Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do We NEED God?
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 121 of 224 (744624)
12-13-2014 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Straggler
10-11-2012 9:27 AM


Re: The Responsibility Is Ours, Not Gods.
Straggler writes:
On this basis everytime someone eats a donut, smokes a cigarette, drinks a can of coke, has a few too many beers or consumes a cheeseburger they are doing so under demonic influence.
We know these things are bad for us. In some cases we know they are literally likely to kill us in the long run. But we do them anyway.
Do you really think that it is demons rather than aspects of evolved human psychology that are at play here?
This is an excellent topic to pursue in the addictions thread. Can you join me over there?

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden. (Leo Tolstoy)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Straggler, posted 10-11-2012 9:27 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 122 of 224 (744633)
12-13-2014 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Stile
09-21-2012 10:28 AM


Re: Needing help is not the same as needing God
Stile writes:
I notice here that at the end you mention that even those who can't believe will still get a shot at acknowledging that God exists and everything could work out okay.
With that in mind, do you still require that God cannot be your own superego or that He/She/It has to be an actual Being apart from yourself?
I suppose that for your sake I should allow for humans to fill their inner emptiness the way that they so choose. (assuming that I were GOD...which I am not. )
Stile writes:
I think the best way to deal with our inner emptiness is to acknowledge that we have an inner emptiness and to deal with it. Some people don't even have an inner emptiness (lucky ducks!!). But for those of us who do, I don't see a reason to invent a "great and powerful" anything in order to deal with it.
Any God that could be so invented would not be much of a God at all now would it?

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden. (Leo Tolstoy)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Stile, posted 09-21-2012 10:28 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Stile, posted 12-14-2014 11:02 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 123 of 224 (744658)
12-14-2014 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Phat
12-13-2014 4:15 PM


Re: Needing help is not the same as needing God
Phat writes:
Any God that could be so invented would not be much of a God at all now would it?
Exactly
Really, we don't have any proof either way.
So, I say it's best to let people figure out their own way.
You want to believe in God?
Great, go ahead and do that... hope it helps you.
Others can't get help that way and find another path?
Great, do some self-reflection and be honest about what works and doesn't work for you.
Any God worth some salt isn't going to begrudge any human for being honest and doing their best. Even if that means denying His existence or defiling His name or anything else.
I mean, really, do you actually think an all-powerful God would get upset over something human children deal with by singing a simple rhyme?
"Sticks and stones will break my bones but names can never hurt me."
...Unless you're an all-powerful God, then names sting like a bitch?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Phat, posted 12-13-2014 4:15 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 124 of 224 (746818)
01-10-2015 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Stile
04-28-2014 11:53 AM


Re: mikey masochist
Stile,responding to MikeTheWiz writes:
If you fully believe in God -> there's a glimmer of a chance you could be wrong.
If you fully believe God does not exist -> there's a glimmer of a chance you could be wrong.
One thing that I really respect about you Stile is the disciplined critical thinking approach that you have regarding Faith & Belief.
Based on the logic you gave Mike, would such logic not indicate more of an agnostic position rather than an atheist position?
Would probability enter into such a picture or is probability impossible to figure out when pertaining to supernatural theories with no hard evidence?

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Stile, posted 04-28-2014 11:53 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Stile, posted 01-11-2015 9:39 AM Phat has replied
 Message 130 by Theodoric, posted 01-11-2015 10:17 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 125 of 224 (746819)
01-10-2015 7:24 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by ringo
09-19-2012 3:17 PM


Re: God, by definition
ringo writes:
The problem with "needing" some Higher Power to solve our problems for us is that we've never found one that will do it reliably. Your favourite is actually promising to wipe us out some day. I see that as a problem rather than a solution.
I would argue that you are taking the Bible out of context. According to NT Theology, God would not be the One doing the wiping. Humans in and of themselves are quite capable of wiping themselves out of existence. The God whom I believe in has a vested interest in keeping as many of us alive as possible.
ringo writes:
I fully expect that some day we will fail to meet the challenge and become extinct.
If so, I wonder what will replace us?
ringo writes:
So you're saying that we only "need" God eventually, when He comes to kill everybody who doesn't accept Him?
The God whom I believe in won't be killing anybody or anything...apart from the demons whom now torment us. I suppose you might be defending these poor demons in court...knowing you!
And yes, peanut gallery...I believe that demons are real. As of today I am 30 days sober from an addiction that ruined my life for decades. Logically I won't blame my past failure on any demon, however.
jar diagnosed my problem years ago when he stated that I prefer fantasy over reality.
Let me state...again for the record....that I judge my beliefs as reality and not fantasy.
Edited by Phat, : fixed broken link

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ringo, posted 09-19-2012 3:17 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by ringo, posted 01-10-2015 11:20 AM Phat has replied
 Message 129 by Capt Stormfield, posted 01-11-2015 9:42 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 126 of 224 (746865)
01-10-2015 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Phat
01-10-2015 7:24 AM


Re: God, by definition
Phat writes:
According to NT Theology, God would not be the One doing the wiping. Humans in and of themselves are quite capable of wiping themselves out of existence.
That may be what your theology says but it is definitely not what the New Testament says. You're the one taking the Bible out of context.
Phat writes:
The God whom I believe in has a vested interest in keeping as many of us alive as possible.
Then He could do so very easily.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Phat, posted 01-10-2015 7:24 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Phat, posted 01-11-2015 1:51 AM ringo has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 127 of 224 (746959)
01-11-2015 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by ringo
01-10-2015 11:20 AM


Re: God, by definition
the only people who get wiped out in the NT are the ones who follow the Beast.

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by ringo, posted 01-10-2015 11:20 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by ringo, posted 01-11-2015 1:10 PM Phat has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(2)
Message 128 of 224 (746977)
01-11-2015 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Phat
01-10-2015 7:11 AM


Re: mikey masochist
Phat writes:
Based on the logic you gave Mike, would such logic not indicate more of an agnostic position rather than an atheist position?
I was basically telling Mike that there's always "a glimmer of a chance we could be wrong" about anything. Simply because we don't know everything.
Such a basic piece of information, yes, would indicate an agnostic position.
However, we do have more information available to us about God that can indicate things to us more.
To me, the most convincing piece of information is that if I were to imagine a universe without God... it would look exactly like the one we're currently living in. As well, if I were to imagine a universe with a benevolent, loving, powerful God.. it would be extremely different from the one we're currently living in. That leads me towards an understanding that God does not exist.
But hey, I could be wrong
Would probability enter into such a picture or is probability impossible to figure out when pertaining to supernatural theories with no hard evidence?
Probability always enters the picture with us humans. We don't get to know anything for certain simply because we don't know everything.
Therefore, everything we know is based on probabilities of likelihood, regardless of whether we acknowledge that or not.
If anyone tells you they know "for absolutely certain" that anything is true... simply ask them if they've ever been wrong before.
If they've never been wrong, then I will begin to be impressed. Of course, being human, I would highly doubt they have never been wrong about anything before. Therefore, it's quite possible they're wrong about whatever they say is "absolutely certain."
"No hard evidence" isn't an indication that we should remain on-the-fence about a subject.
"No hard evidence" for an idea is an indication that we should lean away from such an idea being true.
Especially if mankind has been actively looking for hard evidence for thousands of years and still has yet to find any... Such information should give us great pause in considering the idea to still, somehow, be valid.
You can learn from the efforts of others, or do the work again yourself.
It's up to you to decide if the idea is worth the time you need to put in. Our time is limited, but you are the only one who can identify how valuable it is to yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Phat, posted 01-10-2015 7:11 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Theodoric, posted 01-11-2015 10:18 AM Stile has replied
 Message 132 by Phat, posted 01-11-2015 10:43 AM Stile has replied
 Message 161 by Phat, posted 12-28-2016 10:43 AM Stile has replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


(2)
Message 129 of 224 (746978)
01-11-2015 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Phat
01-10-2015 7:24 AM


Re: God, by definition
The God whom I believe in...
That's rather the point, though. Your God is just humanism. Like all good Christians, good Muslims, good Jews, and so on, you just ignore, or distort, what is in the book you claim contains the message of your God.
You have an instinct to behave as successfully evolved humans need to behave, but you have bought into a load of theological crap that allows the institutions of religion to convince that you are somehow born as less than you really are.
It's just sad.
KP

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Phat, posted 01-10-2015 7:24 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(2)
Message 130 of 224 (746983)
01-11-2015 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Phat
01-10-2015 7:11 AM


Re: mikey masochist
Based on the logic you gave Mike, would such logic not indicate more of an agnostic position rather than an atheist position?
This shows the ignorance most people have when discussing theism, atheism and agnosticism.
Agnosticism is not the middle between atheism and theism.
Atheism and theism have to do with belief.
Agnosticism and gnosticism have to do with knowledge.
I am an agnostic atheist. I have no belief in a god, but I have no knowledge if there is or is not a god. To me that is unknowable.
I would think there are very few atheists that would claim to be gnostic atheists.
On the theistic side the spectrum we see here would be, I think, Jar and Faith. Jar would probably say he has no knowledge of a god. Therefore, he is an agnostic theist. Faith on the other hand is a gnostic theist. Faith claims knowledge that a god exists.
I know you like to use the word agnostic as if agnostics are not evil like atheists, but that is the wrong use of the term.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Phat, posted 01-10-2015 7:11 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 131 of 224 (746984)
01-11-2015 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Stile
01-11-2015 9:39 AM


Re: mikey masochist
A very good clear description of agnostic atheism.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Stile, posted 01-11-2015 9:39 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Stile, posted 01-11-2015 10:57 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 132 of 224 (746991)
01-11-2015 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Stile
01-11-2015 9:39 AM


Re: mikey masochist
Hey Stile... Its always good to talk with you and discuss our ongoing banter about theism, atheism, logic, reason, and reality.
So here we go....
Stile,referring to comment shared with MikeTheWiz writes:
Such a basic piece of information, yes, would indicate an agnostic position.
However, we do have more information available to us about God that can indicate things to us more.
To me, the most convincing piece of information is that if I were to imagine a universe without God... it would look exactly like the one we're currently living in. As well, if I were to imagine a universe with a benevolent, loving, powerful God.. it would be extremely different from the one we're currently living in. That leads me towards an understanding that God does not exist.
Noted.
Notice, however, that you start out by saying you have information "about God." The only information that you actually have is your own imagination and the limitations thereof..given the evidence you have to work with. Additionally, you cannot say that a universe with a benevolent,loving, all-powerful God would be any different than the one we live in. Such a God may exist and yet the universe will be exactly as it is now. Follow me?
Stile writes:
Probability always enters the picture with us humans. We don't get to know anything for certain simply because we don't know everything.
Sure. This seems logical.
I am definitely a believer. I have adequate internal subjective evidence to be reasonably certain that I am sane for believing. What I dont have is enough evidence..subjective or objective...to share with you. All that I can share with you, realistically is my personality--my character--and my thoughts and opinions. As you may say--if it works for you than great!
Stile writes:
"No hard evidence" isn't an indication that we should remain on-the-fence about a subject.
"No hard evidence" for an idea is an indication that we should lean away from such an idea being true.
Perhaps I have hard evidence subjectively whereas you do not. This too is logical.
Stile writes:
Especially if mankind has been actively looking for hard evidence for thousands of years and still has yet to find any...
I would argue that some people have found such evidence...subjectively...that satisfies their curiosity. Others have not found such evidence.
Stile writes:
You can learn from the efforts of others, or do the work again yourself.
It's up to you to decide if the idea is worth the time you need to put in. Our time is limited, but you are the only one who can identify how valuable it is to yourself.
Indeed. Our time is limited. Otherwise I would keep writing this post for another hour...but I need to go pick up do-nuts and coffee for church. I'll be back later.

Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Stile, posted 01-11-2015 9:39 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Stile, posted 01-11-2015 11:32 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 133 of 224 (746994)
01-11-2015 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Theodoric
01-11-2015 10:18 AM


Definitions
Theodoric writes:
A very good clear description of agnostic atheism.
Thanks.
I try to stay away from those labels for the most part. They make me uncomfortable as so many different people have so many different ideas that have been stuck onto all such religiously-connected labels.
I'd much rather just talk about whatever I actually mean, and have anyone else label it whatever they'd like.
"A rose is still a rose..." and all that

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Theodoric, posted 01-11-2015 10:18 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Theodoric, posted 01-11-2015 12:19 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 134 of 224 (746997)
01-11-2015 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Phat
01-11-2015 10:43 AM


Re: mikey masochist
Phat writes:
you start out by saying you have information "about God."
Heh... I actually re-worded that part many times before submitting my post.
I didn't mean something like "information about the real, true God."
I meant more like "information about the ideas and experiences everyone claims to be about God."
I have a tendency to babble on and over-explain things. Such a tendency makes my posts long to read, so I try to avoid it.
I was hoping that "about God" would get my point across without having to get into the details. Whoops
Additionally, you cannot say that a universe with a benevolent, loving, all-powerful God would be any different than the one we live in. Such a God may exist and yet the universe will be exactly as it is now. Follow me?
Yes, that's true. That's why I never said such a thing.
What I said was that if I were to imagine a universe with a benevolent, loving, powerful God... it would be extremely different from the one we're currently living in.
...which I can say, and I'll say it again and again.
You are right, though, a real benevolent, loving and powerful God may not be able to keep up with my imagination, poor thing (and poor us!)
Perhaps I have hard evidence subjectively whereas you do not. This too is logical.
The definition of "hard evidence" is something that is objective and can be shared with others.
Your sentence seems to be using a very strange definition of "hard evidence."
I certainly believe that you are personally convinced.
However, the list of people who are personally convinced of things... and turn out to be wrong about them... is very, very long.
This does not indicate that you, on this subject, are wrong. But it does give me pause, and... why shouldn't it?
I find I am more comfortable around people who acknowledge that we (as humans) can make mistakes, and continually look for ways to improve their stance.
Improving your stance still means "you were wrong" initially.
Therefore "being wrong" isn't necessarily a bad thing, and has a long history of being extremely beneficial.
To me, being personally convinced is a dead-end. Stagnant.
In my college years, I discovered that the secret to life (for me) is to "get better." Be that improving my educational awareness, or possibly just finding a new favourite shirt. Change, for me, is a requirement for "getting better." Being personally convinced of something is inherently against change... it is inherently against "getting better." It is inherently against what I personally need to do in order to live a happy life.
I don't mean that as a slight, simply a description of my point of view.
As you may say--if it works for you than great!
I do firmly believe this.
And, there are benefits to being personally convinced that I cannot have (they just don't work for me).
Benefits like having a firm resolve when one is surrounded by doubt.
If you know you're right, that comes with a certain level of confidence and motivation to continue in such a direction. If the direction turns out to be a good one, then such unassailable resolve was undeniably the best course of action.
I, however, am unable to balance the "if the direction is a good one..." part with the "unassailable resolve" part as long as I am unable to read the future. The possibility of absolutely striving forwards in a possibly-wrong direction is just too much for me to take to heart. I would be racked with worry, guilt and indecision if I were expected to undergo such a route. Even if it eventually turned out that the destination was the correct one... The fact that I didn't know that is enough to make me... unhappy (to say the least).
I have found other ways to deal with situations where I'm surrounded by doubt. And many of those methods are adequate, and sometimes better (when the "personally convinced" direction turns out to be wrong). But the fact remains... if you have a personal conviction and move in a certain direction... and that direction turns out to be the correct one... then you were on the fastest, most efficient path to that goal. Such a fact is undeniable. And I have forever closed myself off to that possibility. Of course, to me, this is the same as a decision to not play the lottery as "forever closing myself off the possibility of instantly becoming rich." But I'm a little biased, it should be of little surprise that I'm a bit fond of the way I choose to do things
I would argue that some people have found such evidence...subjectively...that satisfies their curiosity. Others have not found such evidence.
I would agree with this statement, I just wouldn't call it "hard evidence" because, well, that's not the definition of the term "hard evidence."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Phat, posted 01-11-2015 10:43 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 135 of 224 (746999)
01-11-2015 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Stile
01-11-2015 10:57 AM


Re: Definitions
But words have meaning. We shouldn't just give up if people are defining words incorrectly. Phat uses atheist as a pejorative. He thinks calling a nonbeliever an agnostic is in a sense complimenting them. In reality the words have different contexts and are not different degrees on a spectrum.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Stile, posted 01-11-2015 10:57 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024