Quote:


'God' is defined in many different ways. To which 'god' are you referring? Why do you insist that atheists define themselves on your terms? We have made it very clear how we define ourselves.

What I believe in fact, is that there are issues surrounding 'first cause' that are unexplained by science and probably/possibly always will be. I have some tentative beliefs, (hypotheses) that help me understand the Universe and my relationship to it. 

There are various gang structures that exploit the first cause void. They fill the void with 'made up stuff' or 'woo' and appeal to the human fear of death and the unknown by providing false certainties. The real benefits that the gang hierarchy gets out of this are very material - power, control, authority and money.

Kadaitcha Man, priest, ghost dancer I don't make much distinction; anybody using the line 'you can only go there through me' is what I would call a blasphemer.

As for 'militant' atheism, I'd put my hand up to that. Religions have had the field too long, they 'catch 'em young' and it's difficult to shake off that deep indoctrination. People need all the encouragement and support they can get to be free of mumbo jumbo. And while religion is becoming increasingly irrelevant to modernity it wasn't so even when I was young. If you didn't believe 50 years ago you kept it to yourself and felt odd and guilty.

Now I think that's speaking as plainly and clearly what my atheist label means to me freediver. What does your religion mean to you?

Grey wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 5:21am:


Ethical considerations require reasons to justify them. Otherwise, I'm not going to question Divine Morality... too much god belief entailed... I find it much more interesting to question why those of faith don't follow their own divine morality... after all 'God said so', so are they daring to question God?

Quote:


True enough, but the reasoning behind ethical or moral considerations is not that different most of the time. Religion does its best to position god as the fount of moral teaching, which is of course nonsense.

If we take the Moses incident as our reference point, we can easily put ourselves in his shoes. Taking a mob through inhospitable country was bound to lead to frictions, but what weight would laws have if he just announced them? Better to do the 'meeting with god' ceremony.

But the laws were in the main sound and useful, we wouldn't need a god to figure that nicking each others ass and other chattels (like wives, irony alert) and killing each other over it wasn't going to help a precarious existence.

Actually we might see that here was a very good reason to invent religion. But in a globalised world where they're all rubbing up up against each other religion might be seen to have outlived its usefulness. Interestingly this is much the same way i regard capitalism. A good idea at the time.

Quote:

Quote:


Soren wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 10:52pm:


I don't even know what it means to have an understanding of things which do not exist.

For example: Do you have an understanding of the non existence of "Oomglar the Moon Faced One"? If yes, what is that understanding? Answering that may help us to understand the non existence of God.

Yadda wrote on Apr 27^th, 2011 at 3:37pm:


I'll have a look. I'm not going to subject your posts to microscopic analysis. I'm just interested in the personal reasons.

I don't have any militant atheist barrow to push. I'm happy for anyone to choose their own path.

Grey wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 9:35am:



Are you familiar with Plato's theory of forms, with the division between the intelligible realm and the phenomenal realm, and how all things in the phenomenal realm are poor copies of those in the intelligible realm? The "forms" are the original archetypes of all 'things', all 'things' in the phenomenal realm or material world are sub-standard copies of the archetypal forms. Greek scholars argued that the Christian god encompasses the entire realm of the forms. The 'forms' now become 'god'. All things that 'walk according to the flesh' (the phenomenal realm) are considered bad, those that 'walk according to the spirit' (the intelligible realm) are considered good. Humans, who live in the phenomenal realm, or 'walk according to the flesh', are then forever trying to please god by trying to act out how 'things' were constructed in the intelligible realm, or, in other words, trying to 'walk according to the spirit'.
However, empirically, the forms cannot be proven because they supposedly exist beyond time, space, and causality.
Platonism and Christianity were devised in a time when the mind/body split was fashionable. They believed the mind is not of the body and can transcend its material or phenomenal being. Western thinkers in the last 300 years began the task of explaining there is no mind/body split, but, rather, are completely interconnected. But not only are they interconnected, they cannot transcend phenomenal realm. This is Kant's great point, that it is basically impossible to escape the causal link of events. The connotations of this is that we are constantly becoming, never are we being, never do we reach a final state, never is there any static knowledge to pin down and say "this is true for all time". The closest we can get to 'knowledge' is empirically verified claims.

Sappho wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 12:54am:




Why am i NOT Christ-like ???



I want to be.

And the [NT] Bible commands me, to strive to be Christ-like [i.e. faultless].

But i am not, Christ-like.

Q.
Why not ???

A.
Because i live in the world.

Because i have a body of flesh, which makes worldly demands upon me.

And because the 'influences' of, and within, this world act upon me.




See....
"For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do."
Romans 7:14-23
and, Romans 8

Jesus words...

Matthew 26:39
And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
40  And he cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, What, could ye not watch with me one hour?
41  Watch and pray, that ye enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.



What is the point then, of accepting the 'burden' of being a Christian, and of trying to follow that philosophy of life ???

Because, i have come to realise that although i am, in effect, [a spirit] imprisoned in this world, and [a spirit] imprisoned within this fleshly body, that i should [and i am expected to!] aspire to a higher calling - rather than [always] acting [in this 'life'] merely like a 'beast'.

Because i have come to recognise that this life is a test, which i have failed. [....a test, which all men fail.]

BUT, will i recognise and acknowledge that failure?

And how will i behave, once i have.

[I believe that], the point of the 'game' [which we have been compelled to play], is to recognise our error, to recognise how the 'bondage' of this world, is acting upon us.


+++

What if 'this life' is a fixed game?

i.e.
What if we can't 'win',
...on purpose!

What if we were always 'fated' to fail here [spiritually]?

Speaking of mankind, the Bible states that we have all 'been corrupted' by the cares of this world.

Psalms 14:3
They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
[and Romans 3:10-12]

The Bible states that man is not righteous.
That, our very nature precludes it.
But, has this 'deck of cards' [which we are playing with] been stacked against us!?
IMO, we appear to be playing in a 'fixed' game!

But for a very specific purpose.

Why, you ask?

Think wheat and chaff, think sheep and goats.

Isaiah 48:10
Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.

I believe that we are all spiritual beings.

And imo, we come 'here' to *experience* this physical existence, specifically [i believe], to exercise [, to experience] the 'power' of choice.

Q.
If that were true, to what purpose?

A.
To show if we can learn from our [mis-taken] choices,  ...or not!

And, imo, it is a given, that we will all make many 'mistakes' [i.e. poor choices].

And that, is 'the fix', in the game.

To me, it appears that mankind's burden in his/her life, is to suffer the 'demands' made upon him/her, by this world.

In fulfilling the 'worldly' demands made upon us, every man is *forced* to make the choice to be sometimes Cain, AND, to be sometimes Abel.

But, within our 'lifetime', [as children of our spiritual father] we are expected to be wise enough, to learn from the mistakes which we make.

To come to that [spiritual] 'place' where we recognise, that we have made many poor choices in our journey here.

And i firmly believe that that [i.e. 'repentance'], is all that God requires of us.




What, is reality?....

What is 'real', in this world???

Our choices, here in this 'world', are REAL.



+++

But God is clever.

And he knows which of us, will repent, which of us will be sorry, for our mistaken choices.

Those others, who are absorbed, 'consumed', by their 'cares' for the things of this world, will receive their own choice too.

God is separating us [mankind], 'sorting' us,  ....or rather, we are 'sorting' ourselves.


Daniel 12:10
Isaiah 48:10
Revelation 21:7-8

Soren wrote on Apr 28^th, 2011 at 11:09am:



I'm not sure if that was in reply to the discussion on agnostic or not. Historically the term has gone through some metamorphosis. In Ancient Greece, it was more of a skeptical position rather than a fence sitting position as it is now.

Gnosis is generally defined as a kind of spiritual 'knowledge', and gnostics claimed to have special god-given knowledge, just as some Christians claim today.

Some Deists  (probably not all) take the philosophical position that a non interventionist God exists or existed. Given that the deity is non interventionist, I suspect that Deists have less gnosis and more  fideo, and probably much more cogitatus or sententia.  

Sic transit gloria mundi