Obviously we are not all Godless here

[dsayers]

 

I will try and keep to one short simple statement.

 

Well, this thread is predicated on one short, simple statement: you accept Christianity as truth. Several people have asked you how you know and you continue to avoid the question.

 

With regards to forgiveness, I feel as if you've neglected the meat of my challenge and simply asserted your position. In the abused woman scenario, rather than getting "bitter," you're saying she should turn to police (abusers themselves), lock herself away from people, wish for things to get better, then move on as if nothing happened. In other words, victimize herself further, victimize herself further, and victimize herself further. In fact, your example was matrimony, meaning she would go right back into the abuse.

 

Instead, what you call bitterness could motivate her to let people know how dangerous her abuser is. Reflect on how she could have seen it coming to protect herself from it happening again. Engage in talk therapy. Process the trauma. Research the cycle of violence. Stand up and educate the world what she's learned.We need those who do evil to be afraid that their evil will be seen and will not be tolerated. Asking Santa Claus to smite somebody isn't much of a disincentive.

[corbyco]

Absolutely, there will be anger, bitterness and hatred as a healthy initial reaction.  That helps us react correctly in the moment for self-defence.  But then we need to be able to go on with our life without having to depend on the perpetrator doing anything - because they might not.

 

Perhaps a different example would explain why I am proposing, then, that philosophy is wrong about forgiveness.

 

Supposing you lend someone $1000 and they promise to pay you back in a month.  After one month you dont hear anything and so you contact them and they say its in the post.

It doesnt arrive in the post and you contact them and they say they have lost their job but will get the money to pay you back.  You keep chasing them but they eventually dont answer your calls etc...

 

You have a couple of choices.

 

1. you can keep trying to search them out, taking a great effort and lots of time and frustration when you find them you can get the law involved or threaten them with violence if they dont pay and maybe get hurt too

2. you can say to yourself that you want to move on with your life and that all this is simply not worth dragging you down for months with possibly no return anyway

 

If you choose number 2 you can simply decide to forgive them the debt.  Write it off as a lesson learned and tell them that you no longer want the money back and that you dont want to see them again, but hope they manage to get a new job.

 

Yes - maybe they dont change and think they were clever getting away with your money.  But the point is that option 2 is best for you in that you are now free to move on.  You have learned to be more careful who you lend to.

 

If you wait for them to come to you and beg you to not demand the money back - you could be waiting a very long time and continue to be involved in a painful relationship with the debt hanging as a dark cloud over you.

 

Forgive the debt unconditionally and move on without any expectations.    I have done it many times ( money, violence, lies, gossip) and bear noone a grudge, and am not burdened by any of it.  Its not easy at first but once you see the benefits it becomes easier the next time.

[dsayers]

Whoops. Perhaps I shouldn't have picked up on the forgiveness topic. It appears I've given you an excuse to completely avoid talking about what you posted this thread to talk about

[corbyco]

@DSayers said: "Well, this thread is predicated on one short, simple statement: you accept Christianity as truth. Several people have asked you how you know and you continue to avoid the question."

 

Yes - OK then.

 

How do we know anything is truth?  We test it.

 

We had the vicar from the local parish church in our village knock on the door asking if we wanted to go on a 6 evening course to learn about Christianity.

He was (is) a highly intelligent and educated man who became a vicar after being an officer in the army, (tanks I think).  He was not how I thought of as a typical 'religious' person. He had his feet firmly on the ground obviously a intellectual willing to discuss anything.  I greatly enjoyed the discussion and thought it would be fun doing it once a week in the evening.

 

The course went into historical facts and what the bible teaches about life and how to live it (basically the concept that the designer of a car knows best how to maintain it and get the best performance - and so if God created us then He can give us clear insights on how to live).

 

So it gets to the week about the Holy Spirit.  We learn what the Bible says about Him and that we can receive Him by simple prayer.  A bit spooky for a non-Christian - but this is my test of the whole thing so I agree to be prayed for.  Remember that I was brought up an Atheist and not had anything indoctrinated and this was a non-emotional, Anglican, non-hyped up affair.

 

Well I kneeled in the library and the Vicar, my wife and a woman and gently put their hands on my head and asked the Holy Spirit to come.

 

Wham!  I got what was like a lightening strike on the right side of my face that turned into what felt like hot water that poured through my cheek down the back of my neck and into the area of my heart.

I startled the group and said what happened.  They asked me to kneel again and that they would keep praying.

Wham! The exact same thing happened again.

 

Noone was touching my face.  Noone had said that anything would happen at all. I had not heard of anything like this before and not since.  There was no expectancy - it was completely out of the blue.

 

Obviously an experience like this then caused me to test out more, and more and eventually, after lots of similar experiences and positive results of trying out teachings of Jesus, I have to conceded that there is lots of evidence for the existence of God - and particularly the Christian God as it is His words I tested out.

 

I have worked in an orphanage in Romania; out on the streets in England at night with the homeless; run the church finances -and lots of other jobs.  There is not a more loving, honest, generous, passionate group of people than in the protestant churches I have visited in England, Romania, USA, Tobago, and many other places.

 

I know the Catholic, Muslim, cults, and Jewish churches often have been involved in massive abuse - but what you might not know is that they still live by Gods law - and make up hundreds of their own.  They do not accept what it actually says in the Bible which is that since Jesus we are no longer under the law.  Its all about love now.  Love your neighbour and love your enemies.

[PatrickC]

You have a couple of choices.

 

1. you can keep trying to search them out, taking a great effort and lots of time and frustration when you find them you can get the law involved or threaten them with violence if they dont pay and maybe get hurt too

2. you can say to yourself that you want to move on with your life and that all this is simply not worth dragging you down for months with possibly no return anyway

 

If you choose number 2 you can simply decide to forgive them the debt.  Write it off as a lesson learned and tell them that you no longer want the money back and that you dont want to see them again, but hope they manage to get a new job.

 

Yes - maybe they dont change and think they were clever getting away with your money.  But the point is that option 2 is best for you in that you are now free to move on.  You have learned to be more careful who you lend to.

 

If you wait for them to come to you and beg you to not demand the money back - you could be waiting a very long time and continue to be involved in a painful relationship with the debt hanging as a dark cloud over you.

 

Forgive the debt unconditionally and move on without any expectations.    I have done it many times ( money, violence, lies, gossip) and bear noone a grudge, and am not burdened by any of it.  Its not easy at first but once you see the benefits it becomes easier the next time.

 

You see, this is where you differ from myself and dsayers. You see forgiveness as an act by the offended (or victim) that they bestow on the perpetrator, as a means to 'moving on' from the situation. We see it as an involuntary act that is wholly dependent on the future actions of that perpetrator.

 

We'll just go round in circles if you don't acknowledge the differences in our definitions.

[PGP]

 

 

With regards to forgiveness, I feel as if you've neglected the meat of my challenge.....

Of course, it's friday, fish day!!! 

Cos' Zombie Jesus died on the cross for me and you and our sins.

And also cos' of the powerful fishmongers union lobby!!!

[PatrickC]

Well I kneeled in the library and the Vicar, my wife and a woman and gently put their hands on my head and asked the Holy Spirit to come.

 

Wham!  I got what was like a lightening strike on the right side of my face that turned into what felt like hot water that poured through my cheek down the back of my neck and into the area of my heart.

I startled the group and said what happened.  They asked me to kneel again and that they would keep praying.

Wham! The exact same thing happened again.

 

Noone was touching my face.  Noone had said that anything would happen at all. I had not heard of anything like this before and not since.  There was no expectancy - it was completely out of the blue.

 

Obviously an experience like this then caused me to test out more, and more and eventually, after lots of similar experiences and positive results of trying out teachings of Jesus, I have to conceded that there is lots of evidence for the existence of God - and particularly the Christian God as it is His words I tested out.

 

Yes, I've listened to many Christians that claimed a similar experience. Not least my own parents that brought me up around such folk. All of it's anecdotal though you realise and impossible to prove. Therefore has no relationship with philosophy, so I'm not sure what you are trying to inform here. That faith trumps reason perhaps?

 

I have worked in an orphanage in Romania; out on the streets in England at night with the homeless; run the church finances -and lots of other jobs.  There is not a more loving, honest, generous, passionate group of people than in the protestant churches I have visited in England, Romania, USA, Tobago, and many other places.

 

Yes, the lasting impression I had of Christians, is that they are often very kind people and very willing to give of their time. That said I have seen that amongst people that weren't religious more recently, but I grant you it tends to be fairly consistent within Christian circles.

[Yeravos]

So it gets to the week about the Holy Spirit.  We learn what the Bible says about Him and that we can receive Him by simple prayer.  A bit spooky for a non-Christian - but this is my test of the whole thing so I agree to be prayed for.  Remember that I was brought up an Atheist and not had anything indoctrinated and this was a non-emotional, Anglican, non-hyped up affair.

 

Well I kneeled in the library and the Vicar, my wife and a woman and gently put their hands on my head and asked the Holy Spirit to come.

 

Wham!  I got what was like a lightening strike on the right side of my face that turned into what felt like hot water that poured through my cheek down the back of my neck and into the area of my heart.

I startled the group and said what happened.  They asked me to kneel again and that they would keep praying.

Wham! The exact same thing happened again.

 

Noone was touching my face.  Noone had said that anything would happen at all. I had not heard of anything like this before and not since.  There was no expectancy - it was completely out of the blue.

 

Obviously an experience like this then caused me to test out more, and more and eventually, after lots of similar experiences and positive results of trying out teachings of Jesus, I have to conceded that there is lots of evidence for the existence of God - and particularly the Christian God as it is His words I tested out.

 

How do you know all that didn't just happen in your head? I ask since it is impossible to prove to another person, so how would you know it was the the Holy Spirit?

[dsayers]

Obviously an experience like this then caused me to test out more, and more and eventually, after lots of similar experiences and positive results of trying out teachings of Jesus, I have to conceded that there is lots of evidence for the existence of God

 

Exist means comprised of matter and energy. Evidence is objective. Objective is existing independent of consciousness. Going by your story, your "evidence" resided entirely within your own mind.

 

Your post started by finally addressing what/how is truth. But then it devolved into a story that has nothing to do with truth verification, capped off with anecdotal evidence. Your involvement in this thread has been a lot of stories, misdirection, avoidance, and vagueness. How is any of this philosophical or scientific? Oh and I almost forgot that you continue to perpetuate victimization and the protection of wrongdoers. The most recent installment is "love your enemies." Inability to command love aside, I can hardly think of a more dangerous prescription.

 

Don't get me wrong; I can relate. I remember the first time I "asked Jesus into my heart." I closed my eyes and prayed long and hard. When I opened them, everything around me seemed so bright and clear. Like you, I assumed this was proof. Nevermind the biological explanation of eyes closed for long time means pupils dilate, which will make the next light received seem brighter. Not to mention: I WANTED THERE TO BE PROOF! This is why we must accept our own capacity for error if we are ever to find the truth in anything. Imagine having the ability to wish away all the trauma of our past and the corruption in the world around us. Who wouldn't want that? Today, I accept that wanting something doesn't make it so.

[NotDarkYet]

Christianity is false.

 

Christianity infects the world via child abuse.

 

Everything else is a distraction.

[Josh F]

 

Gosh - so many points.   I hope you are pleased to know that in all future topics I start, I will try and keep to one short simple statement.

 

I will keep to 2 of the points.  Forgiveness and 'what about the children'.

 

 

You say that '..forgiveness is not something that can be given.." and yet it is something that I give.   I give it, freely, because it is beneficial to me to not live the rest of my life in bitterness.

Also you are mis-representing or misunderstanding Christian forgiveness when you say "...indoctrinating you to ignore their transgressions..".  Noone is looking to ignore transgressions but its more about not seeking personal revenge.  And I am certainly not .".actually talking about forgetting..".  I agree that every experience is a learning experience.

 

As an example, if a woman comes to the (protestant) church saying her husband is abusing her - they would advise her to leave him, go to a sanctuary and call the police.  They would then advise, once she is safe, that she prays for him to recognize the evil he is doing and find God so that he learns to love (non aggression). If she can forgive him, whether he is sorry or not, then she can move on, having learned from the experience, and start afresh without dragging around the ball and chain of bitterness, fear and anger.

 

Giving forgiveness is easy once you understand that people behave as they do because of how they were brought up ( see most of Stefans videos) - so its kind of not their fault - although they must still take responsibility, reap the consequences of their actions and be shown the error of their ways so they have a chance to change.

 

You didn't talk about the children.

[Shane]

 

 

Obviously an experience like this then caused me to test out more, and more and eventually, after lots of similar experiences and positive results of trying out teachings of Jesus, I have to conceded that there is lots of evidence for the existence of God - and particularly the Christian God as it is His words I tested out.

 

 

 

Feelings and descriptions of supernatural experiences do not support logical and rational conclusions, they provide evidence of confusion and instability. When supernatural experiences are offered as testimony in legal proceedings, a witness’s credibility is severely damaged not strengthened. 

 

I return to the teachings of Jesus and the bible not out of fear , blind faith, or spiritual experience, but because in them I continue to find self evident truth and profound analogies that help me to distinguish good from evil.

 

For example:

 

“I am“, is perhaps the most powerful a statement ever made. It can not logically be denied, regardless of who is speaking. It is the foundation of any discussion of objective truth. It proves consciousness and private ownership. It is among the oldest documented arguments for the authority of truth, and was used to unite slaves in pursuit of freedom.

 

The Truth (self evident), the Light (exposure to truth), and the Way (behavior consistent with understanding truth), Together have the authority and power to destroy strongholds, to set men free, and to give life. 

 

“Give to Cesar what belongs to Cesar.” 

 

“Those who humble themselves will be exalted and those who exalt themselves will be humbled.”

 

“Where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

 

“Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to your life?”

 

“Love is patient, love is kind, it does not boast, it does not envy, it is not proud.”

 

I consider Jesus a trusted source of sound teaching. The arguments that reject his authority based on final judgment and the apocalyptic writings are simply uninformed as to what their purpose and context are/were. The judge is truth, and truth always prevails. To say that all who fight truth will suffer is a statement of the obvious. The condition having been set, that the degree to which any man or woman can exist in harmony with the universe, is based on their willingness and ability to embrace truth, is also self evident.

[corbyco]

As pointed out, I didnt talk about the children.

 

I agree that we must bring up children to think for themselves.  I discuss everything with my children and they have a very healthy attitude in questioning everything.  One daughter is a Christian and the other respectfully not interested.  

I try to discuss everything in terms of what I believe is right (truth, non-aggression, forgiveness, generosity,  ...) with examples of how it worked out in my life and without quoting scripture even if thats where I first leaned it. (If its true, its true).

 

Yes, the Catholic church is full of people who want to lord over you and worse; the muslim church studies the koran full of hate and many cults create a thousand rules impossible to live to.  That is well worth fighting against.

 

The protestants protested against all this and went back to what the New Testament says about love.

 

The only thing I can see you can reasonably protest against are the Bible stories taught in Sunday school.  I can see that you might think they corrupt the young minds.  I really cant get excited by it as I know what it is mostly like.  Games, colouring, model making and generally having fun.  If our church ever had any real message in there it was usually way above the heads of the childrens understanding and they really just learned how to get on with eachother. 

[Josh F]

Do you think that raising children to question things is common amongst christians, or are you more unique in this approach?  The protestants burned witches, owned slaves, etc.  Their protest against catholicism produced a wide range of outcomes, and each protestant group is different.  The born again school where its "all about love" is fairly new, and full of its own problems worth criticizing.  Most protestants have extremely unkind things to say about the majority of us here who are atheists.  

[Shane]

You didn't talk about the children.

I hope he has the integrity to admit that children are most harmed by religion, that most religions teach evil, and target children.

 

It is evil to teach blind faith, it is evil to teach fear of supernatural entities, it is evil to teach that God will prevent the innocent from experiencing physical pain, abuse, and death.

 

It is good to help children distinguish good from evil. It is good to teach that seeking truth and telling truth are good. It is good to teach that, in the realm of the non existent, truth is King. It is good to comfort the week and the innocent with the knowledge that, with truth on their side and eyes open and on guard against evil, their is hope. It is good to teach humility and respect and and care and appreciation for others as ones self. It is good to teach responsibility for ones actions. It is good to teach that evil is to be feared and avoided, that it is deceptive and tempting, but empty and a path to destruction.  

 

A church must teach clearly against the prior or the latter is completely negated. 

 

Did I hear that the potential evil being taught was "over their heads" and that the crafts and games made it all OK?  

[powder]

 

 

 

Christianity is widely misunderstood. Jesus is the only approved model for Christian behavior, the rest are flawed attempts at best. 

 

Most people's only exposure to Christianity is through self-righteous abusers who use the bible and religion to rationalize their violence. It would be ridiculous to accuse Jesus of violence.

 

 

I have spent a lot of time around christians, do you not agree with the commonly taught doctrine that Jesus is somehow a manifestation of God, represents or is God incarnate so to speak?  God's behavior, esp in the old testament, and his sadistic plan to send Jesus to be tortured and murdered to pay for our transgressions, meets your ethical standards does it?  how about Jesus's planned second return and the mayhem that goes with that according to modern christian doctrine, is that story to be dismissed as well?  not feelin' the love.  

 

"love your enemies"?  again, love, like forgiveness, is an involuntary response to virtue, what this prescribes is really scary indeed.  

 

I have never agreed with the quote that says, "all that is required for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing".  I think it is more like:  "all that is required for evil to prosper is for good people to be fooled into thinking it is somehow virtuous"  religious indoctrination, which was a justification for slavery and the slaughter of millions to this day, has been very good at doing that.  

[Shane]

I have spent a lot of time around christians, do you not agree with the commonly taught doctrine that Jesus is somehow a manifestation of God, represents or is God incarnate so to speak?  God's behavior, esp in the old testament, and his sadistic plan to send Jesus to be tortured and murdered to pay for our transgressions, meets your ethical standards does it?  how about Jesus's planned second return and the mayhem that goes with that according to modern christian doctrine, is that story to be dismissed as well?  not feelin' the love.  

 

"love your enemies"?  again, love, like forgiveness, is an involuntary response to virtue, what this prescribes is really scary indeed.  

 

I have never agreed with the quote that says, "all that is required for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing".  I think it is more like:  "all that is required for evil to prosper is for good people to be fooled into thinking it is somehow virtuous"  religious indoctrination, which was a justification for slavery and the slaughter of millions to this day, has been very good at doing that.  

The difficulty with this format is in agreeing to definitions of terms.

 

I too disagree with the commonly taught doctrine of "Christians". The majority of people who self identify as Christian know very little about church doctrine. They pretend to believe what they are told they must, to maintain their membership in church tribes, lead by generations of powerful abusive men and women.

 

If "God" is defined as: truth, existence, consciousness, independence, authority, appreciation, goodness, beauty, perfection, absolution, singularity, infinity, light (the essence not substance), love, unity, division, motion... all the necessary and yet non existent elements of all that matters in life, "He" is nothing to fear. He is not a man in the sky with superpowers. Those who understand truth may seem to have super powers, but it would be hard to argue that non existent things have independent agency.

 

Life is good, for those who appreciate goodness, and embrace truth. Life is not so good for those who don't. If I "prophesied" that the "all mighty" truth, would be delivering consequences of pain, suffering, emptiness, and death on all who deny the authority of "his" truth: those who abandon and abuse children, lie, cheat, and steal, or simply choose not to learn truth, and that the same "all mighty" truth, would reward those who embraced the authority of "his" truth, with freedom and peace and long life, would that be sadistic, or just a statement of cause and effect?

 

I hope that truth returns to dominate mankind.

 

Forgiveness and love for ones enemies: I think I see these differently than you, and not as emotional conditions as others have implied. I see them as the natural byproducts of objectivity and humility, UPB. They are the involuntary result of respect for every individuals authority over all that the universe has given them or made them responsible for. Humility and respect for others is the foundation of cooperation. If a person makes decisions that deny truth and harm others I will (choosing my battles wisely) stand for truth in opposition, not to cause harm but to reveal truth. Truth is good for us even if it destroys us. No matter how many times an individual may deny truth, no matter how unlikely it is that their behavior will change, truth is always there for the taking, and with its embrace comes natural reward. I want both the abused and the abusers of the world to understand truth. Those who don't can hardly help but abuse others. Truth must be taught, exposed,and imposed, if ever the cycle of destruction is to be interrupted. Revealing truth may cause harm, but whether I am sentimental about it or not, whether I wish others pleasure or pain, whether my actions result in my destruction or theirs, neither is of much consequence, my advocacy and appreciation and fight for truth will ultimately be for the good. My understanding of the harm I have done to myself and others, is the most powerful motivation I have to keep seeking and spreading truth. It is also the most authentic proof I have to communicate my understanding. I have been forgiven by truth, the universal consequence of understanding, and I am loved and protected by truth, and by those who were once my enemies but have and continue to uphold truth, no matter whether they like me or not.

[powder]

Wow Shane, definitions indeed,... that is one big ass heap of tangled words there and I am not prepared to unpack those assertions or try to make sense of it,...  so I guess my answer would have to be, uh, no.  Uh, wait,... yes I do, I think.  

[Anuojat]

Having been christian myself. I... cannot have much respect for positions that ignore everything in the bible which christians disagree with.

 

The garden of eden bs, the flood, the moral commandments to kill people by god and then also manipulate them unto doing evil things.

 

And us not forget this juicy bit:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/children.html

 

Which by the by was quoted by Jesus several times in the new testament so... lets not even pretend christianity of bibly has any morals or truth or reason.

 

You maybe religious but in christianity and bible you dhasll find nothing good elst you cherry pick or spin the bad things.

[Shane]

Having been christian myself. I... cannot have much respect for positions that ignore everything in the bible which christians disagree with.

 

The garden of eden bs, the flood, the moral commandments to kill people by god and then also manipulate them unto doing evil things.

 

And us not forget this juicy bit:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/children.html

 

Which by the by was quoted by Jesus several times in the new testament so... lets not even pretend christianity of bibly has any morals or truth or reason.

 

You maybe religious but in christianity and bible you dhasll find nothing good elst you cherry pick or spin the bad things.

What you are saying has a lot of merit and I do not want to advocate evil. However messed up and impossible it may seem, the mess is part of human philosophical development, from which or through which much truth has come. I don't recommend that a sick person return to stone aged medical practices for treatment, but to explain the basics of how medicines work there is some benefit in telling the often horrible stories of how they were discovered and how people reacted. Where ever there are nuggets of truth I think there is good in recognizing and harm in denying them.

[PatrickC]

I don't think Shane or corbyco really seem to understand UPB. UPB is merely a way to test moral claims. It's not in itself a moral claim. It's a formula by which we can evaluate whether moral claims are consistent and universal or not.

 

You're both attempting to squeeze UPB into your own personal environments, whether your conscious of it or not. That's fine of course, but please don't do philosophy the disservice of claiming truth.

[shirgall]

If I were to criticize the lines of reasoning in this thread, it would be the title itself. To me it's obvious that we're all godless here, but that some people have a delusion, either pounded into them by adults when they were children, which is abuse, or forced upon them by society, which is manipulation, and most likely a combination of the two. What I decry is the tremendous wasted effort of perpetuating this abuse and manipulation and arguing about which methodology of abuse and manipulation is the best, let alone demanding respect for mastering one particular flavor of abuse and manipulation yet managing to be able to live an otherwise healthy life.

 

To me there is no compelling evidence to follow any of the mutually-exclusive religious systems in common use. I simplify my life by subtracting away what cannot be backed up with evidence until I get to something satisfying and workable (a top-down system). Stef has spent a considerable amount of effort to build up from the bottom by starting with first principles, and deserves respect because he backs up each and every step. I find most of his arguments compelling. Some I am still working on, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.

 

I don't see anything comparably respectable about any of the top-down systems being proffered, even my own. I am muddling through, like most people do, and I don't demand respect for that.

[Shane]

If I were to criticize the lines of reasoning in this thread, it would be the title itself. To me it's obvious that we're all godless here, but that some people have a delusion, either pounded into them by adults when they were children, which is abuse, or forced upon them by society, which is manipulation, and most likely a combination of the two. What I decry is the tremendous wasted effort of perpetuating this abuse and manipulation and arguing about which methodology of abuse and manipulation is the best, let alone demanding respect for mastering one particular flavor of abuse and manipulation yet managing to be able to live an otherwise healthy life.

 

To me there is no compelling evidence to follow any of the mutually-exclusive religious systems in common use. I simplify my life by subtracting away what cannot be backed up with evidence until I get to something satisfying and workable (a top-down system). Stef has spent a considerable amount of effort to build up from the bottom by starting with first principles, and deserves respect because he backs up each and every step. I find most of his arguments compelling. Some I am still working on, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.

 

I don't see anything comparably respectable about any of the top-down systems being proffered, even my own. I am muddling through, like most people do, and I don't demand respect for that.

Well said shirgall, I must admit that according to how everyone speaking so far has defined God, even I am Godless. I appreciate your perspective and am a bit embarrassed that it has taken so many similar comments for me to see the futility and self focus of my remarks. I am defensive and have unresolved inner conflicts, I am hungry for intelligent dialogue to help me sort through what is and is not worth holding on to. This is obviously not the place to do work through my personal issues.

 

Correct or not, I was drawn to the title of the thread because I wondered what the group would have to say about it. I need help in this area and wanted to see an "all truth seekers welcome" sign, but it seems there are many open wounds, and like I said before it is not the best way to get the focused help I need.  

[shirgall]

Correct or not, I was drawn to the title of the thread because I wondered what the group would have to say about it. I need help in this area and wanted to see an "all truth seekers welcome" sign, but it seems there are many open wounds, and like I said before it is not the best way to get the focused help I need.  

 

I have to say that Stef's story about finding a therapist that was really interested in what he had to say made me extremely jealous. To date, my experiences with therapy, counseling, and coaching have involved people that didn't really seem to care what I had to say or how I felt.

[Kevin Beal]

"Never wrestle with a pig. All you'll get is covered in shit, and the pig likes it"

[corbyco]

If I were to criticize the lines of reasoning in this thread, it would be the title itself. To me it's obvious that we're all godless here, but that some people have a delusion, either pounded into them by adults when they were children, which is abuse, or forced upon them by society, which is manipulation, and most likely a combination of the two. What I decry is the tremendous wasted effort of perpetuating this abuse and manipulation and arguing about which methodology of abuse and manipulation is the best, let alone demanding respect for mastering one particular flavor of abuse and manipulation yet managing to be able to live an otherwise healthy life.

 

To me there is no compelling evidence to follow any of the mutually-exclusive religious systems in common use. I simplify my life by subtracting away what cannot be backed up with evidence until I get to something satisfying and workable (a top-down system). Stef has spent a considerable amount of effort to build up from the bottom by starting with first principles, and deserves respect because he backs up each and every step. I find most of his arguments compelling. Some I am still working on, but that's beyond the scope of this thread.

 

I don't see anything comparably respectable about any of the top-down systems being proffered, even my own. I am muddling through, like most people do, and I don't demand respect for that.

 

I started this thread because I joined here and I am a Christian - and I saw that other Christians were also involved in threads.

5 years ago I was a socialist - but since coming to America and hearing the passionate discussions on the constitution and Steffan's videos on anarchism I have swung all the way to a minarchist - not quite anarchist yet.

 

I am sure that there are lots of people who have come from different backgrounds, cultures and political positions as well.

 

I hope that the idea of forums is to allow open discussion of absolutely anything so that we can all get nearer to the objective truth.  Steffan's material is extremely useful in helping us all understand basics as well as processes of getting to this truth - although I have issues with some of it so hope to be able to have threads discussing these to help me understand.

 

I didnt get to Christianity from the top down - you can read my testimony in an earlier post.  I approach everything from first principles wherever I can and in the best way I can - and I consider myself a scientist as I have a bachelors in engineering and been developing engineering systems all my career.  I was an atheist and brought up by atheists and nothing was pounded into me.

 

The problem with proving something that is personal experience, emotional, internal,  is that it is not testable in the way something like gravity is.  So if you havent experienced it then you probably will consider it 'delusional'.  You imagine if everyone was depressed and never felt happiness.  A group of people say - if you do this...you will get a feeling that uplifts you and makes you feel great!

The depressives could say  - prove it!  And they go to do the same thing and it doesnt happen to them.  So they call it dangerous, delusional, and false.

But just because they didnt feel the happiness does not negate the fact that the other group do feel it.

 

I agree that Christianity comes with lots of other 'baggage' but as a philosopher I only really concern myself with what it says about now.  I cant prove what happened in history so what the old testament says is outside the scope of proof.  So I only test what Jesus says about what we should do now to do good in the world and prosper personally.  Much of what He says is different or the opposite to what philosophers here say and yet when I test it - it works.  So I think it worth investigating simply because it can be tested more fully and so either I will learn that its true, or not true and I will hopefully understand how it worked even though it is false.

[shirgall]

I agree that Christianity comes with lots of other 'baggage' but as a philosopher I only really concern myself with what it says about now.

 

But what almost every religion says now is that there is a God that is an free-willed, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-benevolent being who created and continues to interact with the universe. Even this simple start, without all the other baggage which is clearly bogus, is logically inconsistent.

 

Believing it would not uplift me and make me feel great for very long, and there are many stories of people having a "crisis of faith" that doesn't sound very uplifting either (which is why religious manipulators only highlight the happy endings of return to delusion).

 

If you start from first principles to build religion, you might get as far as animism, but empiricism will sink it pretty quickly.

 

If you throw away the history, then how do you select from the thousands of mutually incompatible religions out there? Without the history aspect, there really is no easy way to judge one to be better than the others, is there, because they all rely on untestable assertions.

[PGP]

I haven't thought that much about God and religion for years in any big way, but a question occurred to me just now that may be irrelevant, easily answered.

The concept of God is that he is limitless, omnipotent and all the rest as above. ie he is without constraint, without definition, without limitation, infinite possibility without boundary.

However, if one has all of these attributes, there can be no "being", as "being" necessitates constraints and limitations and definition.

So, converse to this, in the very act of making a choice, God creates a limitation and a set of constraints in the very act of creation and the manifesting of a "something". 

Could be gibberish, but there it is.

[dsayers]

I hope that the idea of forums is to allow open discussion of absolutely anything so that we can all get nearer to the objective truth.

 

No you do not. You've repeatedly rejected objectivity.

 

This is common manipulation by way of projection. You come here and speak as if those who accept no deity are rigid because your interpretation of reality is closed-minded. I accept no deity not because I'm closed minded or rigid, but because it most accurately describes the real world. This is despite many of the failed attempts to refute it. Offering up those same failed refutation attempts is not going to influence those who have already considered it.

 

If objective truth was truly your interest, you'd demonstrate more of an investment in WHY your ideas are rejected rather than the fact that they were rejected.

[powder]

 

 

I agree that Christianity comes with lots of other 'baggage' but as a philosopher I only really concern myself with what it says about now.  I cant prove what happened in history so what the old testament says is outside the scope of proof.  So I only test what Jesus says about what we should do now to do good in the world and prosper personally.  Much of what He says is different or the opposite to what philosophers here say and yet when I test it - it works.  So I think it worth investigating simply because it can be tested more fully and so either I will learn that its true, or not true and I will hopefully understand how it worked even though it is false.

what do you mean by 'proof' concerning the old testament?  you also claim to embrace first principles and philosophy.  why does it matter if the stories are historically provable or not? - it is simple to prove that they are morally corrupt;  by using philosophy and first principles of course.  

 

there is much of value in the new testament and the words attributed the Jesus, but much that goes against first principles, and the NAP in John, Matthew, Luke, etc.  What do you have to say about the words attributed to Jesus in Revelation?  

[J-William]

"It's like obvious that totally obvious things are like totally obvious even to idiots like you... Don't be mean to us Christians cuz we're like so totally picked on.

I mean like for realz you all!!!"

 

I respect arguments and reason and evidence.

I don't respect ancient fairy tales that get millions murdered.

[corbyco]

No you do not. You've repeatedly rejected objectivity.

 

This is common manipulation by way of projection. You come here and speak as if those who accept no deity are rigid because your interpretation of reality is closed-minded. I accept no deity not because I'm closed minded or rigid, but because it most accurately describes the real world. This is despite many of the failed attempts to refute it. Offering up those same failed refutation attempts is not going to influence those who have already considered it.

 

If objective truth was truly your interest, you'd demonstrate more of an investment in WHY your ideas are rejected rather than the fact that they were rejected.

 

Most of the postings in reply to mine are attacking religion from the top down - but yours is the one that is on the button for me.

 

I have no intention to attempt to prove whether God is omniscient or not  etc.  I absolutely want to start from the ground up as probably 99% of philosophers are atheist and reject any notion of God - either its because they are right or its because they simply wont do what it takes to experience Him.  And yes, unfortunately the proof is experiential and not physical and so will always be difficult to prove by experiment.  The first experience is what Steffan called insane - i.e. directly sensing God. Obviously if God exists then it is not insane - if He doesnt then millions of people are experiencing something else which would still deserve investigating. (Yes many are hyped up to an experience, but many are not).

 

As another (maybe weak) example -  what if someone said that being thrown upside-down on a fairground ride produced a powerful and exhilarating burst of emotion that made them enjoy life much more afterwards.  You could discuss this with philosophy and decide it was not possible even though millions did it. You have to go on the ride to prove it to yourself.

Or another attempt at an example - someone says they saw a UFO.  You say they cant have seen one because they dont exist.  They say that 5 other people saw it too and one of them was a policeman.  How do you create a method to prove it?  You cant come up with a situation when a UFO must appear if true.

 

So this is the difficulty in being objective - it does require each person to individually and personally do their own experiment and have their own experience.

 

I believe that this is how I got to Christianity starting as a scientist and an (amateur) philosopher.  I went in as an atheist arguing against God, exactly as people on here are, then I gave it all a opportunity, had several incredible experiences and so had to concede that there really is evidence that God exists.

 

This, of course, does not prove anything else about what the Bible says or which religion is true.  However, if God does exists then there are tests and experiments you can do such as test what He is said to have said (especially if it disagrees with the conclusions of current philosophy) . I have had to test and deeply consider the teachings of Jesus to move any further.

 

As regards to how it all 'describes the real world'...  it does seem evident to me that the Christian countries are the most prosperous and free. Christian countries are the ones that have progressed scientifically and ethically.  There is dreadful evil in the world.

Also why would anyone do the moral thing without a God?    UPB gives a test of whether something is moral but it doesnt explain why people thoughout history have done it even at their own cost.

[dsayers]

unfortunately the proof is experiential

 

So this is the difficulty in being objective - it does require each person to individually and personally do their own experiment and have their own experience.

 

As regards to how it all 'describes the real world'...  it does seem evident to me that the Christian countries are the most prosperous and free. Christian countries are the ones that have progressed scientifically and ethically.  There is dreadful evil in the world.

Also why would anyone do the moral thing without a God?    UPB gives a test of whether something is moral but it doesnt explain why people thoughout history have done it even at their own cost.

 

Your lack of integrity has gotten to the point of disgusting. You had just said that you wanted to get closer to objective truth. When that is refuted, you add the caveat that it must be experienced. But that which is experiential is not objective and that which is objective exists independent of individual experience.

 

Countries don't exist. What is meant by "Christian country"? How can you describe something as both Christian and scientific when you yourself claim that Christianity must be experienced and scientific mean objectively provable? What is ethical about MURDERING people for reading a different book, or believing in a different bogey man, or accepting that the Sun is the center of the solar system?

 

People do moral things because it's logically consistent and integral to self-preservation. But it's good that you've identified that religions were constructed as a mechanism to control human beings.

[jpahmad]

 

So this is the difficulty in being objective - it does require each person to individually and personally do their own experiment and have their own experience.

 

 

 

 

Hey Corbyco.  If it's so important to you, then why don't you pay us all to do an experiment?  Surely a little bit of an expense on your part won't trump the possibility of bringing everyone here to the good lord.

[powder]

 

 

As regards to how it all 'describes the real world'...  it does seem evident to me that the Christian countries are the most prosperous and free. Christian countries are the ones that have progressed scientifically and ethically.  There is dreadful evil in the world.

Also why would anyone do the moral thing without a God?    UPB gives a test of whether something is moral but it doesnt explain why people thoughout history have done it even at their own cost.

religion, in particular Christianity in this case, has been, and still is the motivation for the murder and subjugation of millions. Like I said in an earlier post, people do evil things because they are convinced they are fighting evil, thanks to religion and the state.

"Also why would anyone do the moral thing without a God?" Really?  People, with the exceptions of psychopaths, are good because they naturally want to be.  Is God the only thing keeping you from murdering and raping and stealing?  

 

OK, from the bottom up then, as you say.  

 

Just because you have no explanation for an experience does not mean that it is God.  People have attributed many things to God that have since been explained by science.  In the example you give of the fairground ride we know that the massive flood of 'fight or flight' hormones released by this activity and the subsequent hormonal 'high' are the reason why we feel this way, and because we understand it, we can duplicate the response.  

 

I have had lots of moving experiences that I cannot explain, I don't automatically attribute them to a deity.  

 

You can say that the mafia does good things, 'protects' people and supports its favorite charity or whatever, and choose to ignore that they kill people and shake them down, but if you are supporting and advocating for their ways by association, then your claim of being virtuous is not to be taken seriously.  If I want to be virtuous, I must distance myself from people who are willing to use scripture (Old Testament, Revelation) to justify the horrors that are associated with it.  Otherwise I lack intellectual and moral integrity, regardless of my personal experience of God.