without any thought.

She did say they 'have nothing to do with the brain' - hence the comment.

[ippy]

Gonners,

Can't listen just now - there's a test match on!

Does it really though? Seems like an odd thing to say given that most non-religious I'd have thought would say that "indoctrinating" children into anything is a bad idea.

With the exception of teaching children to think for themselves, if in fact that can be considered as a form of indoctrination.

Which form of amphetamine do you take to keep you awake whilst listening to cricket, a very strong one no doubt?

ippy

[ippy]

I suppose technically that is true, but kind of 'Militant Atheism' that is spearheaded by the likes of Dawkins goes much further. In fact I would say that it has become a campaign to destroy religion.

More put religion in it's place, than destroy it.

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes. It's called an analogy - if you think that desiring a relationship with a conjectural entity has anything to say to whether that conjectural entity exists at all, then you have no choice but to afford the same treatment to any other conjectural entity - pet dragons included.

No, I do precisely the opposite of that. Your (frankly bizarre) "desiring something makes it somehow more likely to be real" schtick either applies across the board or not at all. Your choice.   

What possible relevance do you think that has to whether there is a "God"?

Why the continued ducking an diving - it's a simple enough question isn't it?

Which "God"? If you mean the Christian god of the omnis you'd have to be suffering from borderline Stockholm syndrome to want a relationship with such a sociopath, though being in a position to ask "Him" what the fuck "He" thinks he's playing at might be quite satisfying I suppose. 

Why not - would save me a fortune on BBQ firelighters if nothing else.

So do you plan ever to tell us what possible connection desiring a relationship with a god or a dragon alike has to do do with whether either of them exist in the first place?

Ah .........analogy........
And you wanted an analogy to show that desire for something is entirely unrelated to existence.

So you chose one.........whic can be easily countered by substituting the word dragon for puppy.

Not really sorry to have pissed on your bonfire.

Secondly. No one has suggested desire makes something real but desire does point to existence.

The trouble is you chose a shit analogy in order to satisfy your DESIRE to pull an argumentum ad ridiculous... Even though it has led to your downfall..........again.

And we know of a question you will always specially avoid.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Ah .........analogy........
And you wanted an analogy to show that desire for something is entirely unrelated to existence.

So you chose one.........whic can be easily countered by substituting the word dragon for puppy.

Not really sorry to have pissed on your bonfire.

Oh dear. As ever, all you've actually done it to ruin another pair of trousers. Either you think that "desiring a relationship" with something has something to do with that something being real or your don't.

The details of what that something happens to be are entirely irrelevant for the purpose of the claim you're attempting.

Possibly if you tried thinking before posting next time you'd save yourself further embarrassment of this kind? (And trousers.)

Secondly.

As your "firstly" has just collapsed, "secondly" is overreaching.

No one has suggested desire makes something real but desire does point to existence.

In what possible way then does desiring a relationship with something "point to" the existence of that something in the first place?

The trouble is you chose a shit analogy in order to satisfy your DESIRE to pull an argumentum ad ridiculous... Even though it has led to your downfall..........again.

No, the trouble is that you're hopelessly out of your depth. The analogy is fine when the substantive point - that "desiring a relationship" with something either makes it real or "points to it" being real is the same point. You can populate the object of the claim - gods, dragons, whatever - with anything you like. When the "argument" you're attempting is the same regardless, then it's the same regardless.

Care to try again?

And we know of a question you will always specially avoid.

So just to be clear - the person who refuses point blank to tell us why he thinks that "desiring a relationship" with something has anything whatever to do with that something being real/"pointing to it" being real is accusing someone else of refusing to answer a question that I answered in any case in my last post?

Really?

Really really?

Your grip on reality seems to be getting more tenuous by the post.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh come on Hillside.
You thought your analogy of a dragon with God was a clincher.
And then you undid it all by being able to answer the do you want a dragon question but specially pleaded problems with the second, Do you want a relationship with God.

So ......either poor analogy or special pleading.......

Which one are you fessing up to?

Secondly. Sebastian Toe had no problem with the relationship question but you do.
What is going on I wonder.

Given the analogy you used to show no link between desire and an object of desire was a turd. What better analogy do you have to show this?

[Sebastian Toe]

Secondly. Sebastian Toe had no problem with the relationship question but you do.

You do though seem to have a problem in replying to my 'how do you go about it?'  , request in #67.

What is going on I wonder?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You do though seem to have a problem in replying to my 'how do you go about it?'  , request in #67.

What is going on I wonder?

Many apologies.

First thing.......tell God one can do that whoever and however you are.

The bible has promises, seek and you shall find, the man who comes to me I won't turn away  be still and know wait on the Lord.

You are at liberty to pray and there is the time old but great piece of advice........pray as you can rather than as you should.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Oh come on Hillside.
You thought your analogy of a dragon with God was a clincher.

It is. Either you think that "desiring a relationship" with a conjectural entity "points to" that entity being real or you don't.

And if you do, you can't then qualify that with a "but it only works for some conjectural entities and not for others".

And then you undid it all by being able to answer the do you want a dragon question but specially pleaded problems with the second, Do you want a relationship with God.

I did no such thing. And the point remains: what possible connection do you think there to be between "desiring a relationship" with something and that something being real?

Why the coyness?

So ......either poor analogy or special pleading.......

No - false binary. It's nether because your premise fails.

Which one are you fessing up to?

Neither - see above.

Secondly. Sebastian Toe had no problem with the relationship question but you do.
What is going on I wonder.

Stop lying. I answered the question - the relevant and unanswered question remains though for you.

Given the analogy you used to show no link between desire and an object of desire was a turd. What better analogy do you have to show this?

Stop lying. Another false premise - the analogy is fine when the same argument is being attempted in each case.

Again:

WHAT RELEVANCE DO YOU THINK "DESIRING A RELATIONSHIP" WITH SOMETHING HAS TO THAT SOMETHING BEING REAL?

There you go - I've put the question in bold, capitals and large font so you can't just ignore it again.

You're welcome.

[Sebastian Toe]

Many apologies.

First thing.......tell God one can do that whoever and however you are.

How do I do that?

...seek and you shall find, the man who comes to me I won't turn away  be still and know wait on the Lord.

again, how?

You are at liberty to pray and there is the time old but great piece of advice........pray as you can rather than as you should.

I don't know the correct way though. Can you help?

[Sebastian Toe]

There you go - I've put the question in bold, capitals and large font so you can't just ignore it again.

Oh no! You've gone all Sassy on us!

[Brownie]

I hate to say it but I thought the same, went back and checked.

Would you want a relationship with God?
Would you want a pet dragon?

Both please.

[wigginhall]

But Vlad also said that 'desire does point to existence'.    The only way this works, as far as I can see, is with those statements such as 'I could murder a pint', which seems to indicate that pints exist.    However, this seems very different from desiring God, leading to 'God exists', and also desiring a pet dragon. 

[Hope]

I hate to say it but I thought the same, went back and checked.

Would you want a relationship with God?
Would you want a pet dragon?

Both please.

As an Old Dragon myself, I sort of already have the latter 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do I do that?

again, how?

I don't know the correct way though. Can you help?

Your prayer could be as simple as ''God, I find I am in the position where I would like a relationship with you''.

[Sebastian Toe]

Your prayer could be as simple as ''God, I find I am in the position where I would like a relationship with you''.

And then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And then?

Be expectant but best not to have expectations. If you find you require an experience then you need to be addressing that to God. If not you've told him how you feel in the best way you can.

In short keep addressing things to God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Brownie,

I hate to say it but I thought the same, went back and checked.

Would you want a relationship with God?
Would you want a pet dragon?

Both please.

Then you're out of luck I'm afraid. Or not. Or something. Or not something. (Sorry, but I'm trying to use the hall of mirrors reasoning of Vlad here so anything goes. Or it doesn't. Or something.)

According to him "desiring a relationship" with something doesn't mean that that something is real, but - um - it does "point to" that something being real (only without any connecting logic to make it so), except that is when the something involved is not one in which he happens to believe already or approve of or find non-ridiculous, in which cases that something is excluded. Or something.

Or nothing.

All clear now?

Good. You couldn't just explain it back to me could you - just as soon as I've got a cold towel wrapped around my head and a very large vodka tonic in front of me.

Ta everso.

   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

And then?

Then Percy the dragon appears maybe?

Still, it'd be all your fault if old Perce did appear - must be because you'd "desired a relationship" with the wrong conjectural entity.

Or something.

Or not.