It’s not a matter of superiority or inferiority, it’s that people have different perspectives and are able to see some things better than other people are able to.
For instance, people think I am attacking rationalism. I am not attacking rationalism. I am attacking people who have a dogmatic view of rationalism, that is not actually rational.
Also, there is the aspect of where I am trying to put my own ducks in a row by talking to you. I am less trying to convince you of something than I am trying to refine my own perspective. I am not unwilling to re-evaluate my beliefs, the issue at hand here is that many of the arguments that get tossed at me are arguments I’ve heard many times before and already considered and have found to be BS. Largely I am attempting to find ways to easily refute the fallacies I see being presented by self-identified atheists that are not actually rational, though they claim they are rational.
The definition I am using of God is definitely qabbalistic. The seperation between the creator and the created is an illusion. Again however, The truth is the truth is the truth, so what religion one is arguing for is not relevant.
Why is it that in this discussion people need desperately for me to have a definition that fits what I see as common misconceptions? Why do I need to apply to the dogma that is being refuted? Is it because people need to find validation in invalidating the concept of a deity?
All of the concepts that you use to think formed at some point in some vast antiquity. If there is a ‘creator’ that created these concepts, then that creator would be the one who USES those concepts but can only be described accurately by ALL Concepts, rather than narrowing it down to a few. Is it better to have an easy and limited conception of God, than an accurate one?
I know this is imprecise, but if precision requires delusion what value does precision have? Is the attempt of the atheist who enters into this argument to come to a new understanding, or simply to find validation by disproving the beliefs of a theist?
Largely what I am railing against are atheists who have the conceit that theists lack critical thinking skills and cannot understand what they are saying. I am against the belief that theists should seperate themselves into their religious persona vs their secular persona, as theism is central to everything a theist believes and holds valuable. I am against atheists calling themselves rational and the theist irrational, when it is actually the atheist who is having trouble understanding the other’s point of view, and not the other way around.
Basically, I have no problem whatsoever grokking critical thinking skills. Many of you do have a problem grokking the open-intuitive method of the mystic. If something does not stand up to the scrutiny of critical thinking, then it is not true. However, there are many assumptions, and leaps of faith made my atheists that are not the way critical thinking skills work.
It is not rational to say that God does not exist, unless you know without a doubt that God does not exist. It would be rational to say “I do not believe in God, because I have never seen evidence of his existence.” I am arguing against the former type of atheist, not the latter.
I’d also like to see the latter atheist taking the other kind of atheist to task more often. I am tired of seeing theists get dumped on for their lack of rational consistency, and watching atheists get a pass. It’s as simple as that. Being atheist does not mean that one came to their belief rationally.
Why do you have such a hard-on for atheists? I mean jeez every post is something about atheists being hypocrites, irrational, dogmatic, lacking critical thinking skills, yesh. Why don’t you just believe whatever it is you want to believe and leave atheists to not believe in whatever you believe in? Are they some sort of threat to you, challenges to convert or lost causes?
I think that this is a strawman argument - I would hazard a guess that the posters in disagreement with you in this thread largely hold the latter view. Unless you are using the definition of God that (in my understanding) you have proposed, i.e., God == everything. Then I’m not sure who would disagree with the existence of everything - where everything == all things.
OR …
Are you arguing for the existence of God (where God == everything, unless I’ve misunderstood you)? Or are you arguing for the existence of supernatural phenomena that can’t be proven or disproven using tools of rational thought? Or are you arguing for the importance of individual experience as a path to personal growth?
On re-reading this, now I’m confused about your argument. From this quote, it appears to me as if you are proposing God as a personal, male, supernatural entity, which is I think generally in line with a Western Judeo-Christian worldview.
Is belief in this concept of God, as a matter of personal faith, the disagreement you have with people who self-identify as either agnostic or athiest, or do you disagree with the logical chain that goes from absence of evidence to evidence of absence (i.e., proving the negative)?
Amended to “it appears to me as if you are proposing God as a personal supernatural entity”, as the inclusion of male was just needlessly argumentative. Thanks.
Now, my post would read:
On re-reading this, now I’m confused about your argument. From this quote, it appears to me as if you are proposing God as a personal supernatural entity, which is I think generally in line with a Western Judeo-Christian worldview.
Is belief in this concept of God, as a matter of personal faith, the disagreement you have with people who self-identify as either agnostic or athiest, or do you disagree with the logical chain that goes from absence of evidence to evidence of absence (i.e., proving the negative)?
It seems you have a problem with people defending rationalism rationally.
Aha, so it is okay to define god! I’m curious about how I can determine if we are one with god, separate from god, or in a universe with no god. Besides staring at my navel, that is.
I don’t think that at this point many people who have been paying attention confuse you with someone believing in a traditional god. Perhaps when we talk about a traditional god, though, you are getting upset because you are sure that this conception is the wrong one?
Actually, a significant number of atheists used to be theists, but not vice versa. I participate in these discussions since I am fascinated by the validity of the arguments for god. Some theists say that they have had experiences that they believe to be direct connections to god. I may not agree, but I at least understand the reason for their belief. Some theists say they feel better believing, do not try to argue that their beliefs are provable or based on anything but faith, and do not try to impose the consequences of their beliefs on others. I get this to a certain extent, since it seems some people are very unhappy without an answer to the why question. It is the set of theists who claim there is solid evidence for their beliefs, then retreat back to faith when cornered, then reemerge wishing to impose them on others since they are true that I don’t get.
You I don’t get at all. What is behind your belief that we are all god except that it is spiritually satisfying to you in some way? If I share consciousness with a rock or a star, how come I don’t know what a rock or a star are thinking, and a rock has never appeared to know what I am thinking. How is this distinguishable from total babble?
Basically, I have no problem whatsoever grokking critical thinking skills. Many of you do have a problem grokking the open-intuitive method of the mystic. If something does not stand up to the scrutiny of critical thinking, then it is not true. However, there are many assumptions, and leaps of faith made my atheists that are not the way critical thinking skills work.
Could you give me a link to one atheist on the SDMB who has said that they know God doesn’t exist without a doubt - all gods, that is? And one who hasn’t said that what they really meant is that they don’t believe in any god. Real atheists appear to be rational - your strawman atheist is irrational.
No, being an atheist means you lack a belief in any god. I’ve known of some who are atheists as a reaction to being theists and being abused or being forced to abuse others. But pretty much every atheist here is coming from a rational direction, even if they don’t express themselves too clearly and even if you don’t agree. You on the other hand have been repeating this same crap about atheists for months now, though you’ve been refuted nine ways to Sunday.
BTW, the fluke of the universe quote comes from a National Lampoon parody called Deoderata, based on a New Agey poster called Desiderata, which went
“You’re a child of the universe
You have a right to be here.”
It hung on the wall of an apartment I rented once. The NatLamp version (I think it came from the Radio Dinner show, but I don’t have a source)
You’re a fluke of the universe
You have no right to be hear
Whether you believe it or not
the universe
is laughing behind your back.
Considering how 99.9999…% of the universe is unfit for habitation by life, saying the universe was constructed for our benefit is odd to say the least.
I am trying to limit my inquiry to this narrow question, restated in response to the above. If you are a manifestation of God, and I am a manifestation of God, how can it be that you are able to see some things better than I can? How can it be that anyone can see things better than anyone else? How can I be a manifestation of God, yet somehow limited in my ability to understand? What makes you think that your understanding is the right one, while some other person, who you assert is also a manifestation of God, has a less clear understanding? How can anyone who is a manifestation of God not understand clearly?
Because we are only manifestations, of something, but not of god. We imagine a god, and that we arise from “it,” as this is a pleasant thought. We never know where we came from, who we are, or where we are headed after it’s all over. Such is life.
mswas, this entire thread appears to be a rant about strawmen, be they theist or physicalist (since you dislike the term ‘a-theist’ so).
Suffice it to say, I do not accept your definition of the word “god”, capitalised or not. I’d suggest “universe” is actually the word you’re searching for, which still includes “concepts” as physical things.
I was being facetious, perhaps not obviously enough. We possess the capacity to imagine that we are special (and to imagine a great many other things, besides), but even on a scale so piddling as the cosmic, we’re just another thing that happened, and so far is still happening. We, or some other factor(s) will bring an end to all of that, eventually.
Well that is all well and good but you have answered a question I have not asked. Perhaps your remarks should be directed to mswas. He is the one claiming that everything is a manifestation of God.
I’m refining my own views on the subject. It helps me sharpen my own critical thinking skills in a place where people lack critical thinking skills, but think that they are on the rational side of the debate. In the future, I’ll be able to debunk the irrational debates quickly and efficiently. It helps me to understand how to frame the argument, what the sources of the irrationality are.
Universe is definitely an accurate description but it does not imply a conscious creative force, therefore it is imprecise. As I believe that everything is a singularity, and as you have seen in the other thread, I do believe in consciousness, therefore I do believe that the universe is, in and of itself conscious by virtue of the fact that we as humans are experiencing it if nothing else.
For instance, Consciousness is not the brain functions, and it is not the piece of granite being felt or the hand that is feeling it. Consciousness is the EXPERIENCE of all the factors combined. An individual human is no more conscious than a computer, none of the individual parts are conscious at all. Only the whole is conscious. If that helps.
Our purpose is to understand ourself. We are god attempting to understand godself.
Now, the difference is like this. A microscope is better at seeing cells, and a telescope is better at seeing the stars. Neither one is superior, but each can point out what details the other might be missing.
No, I don’t. You’ll notice I do not argue with SentientMeat the way I argue with people like yourself and Der Trihs. I contend that YOU are not rational. You are rational sometimes, but not consistently. Der Trihs is pretty consistently irrational. SentientMeat or Maeglin on the other hand tend to be fairly rational. (Though Maeglin hasn’t avowed himself an atheist) Thus, my candor with them is different. You think that you are rational so any attack on your beliefs is an attack on rationality. This is a political attempt to shore up support, by getting others who similarly identify with rationality to come to your side in the debate, as they are being passively attacked as well. You specifically are one of the usual suspects. I call you, Der Trihs and Scott_Plaid “Der Plaidager” to my wife when I talk about these threads, because you guys are very specifically people who want to win the rationality argument by consensus rather than actually being rational.
Well, I don’t know if I can possibly help you to understand the point about defining God. De-fine means to set a limit. To impose any of those limits upon God is to limit ones understanding of God. It’s the distinction between knowledge, understanding and wisdom. I use Qabbalah as a way to try and explain it, and give people source material. Not that any of you have ever cracked the source material when you debate it’s “rationality”.
Well because the atheists that post are the only ones that trouble me with a conception of the traditional God. This topic isn’t exactly a simple one, and I feel like it’s oversimplified, and then blamed on the ‘theists’ out of some idea of burden of proof. No one that has posted in any of these threads with a theist perspective has given the simplistic definition of God that you claim is “traditional”.
Well what I am trying to argue against is throwing the baby out with the bath water. I reevaluated my position on the Christian God when I was a kid. I spent my time as an agnostic, was never able to completely buy into Atheism. I think it’s the incorrect assumptions of what God is that people end up rejecting, which I reject as well, the main difference being that I decided that I had a misconception of what God is, and you reject God outright. It’s not really POSSIBLE for me to tell you what God is, but it is possible for us to come to a common understanding by discussing it. As we are both still involved in a dialogue that has spanned multiple threads over the course of a couple of months, and even sporadically before that, I feel like we are both attempting that common understanding. I just would like it for people to understand that:
I am not arguing against rationality. Rationality is a virtue IMO.
It requires some mind opening on their part to comprehend what I am trying to get across, simply because it’s not something I can give you a simple dictionary definition for, it’s one of the questions that has puzzled man for all of history, and I don’t think oversimplifying it really gets us anywhere.
I don’t find most of the arguments against God to be as much rational as arrogant. We’ll call this one the “Der Trihs” factor, as I think he is the greatest embodiment of this attitude amongst everyone who has entered into this fray with me.
Is lingual communication the only form of communication? It’s not so much sharing consciousness with the rock or the star, as being part of the same consciuosness. You are a thought, and so is the rock and so is the star. Context is a very important factor in this. You don’t have the context to understand what it is to be a rock, that doesn’t make the rock not consciousness in it’s own way.
I’d link you to any argument by Der Trihs. Some arguments you yourself have put forth where I have mentioned source material, and you have said it’s not worth reading, though you’ve never cracked the source material yourself. I also associate anyone who appears in a thread to backup the atheist argument without supplying their own argument, when the current thread of thinking is completely irrational. I’ve mentioned that Qabbalah has some pretty similar ideas to String theory and Quantum Mechanics, and those books were written thousands of years ago. It’s as though there is a belief that knowledge was invented within the last 100 years.
I have only been refuted that not all atheists fit into one category. I’m certainly willing to accept that, and never was opposed to the idea, I just didn’t communicate as effectively as I might have. There are still atheists who are atheists out of irrational ideas. All I am arguing is that being an atheist doesn’t mean you came to that belief rationally, even if some people DID come to that belief rationally.
I never said the universe was constructed for our benefit. If we are benefitted then that is an essential part of the universe’s construction. However, what I am talking about is this idea that our seperations between things are cognitive constructs that help us understand the universe. They are not the thing itself, and their subjective constraints make a resemblance to the thing itself, but are in the end illusory compared to what is real. In reality, there is no seperation, we are all one, the universe is singular. Our understanding of the universe is constrained by the semantics we use to describe it. There are no such thing as parallel universes, for if they do not interact with our universe then for us they do not exist, and if they do interact with our universe, then they aren’t parallel universes, but a part of this universe.
So to put it most succinctly. The Universe and God are the same thing, but the Universe is the place and God is the being. Just like my body is a place, but my self is the being.
