A rational approach to finding value in Religion and Spirituality

[GuzzyBone]

 

Would you like to call into the show and discuss religion with Stefan directly GuzzyBone? If so, shoot me an email and we'll get you on the schedule...

Yes. I would really like that. If this is Michael, then I believe we have already made the arrangements

 

Thank you for the invitation.

 

AynRand, I may have overreacted but eventually I came to the understanding that it doesn't matter what I bring forth, I am chucking stones at a wall. Not a wall of critical or skeptical reasoning, but a solid unbreakable wall of emotional bias. I lost my cool, but respect goes two ways. I have not been given the equal respect that you expect to receive.

 

This is the same wall that I've experienced when trying to prove 9/11 was an inside job to a self-deprecating Statist. You could drown in the weight of scientific, video, pictorial, testimonial, and physical evidence proving 9/11 as a deliberate false flag, but try to show these things to a state-loving toadie then you are just "crazy, irrational, delusional, and a horrible horrible person". Everything you throw at them will have some absurd excuse and bounce off the wall, because:

 

A. They've already made up their mind on faith alone.

B. They don't WANT to discern the truth vs. their desired perspective.

 

I'm not going to repeat why it is important to first break down the "official story" before you can prove something close to what really happened...

 

Can I claim to know exactly how 9/11 was pulled off? No, but there is overwhelming and life-consuming proof to conclude that it was a false flag operation.

 

Same as I don't claim to know exactly how God works, but there is overwhelming and life-consuming proof to conclude that God exists.

 

In both cases, much of the evidence or proof has already been observed and witnessed by the person to whom you are trying to prove your argument. This matters very little when they see what they want to see, and have already made their decision against the weight of evidence.

 

This is why I conclude that an Atheist wants to believe that "God doesn't exist" for their own personal or emotional satisfaction. This is of course the same charge that is leveled at Religion, ironically enough.

 

Atheism is not neutral ground or an open-minded stance. It is the predetermined stance that "God can't exist" or "doesn't exist" despite that neither claim can ever be possibly proven. It is not a conclusion reached through the languages of deductive reasoning or the experience of empirical reality, but rather it a conclusion reached from a place of desire.

 

I cannot change what you or anyone else desires to believe, so I am not going to break through this wall of disbelief even if I were somehow able to show you a booming voice that says "I am real" and then strikes you with a bolt of lightning. Regardless, God doesn't work like that anyway.

 

Yes, definitions are subjective, and dictionary definitions are largely manipulated and can differ dramatically from cultural definitions. Nonetheless I did not show any definitions that actually differ from what people already know.

 

I am not playing Square Circle game anymore because it does not relate. You will get no where by trying to compare the universe to an extremely simple mathematical construct. There is language and understanding to be gained from symbols, allegory, and abstract concepts, but you're not going to prove or disprove God with 2-dimensional Circles and Squares (unless the observer has already made up his mind). Humans made these 2 symbols (shapes), they are not infinite (like God), they have limited values assigned by humans. If you insist on limiting yourself to Circles and Squares, then we will get nowhere. I do not need to prove that a square circle can exist, because the two concepts of God and Shapes are incompatible. It would be like trying to explain consciousness with Shapes.

 

A Square Circle exists the day we solve "the problem" (thus creating one), or when we simply state that it exists. If people didn't think it was solvable, then no one would even try. This is the last I am going to talk about Circles and Squares.

 

If you really want to only use the language of math and fully apply it to the concept of Infinity then through deductive reasoning you will always arrive at what we call God. There was a time when I thought this was worth explaining, that time has all but passed.

 

You claim to be open to the evidence and arguments in favor of God, but I now realize this is not true. That a conclusion has already been reached despite an impossibility to ever gather the evidence to prove it. You claim to be open to the evidence and arguments in favor of God, but if this was true you would call yourself an Agnostic. What I have learned through this conversation is that you cannot change the mind of an Athiest, the Athiest has to change their own mind.

 

Remember, I was once an "Atheist" too. My entire conclusion that "God doesn't exist" was based on denial of evidence, contrarian skepticism, irrational denial through peer confirmation, an emotional distaste and resentment towards Religion, a willful desire to believe that I can do everything all by myself, a willful desire to not be held morally or emotionally responsible for my actions and words... bottomline: I wanted God to not exist (though I did not know this consciously). It was when I truly needed him, that everything changed.

 

I do not claim to know the motivations behind all Atheists, but I think the conclusion ("god definitely 100% does not exist") speaks for itself. If you have already concluded that you have the omniscience required to determine that God "definitely doesn't exist", then there is no reason or room for evidence against this position.

 

If you think that my breakdown of Aristotle's major fallacy "the law of non-contradiction" is incorrect or false, then prove it. Don't just simply state I am ignorant of what it means. I made the effort and had the balls to actually claim and prove that Aristotle (who is held up like an infallible God in philosophical communities) was wrong. Did you make the effort to prove I am wrong, or that he was actually right? No. You simply stated I am "ignorant" in attempt to intimidate and reaffirm a dogmatic faith in Aristotle's methods.

 

This is what I'm talking about. Empirical reality becomes rendered obsolete in the face of the determination of faith. The same accusation that is leveled upon the religious community.

 

I will never be able to prove anything about God to anyone as long as they have determined that they are an "Atheist". We can resume the conversation when you are at least honest enough to say "I don't know if God exists or not" and call yourself Agnostic.

 

The fact will always remain that Atheism cannot be rationally confirmed or proven, without omniscience. This is an a priori.

 

So the first question that I would ask an Atheist, and will also ask Stefan is... Do you actually WANT to know whether or not God really exists?

[shirgall]

Atheism is not neutral ground or an open-minded stance. It is the predetermined stance that "God can't exist" or "doesn't exist" despite that neither claim can ever be possibly proven. It is not a conclusion reached through the languages of deductive reasoning or the experience of empirical reality, but rather it a conclusion reached from a place of desire.

 

 

Skepticism is the default stance for ALL positive claims. It is *active* skepticism--outright, overt resistance to positive claims of a supernatural variety--that you are railing against, not the natural tendency to doubt. Atheism is the label applied to skepticism of a category called "religious claims." No one believes all religions. Heck, I don't think religionists believe in more than one simultaneously, although many change which one they believe in as they move along. Atheists believe in one less religion than religionists.

 

If you want to attract people, it would help to stop the "wall of text" posts. They actually fog your message and only appeal to those looking for confirmation bias.

[GuzzyBone]

Skepticism is the default stance for ALL positive claims. It is *active* skepticism--outright, overt resistance to positive claims of a supernatural variety--that you are railing against, not the natural tendency to doubt.

 

Yes, correct.

 

Atheism is the label applied to skepticism of a category called "religious claims."

 

That I could handle. That I appreciate. That I understand because that was me.

 

Unfortunately I have noticed that Atheism has become corrupted from healthy skepticism into a Faith and Religion of it's own. I would love to discuss this with you, but I do not think it would be productive in this thread at this point. I think it would be like trying to explain to many modern Christians that they are worshipping a book instead of God.

 

If you want to attract people, it would help to stop the "wall of text" posts. They actually fog your message and only appeal to those looking for confirmation bias

 

I am not trying to attract people. I am trying to have an open-minded and respectful discourse that helps seperate truth from misunderstanding. I am not sure that it is possible regarding this subject matter any more.

 

What you call "wall of text" is my arguments, real life examples, comparisons, reasoning, explanations, experiences, and the other things that constitute as evidence and debate in this world. It is the result dedicating my time and effort to respond and explain my positions in detail. I try to keep it short as possible, but I am responding to multiple people, multiple arguments, or misunderstandings at one time. If you don't see how that would take time and a lot of text then I am sorry that it puts you off. It's a shame that I have had to explain this multiple times now. I appreciate that you are trying to help.

 

I feels like being told "if you want to attract people, it would help to stop posting all that worthless garbage". Hopefully your self-awareness and empathy can bring you to seeing that.

[WasatchMan]

Unfortunately I have noticed that Atheism has become corrupted from healthy skepticism into a Faith and Religion of it's own. I would love to discuss this with you, but I do not think it would be productive in this thread at this point. I think it would be like trying to explain to many modern Christians that they are worshipping a book instead of God.

 

 

So atheism is a concept "applied to skepticism of a category called "religious claims."" (which you claim to accept), and not a description of a group of people.

 

Whether or not people who identify as atheist could be considered as having faith or being religious (which I think is vapid accusation), does not change the concept of what atheism is meant to connote or whether or not it is the correct stance to hold. 

 

Even if people self identifying as "atheists" all started worshiping a spaghetti monster and completely destroyed the original meaning "atheist", that would not remove the need for a concept in the human language know as English to connote ""applied to skepticism of a category called "religious claims.""  All that would happen is a new word would be created to fill the vacuum left by the destruction of the previous concept that atheism used to fill as utility in the English language.  You can't destroy this concept by pointing at people.  It must logically exist, so I would deal with it and not just try to fog around it by complaining about people.

[shirgall]

I am trying to have an open-minded and respectful discourse that helps seperate truth from misunderstanding.

 

 

Just remember that calling philosophers close-minded by claiming to be open-minded in contrast is an insult and impedes discourse. I am open-minded because all it takes to change my mind is evidence. True arguments, true debates, true negotiations require that both parties be willing to change if an appropriate decision has been reached that requires it.

[GuzzyBone]

The conventional sense of skepticism is to be wary of all positive claims, but it would be infinitely more productive to be wary of all sides of a debate and question everything, including yourself, rather than only "positive claims". The skeptic is always at risk of falling into contrarian or anti-conformist positions without treating both sides with equal doubt or opportunity to prove itself.

If there was less emotional investment in this subject I think it would make for great and open debate. As it is, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, there is emotional investment in Athiest positions. I was guilty of the same thing, it just happens. I am not saying everyone has done this. I am not trying to insult anyone, I'm just stating a reality that has all too easily manifested in ugliness, one-sided intimidation tactics, and disrespect... To make things worse, it is shamelessly and unapologetically encouraged and upvoted by those who share the same "side".

You already know the large majority of this community classifies themself as "Atheist". Any group can be partially guilty of conformity bias or majority bias. I've seen it on plenty of other threads with completely different subject matter. Whether you see it or not, the environment gets way too hostile and heated for open debate on certain subjects.

I'm not implying anything or trying to upset anyone. I am just saying my reasons for not wanting to discuss the subject anymore.

Making people repeat themselves over and over, then complaining when they have to type so much just to respond to the same accusations over and over and from multiple people at one time. How could that ever lead anywhere productive? Then add to that the upvoting of intentionally insulting jab posts... all that this leads to is missed opportunity.

Text is probably not the greatest form for this kind of conversation anyway. Too many times my words are taken out of context or the religion debate is treated like some kind of verbal warfare.

I mean honestly... accusing someone of trolling, who takes the time to explain their arguments thoroughly and elaborately for you, and then backing the guy who dishes a snarky one-liner jab that essentially says "I'm right and you're wrong, because I say you are"... The hypocrisy in these actions is not self-evident??? Conversation isn't the world of Sports. It's not about winning.

[WasatchMan]

You already know the large majority of this community classifies themself as "Atheist". Any group can be partially guilty of conformity bias or majority bias.

 

You are right, this community does have a bias, and that is to reason, logic, and consistency.

[_LiveFree_]

To further muck up this thread, ....

 

I wonder, Guzzy, do you apply the "God must be experienced to understand" logic to transgender folk? Certainly if millions of people believe in God then we should listen objectively to their claims, no? What if 750 million people claim to be transgender, should we listen objectively and with an open mind to their claims?

[GuzzyBone]

 

You are right, this community does have a bias, and that is to reason, logic, and consistency.

 

Majority bias and conformity bias are an imepediment to logic, reason and consistency. These are just words, actions speak louder, and the behavior on this thread says otherwise.

 

 

 

I wonder, Guzzy, do you apply the "God must be experienced to understand" logic to transgender folk? Certainly if millions of people believe in God then we should listen objectively to their claims, no? What if 750 million people claim to be transgender, should we listen objectively and with an open mind to their claims?

You admit you are trying to muck up the thread. So it is voluntary and with full self-awareness that you let pettiness turn into attacks? This is why I have very little desire to participate in these forums anymore.

 

People have listened objectively and with an open mind to transgender people. The level of imposed tolerance toward "transgenderism" (which is by definition: a lack of unconditional self-acceptance) is staggering and dangerous when you consider that it is a condition that escalates rapidly into drug addiction, further rejection of their body, self-mutilation and amputation.

 

If Christians were drugging themselves with hormones and slicing up their genitals and rejecting their bodies, it would be a whole different story.

 

I suppose we should have more tolerance to suicide and cutters and just let them be who they really are (dead or injured)?

[GuzzyBone]

When you have already decided and concluded in your mind that "a rational argument for -insert subject here- cannot be made" and that "there isn't any evidence of -insert subject here-". You set yourself up for failure in finding truth. This is the counter-productive anti-thesis of having an open mind, exploration, philosophy, self knowledge, expanding your mind, etc.

It is impossible to put forward an argument with such a person, because they have already concluded that every word out of your mouth is bullshit. The well has been poisoned.

Whether you are willing to admit it or not, this is exactly the large majority of response I have received in this thread. Some have conducted themselves with honor and integrity, but many have resorted to petty emotional slander.

This arrogance has no place in finding truth. I have the humility to admit that I could be wrong, I have strong foundation of evidence saying otherwise, but I am open to arguement and willing to entertain any possibility. Are you?

No, instead a large portion of this thread has devolved into vandalism, Where people have come here to badger and belittle a person into ostracism. If you beleive that no rational argument can be put forward to God, then you have arrived at this thread from a petty emotional desire to stop someone from even trying to make the argument.
 

To further muck up this thread,...

Nathan, you admit your intention and you expect to receive pride and accolade from your peers for such a dishonorable and shameful act. Your intentions are transparent and displayed with pride, because you know as well as I do, that many others on this thread are coming from the same petty place of emotional desire to bully and poison the well. The desire to "muck up this thread" from having any value.

These are not the actions of people who seek truth, wisdom, or enlightenment. If you take personal offense to this observation, that is not my doing, so further attributing slander and misdirected resentment towards me is a waste of both of our time. Use that emotion to take a look at yourself and really try to see the conversation from my perspective.

Unfortunately, these actions have only confirmed the observation that many Athiests do not arrive at that place from a desire to seek truth, but from a desire to deny any possibility of God. A desire to escape the moral impositions and perspective implications of God's potential existence. I didn't want this observation to be proven true, and I hoped it wasn't true, otherwise I would never have even started this thread.

This is not unlike the person who denies any possibility that 9/11 could have been a false flag, purely because of the terrifying reality and vulnerability that it would impose on their perception of the world.

[_LiveFree_]

My name is Nathan. I would appreciate not being called Nathaniel. Thank you.

[Troubador]

GuzzyBone my role in a debate isn't necessarily always to sway everyone around me to my way of thinking. It depends on the debate, sometimes I'll partcitpate in the hopes of learning something new, or exposure to a new idea/concept. Unless something monumentally daft is proposed I generally don't like to come in guns blazing with an adversarial position. I usually try to work through what someone says to see if there is something of value there.

 

I would like to wholeheartedly agree with you that decent thinkers no matter wether secular or religious have much to offer one another, but the big barrier to this (and explanation as to why atheists are so bloody hostile sometimes) is the sheer amount of blind devotional thinking that exists, and yes even atheists can be guilty of this, although I like to think that devotion to reason and logic immunises a lot of them from the worst of this.

 

I also see your identification to a nation state or ideology produces precisely the same problem, and *this* is one of the essential problems of our age we should seek to overcome. It is by no means only the religious that suffer this problem, but if the world religions could get together and hammer out that no it's not ok to butcher your neighbour because he prays to a different thing, that using condoms are a *great* way to stop the aids epidemic in Africa just as two ideas off the top of my head. Wheras by contrast I can't think of a single thing the atheist community could alter that would produce quite so much real world right now benefit to the human race. Maybe more atheist charities perhaps? But then again I think Dawkins and Hitchens set up a disaster relief fund or some such, or have at the very least asked for donations to such organisations.

 

Sure some atheists could a be a little bit nicer, and not quite so condescending to people of faith, but on a personal level I'm thick skinned enough to weather a small number of people calling me irrational or moronic, and I have crucially never once encountered rampaging gangs of atheists avowed to cause me physical injury of any kind, so I'm afraid I can't consider the possibility they are all that bad. Besides we all owe a collective debt to anyone who can name a problem, and frequently the antidote to blind devotional evils are all atheists. Also I think it's worth mentioning I've only been posting a short time here, made no secret of the fact I am a man of belief, but haven't actually been insulted or talked down too once.

 

I also note on one hand your personal individual experience of God should be valid information that we should all wisely nod and sagely contemplate, whereas my experiences of people off their heads on drugs is emotional, state approved lies and safely rejected, simply because it doesn't fit your narrative. I think that is one colossal double standard right there.

[GuzzyBone]

Nathan Diehl, I'm sorry for misspelling your name. I meant to type your full name but accidentally combined it into Nathaniel.

Troubador, the point of this thread was "a rational approach to finding value in Religion and Spirituality". If the person has no interest in the possibility of finding truth or value in Religion and Spirituality then they have come here for their own inflammatory purposes. If the person wants to put forward the argument that there is no value or truth in Religion and Spirituality, I am open to that. However, clinging to a myth like it's gold instead of letting the conversation move on is willful faith and blind devotion to satisfy ones need for there not to be a God.

This FDR community and Stefan himself regularly talk about differentiating moral responsibility from an abstract concept to the person committing the action. It is not religion killing people, it is people killing people. It is not religion preventing people from asking questions or using logic and reason, it is people discouraging questions and critical thought. If we can't discuss religion outside of the immoral actions of a small but vocal minority within the religious communities, then we lose all hope of assessing any truth or value in it's teachings. The majority of religious thought and teachings encourage pacifism so if you are familiar with the writings, very quickly it becomes obvious that it is the actions of people who corrupt the teachings to suit their own needs and desires. It's easy to take the older writings of the old testament to suit the needs of someone to prove "religion is violent", but that would be a misrepresentation and ignoring the more recent evolutions in religious thought and writings (New Testament, Qu'ran, Buddhism, etc.).

I do think the Atheist community almost as a whole ascribe the same kind of blind devotion to certain theories and influential figures of the languages of science, logic, and reason. For example I provided serious argument against Aristotle's "law of non-contradiction" and the idea of unbreakable "Laws" in general. I also have extremely contrasting information in regards to flaws in portions of Darwin's "theory of evolution". But because these people are held to such high devotional esteem, to challenge their ideas is treated as if I am challenging God to a religious fanatic. The challenge doesn't go addressed, but instead I get accused of just "not understanding" or being "ignorant" of the Aristotle's law, which is odd because these theories aren't hard to understand. We teach (indoctrinate) them to small children as if they are wholesale truth, despite that we once taught that the sun revolved around the Earth.

 

If the languages have a flaw, it needs to be addressed to find deeper truth. Philosophy and Logic are not synonymous with truth, they are just two of many tools for finding truth and assigning value in life. They were invented by humans, and ancient ones no less. They are just as fallible and subject to critical dissection as anything else.

This is the blind devotion I see in Atheism towards Science and Philosophy. Jumping from one extreme to another is not healthy, it blinds you from seeing inaccuracies and problems in these two languages. I see no reason why Philosophy, Religion, Spirituality, Math, and Science cannot be compatible. They are all languages for understanding the universe, and if you give all of these languages the due respect of recognizing their fallibility and recognizing that they are subject to change and varying interpretation, then they all work together extremely well for finding deeper truths in our life.

 

Unwillingness to examine the fallibility in those we prop up as influential heroes, and unwillingness to accept the possibility that they could have been wrong about anything, is setting ourselves up for failure. Blind unquestioning devotional worship of any language or abstract concept is detrimental to us all, whether it be Science, Logic, Religion, or anything...

[GuzzyBone]

I forgot to mention also that in regards to LSD and similar hallucinogens, the physiological effects are the increase of sensory input to such a degree that one can experience a phenomenon called "ego death" or connecting oneself with the infinite and temporarily losing some of your identity in the process. This experience is humbling and therapeutic to many, but there also many who go through intense emotional trials and resist during the process. The same can be said of any therapy which is also an emotional experience.

All drugs can be a learning experience, some more dangerous than others, and some are dangerous in different ways. It is best to know the science and overall experiences of people who have used these drugs before passing judgement or making a general assumption toward it's value or use as a whole.

Nearly all of my self-knowledge and introspection was catalyzed by psychedelics. In many ways it rivals what can be achieved through one-on-one experience with a therapist. You should look into the studies and profound results of using psychedelics for curing addictions and various mental disorders. I am not suggesting nor discouraging someone use something that has potential legal and life-changing (for ill or good) consequences. Ultimately the decision is up to the individual.

All experience is through the film and filter of emotional perception, to discount this basic fact would be lacking self-knowledge.