Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2014 - 09:21am PT
|
F god is watching you!
F god see's how much porn u sift thru day to day!
F u must repent for considering atheistic views!!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2014 - 10:35am PT
|
Have you considered the next logical step madbolter?
Becoming an atheist
I used to be a believer, but put my beliefs under a critical eye.
I certainly understand why you would ask this question. Of course, the implication is that I have not yet "put my beliefs under a critical eye." By your lights, if I had, I WOULD be an atheist.
I have a Ph.D. in analytical philosophy from UC Santa Barbara, and analytical philosophy is not something lame and fluffy like "a history of ideas." I have indeed "put my beliefs under a critical eye," far, far more than most ever will, and I have changed any number of them over the decades. However, I'm a long, long way from buying atheism/naturalism as a sufficient account of "all there is" in the universe.
That said, I am confident that the Creator most likely bears little resemblance to the "God" that most Christians think they worship! And their moral compass is spinning wildly (based upon my long and often very painful experience with organized representations of Christianity), even as they try to impose (legislate rather than simply discuss) their "morality" on the nation.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2014 - 11:22am PT
|
Once you free yourself of religious beliefs, you become free to have critical thinking on every aspect of your life, and reality
By all means stop being a sheeple in the back of some religious religions auditorium. If your not feeling and seeing the spirit working everyday your doing it wrong.You aint doin it! Read and understand the bible for yourself.
The supernatural power in the blood of Christ is undeniable to the spirit filled man. The Living Word of the Bible is the conduit inwhere the Spirit is able to traverse mortal thinking, and reason life through the Heart.
There is NO checkoff list of morals and laws you must abide by to be a follower of Christ, But ONE. LOVE and treat your brothers and sisters as you would have them treat you.
|
|
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2014 - 12:35pm PT
|
I'm sure the spirit is showing the monkey how to shoot!
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2014 - 12:36pm PT
|
Oh right, the FA thread is gone so I guess this is the closest thing now.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2014 - 12:42pm PT
|
Yeah, I can't believe that Ed started that, put up the final post to it, and then nuked it. "Consensus" was harder to achieve than originally thought. :-)
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2014 - 12:58pm PT
|
What about Heaven and Hell?
Do they exist?
I would say "yes" but not in the sense that most Christians believe. For example, the idea of a now-existing, eternally-burning hell is nonsense based upon a very few misinterpreted texts. Such a view of hell makes God an unjust MONSTER: infinite, beyond-words-horrific punishment for a finite number of what might well be relatively trivial sins??? It's astounding to me that so many otherwise intelligent people will take their sense or morality and justice, completely abandon them, and just "accept" that God is this monstrous.
The whole idea of an "immortal soul" is another borrowed-from-paganism fabrication that became mainstream-accepted in Christianity due to Catholicism. It does not exist in the Bible except in parable form designed to make entirely other points. The Bible is unambiguous and crystal clear that "the dead know not anything," etc. So, there are no "souls" in Heaven or in Hell now.
here is the question that made me become an Atheist
Is there life after physical death?
If there is, you will have to come up with a scientific explanation for how it works.
That question is worded in a loaded way. For our purposes, neither "life" nor "death" have been adequately defined.
Also, why should ANY responder to your question be constrained to a strictly "scientific explanation?" That loads the debate toward naturalism from the outset. As I said, I have rigorous philosophical reasons to deny the doctrine of naturalism prior to any such specific debate. Thus, I simply deny that the naturalistic-explanation constraint is valid from the start.
That is NOT to say that just any old touchy-feely, "I had a vision" sort of crap counts as an "explanation." When I say "rigorous philosophical reasons," I am talking about points that are non-naturalistic but still well-defined and rest upon cogent argumentation.
If there is no life after death, (which will be your answer if you really did critical thought on the subject)
then why do we need a God?
if there is No life after death: that there is No Godly plan, no Godly morals, No interaction with God in any way.
Again, the terms you are using (thus the context of your presumptions) are not well-defined. If you mean "life after death" in the sense that mainstream Christianity believes in it, I would respond that neither philosophy nor Scripture supports such a view. But there are other alternatives that cohere with both well-grounded philosophy and with what the Bible actually says (stripping out all the pagan doctrine that got mixed in with Christianity in the early centuries).
If you think of it, There is No reason to have a God, he does nothing
Why do we need a God if doesn't do anything
Occams Razor is the point of this idea, God is just an addition to the mix because Humans needed a God for the explanations of things they couldn't understand, since they didn't have science to investigate things they didn't understand, like lightening.
Now that we understand these things, God is just an unnecessary Conspiracy
All true, IF it is sustainable that God is just an unnecessary "bolt on" to an otherwise completely adequate and comprehensive account of reality. I don't believe that naturalism IS such an adequate and comprehensive account, however.
I got my Biology degree from UC Santa Barbara in 1981
when were you there?
I was physically there from 94 through 96 but then finished my dissertation off-campus.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2014 - 01:06pm PT
|
Well madbolter1,
If we used this thread as an example, & replaced the word Christianity with the words Trad climbing we would be having a pretty parallel conversation I think. My observations show that one side is denying the possibility of evolution and saying one brush is all that is needed to paint any picture if you follow specific rules, & the other is open to growing & using different ideas & changing rules to work for the situations that require them.
Same shet different pile.
But using climbing terms is more fun and generally less hateful.
|
|
RyanD
climber
Squamish
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2014 - 01:07pm PT
|
here is the question that made me become a sport climber?
Is there life after ground up?
If there is, you will have to come up with a scientific explanation for how it works.
There fixed it for you :-)
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2014 - 01:16pm PT
|
*yawn*
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2014 - 01:27pm PT
|
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2014 - 01:29pm PT
|
My observations show that one side is denying the possibility of evolution and saying one brush is all that is needed to paint any picture if you follow specific rules, & the other is open to growing & using different ideas & changing rules to work for the situations that require them.
Well, I guess, then, that I'm not on either "side." LOL
One problem with a word like "evolution" is that it is typically ambiguously employed. I, for one, do not "deny the possibility" of it. But I do deny that "micro-evolution" (adaptation within genetic limits) equates to "macro-evolution" (speciation events). Micro-evolution is well-documented and understood, while macro-evolution has never been observed and is merely speculated to follow from a sufficient accumulation of adaptations. Further, there are many counterexamples indicating that there are stringent genetic limitations keeping true speciation events from occurring.
And please, let's not get off on fundamentally-interpreted subjects like the fossil record, etc. First, the empirical debate can rage forever and fruitlessly. Second, the reasons I am a believer are not based upon empirical arguments. Finally, the sorts of falsifications my perspective is subject to would not be empirical ones.
But using climbing terms is more fun and generally less hateful. True, although I'm a very, very, VERY good Christian and would never, ever imagine anything hateful! ;-)
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2014 - 01:44pm PT
|
all that crapolla about definitions when you know exactly what I meant
No, actually I don't, and the definitions DO matter. This is a problem with debating YOU: you treat ambiguity as acceptable when it slants your way. I don't like it however it's slanted.
When most people talk about "life after death," they literally imagine some consciousness floating around on a cloud, or some such thing (or burning eternally in torment). I deny all that fluff and nonsense.
However, if by "life after death" you mean any sense in which something like my present consciousness can (at some point) be again conscious apart from my present physical body, I would say that this is certainly possible.
And why can't science be applied to life after death,
Simply because the nature of consciousness itself does not fall to a scientific explanation (see the "what is mind" thread). You obviously and flatly deny this. But there is a vast, rigorous, and very cogent literature denying your denial... and that among almost entirely non-Christian philosophers! In short, an adequate account of "mind" isn't arising from a purely scientific analysis. Thus, whatever it IS that is not logically dependent upon a particular physical body is what would have "life after death," and explaining how that might work is not going to be a scientific account.
That does NOT mean it is going to be a fluff and nonsense account. I, along with many, believe that Kant provided exceptionally good reasons to think that "mind" is not fundamentally embodied, although "consciousness" is. But this discussion is FAR afield from the topic of this thread.
If there is explanation for it, then it could be true
but since there isn't, it can easily be more mythology, which I contend
You are really helping yourself to your own position when you blithely state "but since there isn't...." Actually there is. It's just not the naturalistic one you insist upon.
I guess you didn't bother to do any critical thinking about life after death
I will give you some hints:
No need to start getting demeaning. I don't need your "hints." I've actually read thousands of pages and thought this stuff through at a level that's impossible to articulate in a forum setting. And whenever I even start to try, somebody or other starts moaning about my "long posts." Forums are a no-win for attempted rigorous argumentation, so I've given up trying. People here enjoy drive-by shootings rather than careful thinking. Edit: See Locker's post just above. LOL
Do animals get an afterlife? if no, why not?
How about bacteria? why not?
How crowded is the cosmos with the trillions of souls floating around, doing nothing.
Is there a giant computer up there somewhere deciding what you become after you die?
What lives on? Your soul?
What does it do for eternity? just sit around?
The answers to all these questions are systematically offered by Kant (and others). And a couple of them are laughably nutty. Crowded cosmos? Get serious.
and here is the kicker
Why do we need to believe in an afterlife? All Religions have this as part of their gospel....
No hope of an afterlife = no God.
Kant's account depends upon no such motivations nor presumptions.
I've now gotta finish a document I should have been working on for a customer. Sigh.
We're far off-topic anyway.
|
|
go-B
climber
Cling to what is good!
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2014 - 04:39pm PT
|
...capish!
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2014 - 05:35pm PT
|
The Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Seem pretty clear to me.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2014 - 06:15pm PT
|
^^^Yea? well your point isn't clear at all!
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2014 - 06:36pm PT
|
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
I'm a latecomer to this thread. This post is about Jim's originating premise that we are not a Christian nation in terms of design of government. What are you not getting? I'm not making a comment about the recent posts. Still seems pretty clear to me.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 29, 2014 - 06:45pm PT
|
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Well, All the people that wrote that Bill were all swore into office with an oath to Jesus Christ. An "establishment of religion" infers to NOT respecting any ONE religion. The majority of the drafters were infact Christians.
Even Jim knows that. He's just chum'in.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!