Yes! And "all Truth" is such a mysterious commodity that the Truth one of his children is led to is completely different from some other child's Truth!
ah! you are getting closer, when you grasp this as truth, and not using it as irony.
ah! you are getting closer, when you grasp this as truth, and not using it as irony.
How convenient! One person's "truth" is different from another person's "truth", eh? That works fine when nothing has to really be proven such as in how things (don't) work in the world of religious faith. Problem is, (and least to ME, "my" truth, right?) is that the rest of the observable world doesn't work that way, and one necessary, profound property of the observable world is the property of "uniformity," meaning the way things (one example, physics) behaves in one place and time will be identical to "the observable truth" in another place, or another time, another lab, another scientist. This property of "uniformity" is of course an assumption of sorts, but a provable, workable assumption in the practical sense, meaning it offers results, unlike any religious "truth" has ever offered. Yet every brain on earth was and is free to examine exactly how man went to the moon and back, and can still repeat the results of that manifestation of "truth" if they care to. IOW, there is only one science, one "truth" that works for the desired result on earth and space and in between. Yet Christian theology continues to offer no results about anything provable, but only has claims and promises about what's going to happen, as if 1500 years isn't long enough to smoke out anything of demonstrable substance......so far! Of course, there probably is no ultimate "Truth" with a capital, but only practical truth, lower case. Your theology apparently says there are many (personal?) versions of Truth with a capital T, if I read you correctly. (How convenient.)
hmm. i have no religious faith--at least i hope i don't--so we might be vehemently agreeing, lol. And funny you mentioned the manned-moon mission; i am currently investigating the 'hollywood studio' conspiracy there; and i must say Aldrin's withdrawal from society afterward is passing strange, at least. I'd sure be curious to know his thoughts here!
But of course--physics notwithstanding, because it doesn't, unless you accept facts as truth--I had in mind the more mundane truths of existence; and the more earthbound, which can usually be demonstrated by an extremis argument;polar bear fur and whale blubber diets work great in the Arctic, not so much in the Sahara; etc. This does not deny Uniformity, but rather allows for subtle conditions, and also allows one to practice Grace (possibly the moreso)
Ah, still resorting to words such as "pitiful", instead of mounting an argument based on reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword
Long after you are gone, the church will still keep on going,
Correct, and probably provable! Religious belief, especially of Christians and Muslims will not be eradicated for a long time. Religion is wired into us, just like its older brother: Superstition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamingZword
And the Holy "babble" as you have called it, will the book which will judge you.
Since you so often resort to futuristic rhetoric, then fine, let me join you in guessing and speculating about a superstition/faith-based ending for little ole me.
---It's an honorable calling to imagine that my life somehow fits into a grand scheme of a righteous God who chose to be an invisible or hidden father/god/king/ to those who would not buy into and believe His ancient published silliness. But then, in the end, the god goes on to save his other children who did use faith to ignore what an absent dead-beat Dad he was to most of humanity. Yeah, I'll go with that--bring it on. If your supposed god really is holy, just, and good, then he ought to win, and I won't care about "losing", because the better man won. Or maybe rather, it's that the more powerful guy wins, which is less respectable to me, but either way, no matter, as I will have done what was right, based on the better evidence.
Since Jesus said, "(Ye) shall be free indeed," you should allow yourself to think about this. First, the premise, "Suppose God the Father is indeed the best father ever, having far superior love than the very best parents on earth, and far more committed to the well being of his offspring." In that light, consider the acts of love shown by the ultimate Uber Mother you have known or heard stories about on earth. Suppose such a father or mother "has" to go away for some reason, and the lack of direct communication and direct touch lasts the entire lifetime of the child. Supppose the primary, most tangibly solid form of communication is....letters. Rather, make that ancient letters, composed thousands of years ago, but still supposedly applicable to all offspring, throughout all time, in every land--a type of "form letter" if you will. It's the children's task to read the letters in a way that seems personal, because after all, Daddy has things to do while gone. Suppose Father's letters talk about a telepathic way to personally communicate with Him, so you of course attempt the telepathic method every day, just as described. After all, you love your Daddy. The telepathy is indistinguishable from the same error-prone methods that other false, evil men or institutions often use in similar ways, such as competing religious faiths, psychics, dreams, superstitious society, and most strongly of all, your own good imagination (which can at times come up with a convincingly personal voice when it needs to.) Nevertheless, your father really, really wants to communicate with you through the morass of those other, false, distracting methods. You should be able to tell the difference, because your father loves you, and won't let you be steered wrong, even alongside those false methods that are essentially indistinguishable from the true method.
The Uber Loving Father, whom you supposedly will be allowed to see after you die, has also constructed a special place for punishment (or anihilation, whatever) of most of humanity, possibly as high as 99.8% of humanity. But you reason that shouldn't matter, because the damned could have believed just like you believe. Your belief is the One Correct belief (or close enough to the One Correct belief) and anyone else is free to believe just like you, sparing themselves from everlasting destruction.
On earth, we know of no parents who would design a cage for eternal punishment (or anihilation, whatever) of their own children. If there were such a mother, we would label her a deranged sicko. At the very least, we would not allow such a mother to be considered an example of LOVE, because love cannot perform eternal punishment (or destruction) of one's own offspring. If a child were so bad that "something HAD to be done" about the miscreant child, then a loving parent would do everything within ability to accomplish rehabilitation, reform, education, etc. Yet, the heavenly father (by definition of "heavenly") does have the means to forgive, to heal, and to rehabilitate anyone, yet (being ommipotent and omniscient) still decided to invent a system that really, really needs that cage, especially since the cage started out too small, and needed an expansion program to let humans in. This blood-based (if not bloodlusting) Father Yahweh designed a sin economy where potentially anyone can be punished for any mistake, no matter how small! That's fascinating, as apparently I can forgive wrongdoing done against me more easily than your Yahweh god can; I don't even have offspring, and I'm not even a lesser god.
Consider the population of elementary school teachers in the USA, say, just second grade teachers. On any given school day, they probably exhibit more love, effort, and committment toward their students than the Yawheh god ever displayed in his supposed holy texts. And teachers can do so without requiring any blood to be spilled, either their students' blood, or their own.
I have read through some of this thread including a lot of what marbee and Timmy had to say about them being atheists.
Well, I have something to add. One of the most beautiful things about FAITH is that I do not have to prove there is a God. I live joyously with that FAITH. Without FAITH it is impossible to please God. If I am wrong, then, of course, I have lost NOTHING, and neither has the atheist.
However, if atheism is wrong, then the only thing the atheist loses is eternal life with a God who is only pleased by FAITH. Atheists can live their lives with freedom until death and unfortunately the burden of proof will always be upon them and they will be consumed with their beliefs as is apparent with the constant argument of the fact that there is no God. Good luck with your beliefs.
One of the most beautiful things about FAITH is that I do not have to prove there is a God.
Yes, we are in agreement there, at least that FAITH does indeed relieve the believer from having to prove anything, especially the most basic assumptions about their faith. (I remember that bumper sticker from the 70s, still around today: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." ) It should be no problem that millions of Muslims and Mormons also agree with you in the same way --they have faith, and lots of it! Their faith appears correct to them, and yours appears correct to you, and the most serious people in every faith probably share equal amounts and intensity of faith. Faith is probably allowed to claim ANYTHING or other is true and correct, and no one has to prove that anything is particularly testable or "true" concerning their faith, because that's the very nature of faith. However, as soon as anyone tries to prove some kind demonstrable truth behind their faith, then at that point the claims enter the realm of reason, in addition to faith. Once you accept that a "false faith" can be debunked with good reasoning, then at that point, there's decent reason to have a conversation. IOW, the likes of me (ex believer) can then speak with a strong believer such as you. But the thicker the shell of faith, the less common ground can be agreed upon (in most cases.) Nevertheless, Timmy and I are sincerely glad you stopped by TT to comment, Brother Eastman.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherEastman
I live joyously with that FAITH
I also lived joyously with my christian faith. In some sense, I miss it today, perhaps not unlike how a former smoker/alcoholic/drug addict may remember and miss the seemingly good feelings or heightened emotions of the bad habits they used to indulge. Joy and faith? Yes, it used to be pretty fun, interesting, and amazing to believe that a Magic Kingdom of bliss and reward awaited me after death. But I had to grow out of that--hard truths can be, uh, hard. Unfortunately, when we're dead that's it--for many people that's so unpleasant that religions are developed precisely to try to get around that fact (or to at least exploit the fear.) BTW, I say "fact" loosely--I only mean that permanent mortality is way, way more likely to be the truth than A Magic Kingdom for the (newly reconstituted!) Faithful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherEastman
I am wrong, then, of course, I have lost NOTHING, and neither has the atheist.
However, if atheism is wrong, then the only thing the atheist loses is eternal life
So, is this version of Pascal's wager a primary reason that you believe, or even a good motive for anyone you preach at to believe in your god? An all-knowing god will instantly know whether someone's motivation for faith is because they merely hedged their bets to play the best odds to escape possible punishment in a supposed afterlife. Such a wager is never suggested in your bible, so it's possible you will lose everything if the above is really your motivation for believing. That particular thought experiment was popularized by 17th Century mathematician Blaise Pascal, who was a big Catholic. So, did accepting the wager do HIM any good, considering he naturally believed in the trinity, in the divinity of Mary, etc.? Or does the wager only "work" for your version of your god? Does the same wager apply to Muslims, and therefore they ought to similarly bet on obeying their version of their god and afterlife?
<< lost NOTHING, and neither has the atheist.>>
Many (ex believers especially) have lost an awful lot by buying into faith-based silliness. I took it quite seriously to trust Jesus in everything, and according to the bible, that is supposed to result in a big cost. Additionally, Paul taught, "Mortify your flesh," and "I die daily." To me, that cost now amounts to mostly loss because I will never recover the missed opportunities (of 20 years of young and mid adulthood.) Then, there's the time it takes to deprogram and reprogram oneself to think rationally instead of according to faith-based delusions. All that required years, IOW, loss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrotherEastman
burden of proof will always be upon them
Not necessarily. In every courtroom today, the one making the extraordinary claim is the one who has the burden of proof. Through history, same thing applies to some extent. For example, Copernicus made the unusual claim that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa (per traditional Ptolemaic model.) We know today that Copernicus had the better truth on his side, yet he still had the burden of proof due to his claim being the extraordinary one. In everyday life, the same principle should apply, but sometimes doesn't in societies where so much of the population already believes in a Magic Man in the sky. So, in American culture, the "unusual claim" may very well be that of the atheist. And that is why we argue--even though the better evidence is on our side, as was for Copernicus. It took some time for the truth to sink into European society, and some people couldn't stand such an offensive truth (as it implied earth was not the center of the god's creation.)
Yes, we are in agreement there, at least that FAITH does indeed relieve the believer from having to prove anything, especially the most basic assumptions about their faith. (I remember that bumper sticker from the 70s, still around today: "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." ) It should be no problem that millions of Muslims and Mormons also agree with you in the same way --they have faith, and lots of it! Their faith appears correct to them, and yours appears correct to you, and the most serious people in every faith probably share equal amounts and intensity of faith. Faith is probably allowed to claim ANYTHING or other is true and correct, and no one has to prove that anything is particularly testable or "true" concerning their faith, because that's the very nature of faith. However, as soon as anyone tries to prove some kind demonstrable truth behind their faith, then at that point the claims enter the realm of reason, in addition to faith. Once you accept that a "false faith" can be debunked with good reasoning, then at that point, there's decent reason to have a conversation. IOW, the likes of me (ex believer) can then speak with a strong believer such as you. But the thicker the shell of faith, the less common ground can be agreed upon (in most cases.) Nevertheless, Timmy and I are sincerely glad you stopped by TT to comment, Brother Eastman.
I also lived joyously with my christian faith. In some sense, I miss it today, perhaps not unlike how a former smoker/alcoholic/drug addict may remember and miss the seemingly good feelings or heightened emotions of the bad habits they used to indulge. Joy and faith? Yes, it used to be pretty fun, interesting, and amazing to believe that a Magic Kingdom of bliss and reward awaited me after death. But I had to grow out of that--hard truths can be, uh, hard. Unfortunately, when we're dead that's it--for many people that's so unpleasant that religions are developed precisely to try to get around that fact (or to at least exploit the fear.) BTW, I say "fact" loosely--I only mean that permanent mortality is way, way more likely to be the truth than A Magic Kingdom for the (newly reconstituted!) Faithful.
So, is this version of Pascal's wager a primary reason that you believe, or even a good motive for anyone you preach at to believe in your god? An all-knowing god will instantly know whether someone's motivation for faith is because they merely hedged their bets to play the best odds to escape possible punishment in a supposed afterlife. Such a wager is never suggested in your bible, so it's possible you will lose everything if the above is really your motivation for believing. That particular thought experiment was popularized by 17th Century mathematician Blaise Pascal, who was a big Catholic. So, did accepting the wager do HIM any good, considering he naturally believed in the trinity, in the divinity of Mary, etc.? Or does the wager only "work" for your version of your god? Does the same wager apply to Muslims, and therefore they ought to similarly bet on obeying their version of their god and afterlife?
<< lost NOTHING, and neither has the atheist.>>
Many (ex believers especially) have lost an awful lot by buying into faith-based silliness. I took it quite seriously to trust Jesus in everything, and according to the bible, that is supposed to result in a big cost. Additionally, Paul taught, "Mortify your flesh," and "I die daily." To me, that cost now amounts to mostly loss because I will never recover the missed opportunities (of 20 years of young and mid adulthood.) Then, there's the time it takes to deprogram and reprogram oneself to think rationally instead of according to faith-based delusions. All that required years, IOW, loss.
Not necessarily. In every courtroom today, the one making the extraordinary claim is the one who has the burden of proof. Through history, same thing applies to some extent. For example, Copernicus made the unusual claim that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa (per traditional Ptolemaic model.) We know today that Copernicus had the better truth on his side, yet he still had the burden of proof due to his claim being the extraordinary one. In everyday life, the same principle should apply, but sometimes doesn't in societies where so much of the population already believes in a Magic Man in the sky. So, in American culture, the "unusual claim" may very well be that of the atheist. And that is why we argue--even though the better evidence is on our side, as was for Copernicus. It took some time for the truth to sink into European society, and some people couldn't stand such an offensive truth (as it implied earth was not the center of the god's creation.)
Linear Mode
