TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- creationism making a comeback in texas
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 »

God is everywhere! Can't you smell him?

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Religious leaders are forced to never lie as well. Do you trust their verification?

i didnt say "lie" i said "substantiate" which they can never ever do, ergo the slight yet huge difference between the two.

My "as well" was not a continuation of your thought.

My point was, you would trust one authority over another, yet both may have something to gain from you by betraying their code of conduct.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On My point was, you would trust one authority over another, yet both may have something to gain from you by betraying their code of conduct.

but a priest isn't an authority on anything (theology, the study of the unknowable haha). hardly the same thing as a doctor. yes, either might betray their code of conduct but that's a rather meaningless comparison. i can work out quite easily if my doctor is lying to me, you can never ever know if a priest lied to you until you're dead, and probably not even then.

As mentioned, a doctor can substantiate his opinion, a priest cannot. Any similarities are dwarfed by this gaping divide.

I cannot conscientiously bring myself to argue with you, even for entertainment purposes.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On I cannot conscientiously bring myself to argue with you, even for entertainment purposes.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On All core beliefs are oppressive - that is their nature. When you create a rule - a law - you are explicitly prohibiting an expressed action or behaviour. I mean, when you outlaw rape, how the fuck do you expect rapists to eat??? Does some of the strict Islamic law exacted in foreign countries seem oppressive in our kitschy, Western sense of freedom and justice and motals and whatever the fuck else? You bet.

When women are treated lower than livestock, yes. When petty crimes receive malicious punishment, yes.

quote:

But what justifies ours, truly?

pkc hit it right on the head. I also believe 'moral' behavior to be beneficial to survival. There may be no moral absolute and moral truths may change as a condition of social construct but reason can deduce what moral acts are ubiquitary as a direct benefit to survival, such as not murdering, pillaging and raping everything you see. Examples of this are also prevalent in nature.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On What makes your assumption any more substantial than mine though? We're not distant relatives who have been crashing at His place for a few million years... He created us, according to you. If God did not seek to do this, then what could possibly lead you to believe in the soundness of the rest of your philosophy? I do not love pieces of skin and debris that cling to me; though I created them, I did not seek to do as such, but I've inadvertently made room for them regardless.

Either I missed this earlier or you added it after I replied.

The problem with your assumption is that the argument you advance presupposes that God is the creator of all things and that creation was undertaken as a deliberate action on God's part.... if this is accepted then it must also be accepted that this is God's world, not man's, and that the creation of man as part of God's world was a deliberate act; subsequently, God made room for us in his world rather then him making room for himself in our world.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On It's not really "faith" if there is a direct benefit though... that's called incentive.

You've made an error here... we were talking about the benefits of religion, not faith. Don't get confused; faith and religion are two separate things... faith being one's beliefs and religion being a set of ritual and practice designed to give expression to one's beliefs. The two things are not one in the same, as evidenced by the fact that people can have the same faith but practice different religions (such as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians, or Hindus and Jains), have faith but practice no religion, or conversely, have no faith but practice a religion. I concede that people (including myself) practice religion because it provides them with some benefit that they value higher then whatever the cost (time, opportunity, etc) of practicing said religion is; however, I cannot say the same is true of faith.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On It's an interesting question, that's for sure - if faith without any incentive is even possible. I believe I asked Moral once and his answer was actually the opposite of yours, but my recollection is a tad hazy.

see my post above.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard You've made an error here... we were talking about the benefits of religion, not faith. Don't get confused; faith and religion are two separate things... faith being one's beliefs and religion being a set of ritual and practice designed to give expression to one's beliefs. The two things are not one in the same, as evidenced by the fact that people can have the same faith but practice different religions (such as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians, or Hindus and Jains), have faith but practice no religion, or conversely, have no faith but practice a religion. I concede that people (including myself) practice religion because it provides them with some benefit that they value higher then whatever the cost (time, opportunity, etc) of practicing said religion is; however, I cannot say the same is true of faith.

I absolutely agree with this.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN but a priest isn't an authority on anything (theology, the study of the unknowable haha). As mentioned, a doctor can substantiate his opinion, a priest cannot. Any similarities are dwarfed by this gaping divide.

Even if there is no God; one cannot deny that any person (ordained or not) holding a doctor of divinities is at very least an authority on theology, which - even if there is no God - is at very least the study of how humans perceive God; subsequently, you would have to accept that any Reverend is an authority on spiritual matters. Certainly, a priest could substantiate their opinions on the nature of mans relationship with God as the relationship is real even if God is not.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Even if there is no God; one cannot deny that any person (ordained or not) holding a doctor of divinities is at very least an authority on theology, which - even if there is no God - is at very least the study of how humans perceive God; subsequently, you would have to accept that any Reverend is an authority on spiritual matters.

of course. however, interpretive opinion on something you can't ever prove doesn't really hold the same weight as someone who performs open heart surgeries imo.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Certainly, a priest could substantiate their opinions on the nature of mans relationship with God as the relationship is real even if God is not.

how can you have a 'relationship' with something that isn't real? *cue blow-up doll joke*

What constitutes "proof"? There are those that would contend global warming cannot be proven - is it a myth then as well, since it is not universally irrefutable? What about abstract concepts like "culture" and "identity" - can you show me what it is to be Catalan?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN of course. however, interpretive opinion on something you can't ever prove doesn't really hold the same weight as someone who performs open heart surgeries imo.

Your statement was that priests are not authorities on anything, that statement is simply false. What weight you give to the importance of their expertise is up to you. I would be incline to agree that medical doctors can back their opinions up with empirical evidence, which is more universally convincing then is theology, reason, or rhetoric.... so if you measure weight by what is most compelling then sure, I agree. Now, if by weight you mean importance then I'm not sure I can agree with you, as far more people will have need for spiritual guidance/advice throughout their lives then will have need for cardiac surgery.

quote:

how can you have a 'relationship' with something that isn't real? *cue blow-up doll joke*

Nigga please... whether god actually exists or not billions of people have a "relationship" with what they perceive to be god that is very real if one party of that relationship is in part or in whole a product of their own making. You have a relationship with your ego; however, it is not real. I would argue that all relationships are with things or people are, at very least, in part relationships with parties that are not real as we actually only know our perception of the other party involved. What is real is the relationship, even if one or even both of the parties involved are not.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Either I missed this earlier or you added it after I replied.

That post was just poorly formatted at first as I had to stop halfway through to go pick up an excessively heavy canister of laundry detergent on the other side of town.

quote:

The problem with your assumption is that the argument you advance presupposes that God is the creator of all things and that creation was undertaken as a deliberate action on God's part.... if this is accepted then it must also be accepted that this is God's world, not man's, and that the creation of man as part of God's world was a deliberate act; subsequently, God made room for us in his world rather then him making room for himself in our world.

Where are you getting this information? This is like arguing over your favourite colour with someone.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard You've made an error here... we were talking about the benefits of religion, not faith. Don't get confused; faith and religion are two separate things... faith being one's beliefs and religion being a set of ritual and practice designed to give expression to one's beliefs. The two things are not one in the same, as evidenced by the fact that people can have the same faith but practice different religions (such as Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians, or Hindus and Jains), have faith but practice no religion, or conversely, have no faith but practice a religion.

I made no such error - your response was to my question about the course of somebody's personal faith - how it can strengthen, how it can weaken - and I replied in turn with a comment on faith. But you are absolutely right in that religion and faith can be two very seperate things - and this is one of the largest objections I have to religion. The expressionistic rituals you describe seemingly give a "name" to God - he's this religion, she's part of that religion, etc. This is the social dynamic clearly confirmational in people and no doubt "beneficial" so far as they are concerned. But that is a steady notion - that people paicipate in things that they like. Faith can wax and wane with an individual though, and if this affects the frequency of religious practice and ceremony, then they are not entirely different concepts.

I dunno, I just went for the fritters and the girls, so fuck your benefits.

But "faith" is far more general than mere religion, and much closer to belief in concept than periodic ceremony. But faith we can see everywhere. Kooks on this board believe - have faith - that there is a conspiracy behind everything. People believe in gun control or the death penalty or whatever else they like and for whatever reasons they like - what makes one belief any more correct than the next though? Experience? Academia? Conceit?

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Where are you getting this information? This is like arguing over your favourite colour with someone.

Faith is subjective, no?

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Faith is subjective, no?

Only insofar as it may differ from person to person, but if there is a "problem in my assumptions" then it is because there is an actual truth to compare it to... that doesn't sound conducive to subjection.

//Waitwaitwait, before this goes any farther, Moral and I were discussing whether or not this is God's world we are merely living in or if this is our world that God has given to us... or something like that. Regardless, I assure you that nobody here actually knows, so it's really not worth debating over. That was my only point with the colour analogy. I'm not sure which one of us was misinterpreting the other, but he (I think) was merely trying to reconcile my assessment of his opinion - which I wasn't actually refuting, I was merely questioning the validity of it within the context of.. well.. a hell of a lot of other subjections.

Moral loves his skin flakes! Tee-hee!

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Where are you getting this information? This is like arguing over your favourite colour with someone.

The information is right in the argument you were advancing in that your argument presupposed the existence of a god... if one accepts that there is a god then one must accept that said god is the creator of all things; subsequently, it is said god's world. That said, you're right, there is nothing to be gained by furthering this particular discussion.

quote:

I made no such error - your response was to my question about the course of somebody's personal faith - how it can strengthen, how it can weaken - and I replied in turn with a comment on faith.

I've reviewed the tape and concede that it was, in fact, I who muddled the terms, my apologies.

quote:

But you are absolutely right

that's pretty much a given :P

{QUOTE]in that religion and faith can be two very seperate things - and this is one of the largest objections I have to religion. The expressionistic rituals you describe seemingly give a "name" to God - he's this religion, she's part of that religion, etc. This is the social dynamic clearly confirmational in people and no doubt "beneficial" so far as they are concerned. But that is a steady notion - that people paicipate in things that they like. Faith can wax and wane with an individual though, and if this affects the frequency of religious practice and ceremony, then they are not entirely different concepts.[/QUOTE]

Granted, faith and religion are closely related; however, not inextricably linked and the strength of one's faith may influence the manner in which they practice a religion. The point I was trying to make was that the benefit from religion is not dependent on faith... one could continue to have faith and value said faith but abandon religion due to insufficient benefits. The opposite if also true; one could lose faith but continue to practice a religion. Generally, I prefer to think of faith as something that a person develops while religion is a choice that they make... although that is an admittedly clumsy and simplified manner of looking at the two.

quote:

I dunno, I just went for the fritters and the girls, so fuck your benefits.

Dude... you got fritters? Cheap fuckin' church only gives me stale crackers and bad wine.... why didn't Jesus serve something better... like chocolate milk and pie... "Jesus took the pie and sliced it, he handed it to his disciples and said 'take this pie and eat it, this is the pie of my body which will be given up for you.' When supper was ended he took the cup and said 'this is the chocolate milk of my blood'..."

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Moral loves his skin flakes! Tee-hee!

and my shit... I create that too!

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Dude... you got fritters? Cheap fuckin' church only gives me stale crackers and bad wine.... why didn't Jesus serve something better... like chocolate milk and pie... "Jesus took the pie and sliced it, he handed it to his disciples and said 'take this pie and eat it, this is the pie of my body which will be given up for you.' When supper was ended he took the cup and said 'this is the chocolate milk of my blood'..."

Yeah, we got fritters and Pepsi for communion. American Jesus had a considerably higher cholesterol, but at least he was real!

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Your statement was that priests are not authorities on anything, that statement is simply false. What weight you give to the importance of their expertise is up to you. I would be incline to agree that medical doctors can back their opinions up with empirical evidence, which is more universally convincing then is theology, reason, or rhetoric.... so if you measure weight by what is most compelling then sure, I agree. Now, if by weight you mean importance then I'm not sure I can agree with you, as far more people will have need for spiritual guidance/advice throughout their lives then will have need for cardiac surgery.

actually, i said they were experts in the "unknowable"

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Nigga please... whether god actually exists or not billions of people have a "relationship" with what they perceive to be god that is very real if one party of that relationship is in part or in whole a product of their own making. You have a relationship with your ego; however, it is not real. I would argue that all relationships are with things or people are, at very least, in part relationships with parties that are not real as we actually only know our perception of the other party involved. What is real is the relationship, even if one or even both of the parties involved are not.

so what you're saying is that a person's relationship with god could be no different than a schizophrenic's relationship with the voices? well, at least we agree on something

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov What constitutes "proof"? There are those that would contend global warming cannot be proven - is it a myth then as well, since it is not universally irrefutable? What about abstract concepts like "culture" and "identity" - can you show me what it is to be Catalan?

are you really comparing the evidence for culture or global warming with the evidence of god?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN actually, i said they were experts in the "unknowable"

straight from Pat Condell's mouth. ftw

quote:

Originally posted by D-res straight from Pat Condell's mouth. ftw

pat rocks my world!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN actually, i said they were experts in the "unknowable"

And I refuted that... if nothing else they are experts in man's relationship with a conceptualized god, which is knowable even if one cannot establish whether or not god(s) exist.

quote:

so what you're saying is that a person's relationship with god could be no different than a schizophrenic's relationship with the voices? well, at least we agree on something

Not at all. What I'm saying is that a person's relationship with god is no different then relationships between people in that it's a relationship with a perception rather then with a definite and genuine article. Whether there is or is not a god(s) my "relationship" with same is really a relationship with what I believe god to be; much the same as my relationship with my wife is really a relationship with the person I believe her to be, and my relationship with you is really just with the person I believe you to be.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.